an Ian Kennedy who has been figured out by the league.

9/1 vs TBD, 7 IP, 5 H, 1 ER, 6 K, 2 BB
9/7 vs KCR, 5 IP, 7 H, 2 ER, 2 K, 3 BB
9/15 vs TOR, 7 IP, 1 H(!), 1 ER, 7 K, 4 BB

Sure, you’d like to see the walks go down, but “figured out by the league”? Which league is that.. his fantasy league?

That same comment struck me, j. I think what he’s doing is predicting it as likely that, in 2008, the league will figure out Ian Kennedy. Not a lot of people really believing in him.

Yeah, he’s not saying that Kennedy has been figured out by the league, he’s saying that Kennedy will be figured out by the league.  I think it’s a bit unfair to make this assumption, but it’s pretty common with young pitchers who are perceived as not having overwhelming raw stuff.

Yeah, he’s not saying that Kennedy has been figured out by the league

I though that’s exactly what he was saying… no?

an Ian Kennedy who has been figured out by the league

Stepping aside from how valuable Kennedy/Mussina will be, I think he’s basically on the right path…IF it weren’t for the fact most people want to limit Joba’s innings to something less than 150.  Which is why some mix of pen and starter is probably the way to go.  I’m not yet sure what that mix is, and of course how the season goes will in part decide that.

is Ian Kennedy the least respected top prospect ever?  what else does this guy have to do?

what else does this guy have to do?

Pitch for Boston.

I though that’s exactly what he was saying… no?

Context, j.  He’s talking about innings to be pitched next season by someone other than Joba, if Joba is in the pen.  Goldman is saying that some of those future innings will be pitched by “an Ian Kennedy who has been figured out by the league.”  He’s not saying that every inning Kennedy pitches from now on will be pitched by a guy who already has been figured out.  The comment is meant to imply that the league will have Kennedy figured out some time in 2008.  It’s impossible to argue that the league figured him out in 2007, since a) he was extremely effective as you pointed out, and b) most of the league didn’t see him.

Anyway, here’s an interesting recent scouting report on Kennedy:

http://www.moundtalk.com/prospects/ian-kennedy-scouting-report/

Kennedy throws two fastballs. His four-seam sits 88-92 and he will infrequently dial it up to 94. He has good movement and plus command. He can work this to any point he chooses and is easily his best pitch. His two-seamer is 87-90 and doesn’t have the command of his four-seamer. It is still a good pitch that works well for him and he uses it deceptively.

Kennedy has a plus changeup that he’ll throw in any count without fear. He has the same motion as for his fastball and it’s easy to see why the pitch is effective. His command could use a little refinement on his change.

He will also work in two breaking pitches. His curveball is better than his slider but both have potential. His curve doesn’t break sharply but has deception and plus command. His slider also doesn’t break hard but is a good alternative that keeps hitters on their toes.

Though his stuff isn’t great, his command makes him a deadly pitcher. And although he has found success at different levels of his career with what he has, it will not provide sustained success at the Major League level yet. He will need to refine his breaking pitches and work on his command of his change.

On the positive end, he is incredibly confident on the mound and is willing to challenge hitters without hesitation. He is confident enough in his pitching to throw any pitch to any batter.

While watching him pitch, it becomes increasingly apparent that he never throws with maximum effort. His mechanics are easy and repeatable and his body is never out of control or jerky. He seems very fluid and at ease while pitching.

So, we’re talking about a guy who is clearly ready to pitch effectively at the major league level, but is also likely to struggle at times unless and until he improves some of his secondary pitches.  Sounds about right to me.

Personally, I’ve always been a big believer that strike one is the best pitch in baseball.  A corollary is that command of the four-seam fastball will get you farther than a few extra mph or a huge break on a curve that you can’t throw for a strike.  But it’s those other things that get people’s attention, so guys like Kennedy will always be underrated.

I’m a big fan of IPK’s, and of pitchers like him in general (guys w/o amazing stuff but with plus command).  I’m a fan precisely because I think guys like him have to be better pitchers to succeed than guys who throw 98 and/or have a sick curve or whatever.  But that’s the whole point of those who think he may struggle - he has less room for error.  He will walk a fine line.  If he slips just a little, he stands to get smacked around.  When age does eventually hit many years from now (or sooner, if there is an injury) and he loses a couple of mph on his fastball, it could get ugly.  We’ve seen it happen.  Mike Mussina knows how to pitch - really he does.  But when he goes out there and the best he’s got is 86 mph… big league hitters beat him up.

Context, j.

Grammar, MC.  At best, he’s guilty of a confusing choice of words. At worst, he’s an idiot who thinks the AL has figured Ian Kennedy out in 3 good/great starts,

Not that I’m his biggest fan, but to critique Goldman for his grammar, in the world of sportswriting, is like, I don’t know, critiquing Johann Santana for not pitching enough innings or something.  We have great writers on this site but most people writing about baseball can basely string logical thoughts together.  Goldman can, and does, well, with regularity. 

On the other hand, j, kudos for the veiled accusation that Goldman’s a fantasy-leaguer, unconcerned with real baseball.  You put yourself in good company with that sort of thing.

Grammar, MC.  At best, he’s guilty of a confusing choice of words.

Tell you what, why don’t you send Steve an e-mail and ask him whether he’s a bad grammarian or an idiot?  But if you’re going to tout your own grammatical skills as being superior to those of someone who makes a living with his writing (and has an editor), here’s something to consider first: when one says or writes, “an Ian Kennedy” or “a Phil Hughes” or “a Joba Chamberlain”, one isn’t even specifically talking about that individual as an individual.  Unless there really were two or more Ian Kennedy’s who could be pitching the innings in question, the use of the indefinite article would be grammatically (and factually) incorrect.  The use of “an” in this context completely changes the meaning.  If he had meant what you think he meant, he’d have written, “...Ian Kennedy, who has been figured out by the league.”

If you don’t believe me, ask Sister Mary Catherine.  But be careful, she’s liable to make you write something on the blackboard 1,000 times.

We have great writers on this site but most people writing about baseball can basely string logical thoughts together.

Or spell.

I think it’s clear that Goldman was saying the hitters may well figure IPK out, not that they already have.  Obviously they hadn’t - his three starts were excellent.  Of course, they were also against bad teams in Sept.

I think IPK is going to be pretty good.  But it’s entirely possible, given his stuff, that major league hitters might figure him out and beat on him (at least for a while).  It’s not like it’s crazy to come up with such a theoretical scenario.

“Or spell.”

Or proofread.

“The Yankees would be left with a deficit of 100 innings in the starting rotation that are likely to be filled by someone else, someone of lesser ability: Mike Mussina or an Ian Kennedy who has been figured out by the league.”

The problem here is that his argument falls apart if Kennedy is good, so the last phrase is forced to do much too much work, and so “an IK who” is trying to have it both ways.  Clearer writing would have made the poor thought behind the sentence more obvious.

Just saw a line that says Mattingly won’t be a Dodger after all. According to a story there is a family matter that will prevent him from taking the job and Mike Easler will take his place. That’s ok with me as I really wasn’t looking forward to seeing him in anything but his pinstripes.

You put yourself in good company with that sort of thing.

Wow, does Goldman buy you guys beers or something? Jeesh.

Clearer writing would have made the poor thought behind the sentence more obvious.

Thats really all I was saying… I don’t really think Goldman is an idiot, just that he had a poor choice of words. I had to rereard the paragraph to be sure he didn’t think the “league as figured out…” etc, etc.

Man, I was at a baseball blog, and an English test broke out.  I’m sure I’ll get a “C” again…

Where’s the Lou Gehrig..er..first base top ten list?

Where’s the Lou Gehrig..er..first base top ten list?

That’s going to be an interesting list, and if SG does it (I know Steve Lombardi at WW did it last year), I’d be curious to see what folks here think are the best position adjusted years in Yankee history.  In Luckiest Man, Jonathan Eig talks a little bit about how Gehrig’s career numbers, especially had he not gotten sick, being as good or better than Ruth’s in every category with the exception of HR’s.

“I was at a baseball blog, and an English test broke out.”

I dislike that comma.

being as good or better than Ruth’s in every category with the exception of HR’s.

I should clarify.. obviously Ruth has a better line from end to end than Gehrig. But I think (and apparently Eig does too) that Gehrig is often overlooked as one of the best hitter of all time. When you match him up with Ruth’s number, it sort of puts it in perspective.

Where’s the Lou Gehrig..er..first base top ten list?

Are you psychic? 

RF and 1B are rather singularly represented.  I’ll try and get the next installment up tomorrow morning, although I’m not sure I’ll go with 1B yet.

aye luvyt wenn ewe gyze gedbichyy.

RF and 1B are rather singularly represented.

Maybe you should just list 11-20 for those two positions.

the last phrase is forced to do much too much work, and so “an IK who” is trying to have it both ways

Too much work?  In some circles, this is called “efficiency.”  I guess you’ve never written anything with a word count limit.

Seriously, though, I really didn’t read it as critical of Kennedy.  Just using his possible struggles as an example of the potential consequences of putting Chamberlain in the bullpen.  So I think he’s only trying to have it one way, and not passing judgment on Kennedy.  But maybe I read it that way because I’m picking Kennedy for Rookie of the Year.

I really didn’t read it as critical of Kennedy.  Just using his possible struggles as an example of the potential consequences of putting Chamberlain in the bullpen.

I can see your point, but what I don’t understand is, why Kennedy?

He’s saying that there are 100 innings that are going to go to *someone* if Chamberlain pitches in the bullpen.  He then says that the risk is it might be Ian Kennedy, who (which we’ve argued ad nauseum), in his opinion, as a high chance of being figured out by the rest of the league.

To me, he’s saying that since Kennedy doesn’t have the power stuff - a mid to high 90s fastball or a sharp curve - he’s getting by on finesse and location, and that he’s prone to being ‘figured out.’ Hughes could certainly have his struggles, as well as any of the next guys in line, who would presumably be Kei Igawa, Darrell Rasner and Alan Horne.  I guess my point is, any one of the guys that would be pitching those innings could struggle, but why he chooses to single out Kennedy (who has great MiLB numbers) is what I don’t understand.

how long until pitchers and catchers?

“Too much work?  In some circles, this is called “efficiency.” I guess you’ve never written anything with a word count limit.”

Too much work for the words to bear.  I’m an often-formalist poet by avocation, so word count is a loose constraint to me.

And I agree the statement isn’t critical of Kennedy - it’s just badly written on several counts.

</i>aye luvyt wenn ewe gyze gedbichyy. </i>

More comprehendable than the Steve Goldman passage. Luvyt. Old Thurm, what’s on tap tonight? Just polished off an Allagash Grand Cru, a nice Belgian-by-way-of-Maine.

22oz at 9% ABV…and it shows. Nice italics.

Man, baseball really needs to start again. I need my mind taken off of the absurd amounts of reading I will be doing the semester. I’ve had less than an hour and a half of class and I already have over 300 pages of reading. And arguments over grammar just aren’t doing it for me.

“He’s saying that there are 100 innings that are going to go to *someone* if Chamberlain pitches in the bullpen.  He then says that the risk is it might be Ian Kennedy,”

To be fair, he said “Mike Mussina or an Ian Kennedy who has been figured out by the league.”

Other examples could include: Kei Igawa, Darrell Rasner…

I can see your point, but what I don’t understand is, why Kennedy?

Yeah, poor choice, but maybe he didn’t think anyone would believe him if he suggested that Kei Igawa would be starting the games that would have been Chamberlain’s.  If he’d used somebody else, we’d all be screaming that he was dumb to think that guy would be starting ahead of Kennedy.

how long until pitchers and catchers?

We need a pitchers and catchers count-down on the home page here.