Baseball BeatMarch 11, 2006
Un-Weaving Some Prior Comments
By Rich Lederer

I'm going to preface my diatribe below by saying upfront that I have no reason to dislike Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus. This is not a personal issue. Rather, I'm taking the time to set the record straight because Goldstein not only mischaracterized my stance on Jered Weaver and Mark Prior recently but did it in such a condescending manner that I felt the need to respond.

For the record, I sent Goldstein an email, informing Kevin that I was "very disappointed in one of (his) initial columns at BP" and letting him know that his comments were "inaccurate" and "patronizing." I asked him to run a retraction if he couldn't show me "where I ever said Weaver was as good as Prior, much less better than him." He chose not to, saying "I feel the link I used showed that."

Well, let's go back and take a look at what Goldstein had to say last week, as well as the article that I wrote two years ago this week that was the subject of his comments.

Don't Believe The Hype: In 2003, Jered Weaver had one of the best seasons statistically of any pitcher in recent college baseball history. Pitching for Long Beach State, Weaver had a 1.63 ERA in 144 innings, while accumulating more than twice as many strikeouts (213) as baserunners allowed (81 hits, 21 walks). This caused people to make the dangerous mistake of judging a college player solely by his statistics, and some started to say Weaver was as good as, if not better than, the last college super-pitcher, USC's Mark Prior. Those people didn't talk to the scouts, who saw a pitcher dominating with good stuff and excellent command in a pitcher-friendly park, as opposed to Prior, whose pure stuff was off the charts. Weaver's 3/4 arm slot was also a concern, as that family of pitchers has a tendency to struggle against good lefthanded hitters. Weaver took nearly a year to sign, and now that he's pitched in the pros, all of those concerns have come to light. In the Texas league, lefty batters hit .278 against him, and in the small sample-size Arizona Fall League, his platoon splits were downright ridiculous (.220 vs. RHB, .365 vs. LHB). Add in an incredibly low groundball-to-flyball ratio (0.36) in the regular season, and you have a pitcher who's hard to project as more than a No. 3 or 4 starter. In the end, if he hits his ceiling, he's basically his brother.

  • "This caused people to make the dangerous mistake of judging a college player solely by his statistics..."

    No, I didn't make the "dangerous mistake of judging a college player solely by his statistics." I simply pointed out the similarities between the two pitchers and was the first writer to compare Weaver's and Prior's stats. The season was just 1 1/2 months old at that time, yet I made a comparison that stood three months later. I was way ahead of Goldstein or anyone else.

  • "...and some started to say Weaver was as good as, if not better than, the last college super-pitcher, USC's Mark Prior."

    Nope. Wrong again. And, Kevin, if you want to address me, I'd prefer "Rich" rather than "some." Oh, and don't link to my article if you weren't referring to me directly.

  • "Those people didn't talk to the scouts, who saw a pitcher dominating with good stuff and excellent command in a pitcher-friendly park, as opposed to Prior, whose pure stuff was off the charts."

    "Those people?" Man, that really irritated me. "Didn't talk to scouts?" Really? Hmmm. This is where Goldstein tries to put me in my place as if I am just a naive stathead who has no clue about stuff, ballpark adjustments, etc. I saw every game that Weaver pitched at home in 2004 (and it was 2004 when "Weaver had one of the best seasons statistically of any pitcher in recent college baseball history" and not 2003 as Goldstein stated) -- as well as his outing vs. UCLA at Petco Park -- plus several more during his freshman and sophomore seasons. I also have talked to many scouts about Weaver and have an extensive portfolio of articles that covers all these matters.

    While waiting for Goldstein to show me where I ever said "Weaver was as good as, if not better than, the last college super-pitcher, USC's Mark Prior," I'd like to re-print what I actually wrote:

    The similarities are startling. Both were born and raised in Southern California. Jered hails from Simi Valley and Mark is from San Diego.

    Both come from athletic families. Jered's older brother, Jeff, is a pitcher with the Dodgers and his cousins, Jed and Dan, play football for the 49ers and the University of Oregon, respectively. Mark's father, Jerry, played football at Vanderbilt; his sister, Millie, played tennis at San Diego; and his brother, Jerry, played tennis at Villanova.

    Both pitchers are tall righthanders. Weaver is 6'6" and 200 pounds. Prior is 6'5" and 220 pounds. Both pitchers throw a fastball, curveball, and a change-up. Both pitchers have pinpoint control. And both pitchers have very impressive resumes.

    I then compared their college records season-by-season and concluded with the following summary:

    The two pitchers had similar freshman seasons, the Long Beach State 49er eclipsed the USC Trojan in their sophomore campaigns, and Jered is on pace to equal or better Mark's outstanding junior year.

    Weaver, who still has his work cut out for him to match Prior over the full schedule, is expected to start 11 more games during the regular season and perhaps one or more in the playoffs.

    I began reporting on Weaver after I attended his first home game (vs. USC) in February 2004. I went as a fan and only decided to turn that outing into a news story when Baseball America's Pitcher of the (previous) Summer struck out the first ten Trojans he faced, including four in the third inning. I sat directly behind home plate among a sea of major league baseball scouts, surrounded as I wrote "by more radar guns than at a California Highway Patrol convention." I spoke to a Kansas City Royals scout sitting behind me, the first of many that I would engage that year.

    In my second article on Weaver, I pointed out that Blair Field was a pitchers' ballpark. I also shared one of my exchanges with a couple of scouts sitting directly in front of me.

    Top of the sixth: Weaver strikes out the side, racking up his sixth, seventh, and eighth Ks of the night. "Another one bites the dust" is heard over the PA. In between half innings, I ask the scouts where they think Weaver will be drafted and the younger one tells me, "Top half of the first round". That's a pretty safe bet. I ask him what he likes most about Weaver and he says, "Good arm...good arm angle...good movement".

    While on the topic of scouts, I spoke to Bill "Chief" Gayton, the scouting director for the San Diego Padres, at Petco Park minutes after Weaver mowed down the UCLA Bruins for his sixth win, allowing one hit and no runs while striking out 15 batters.

    Gayton, who was featured in a three-part series on mlb.com prior to the 2002 draft (Part I/Part II/Part III), told me after the game that Weaver was under consideration as the Padres #1 pick but said there was "still a lot of time between now and the draft." I asked Gayton if he thought Weaver could pitch in the majors in 2005, and he nodded "yes." However, he believes Weaver will be in no hurry to sign with or without Scott Boras acting as his agent due to the number of innings that he will have pitched at that point over the past year.

    After Weaver beat the University of Arizona for his seventh win, I reported that "he hit 92 and 93 on the speed guns on occasion but was not his usual overpowering self." Importantly, I wrote, "More than anything, Weaver knows how to pitch. His stuff is good but not great for a big leaguer. The scouts like his size (6'7", 205), outstanding command, ability to change speeds, and mound presence. I think Weaver projects as a 6 or 7 K/9 type pitcher, not an 8 or 9 guy despite his collegiate record."

    For comparative purposes, I ran a screen showing MLB pitchers who had averaged 6-7 K/9 and fewer than 3 BB/9 the previous season. Prior was not on this list. Instead, I highlighted six pitchers (including Ben Sheets before his breakout season in 2004) plus his brother Jeff. "Given their similar builds, looks, and styles, one cannot dismiss the possibility that Jered may also be comparable to his older brother Jeff, who was an outstanding college pitcher in his own right at Fresno State."

    While providing a pitch-by-pitch account of Weaver's fifth start in 2004, I may have been the first to report that Weaver was an extreme flyball pitcher:

    Weaver threw 108 total pitches (officially), including 74 strikes and 34 balls. Of the 23 outs, 15 were recorded via strikeouts, eight through the air, and none on the ground.

    In my next article, I had a section "What They're Saying About Weaver." I included quotes from seven college baseball coaches and three writers, including Allan Simpson and Jim Callis, Goldstein's former colleagues at Baseball America. Simpson quoted San Diego Padres GM Kevin Towers: "He's the top player on our list...He could hold his own right now, he's that good." Callis reported that Towers said "only Mark Prior has dominated college hitters as much as Weaver in recent memory, and that Weaver could go straight from Long Beach State to the majors." (To Jim's credit, he also offered one of the best scouting reports on Weaver, comparing and contrasting him with Prior.)

    I interviewed Weaver in ...And Down The Stretch They Come!, discussing the pitches he throws and his flyball tendencies.

    In The Bane of Weaver's Existence, I detailed the record of Weaver's and Prior's junior seasons:

                 IP    H   R   ER   BB     K    W-L   H/9    BB/9    K/9    K/BB     ERA
    Weaver    144.0   81  31   26   21   213   15-1   5.1     1.3   13.3    10.1    1.62
    Prior     138.2  100  32   26   18   202   15-1   6.5     1.2   13.1    11.2    1.69
    

    I even adjusted these numbers to account for ballpark and schedule effects, concluding with "Now I'm not suggesting that Weaver is going to be as good as or better than Prior. Nobody knows that at this point."

    In the comments section of A Holiday on the Links, I wrote the following:

    Prior undoubtedly has better mechanics, throws a tad harder, and has better stuff. Weaver, however, does not take a back seat to Prior in the areas of command or control. He is a very polished pitcher and is as close to being major-league ready as any amateur has been since Prior.

    Five days later, in Seriously Speaking, I reiterated my position on Weaver and Prior:

    Although Weaver has stats comparable to Prior, one could argue that the latter projected to a somewhat higher ceiling owing to his superior mechanics, a 2-3 mph advantage on their fastballs, and arguably better stuff. Jered, on the other hand, has equally good command and control. He is as polished as Mark was at the same stage of their careers. When you shake it all up, Prior comes out on top with Weaver not too far behind.

    After Weaver signed last year, I covered his professional debut (complete with photos) and first home start, predicting that "I think it remains a distinct possibility that Weaver could make the jump to the Angels as early as next summer." I correctly anticipated his promotion from High-A Rancho Cucamonga to Double-A Arkansas after an 11-strikeout performance vs. Lancaster in mid-July but was wrong when I suggested he might "wind up in Anaheim before the year is out."

    I pieced together Jered's game logs last September, pointing out that he had "struck out 11.41 batters per nine innings, equal to 30% of the batters he has faced this year. However, his 0.40 G/F ratio is off the charts in the other direction. To wit, if Jered had these same stats in the majors this year, he would be the most prolific strikeout and flyball pitcher in the game."

    I also wrote, "As an extreme strikeout/flyball type pitcher, Jered most closely resembles John Patterson among today's starters. I hesitate to suggest that his upside could be Mark Prior, but one would have to be oblivious to the facts to think otherwise. His downside appears to be Chris Young." I concluded by saying, "Weaver, more likely than not, will wind up being somewhere between Prior and Young. Think Patterson or a right-handed Cliff Lee."

    Jered's height gives him an advantage by allowing the former two-time All-American the ability to throw on a downward plane. That said, he clearly needs to work at or near the knees more often and preferably add more sink to his two-seam fastball. A power pitcher, Weaver favors his four seamer while mixing it up with his breaking ball and change-up. Like his brother Jeff, Weaver works in the low-90s but his big turn and length can make batters feel as if he is bringing it a couple MPH faster than what the gun says.

    Finally, in a postseason review of the Angels last October, I said "Weaver has the most upside of the three (Weaver, Chris Bootcheck, and Joe Saunders) and could be a factor in the second half of 2006."

    Until today, I hadn't uttered a word about Weaver in five months. But, thanks to Goldstein, I'm now back on track.

    As a USC alum, I have no reason to favor Weaver. By the same token, as a Long Beach native, I have no reason to favor Prior. You see, I just call 'em as I see 'em.

    To summarize:

    1. Weaver and Prior had remarkably similar stats in college.
    2. Prior has better mechanics and stuff and throws harder than Weaver.
    3. Weaver has equally good command and control as Prior.
    4. Prior has a higher ceiling but Weaver is not too far behind.

    [Additional reader comments and retorts at Baseball Primer.]

  • Comments


    Your writing isn't very clear, and you rely heavily on inference and innuendo. Until you learn to write with clarity and to be definitive in your statements, you will always be subject to interpretation. Additionally, your opinion is only that; in the end, we will know how well a player did, whether or not you opine.

    I believe the term is "PWN3D"?

    Even though you disproved Goldstein's false statements very well, I think he should still acknowledge he was wrong.

    And De Baron, please point out to me where this so-called "inference" and "innuendo" is?

    I don't think the first comment was clear. Even if we accept it as true, it still doesn't justify completely fabricating points never made when looking at Rich's analysis.

    Reading the two original pieces, it appears that Goldstein decided that his core points were lacking in some way and needed a foil to make his argument more convincing, entertaining, or something else. He choose to take some quotes out of context and it made him look foolish.

    It's just hilarious to look at an article that predicted that Weaver would duplicate Prior's collegiate success, but was part of a series that said that Prior had a better MLB ceiling, then long after the prediction came true, mocked it for making an assessment that it never made.

    I hope that Goldstein will print a correction rather than just depend on the fact that with BP's readership, only a fraction of us will even inspect the original article carefully or read Rich's response.

    RICH-

    DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT - AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU HAVE MORE CLASS AND INTELLIGENCE THAN ALMOST EVERYONE ASSOCIATED WITH PROSPECTUS...

    THEY THRIVED ON CREATING CONTROVERSY TO GET NOTICE AND CREDIBILITY, AND NOW THEY USE IT AS A WEAPON TO STAY RELEVANT IN THE AGE OF THE BLOG!!!

    KRIS CHARL, WILL CARROLL...

    THE ARROGANCE AND SENSATIONALISM ARE A SHAME, BECAUSE IT DEMEANS THE VALID CONTENT THEY HAPPEN TO COME UP WITH FROM TIME TO TIME!!!

    Ouch!

    Good work, Rich.

    Didn't you write this?

    I hesitate to suggest that his upside could be Mark Prior, but one would have to be oblivious to the facts to think otherwise.

    http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/09/weav_only_just_1.php

    I don't like what Goldstein did, but it looks like you are picking and choosing to me.

    I would say that the article Goldstein links, if not saying that Weaver WAS as good/better than Prior, at least suggests he could be. Rich clarified his position in other articles, but it's not Goldstein's job to read through the author's entire body of work looking for inconsistencies.

    That said, Goldstein is clearly comparing the two as major league pitchers, while Rich's article only considers their collegiate body of work, a very important distinction.

    From my Random House dictionary:

    upside
    n : the highest or uppermost side of anything; [syn: top, top side, potential]

    Not sure what your definition of "upside" is, darko, but given Weaver's college numbers mirrored Prior's and was regarded as the top pitcher headed into the draft, I don't think saying Weaver has the "upside" to be Prior is at all out of line. Big difference between that and saying "Weaver was as good as, if not better than, Prior." (direct quote of Goldstein.)

    You are right about Rich "picking and choosing." He's picking and choosing indisputable quotes.

    Hey Goldstein, I think that Weaver is gonna be BETTER than Prior. Put that in your Prospectus and smoke it.

    Didn't you write this?

    I hesitate to suggest that his upside could be Mark Prior, but one would have to be oblivious to the facts to think otherwise.

    Yes. Not only did I write that particular sentence last September, I included it in the column above. Here is the entire passage because I think you have taken it out of context.

    "As an extreme strikeout/flyball type pitcher, Jered most closely resembles John Patterson among today's starters. I hesitate to suggest that his upside could be Mark Prior, but one would have to be oblivious to the facts to think otherwise. His downside appears to be Chris Young." I concluded by saying, "Weaver, more likely than not, will wind up being somewhere between Prior and Young. Think Patterson or a right-handed Cliff Lee."

    Projecting Weaver "somewhere between Prior and Young" is a lot different than saying that he was (or is) as good as, if not better than, Prior."

    The fact of the matter remains that I never said in the March 2004 article that Goldstein linked (or before or after, for that matter) that "Weaver was as good as, if not better than, the last college super-pitcher, USC's Mark Prior."

    Furthermore, I didn't make the dangerous mistake (as Goldstein called it) of judging a college player solely by his statistics. I watched him in person at least a dozen times and, despite claims to the contrary, I actually spoke to several scouts about Weaver, including the scouting director of the San Diego Padres, the team with the #1 draft pick that June.

    The bottom line is that I stand by all my comments, both old and new.

    I agree with the objections above: 1) Goldstein stretched the quote to make it more dramatic ("if not better than") 2) misinterpreted to get to a definitive prediction of "as good as" 3) and committed hyperbole for effect. Frankly, even if Rich had suggested that Weaver was going to be positively and absolutely better than Prior, that wouldn't be a "dangerous mistake." A dangerous mistake is walking around Baghdad without your body armor. Rich's analysis of Weaver has been ongoing, layered and sensible, better yet, interesting. So his pique at his misuse by Goldstein is understandable.

    Early in Jered Weaver's junior year in college, Rich was giving us an alert that there was a hot pitcher who had favorable comparisons to Mark Prior who had been the college game's dominant force just three years earlier.

    In Kevin Goldstein's article, he asserts that Rich was judging Weaver solely on his stats and that Rich concluded that Weaver was as good as if not better than Prior. Goldstein is simply wrong on both counts. Rich clearly refutes those points.

    Goldstein should have arrived at his point -- which very clearly states his assessment (two years later than Rich's observation) that Jered Weaver will not be as good as Mark Prior and no better (ceiling) than Jeff Weaver -- much quicker.

    Given the perspective afforded by two additional years, aiming below Prior is not a great revelation in itself, but capping him at brother Jeff draws a clear line that I feel Jered will easily surpass.

    All right, you've made me just mad enough to write an email to Goldstein.

    If the former University of Southern California ace is the king of college pitchers as many have claimed, then let the record show that Weaver is on pace to dethrone him.

    This passage is the one which gives the most validity to Goldstein's reference. I guess from what Rich said above and said in the rest of the referenced article, Rich only meant that based on college dominance, Weaver was on pace to dethrone Prior. He was not inferring that Weaver would be as good or better in MLB.

    But I don't think Goldstein intended to misrepresent Rich's position. I think it is very easy to make the connection from Rich's pieces on Weaver that he thought Weaver already was or could be as good or better than Prior in MLB. Rich has been driving the Weaver train at a breakneck speed.

    Goldstein's error was the condescending attitude in the BP article and in the email with Rich. I would guess that if the article had not taken that tone, Rich would not be upset, although he may still have posted his rebuttal.

    While I don't fault Goldstein for the conclusion he made after reading Rich's article, the attitude is enough for me to cancel my planned trip to the book store to get BP 2006 tomorrow. Those guys have been walking the thin line for a while, I'm done spending money on them.

    I guess from what Rich said above and said in the rest of the referenced article, Rich only meant that based on college dominance, Weaver was on pace to dethrone Prior.

    There's really no need to "guess". The only context in which Prior is being written about in that passage -- or ever, for that matter -- is his collegiate career!!!!

    I think it is very easy to make the connection from Rich's pieces on Weaver that he thought Weaver already was or could be as good or better than Prior in MLB.

    HOW?!?! PLEASE SHOW ME!!!!

    You have to be completely obtuse to mangle "king of college pitchers" into 'king of major league pitchers'. The fact that (1) Rich had to clarify a crystal clear position and (2) there is still confusion among some as to what that position is even after the unnecessary clarification suggests an unfortunate inability for rationale thought.

    Beyond the misrepresenting of arguments, I was wondering if Rich or others could comment on how Weaver and Prior compare with the current crop of Juniors in college.

    I think that most would agree that Prior was a special prospect. How does he compare to guys like Andrew Miller, Dan Bard, Max Scherzer, and Ian Kennedy? Bard and Miller in particular are putting up pretty gaudy stats right now, to go along with plus plus stuff. They might not be in the same league of statistical dominance as Weaver and Prior were, but they are both pretty dominant right now. Plus, both Bard and Miller have stuff and projectability that scouts always look for.

    How does this current crop of top starters compare with the elite college starters of the past few years (Prior, Weaver, Pelfrey, etc)?

    All interpretative nuance and between-the-line reading aside, the place where Goldstein is wrong, wrong is where, through his own direct statement about "some people" and then linkage to a Lederer article, indicates that Lederer bases his opinion of Weaver's chances for MLB success on numbers alone, and college numbers at that. I think, inarguably, that is what Goldstein "says," and, inarguably, he has now been shown to be incorrect about this. Although Goldstein's initial pieces with BP seem to be writing against some of that publication's received wisdom, it looks like he may already be showing off some of the know-it-all arrogance regularly demonstrated by a number of other BP writers.

    Rich,don't worry about it.

    If Weaver takes the ball every fifth day, he will have a more successful career than Prior. That's about all it will take.