Easy Hellickson

by FreeZorilla on Mar 10, 2010 4:59 PM EST Comment 13 comments

Jeremy Hellickson has been very impressive so far this Spring, striking out Derek Jeter and Mark Texeiria with a runner on 3rd base, and sending back all four Orioles faced with nary a ball put into play. The list of witnesses continues to grow. How does he do it? . It's Easy....

"He just spots it so well. And it's so easy. It's effortless. And that's why he's one of the organization's best pitchers." -Matt Joyce

"Easy. I couldn't believe how easy he was. Good life on his fastball. His changeup was good. His location was good." -Dan Johnson

"From what the guys were saying, he was throwing pretty hard — that's pretty good for March 5. It looked easy, it looked effortless." -Curtis Granderson

"Easy arm, and the ball comes out hot, Right through the point of release he generates a lot of hop, and that's what I heard." -Joe Maddon

0 recs | Comment 13 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

To answer your question, because they really don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.

"Sure, because of the "cold weather" and rain." More bait and switch tactics by the New York owners of this team." --NikoHoullis, the lead blogger at Buc'em on racial and anti-semitic insensitivity.

by kericr on Mar 10, 2010 9:10 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think they call his mechanics "shitty".

I think they are concerned that they may lead to problems, but admit that our knowledge of mechanics and their effects are rudimentary at best. I asked Will Carroll about his mechanics in a chat, and he responded that we know nothing about mechanics and their effects. PP may be reaching a bit in their analysis, but they are not quite so adamant or insistent as you suggest.

by bobr on Mar 11, 2010 7:06 AM EST up reply actions

Here is one thing PP wrote about Hellickson:

Re: PP 2010 Top 50 prospect list

Postby Adam Foster on Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:25 am
There were a lot of questions on Hellickson in the chat. Here’s what I wrote about our decision to leave him outside of our top 50 in the chat:

“Hellickson will be in our top 100. Clearly, he’s proven that he can retire advanced hitters. I watched him in the Triple-A championship game and loved his fastball/changeup combo. He attacks hitters extremely well.

But let’s take a step back with Hellickson…a fresh look. He’ll turn 23 in April. He pitched 113.0 regular season innings in 2009, 151.0 in 2008 and 111.1 in 2007. Sounds like a workhorse, right?

Throw in a shoulder injury that sidelined him for 47 days last season (early-May through the end of June) and a fractured growth plate in the same shoulder when he was in high school, and you have at least some yellow flags. Add to those Lincoln’s concerns (posted below) and I think we have a guy who’s unlikely to be able to handle a starter’s workload. That’s why Hellickson isn’t in our top 50.

I realize that mechanical analysis still has a ways to go. But when you have a 185-pounder who’s touching the mid-90s, has an injury history and has some mechanical critics, you’re looking at A LOT of risk."

Excerpt from the Digital Prospect Guide:

“Hellickson doesn’t get the ball up to the driveline in time for the rest of the body to help with acceleration and leaves virtually all the work of applying force up to the pitching arm.”
___________________________________________________________________
He ended up at #77 on their list, much lower than anywhere else I think, but still the mark of respect. I have read some criticisms of their analysis, that the injuries were not the sort that suggest serious risk and that the questions about his mechanics are completely speculative with no legitimate basis. But I think Foster and his colleagues are very thorough and listen to their critics with an open mind. All they say here is that he has some critics of his mechanics, that he has not pitched a lot of innings recently and that he may not be able to handle a starter’s workload over the long haul.

by bobr on Mar 11, 2010 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Bob, if you're ever looking to an adopt a new son, I am available.

by Suttree on Mar 11, 2010 10:54 AM EST up reply actions

The issue I see with PP:

They attempt to extrapolate too much from mechanics or other issues and “project injury.” After all they bumped SS down below a bunch of guys because he might get injured. Pitchers get injured. That’s a fact. They do so more than hitters. Trying to guess which guys will get hurt is a pointless excersise. After all Prior had “flawless mechanics” and Lincecum scared everyone off with his. If the two had been drafted at the same time I imagine PP would have exerted their opinions on the pitchers’ mechanics into the rankings. They would have been dead wrong. I guess my point is their playing a loser’s game. If they want to ding all pitchers for injury concerns then do it uniformly (apart from guys with serious shoulder or elbow issues), but they relly too much on a limited knowledge base IMO.

by rglass44 on Mar 11, 2010 11:07 AM EST up reply actions

That may be a weakness in their analysis.

I have read others who have criticized them for similar reasons. My response was to the statements that they said he had shitty mechanics, which I think was a dramatic exaggeration of their view. And I also think that their skepticism about Hellickson is based on more than just his mechanics. They seem concerned too about his injury history and what they claim is a relatively light workload so far. Again, I have read that they are exaggerating the severity of his injury history, but their analysis is multi-faceted and not pegged purely on their view of his mechanics.

I also think that they are an interesting voice in the prospect universe. Every analyst-Sickels, Goldstein, Law, BA and others-have a particular approach and each is occasionally idiosyncratic. We have a tendency to tout those who rank our prospects high, say Goldstein praising Colome for example, while pooh-poohing those who are less impressed, as PP is about Hellickson. I don’t think the issue is so much whether they are right or wrong but whether they provide information or considerations worth taking into account, helping us develop a fuller picture. In general, I think PP does just that, and if they do overstress mechanics there is still plenty in their analysis to consider.

by bobr on Mar 11, 2010 10:02 PM EST up reply actions

Couldn't agree more.

In some ways I like their conservative approach (valuing players that are more polished with less upside higher than other sources) because it’s more likely to be closer to what happens even if it is less “sexy.” I just take issue with their obsession (may be too strong, perhaps “propensity” is better) with worrying about pitcher injuries. I do like that they do thoings a bit differently because it’s a unique voice in the prospect world. I feel like Sickles is similar without the annoying (to me at least) guesstimates about future injury.

by rglass44 on Mar 12, 2010 10:52 AM EST up reply actions

Perhaps I'm reading into it too much, but I get the impression that PP likens Hellickson to Harden

Great stuff, but they don’t envision him ever being a reliable 200 IP guy. Having only seen him briefly, I think the stuff comparison might be apt and obviously hope the durability concern is not.

"It's good to have a little cushion. But it's not going to be easy."

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Mar 14, 2010 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions