Luke Hochevar and the sinkerballers
So far, I've been fairly impressed by Luke Hochevar's first 91 MLB innings pitched. He hasn't been dominant, but he's pitched at the level of a solid #2 starting pitcher. What I find interesting is that he's apparently a pretty extreme sinkerballer. As Rany recently pointed out,
Coming into the season, Luke Hochevar projected to be a league-average starter, and that’s exactly what he’s been: in 13 starts, he’s 5-5 with a 4.60 ERA, which is as average as they come. But league-average pitchers come in all shapes and sizes, and the particular shape of Hochevar’s performance has surprised me. Specifically, I had no idea back in April that he was such a groundball pitcher. The talk about Hochevar was that he had four pitches that graded out at average or better, not that he had an outstanding sinker. Today, we know better.
He later went on to say,
Counting tonight’s performance, Hochevar has allowed 140 groundballs and just 71 flyballs this season, a ratio of 1.97 which would rank him 11thamong major league starters (min: 60 IP) this season. The three guys directly above him on the list are Greg Maddux, Chien-Ming Wang, and his opposing starter tonight, Aaron Cook. That’s excellent company for a starter to be in, particular a starter who doesn’t have a huge strikeout rate.We’ve come to grips with the fact that Hochevar won’t be an ace befitting his draft status, but he seems to be on the career track of a guy like Cook or Derek Lowe, a guy who can give you 200 innings a season and keep his ERA a little below league average. There are a lot of #1 overall picks who would have loved to have a career like that.
Sinkerballers tend to have a unique statistical profile. They have high a high ground ball percentage, low fly ball percentage and a pretty good ERA despite their often low strikeout rates. Their ERA's are typically lower than their FIP because their ability to induce poor contact, and particularly groundballs, allows them to out-perform their strikeout and walk rates.
Before I get into a deeper analysis of Hochevar's stats, let me say that all of the caveats about small sample size apply. He's had 91 MLB innings pitched. That isn't enough to draw conclusions about him going forward. All we can do is analyze what he's done so far.
Here are the career stats of some noted sinkerballers (this is not an exhaustive list. These are meant to be exemplars of starting pitchers who rely on their sinkers, get a lot of groundballs, and have managed to be anywhere from #1 to #3 starting pitchers throughout their careers.. There are some worse pitchers like Jason Marquis and Braden Looper and some good pitchers like D. Lowe and R. Halladay who are not on the list.):
|
Pitcher |
K/9 |
BB/9 |
HR/9 |
LD% |
GB% |
FB% |
ERA |
FIP |
|
Hochevar |
5.24 |
3.96 |
0.89 |
13.9 |
55.6 |
30.5 |
4.25 |
4.62 |
|
A. Cook |
3.55 |
2.72 |
0.75 |
18.7 |
57.7 |
23.5 |
4.36 |
4.43 |
|
Garland |
4.71 |
2.99 |
1.13 |
21.1 |
49.9 |
27.6 |
4.39 |
4.74 |
|
Westbrook |
4.90 |
2.76 |
0.78 |
19.0 |
59.5 |
21.5 |
4.31 |
4.15 |
|
Carmona |
5.64 |
3.37 |
0.67 |
17.6 |
63.7 |
22.3 |
3.57 |
4.20 |
|
Wang |
4.02 |
2.55 |
0.49 |
17.6 |
60.5 |
21.9 |
3.79 |
3.88 |
|
Zambrano |
7.69 |
4.40 |
0.73 |
18.7 |
50.2 |
31.1 |
3.39 |
3.93 |
|
Hudson |
6.12 |
2.77 |
0.72 |
18.6 |
58.4 |
23.0 |
3.50 |
3.79 |
|
Webb |
7.30 |
2.98 |
0.62 |
18.0 |
64.4 |
17.6 |
3.22 |
3.47 |
That's a lot of data to digest. I think Hochevar's profile is consistent with the rest of the sinkerballers/extreme groundball pitchers on that list. Clearly he needs to work on his walk rate and flyball rate.
The way I ordered the list was Hochevar at the top for comparison purposes, and then in roughly ascending order of overall pitcher quality from Cook to Webb. Right now, only halfway through his rookie season, I think Hochevar sits comfortably in the group of Cook, Garland and Westbrook, all capable #3 starters. With a bit of improvement in his walk rate and flyball rate, he could easily move up into the #2 SP group with Carmona and Wang.
Hochevar has a long career in front of him and, as I said, it could go in any direction. But if he keeps pitching like this, with the kind of development and improvement that you'd expect from a 24-year-old pitcher, I think it's safe to say that the Royals have a pretty good #2-#3 starter for a long time to come.
3 recs |
61
comments
Read Related
Comments
definitely a lot of information to chew on...
Garland might not be a bad comp, and seems a closer intuitive fit than a more pure GBer, like Carmona…
by royalsreview on Jun 30, 2008 3:27 AM EDT 0 recs
I also like Hudson as a comp
Clearly he’s not Hudson yet, but there are some promising signs and he’s similar to Hudson in some key peripherals. And, so far, his rookie season is not greatly different from Hudson’s rookie season.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 30, 2008 3:34 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Hudson
Is my comp as well. He probably won’t have the peak that Hudson did, but I think the GB%, K/9 and BB/9 will all be close in line.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
by doublestix on
Jun 30, 2008 3:45 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Yeah
Given what Hochevar is already doing in his rookie season at age 24, I think he could easily get his K/9 up to 6 and his BB/9 down to 3 with a somewhat lower FB rate. That would make him very similar to Hudson career numbers and a solid #2 SP. I’m not exactly predicting that, but he wouldn’t have to improve tremendously to get there.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 30, 2008 4:01 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Great piece!
Unmitigated praise from this most-of-the-time disputant with NYRoyal! :)
A lot of my hopes about the Royals going from mediocre to contender are wrapped up in Hochevar becoming a successful starter. Everything I read about him in Spring Training pushed me to favor him much more than Tomko. I’m glad that the transition occurred sooner rather than later (i.e. next season). – TL
by timlacy on Jun 30, 2008 8:15 AM EDT 0 recs
Very nice write up
Encouraging to see that he is starting out so well with a lot more room to improve. I’d been noticing some comments around here about Hochevar to the the effect of “He is what he is”, “we’ve pretty much found out what we are going to get from Hochevar”, and I’ve just been shocked that so many people feel like they know exactly how much room for improvement a 24 year old has. So far, Hochever has been good and I’m expecting him to be the kind of pitcher that NYRoyal has laid out as being possible.
by I need more Esteban on Jun 30, 2008 9:39 AM EDT 1 recs
I'm with you. There's...
...no way to declare “he is what he his” when he hasn’t even been in the league one-half of a season. If he’s going to be a sinker baller, I hope he tops out closer to Zambrano than Marquis! – TL
by timlacy on
Jun 30, 2008 10:48 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Agreed
I’ve been very surprised at some of the negativity shot Hochevar’s way, if for no other reason than a rookie pitcher who is around league average is pretty neat.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 30, 2008 11:43 AM EDT
up
0 recs
He'll never kick the #1 overall tag
And, unfortunately, that brings with it expectations and reqirements from many fans that he be a dominant ace…and right now!
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 30, 2008 12:53 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I know people are going
to hold the 1st round pick thing against him…that’s normal…but plenty of good pitchers don’t exactly light the world on fire in their first year.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 30, 2008 1:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
And plenty of #1 overall picks fail
I think the people who are saying that Hochevar needs to be great to “justify his draft position” need to take a look at some of the players drafted #1 overall. There is a mix of starts, good players and complete failures. No draftee is a lock to be a star, even #1 overall.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 30, 2008 1:10 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The Royals are going to eat it when Matt Bush wins 3 NL Cy Youngs in a row!
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on
Jun 30, 2008 1:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
For a pitcher
He actually seems very much like a #1 overall pick. No #1 overall pick as a pitcher has ever been a superstar – just solid, middle of the rotation guys like Andy Benes, Ben McDonald, Floyd Bannister, Mike Moore and Tim Belcher.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on
Jun 30, 2008 1:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Exactly.
If Hochevar becomes a #2 pitcher, that would EASILY put him in the upper echelon of #1 overall picks.
I’ve heard people talk about “Oh if they would have taken X, Y, or Z that would have been a better pick”. No chit man? How many drafts had the #1 overall selection become the best player from that class?
‘93 – Alex Rodriguez
‘90 – Chipper Jones
‘87 – Ken Griffey Jr.
That’s it. Josh Hamilton or Joe Mauer MIGHT (small chance) of becoming the top player from their draft, but it’s very unlikely. It just doesn’t happen.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
by doublestix on
Jun 30, 2008 5:54 PM EDT
up
1 recs
very good points
I can’t believe you didn’t add
‘95 – Darin Erstad
‘93 – Phil Nevin
And who could forget about
‘02 – Bryan Bullington (who) Pitcher with a career 0-3, 5.89 ERA
by I need more Esteban on
Jun 30, 2008 6:38 PM EDT
up
1 recs
#1 draft picks
I think this organization has flopped so spectacularly on #1 draft picks (especially pitchers) in the past, that margin for error – and margin for luck – will no longer be tolerated.
by Royals Nation on
Jun 30, 2008 2:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Will reasonable expectations be tolerated?
Not from some fans, certainly.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 30, 2008 2:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Okay, whatever that means,
either people are going to hate Hochevar for not being an ace, which is silly, or they’re going to set semi-reasonable expectations for the growth of a young pitcher.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 30, 2008 2:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Some will say
“We’ve screwed up too many #1 draft picks so now Hochevar has to be a star! And if he isn’t I’m going to hold my breath until he becomes one!” Apparently reasonable expectations are overrated.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 30, 2008 2:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
VASTLY overrated
I understand emotional reactions, really I do, I just don’t get why so many people continue to react, react, react instead of stepping back and actually looking at how the player is contributing/might contribute in the future.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 30, 2008 3:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I've had many exchanges with fans that go like this:
Fan: that guy sucks/is a huge disappointment/is a bust
Me: that sounds like an emotional overreaction and/or you had unreasonable expectations or requirements for the player
Fan: No, I’m being completely rational and reasonable because of X, Y and Z
Me: No, you are wrong because of A, B and C. Your analysis is about emotion, not reason.
Fan: But the Royals have sucked and made mistakes for many years. I have a right to be emotional, overreact and have unreasonably high standards and expectations!
I wish they’d just start with the “I’m pissed off so my analysis is all about emotion” and not waste time pretending to be engaging in reasonable analysis.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 30, 2008 3:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Them's fightin' words, though
Don’t for a minute think that you can suggest that emotional reactions are generally unreasonable arguments.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 30, 2008 3:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
you forgot this one:
NHZ: NYRoyal is right and you are wrong.
Nobody will celebrate harder when the Royals make the playoffs!!
by juano on
Jul 1, 2008 1:26 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Are you being sarcastic?
First of all, if there’s a well-reasoned argument against what I’m saying, I never tell anyone that they’re wrong and I’m right.
Second of all, if you’re attempting to portray me as sycophantic to NYRoyal’s arguments…you’re way off base. NYRoyal and I have agreed more often than not recently, which probably has a lot to do with us doing a lot of similar sabermetic/scouting reading and the fact that neither of us is really thrilled with overly emotional arguments.
Third, if you think we agree all the time, or that I follow NYRoyal around supporting him all the time, it’s just not true. NYRoyal and I had a rather legendary argument over Joey Gathright’s merits last year, and that’s one of many topics that we’ve disagreed upon. If you’ve noticed a trend of me coming slightly late to the party-after NYRoyal has already stated an argument I agree with-then that’s because I don’t have internet access anywhere near as often as I’d like to, so I miss out on the opening arguments of a discussion a lot of the time.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jul 1, 2008 3:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I was just having a little fun
please don’t take offense, I guess i should have added a ;-) or something. I think neither 2nd nor 3rd; being relatively new to the site, I think i just happened to catch a few fiery arguments recently involving you and NY arguing against one or two others.
Nobody will celebrate harder when the Royals make the playoffs!!
by juano on
Jul 1, 2008 6:26 PM EDT
up
0 recs
No offense taken
It was just very hard to tell if you were kidding around or being serious, given your newness. Sorry if I overreacted.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jul 2, 2008 9:53 AM EDT
up
0 recs
You're not alone
it’s pretty comical watching them stick up for each other.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jul 3, 2008 10:35 AM EDT
up
0 recs
You're pushing this pretty hard,
and I wish I knew why. I don’t get why people get mad when other people disagree with them. and I’ve already done all the “justifying” I’m going to do for now.
If you can’t stop commenting stuff like this, don’t comment.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jul 3, 2008 10:45 AM EDT
up
0 recs
eazyb81
This is starting to get really immature. Some people are disagreeing with you and providing counter-arguments to your arguments and you react to it by saying, “you guys are just sticking up for each other!” That’s an 8-year-old’s response. You can do better than that. We’re disagreeing with your arguments, so I would suggest you defend them and not attack us.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jul 3, 2008 1:05 PM EDT
up
0 recs
who's attacking?
I’m not in a disagreement in this thread, just commenting on juan’s original post.
For future reference, can you make a list of what opinions I can and cannot agree with? That would probably make it easier for both of us. k thx
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jul 3, 2008 1:21 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Settle down, eazy
I’m talking about your immature “they just stick up for each other” comments which you have now put down in multiple threads. Instead of dealing with the points we make, you resort to that silly crap.
For future reference, can you make a list of what opinions I can and cannot agree with?
It would be great if you limited yourself to agreeing and disagreeing with opinions, rather than the personal BS. You’re coming off very childish.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jul 3, 2008 1:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
An Allegory.
Person A: Two plus two is five!
Person B: No, it’s not. Two plus two is four.
Person A: No! Two plus two is five!
Person C: You don’t know what you’re talking about. Two plus two is four.
Person A: Look, 2.49 and 2.49 are 4.98, and since 2.49 is two and 4.98 are five, two plus two is five.
Person D: That’s asinine. Two plus two is four.
Person A: Well, I see you’re all sticking up for one another again!
Sarcasmâ„¢. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on
Jul 3, 2008 1:37 PM EDT
up
3 recs
it's not necessarily unreasonable...
to want hochevar to be an ace right now given that he was selected over two pitchers who were seen as having higher upside inJune2006 one of whom is the best pitcher in baseball the other of whom has had comparable success. .lincecum and andrew miller were both seen as having higher upside on draft day and both still have higher upside today. maybe the royals would still pick hochevar over lincecum and miller, but you don’t have to be unreasonable or ignorant of draft history to suggest that either lincecum or miller would have been a better pick. there were enough smart people who argued that both miller and lincecum would have been better choices than hochevar that criticism of the royals in this case is legiimate and not necessarily driven by hindsight.
by billexgordler on
Jul 2, 2008 11:23 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Response
It’s not necessarily unreasonable to want hochevar to be an ace right now given that he was selected over two pitchers who were seen as having higher upside inJune2006 one of whom is the best pitcher in baseball the other of whom has had comparable success.
Anyone who is going to hold Hochevar to such a high standard is being unrealistic. This is Hochevar’s rookie year, for one, and secondly his minor league numbers don’t point to him being an “ace.”
there were enough smart people who argued that both miller and lincecum would have been better choices than hochevar that criticism of the royals in this case is legiimate and not necessarily driven by hindsight.
Okay, cool, but a lot of people complain about Hochevar seem to do without citing this fact or anything else that would suggest they aren’t “knee-jerking.”
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jul 2, 2008 11:31 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Upside
lincecum and andrew miller were both seen as having higher upside on draft day
According to some yes. According to some, no. Miller was most people’s #1 choice. Lincecum was seen as having some significant drawbacks by the draft analysts. His size created a concern that he wouldn’t be able to handle multiple years a starter. He still might not. There’s a reason he fell to #9. But with drafts, there are always many different opinions about who is better than whom. There wre people who had Miller #1, others had Lincoln #1, others had Lincecum and others had Hochevar.
But judging the success of any pick based on how well he does relative to other players who could have been drafted doesn’t make any sense. Judge him on his own merits. He either succeeds well enough for a #1 or he doesn’t. Constantly bringing up Lincecum and Miller is pointless at this point unless you just want to complain about the Royals not drafting well enough.
So yes, it is completely unreasonable to expect Hochevar to be an ace now and to be disappointed because he isn’t one yet. This is his rookie season, period.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jul 2, 2008 11:44 AM EDT
up
0 recs
the draft doesn't occur in a vaccuum...
players are ranked relative to other players on draft day—that’s how teams choose one player over another. in the case of the 2006 draft virtually every credible analyst agreed that hochevar had a lower ceiling than lincecum and miller (Lincoln wasn’t quite as highly viewed). in many cases taking the lower ceiling guy is the right call and I think that hochevar will end up being a very good and perhaps great starting pitcher but that doesn’t mean that he was the best pick. of course lincecum had risks and of course those risks still exist but if lincecum and or miller are better pitchers than hochevar over the next six seasons then it seems reasonable to argue that the royals erred in selecting hochevar over them.
let’s put it this way: I’m thrilled with hochevar. I think he can be an important part of a championship team, but would I have drafted him over miller or lincecum in 2006? no. would I trade him today for either of them? in a heartbeat.
by billexgordler on
Jul 2, 2008 1:28 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Lincecum did fall to nine
we’re hardly the only team that missed out.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jul 2, 2008 1:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Interesting article about
Nobody will celebrate harder when the Royals make the playoffs!!
by juano on
Jul 2, 2008 2:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Plus he couldn't even beat the Royals
And their pathetic offense!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on
Jul 2, 2008 3:37 PM EDT
up
0 recs
He stinks!!!!oneone
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jul 2, 2008 3:53 PM EDT
up
0 recs
forget it...
don’t know why I pulled myself into this. I agree with you that criticizing hochevar for being something he’s not is misguided and pointless. I just get upset when you take shots at folks who disagree with you by suggesting that their opinions are not grounded in reason when in fact they are. it’s not irrational to want the number one pick in the draft to be the best player in the draft. that’s a perfectly reasonable desire despite the fact that it so rarely happens!!!
by billexgordler on
Jul 2, 2008 1:41 PM EDT
up
1 recs
My argument
From a mere fan’s perspective, it has become frustrating watching #1 draft pick after #1 draft pick get ruined, wasted, or whatever. My comment wasn’t analytical, by any means. It was an emotional statement from someone who has very, very, very close to no control over the team’s whereabouts (myself). I believe in Luke and believe he can at least be a #3 pitcher, and ace isn’t out of the question. However, getting upset if he fails would be a natural reaction for MANY fans who have watched this team for the last 12-15 years.
by Royals Nation on
Jul 1, 2008 2:04 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm not sure the disappointment is leveled at Hoch so much as the brass
If you’ll recall, the top 3 talents in the draft were considered to be Andrew Miller, Lincecum, and Evan Longoria. For whatever reason, the Royals bucked conventional wisdom and went with Hochevar. For that reason, I think that Hochevar does have to justify his draft position a little. It’s not his fault, of course, but the R’s did put him in a position of higher expecation, at least relative to those guys.
Based on this, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be disappointed in the choice if he doesn’t perform as well as those other prospects. I certainly will be a little disappointed. But as long as he ends up with at least an ML career ERA of ~4.50 (which, fortunately, he appears to be headed), it will be hard to be too upset.
If you want to use a more extreme example, you can look at Greg Reynolds —if he ends up continuing to pitch this poorly, do the Rockies fans have an excuse to be mad? Nobody saw him as a top 10 talent. I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to say to them, “Plenty of #2 picks fail.” Of course they fail, when you intentionally avoid picking the good ones.
Similarly, I don’t think it will be wrong to be upset if Moustakas doesn’t pan out, when Wieters and Porcello were considered better prospects at the time of the draft by most scouts. I certainly will be.
This space intentionally left blank.
by marbotty on
Jul 5, 2008 6:48 AM EDT
up
0 recs
sounds like the name of Luke's garage band
Luke Hochevar and the sinkerballers
The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib
by buddyball on Jun 30, 2008 11:42 AM EDT 0 recs
Look out, Brandon Arroyo!
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on
Jun 30, 2008 11:45 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Did Brandon Arroyo hit a home run
off Juan Padilla?
(not quite as well known is the fact that McCarver someone got Vicente Padilla and Juan Padilla confused)
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 30, 2008 11:53 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I thought it was the title of a kid's detective book
Luke Hochevar and the Sinkerballers
Luke Hochevar and the Agent from Heck
Luke Hochevar and the Golden Gloves
Luke Hochevar and the Two-Fingered Sign
Luke Hochevar and the McClure Gambit
Sarcasmâ„¢. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on
Jul 1, 2008 2:58 PM EDT
up
1 recs
Encyclopedia Hochevar?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on
Jul 1, 2008 3:25 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yeah, groundballers
Nice work. Hochevar did not show any realy groundball tendencies in the minors, but if he keeps this up, Hochevar only needs to cut his walk rate by 0.5 BB/9 or so to get into the Westbrook class of pitchers. One concern with him is that his line drive percentage is unsustainably low at 13.9% (even the best sinkerballers normalize around 17-18% LD%), so hopefully the additional line drives come off his FB%, not his GB%.
One minor point is that Garland’s career GB% is 43.9% or roughly average (his 2008 GB% is 49.9%), so he really is not a sinkerballer (I am not sure that he regularly throws an actual sinker—he did not throw any according to his pitch f/x data from last year, and good location and movement of other pitchers can induce grounders too).
by Gopherballs on Jun 30, 2008 12:18 PM EDT 0 recs
Garland does throw a sinker
and it’s a pretty good one at that. Not sure what is up with the pitch f/x data on him.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 30, 2008 12:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Luke
Wasn’t allowed to throw his sinker last year, thus the fly ball tendencies.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
by doublestix on
Jun 30, 2008 5:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
STUFF
The thing that impresses me with Hochevar, aside from the stats and comparisons here (great work!), is that he seems to have other plus pitches to get out of jams, including an above average 4-seamer when he wants it. He has a good curve and slider in addition to the two fastballs he throws. If you look at this list, who has THAT complete of a repertoire? I’d venture to say Carmona, Webb, and Hudson are the only ones. (I think Zambrano’s is better, but Wang I can’t include in the group even though he has a good 4-seamer at times) This gets me excited to think we may have a GOOD #2 starter in our future with Hochevar. I’m still holding out that he can get to dominance and establish himself as a 2nd Ace for this staff, behind Greinke. Let’s remember, only 91 IP and still a rookie….he is likely to improve from here, not regress.
Never giving up on your team is what makes you a good fan.
by kcisbetterthanstlateverything on Jun 30, 2008 1:04 PM EDT 0 recs
I love sinkerballers
As much as I love strikeout guys, I love to watch sinkerballers. The ability to get out of a jam using the double play is awesome to watch and it also eases the need to rack up high pitch counts.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jun 30, 2008 1:17 PM EDT 0 recs
Mark Gubicza
I think this is an excellent comparison for Hochevar. Maybe a mid-to-late Royals career Gubicza. I remember Gubes being a groundout pitcher, maybe a #2/#3-overall at best. Any thoughts?
by Royals Nation on Jun 30, 2008 2:35 PM EDT 0 recs
Your memory corresponds to mine
He has a really good sinker and got lots of groundballs. He had a fair amount of strikeouts at one point in his career, but as he got older he adjusted and became a guy with really good control who relied more on groundouts.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on
Jun 30, 2008 2:40 PM EDT
up
0 recs
+2
I was thinking of Gubicza earlier. If Hochevar matches or exceeds Gubicza’s career, he’ll be a Royals success story. Personally, I think Hoch will be better than Gubicza. – TL
by timlacy on
Jun 30, 2008 2:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
"At best"
If we’re talking ceiling, then we have to include the possibility that he could become a #1. Increase the strikeout rate and decrease the walk rate and he could be an ace. But if we’re talking about more reasonable projections, then we’re talking #2-#4 SP, with a higher likelihood of #2 or #3.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

