Greinke vs. Bannister

by kcdoc85 on Feb 14, 2008 1:32 AM EST Comment 44 comments

Today I had a rather heated debate with a friend of mine about who is the better starting pitcher, Zack Greinke or Brian Bannister. It is an interesting debate because the two of them are such polar opposites. We asked the following questions:

Which one will have more success as a starting pitcher in coming years.
Which one has a better shot at becoming an ace, a dominant #1.
What is the more important to a good starter: a) athleticism, a great arm, and great "stuff". OR b) intellect, pitching knowledge, "baseball smarts', a strong mental make-up.

Obviously, we both agreed that if we could somehow transplant Bannister's brain into Greinke's body, we would have the next Cy Young. I am of the opinion that Bannister is more likely to succeed than Greinke at this point. I've seen enough of Greinke (aka..Wacko Zacko) the last four years to know that he DOES NOT have what it takes to be a consistently successful starting pitcher, not to mention an ACE. I don't believe he can stay focused and motivated for a full season. I think he's better suited for the bullpen. As for which one is more likely to become a dominant #1? I say neither. To be an ace, you need the entire package. You obviously need great "stuff", but an ace also must have brains and a strong mental make-up.

My friend disagreed. Believing that Greinke's amazing stuff, his athleticism, and his success late last year as a starter, are enough to prove that he is the better pitcher. Quite possibly the best pitcher in our rotation, and the one most likely to succeed. He also believed that Greinke is more likely to become an ace, for some team, if not the Royals.

I think if Zack were in the bullpen, he could get by on his stuff, but as a starter his mental stamina will break down over the long season. And I think, in the long run, there are more examples of successful starters with Bannister's traits, those with less than great stuff who have succeeded by knowing how to pitch, knowing their opponents, being focus, determined, and mentally prepared. He may never be an ace, but I'll put my money on Bannister over Greinke.

What do you think?

0 recs | Comment 44 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

My answers

Probably Greinke
Definitely Greinke
Probably "a"

One problem I have with question 3 is that your dichotomy is between stuff and pitching intelligence. I would say the most important qualities for a good starting pitcher are 1) Good stuff, including at least 3 good pitches which can be relied on, 2) Good control, 3) the strength and stamina to throw 100 pitches every 5 days, 4) intellect, pitching knowledge, strategic thinking, make up, etc.

Greinke has excellent stuff, including multiple good pitches, excellent control, good strength and stamina and probably sufficient intellect, etc. Bannister has ok stuff, excellent control, good strength and stamina and excellent intellect, strategic thinking, etc. It is Greinke's stuff, mixed with his great control which makes him a possible ace and likely will have a better career than Bannister.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 12, 2008 11:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

good stuff

I tend to agree.

One thing about Greinke, he's a year younger than Alex Gordon.

While I can't imagine ZG approaching the game the same way as BB, Greinke does have a certain flair for approaching hitters, or at least used to. He's received a lot of bad advice since becoming a Royal, but hopefully all that is behind him now.

We shall see with Banny... I see him as a guy that will be amenable to developing new pitches, like showing up one spring with a screwball or something.

by royalsreview on Feb 13, 2008 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Echoing RR on Greinke's age...

The mental side of things could certainly improve with age. If you're right that his "head-stuff" is lacking right now, that is less static than "arm-stuff". Doesn't his mental approach almost have to improve? In the end, I'd say Greinke is more likely to be an ace but only because people rarely call Bannister types aces.

by stuckinstl12 on Feb 13, 2008 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Greinke's approach

Strangely enough, as recently as a year ago I viewed Greinke the exact same way I see Bannister now when it came to the mental aspect.

Now, I'm willing to concede that Bannister's clearly one of the most cerebral pitchers in the league, more so than Greinke. But I do think Greinke's got a natural talent for keeping batters off balance.

The eephus, the quick pitch, the changing of speeds, his little curve ball --- these are all hallmarks of a guy that is succeeding on guile more than on talent.

This part of Greinke's repertoire was part of what made me love him so much. When they R's brought in pitching coaches to tell Zack to dial it up to 95, I thought that was one of the most ridiculous suggestions possible.

The amazing thing is that in addition to abandoning his bag of tricks, Zack seems to actually have harnessed this ability to throw in the mid-90's. So, now he's successful, again, but for a completely different reason.

Does that mean that if he uses his new approach AND brings back his quirky trick pitches that he'll become the greatest pitcher of his generation? Quite possibly.

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Feb 13, 2008 6:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Royals and Good Players

I agree. What I'm really excited to see is a sort of hybrid between Grienke v. 2004 and Grienke v. 2007. A guy who can throw a 96 mph high fastball or a 60 mph curve on any given pitch. If he can do that, Grienke has a chance to be devastatingly effective pitcher. He's certainly the player on our roster most likely to someday win a Cy Young.

I think the premise of the debate, that Grienke doesn't pitch intelligently, is flawed. He's just been jerked around enough by stupid coaching and management that it looked that way for a couple of years. First, the Royals tried to shoehorn him into their ridiculous "pitch to contact" philosophy. Then, they convinced him to stop dipping into his bag of tricks like the quick pitch and the slow curve. I remember reading a quote from Grienke in early 2005 in which he said he was going to drop all that stuff and just try to "let his defense work for him," and I knew right then that it wasn't going to be a good year.

This is actually an overweening problem with the Royals' handling of premium talents. It seems we coach them with an eye toward making them more scrappy, instead of taking advantage of their natural strengths. The Royals tried to teach Grienke, who had the stuff and feel for pitching to be an ace almost right out of highschool, to pitch to contact. They tried to teach Billy Butler, who has "right handed Edgar Martinez" written all over him, to take everything the other way.

Some guys don't have much power, and really need to take pitchers the other way. Some guys don't have great stuff, so they need to induce weak contact. But watching the Royals, it's like we don't even want to have great players who do the big things. We just want to have mediocre players who do the little things.

by Melchizedek on Feb 13, 2008 7:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

an overweening problem

Good point. They did the same thing to Hochevar with limiting his pitch types.

I can understand trying to change a player who is performing poorly or only moderately well. But why would/do the R's brass go out of their way to make it more difficult for guys that actually seem to be performing well? If it ain't broke...

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Feb 13, 2008 8:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Zack

This is one of the more interesting question marks coming into the season. I can't wait to see if Zack can stick in the rotation, and become a consistently dependable starter. It will be great if he puts together a full season and wins 15+, but I'll be shocked. I think Bany is more likely to win 15.

by kcdoc85 on Feb 13, 2008 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Zack

Without a doubt.

by doublestix on Feb 13, 2008 12:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Zack's pitching smarts, etc.

While Zack isn't equal to Bannister in pitching smarts, strategic thinking, etc., he does have the right attitude about learning better pitching. Many young highly touted pitchers think they already know how to pitch and they are going to do it there way, regardless of what any coach or player teaches them. They aren't interested. Greinke, on the other hand, has made many comments throughout his professional career about how he's learned this or that and incorporated it into his game. Last year, he said that Riske taught him how to get guys out by throwing as hard as he could and using his fastball, particularly the high fastball as an out pitch. He credits that for his success once he went to the bullpen and from that point on.

As far as his mental/emotional issues, I think the fear that he's going to freak out are overblown. Therapy and medications do wonders for the depression and anxiety issues that he has. If he didn't lose it last season, I don't expect him to do so in the future.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 13, 2008 1:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

if this makes any sense

Bannister = Genius, Greinke = Savant

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Feb 13, 2008 6:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It does.

Ha! Great point.

by Melchizedek on Feb 13, 2008 7:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If He Can

Blow it 96+ up and out of the zone but close, find the outside corner at the knees and mix it with his very good stuff anywhere in the zone, Greinke will be a #1 for any team in the world.

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Feb 13, 2008 1:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hate to break it to you,

but Greinke actually was a better starting pitcher last year than Bannister, if you go by ERA, and that includes his poor start of the season:

Greinke 3.80 ERA as a starter in 07
Bannister 3.87 ERA as a starter in 07

Now, factor in the 2 year age difference, the astronomical difference in stuff, and his overcoming of the gross mismanagement of his career by the Royals, and I think it's not even particulary close which will be the better starter.

As for potential ace - all I can say is Bannister has virtually no chance at that. Think of all the "aces" in the game today, and every one of them has much better stuff than Bannister. Greinke, on the other hand, has comparable stuff to anybody labelled an ace today.

This is not a slam against Bannister - I think his approach is admirable, and given good health, guarantees him success as well. It's just that I think his upside is no higher than a #3, perhaps a fringe #2. Think Jeff Suppan, but with a chance at a smidgeon better control. That is nobody's definition of an ace - but somebody every team would love to have in it's rotation.

by loyal2s dad on Feb 13, 2008 12:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

when you project a .07 ERA difference...

...over the 120 and 165 innings that each pitched respectively, that ends up being only about a one-run difference, which is relatively negligible.

That being said, I agree that Greinke definitely has more upside. But as a starter, you could arguably say that Bannister had the better 2007, that's all.

I'm also really worried about Bannister getting injured this year because he was so overworked towards the end of the year by Buddy Bell.

by DarthYoshi on Feb 13, 2008 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Greinke was better in more than just ERA

As a starter, Greinke posted a very good 2.4 K:BB ratio: 6.68 K/9, 2.75 BB/9. His overall ERA (3.69) nearly matched his overall FIP (3.76), so there was nothing fluky about his results.

Bannister posted a below average 1.75 K:BB ratio: 4.20 K/9, 2.40 BB/9. His 3.87 ERA was 2/3 run worse than his 4.52 FIP.

Greinke was the better pitcher last year.

by Gopherballs on Feb 13, 2008 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not so fast

Overall, Bannister's WHIP was lower than Greinke's in 2007 (1.212 versus 1.295). Batters also had a higher OBP against Greinke than Bannister (not counting IBBs)--about a .302 OBP for Bannister versus about .320 for Greinke. Peripherals are nice, but they don't always gauge overall effectiveness. Bannister showed that he didn't need strikeouts to keep batters from getting on base. Maybe you can thank the defense of Gordon, TPJ, and Grudz for some of that, but Greinke had the exact same defense behind him as well.

I still think you can make the argument that Bannister had a slightly better 2007. At the very least, they were equally effective.

by DarthYoshi on Feb 13, 2008 9:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It is more than just defense

Luck and the batter also play large roles. Tom Tippett, one of the leading critics of DIPS, states up front that "there's quite a bit of luck involved" in whether a batted ball is a hit or an out:

"The low correlation coefficients for in-play batting average suggest that there's a lot more room for random variation in these outcomes than in the defense-independent outcomes. I believe this follows quite naturally from the physics of the game. When a round bat meets a round ball at upwards of 90 miles per hour, and when that ball has laces and some sort of spin, miniscule differences in the nature of that impact can make the difference between a hit and an out. In other words, there's quite a bit of luck involved."

Tom Tippett, "Can pitchers prevent hits on balls in play?" (2003).

Nor did Greinke and Bannister face the same hitters in the same ballparks. In fact, 9 of Greinke's 14 starts were against the 6 best AL offenses (all over 5.00 R/G), while only 8 of Bannister's 27 starts were against those teams.

Defense also does not affect pitchers equally. As an extreme fly ball pitcher, Greinke is not going to get as much help from Gordon, TPJ, and Grudz as Bannister (who is just slightly below average as a groundballer).

And WHIP is a fantasy stat that is pretty useless as an analytical tool. BB/9, HR/9, and BABIP (especially when used with LD%, GB%, FB%, and HR/FB) collectively provide the same information in greater detail.

by Gopherballs on Feb 14, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One quick note on FIP

The only fluky noise or randomness which FIP eliminates is differences in fielding. And when you've got two pitchers with a significant number of innings over the course of a season playing for the same team, with essentially the same defense behind them, differences in fielding are negligible.

ERA is a very different measure than FIP, so I don't think saying that one pitcher's FIP was closer to his ERA than another is particularly meaningful. Even if one concludes that FIP is a meaningful measure, it should not be compared to ERA.

FIP is basically a measure of a pitcher's "three true outcomes." In that regard, Greinke was better than Bannister. But the "three true outcomes" are not all that is important with regard to pitching. As has been pointed out many times before, some pitchers succeed consistently without extremely high strikeout rants and/or extremely low walk rates. I don't think one should completely ignore "real result" statistics, such as how many runs the pitcher allowed in the innings he pitched.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 13, 2008 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am hardly a fan of the overuse of DIPS

for lazy analysis, but the "3 true outcomes" have been shown to be important to pitching.

The whole concept of DIPS, by Voros McCracken, defense independent pitching stats, Ks, BBs, HRs, is based on that.

Or in "old school" terms, stuff, command and control.

Most studies on DIPS have shown that pitchers have less control, usually much less control, of hBIP (hits on balls in play) than hitters.

The idea of using BABIP, when looking at a pitcher is based on this.

That is not to say that all pitchers have no control over hBIP and it is all luck.

Bannister's BABIP was 261. His "expected" BABIP, was 320.

Also, the studies that have been done on home run per flyball rate show that most pitchers are around a rate of 10%. It's why ground ball pitchers are considered desirable.

Bannister was at 7.6%.

That is not to say Bannister was lucky.

Some pitchers succeed consistently at outperforming their DIPS stats, and at limiting hBIP: Tom Glavine is the most famous example.

Maybe Bannister has that same skill.

Note, I am not saying that Greinke was better than Bannister because his DIPS stats were better.

visiting A's and Mets fan

by rfloh on Feb 14, 2008 8:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

The "three true outcomes" are indeed very important to pitching. I would say that they are the most important. I just wanted to point out that this is a key part of the analysis, but not the entirety of pitching analysis. There is still quite a bit of debate about the degree to which pitchers can affect what happens to balls put in play (BABIP) and which types of pitchers or which pitching skills can affect this. Frankly, with every passing year, we learn more about this. First it was just knuckleballers, then high K/9 pitchers, then extreme sinkerballers, then anyone with a really good groundball rate were added to the list. Unfortunately, skills that can be easily quantified and counted are more likely to be identified. Superior pitch selection and pitch strategy cannot be quantified and tested. But that doesn't mean that such pitchers cannot affect their BABIP. DIPS is still a growing area of baseball research. Ten years from now, I think we'll know a lot more about it than we do now. So I think it is hard to look at a player like Bannister and just dismiss his 2007 achievements as a fluke of luck. I'm not saying that you or anyone in this thread is saying this, but it has been said by some analysts who refuse to recognize the limitations of knowledge in current DIPS research.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 14, 2008 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

and it all points to Greinke

Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Feb 14, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am the last thing from being

an adherent of hardline DIPS. I am usually arguing against hardline DIPS.

According to BPro, Bannister was very good at giving up fewer hits than he "should" have last year. He gave up 23 fewer hits than he should have, given the Royals D and compared to the rest of the team.

Many elite pitchers, including pitchers as dissimilar as Tom Glavine and Pedro Martinez, have managed to give up fewer hits than they should, over their careers; though 23 hits less than he should have in a single season, tends towards the high side.

Glavine has allowed 53 fewer hits than he should have over his career; Maddux, 60 fewer; Pedro, 69 fewer.

Let's see if Bannister, if not keep up last year's rates, at least manage to allow fewer hits than expected over his career.

visiting A's and Mets fan

by rfloh on Feb 15, 2008 2:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm probably being too hard on Greinke.

I've actually felt sorry for him over the years, with all that he has been through. But the MLB season is a grind, it's long and difficult. A staff ace has a lot of pressure on him. Greinke's roller coaster career so far, filled with meltdowns, and countless interviews consisting of incoherent mumblings, lead me to believe that he just doesn't have the mindset and emotional stability to develop into an ace and a staff leader. He'll never be a dominant ace, that's all I'm saying.

Just as we can't crown Bannister, because of one season of success, we shouldn't ignore Greinke's last FOUR years. Regarless of how much blaime goes to the coaching.

I wish Greinke the best, but he is no ace.

by kcdoc85 on Feb 13, 2008 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Last 4 years?

He was outstanding as a rookie in 2004. That counts too.

by Melchizedek on Feb 13, 2008 10:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

suppan

Yea, I made that comparison the day we got him. It's looking good right now.

He's

Suppan + little better control - the whine.

That's good.

by doublestix on Feb 13, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

with the same love of Jesus

Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Feb 14, 2008 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Greinke's tricks..

Don't think for a second that Hillman won't ask him to dip into them. One vibe Trey Hillman gives to me is..."think outside the box and have fun with it"..

When Zack came up as a rookie, I don't think you can name me one prospect in baseball who had as much fun as him..Then he got "over-coached" and lost the fun..

I think Hillman and Greinke will be the absolute most perfect matchup and probably the BEST pure coaching talent to tap into Zack's potential greatness and "reach him".

No, I think you see a different Zack this year. Meaner, more aggressive and having fun with his coach...and tricking batters in every game..

Bring out the Eephus, Zack..Let's have fun!

by THEbobhamelin on Feb 13, 2008 2:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

greinke

I heard he had the 3rd best ERA in the MLB post all star break for pitchers with more than 50 innings. STUD.

by doublestix on Feb 13, 2008 4:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If KC was offering to make a trade and

was going to give up Greinke or Bannister straight up for another player, who would the other team take? Greinke in a heart beat. Athleticism, strong arm and stuff can't be taught. It is the raw material that every scout looks at first.

The mental side and character is probably undervalued. It is valuable. How many guys have we seen with awesome stuff and dumb as a post or lack the heart to do anything with it?

Greinke could be an ace. Don't ever see Bannister in the #1 role. Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine are the exceptions to the rules. I am glad KC has both of them. If Hochevar can be a good combination of both, the rotation looks good for the future along with Meche.

by daveyork on Feb 13, 2008 4:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I am glad KC has Greinke and Bannister, not

Maddox and Glavine. Although it would be a fun summer with all 4 of them in the rotation. Mea Culpa for the poor writing. I know what I was thinking - my fingers are another story.

by daveyork on Feb 13, 2008 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What is "stuff"?

If "stuff" simply means "ability to throw really really fast and hard," then referring to Maddux and Glavine as similar to Bannister is okay. But, as Soren Petro made the point on his show yesterday, if "stuff" means the pure ability to throw incredibly difficult pitches to hit, then Maddux ,and Glavine to a lesser extent, had absolutely incredible "stuff"--Maddux in his prime could seemingly make a pitch go in any direction he wanted-it was like could throw toward 1B and still hit the outside corner on the break. If that is also "stuff" which cannot be learned, then Maddux and Glavine definitely don't belong in the "non-stuff" category, and thus earned the "ace" designation the same way as anyone else--on their stuff and their ability to use it well.

by CentralChamps2009 on Feb 14, 2008 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Charlie Liebrandt

Threw his circle change low and away to RH hitters all day long, with an occasional inside fastball (off the plate) to keep them honest. He never dominated, but he was successful on some very good teams for quite a while. His fastball was Rowdy Hardy-like.

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Feb 14, 2008 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I still see a future of:

Here's how I see the Royals starting rotation developing in the next couple of years (by the rotation spot quality of each pitcher):

Greinke #2
Meche #2
Bannister #2/3
Hochevar #3
Someone else #5

To me, that looks like a really good rotation. Hopefully this is more than just fan optimism.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 13, 2008 6:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

same...actually

I'd switch Hochevar to #2/#3 and Bannister to #3, but that's hardly worth mentioning.

Guess what...we have many guys with the potential to be #3 starters or better too. Cortes, Wood, Pimentel, Rosa just to name the ones close. I will honestly say I believe in Davies too, and some work with McClure might do wonders for him...

by doublestix on Feb 13, 2008 6:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point

My "someone else #5" comment was basically me not wanting to speculate on other prospects. But you've got to think that at least one of Cortes, Wood, Pimental, Rosa or maybe someone else will be able to step nicely into that fifth spot in the rotation in a year or two and provide above average pitching for a #5 starter. And then, over the next year or two after that, one of those pitchers could/should develop into a pretty good #3 or #4.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 13, 2008 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

KC's pitching depth will be seen more in the

next few years as the farm system develops. I am excited to see how the young guys like Cortes, Wood, et.al develop. I look for KC to go pitching with #3 DP this year all thing being equal. That puts another top prospect in the mix.

Exciting to think about the possiblities of who is on the staff already. I don't feel like any of the top 3 - Meche, Greinke or Bannister are Andy Sisco types either. I also think Hochevar will be a breakout candidate for midseason. I hope KC starts him at Omaha unless his ST is so strong he totally wins a 4/5 spot.

Hochevar's hometown is Fowler, CO which is about 30 miles from where I live in the Pueblo area of CO. He gets lots of press in this region of S. Colorado. I root for him for the Royals and as a CO guy!

by daveyork on Feb 13, 2008 11:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The draft will be interesting

From what I've read, it should be a good, deep class, so I'm quite optimistic getting good players in the first two rounds. So far, it looks like the best college prospects are hitters, but there's a wide diversity of opinion and the college season could change everything. And of course more high school players will emerge as top 10 candidates.

As pretty much everyone says, the Royals should draft the best player available, particularly in the first round. But I have to say that if one were to consider organizational need, we need some big bats more than good arms right now. I really like how the Royals rotation projects for the next four years. There are positions on the field that are shaky not just a the major league level right now, but throughout the organization.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 13, 2008 11:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I generally agree

But man, you can never have enough pitching.

I'd be pretty happy with any of the top six prospects though - Smoak, Alvarez, Matusz, Crow, Beckham, Melville. They all seem pretty solid.

College baseball starts next Friday!

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 14, 2008 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

perfect

for the national league

"So whattya say, should we clean this place up?" - Tom Cruise

by DyeFan187 on Feb 14, 2008 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If...

Bannister ends up being better than Greinke, it will mean one of two things. Either Bannister becomes an out of your mind, get by on guile type of pitcher that succeeds against all odds or Greinke is a complete flameout and the Royals suffer for it. I'd guess that if Banny is better than Planet Greinke, the latter is what happened.

If I had a rocket ship, I'd never want to land.

by dman126 on Feb 14, 2008 12:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Length of career

I picture of Bannister as a Jamie Moyer type who can pitch at a very serviceable level for many years while Greinke has the potential to dominate for a few years. Moyer has had some very good years and a couple not so good, but overall most teams would have done well to have him as part of their staff.

Many pitchers that have studied players and the game like Banny does had long careers: Curt Schilling, Maddox, Glavine, Tim Belcher, etc. I think it requires putting a lot of thought in the game to last that long.

I think Greinke has the potential to be a thinking pitcher some day (and probably just as much potential to move in the opposite direction). But it takes a special pitcher to continue pitching into their late 30s. Anybody that can dominate purely with stuff at age 40 has got to be on steroids or is an alien.

by eakers on Feb 14, 2008 2:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I wanna see the old greinke back

I wanna see a eupher pitch, I wanna see a quick pitch

Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Feb 14, 2008 3:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I want Greinke to trust his stuff, not gimmicks

He didn't dominate last year by using the ephus pitch, quick pitch or similar gimmickery. He dominated by trusting his fastball and blowing it by hitters. I'd like him to refine that and other pitches, and not resort to gimmicks. His dominant future will be built on the strength of his stuff and command. When he gets to his mid 30's and he starts losing velocity off of his fastball, then he can work on his ephus pitch, quick pitch, hesitation delivery, sidearm delivery and gyroball.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Feb 14, 2008 3:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Probably The Best

Junkballer of all time, Warren Spahn, started his career as a power pitcher. He was 23-7 with a 2.60 ERA and a 1.117 WHIP, the second best of his career, at age 42.

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Feb 14, 2008 8:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs