The Anthony Reyes thread

skmsw · Post by **skmsw** » April 11 07, 10:33 am

Didn't Duncan work with him to purposely tweak some of his weapons, so that he could get deeper into games? Duncan wasn't sold on him being a "staff ace" with the weapons that he was using in the minor leagues.

Anyone who has a choice between listening to me, and listening to Duncan, should listen to Duncan.

That said --

Yes, we know the story of how Duncan wanted Reyes to learn the two-seamer and use it more. Based on what he was seeing in ST 2006, Duncan SHOULD have been concerned, SHOULD have been tweaking -- what he saw in 2006 wasn't enough.

But what he saw in ST2006 was not the same as what I was seeing in 2004 and 2005.

For me, the issue is NOT that Duncan made the wrong choice or should have left him alone. The issue is that Reyes himself has acknowledged that he can't throw as hard as he used to, and that he can't make the ball do what he wants like he used to. He has plainly said that when he reaches back for the four-seamer he simply cannot throw it as hard anymore, and does not know why. And while I am not Duncan, I do know (and could show you in print at least one agreement with me) that "back when," Reyes' two-seamer used to be about the same velocity as his four-seamer, it just moved differently.

Those "94mph letter high fastballs" did NOT used to be straight; they used to have a late tail that made them very hard to hit (and they used to sometimes be 95, 96mph). Now they are straight, they are not always thrown for strikes, and they are 89, 90, 91 (occasionally 92-93).

He is a noticably different pitcher now -- regardless of whether this is due to coaching, pitch selection, health, mechanics, whatever -- it's not the level of competition that has changed, it is him.

I did see him hitting 93 in his start. But I'd disagree with RC's suggestion that he was sitting at 91. He threw a lot of 88-89, plus a handful of 91, and three or four 93s.

I'm not suggesting that he'll never regain what he had. Maybe he already is getting stronger, regaining some pop. All I'm saying is that the guy we've seen in 06-07 is an ordinary pitcher without a lot of upside beyond "league-average pitcher." The guy I saw in 04-05 was a guy who was a potentially elite pitcher. I do not know if we'll see that guy again or not.

skmsw · Post by **skmsw** » April 11 07, 10:35 am

jagtrader wrote:I think the dividing line for Reyes is between the people labeling him a future star based on his minor-league peripherals and the people who have watched him in the big leagues and don't see that upside.

If he ends up being a mid-level starting pitcher, he still has value.

I'm both. I saw him in 04 and 05 and thought he was a future star. I saw him in 06 and 07 and see a fundamentally different pitcher without that same upside.

Of course, I also agree that he still has value; but the question of where the upside went is unanswered. Some folks seem to think it was never actually there. Having watched him pitch in 04 and 05, I disagree; it was there, but watching him pitch in 06 and 07, you'd never know it.

BW23 · Post by **BW23** » April 11 07, 11:01 am

In ST2006, he hit 93 and 94 consistently with his fastball up. It was crushed. Maybe it didn't have movement like it once did, but I didn't have the pleasure of watching him mow down minor leaguers. How many of those games, Steve, did you see, and how dominant was he?

skmsw · Post by **skmsw** » April 11 07, 11:09 am

BW42 wrote:In ST2006, he hit 93 and 94 consistently with his fastball up. It was crushed. Maybe it didn't have movement like it once did, but I didn't have the pleasure of watching him mow down minor leaguers. How many of those games, Steve, did you see, and how dominant was he?

I saw Reyes once or twice in 04 and at least half a dozen times in 2005 (will have to check my book, maybe as many as ten or 12 of his starts, counting tape).

He was sitting at around 93 most of that time, he was hitting 95+ multiple times pretty much every time out.

But beyond the velocity, the pitches were electric -- lots of very late movement, mostly in on and slightly down for a righthanded hitter. And nothing ever was in the middle of the plate -- everything was on the edges of the strikezone. Fastball six inches outside, but cutting back and catching a corner, called strike; fasball on the inside half, but boring in on the hitter's hands, swing and miss. Almost never behind in counts.

longhornbaseball · Post by **longhornbaseball** » April 11 07, 11:23 am

I've got class at 1 so I don't have time to discuss Reyes in as much detail as I'd like right now. One quick thing, he sat 90-93 in his final ST start and he was consistently 89-92 on Saturday. As I've said in the past, the "lost velocity" is so overblown its become annoying. By the end of the Spring he said "I feel like I’m throwing the way I’m used to throwing. … I feel like every time I go out there I get stronger," and the numbers on the gun back that up. He never used to sit mid 90's. In the minor league starts I saw he was 90-93 without the 2 seamer.

BW23 · Post by **BW23** » April 11 07, 11:31 am

skmsw wrote:
BW42 wrote:In ST2006, he hit 93 and 94 consistently with his fastball up. It was crushed. Maybe it didn't have movement like it once did, but I didn't have the pleasure of watching him mow down minor leaguers. How many of those games, Steve, did you see, and how dominant was he?
I saw Reyes once or twice in 04 and at least half a dozen times in 2005 (will have to check my book, maybe as many as ten or 12 of his starts, counting tape).

He was sitting at around 93 most of that time, he was hitting 95+ multiple times pretty much every time out.

But beyond the velocity, the pitches were electric -- lots of very late movement, mostly in on and slightly down for a righthanded hitter. And nothing ever was in the middle of the plate -- everything was on the edges of the strikezone. Fastball six inches outside, but cutting back and catching a corner, called strike; fasball on the inside half, but boring in on the hitter's hands, swing and miss. Almost never behind in counts.

Thanks.

My concern with him was always injuries. I wanted them to deal him before a big injury hit. I just have to think that he can't be completely right.

Magneto · Post by **Magneto** » April 11 07, 1:09 pm

Anthony Reyes first start was as good as Wainwright's two starts. Wainwright has just gotten slightly more lucky with his defense. Wainwright has less control then Reyes does so far. I seriously think Reyes is the most scrutinized pitcher after every start I've ever seen in St. Louis. It's ridiculous. You had people saying he's terrible after 2 innings his first start of the season. Wow.

jim · Post by **jim** » April 11 07, 1:15 pm

I think the issue isn't one start, it's that he doesn't look like the same pitcher the last 1+ years that he did before 2005. It's not just one start, and it's not just being off. It's being different that is the concern.

Socnorb11 · Post by **Socnorb11** » April 11 07, 1:27 pm

jim wrote:I think the issue isn't one start, it's that he doesn't look like the same pitcher the last 1+ years that he did before 2005. It's not just one start, and it's not just being off. It's being different that is the concern.

The counter-point is that the "change" was at least partially intentional, because Duncan didn't think he could succeed long-term as the pitcher that he was.

BW23 · Post by **BW23** » April 11 07, 1:32 pm

Magneto wrote:Anthony Reyes first start was as good as Wainwright's two starts. Wainwright has just gotten slightly more lucky with his defense. Wainwright has less control then Reyes does so far. I seriously think Reyes is the most scrutinized pitcher after every start I've ever seen in St. Louis. It's ridiculous. You had people saying he's terrible after 2 innings his first start of the season. Wow.

So you're comparing Wainwright's first start in the majors to Reyes' first start of the year (when his first ML start was in 2005)?