Daniel Bard and Andrew Miller
One of the joys about living 2,500 miles from Safeco Field is a chance to see top flight college baseball. Wake Forest University is a stones throw (okay, if Ichiro’s throwing it) from my house, and Wake just happened to be hosting the University of North Carolina this weekend, kicking off the ACC season by bringing the #4 team in the country to my backyard.
UNC is led by two of the best starting pitchers in the country, RHP Daniel Bard and LHP Andrew Miller. Both have been in the national spotlight since their senior year in high school, and not much has changed in the past three years. The 2006 draft is headlined by a strong group of college pitchers, and no team in the country boasts a better pair than North Carolina. Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to watch both and compose some thoughts on a pair of players who should both be rich men this summer.
Saturday was Bard’s turn in the rotation. While he’s a legitimate prospect in his own right, he has played second fiddle to Miller throughout his career. I liked the fact that I got to see Bard before Miller, giving me a better chance to evaluate him on his own merits rather than comparing him to his more heavily hyped teammate.
Bard is listed at 6’4, 202 lbs, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the height was fudged by an inch or two. He’s not a big kid, but he’s tall enough to overcome the short pitcher stigma. He throws from a 3/4 slot with solid leg drive and okay mechanics. There’s some unnecessary head movement and his release points weren’t consistent, but he’s in college, so that’s to be expected. There wasn’t anything in his delivery that isn’t fixable, and he’s got the foundation of good enough mechanics.
He came out in the first inning pumping gas. 96, 97, 95, 96, 96, 96, 97, 97. Just a steady diet of four seam fastballs. He clearly believes in the “establish your fastball” mantra. His command was shaky, mostly due to the aforementioned issues with his release point. He missed away alot, and he appeared to overthrowing. After a hit batter, he settled down and started blowing the ball past hitters, including Wake’s star third baseman Matt Antonelli. He busted out a slider that had some diving movement but wasn’t located particularly well. In college, though, an 84 MPH slider with movement after a 97 MPH fastball is good enough to miss bats, and Wake’s hitters were clearly overmatched.
He stuck with fastballs and sliders in the second inning as well, and not long after I mentioned to a friend that he’d have to show a third pitch eventually to show the scouts something, he broke out the curveball. It needs work. It doesn’t spin tight, and he hung a good percentage of them up in the zone. The slider is clearly his go-to breaking ball, and the curve is to show a different look. On the plus side, he did a good job of keeping his arm slot the same on both the slider and the curve, which is a problem for many kids.
His command continued to come and go, but it didn’t really matter. Wake wasn’t going to hit him and he knew it. He fired more 96 MPH fastballs by the weak hitters in Wake’s lineup (and there are some really weak hitters there) and mixed in the slider for the punchouts. The rains started in the fourth inning and pretty much stuck around the rest of the game, but he did well pitching through it and throwing strikes for the most part. He ended up hitting 3 batters, walking 2, and throwing a wild pitch, but you can get away with that when you only give up one hit. Box Score is here, if you’re interested.
Sunday was Miller Time. Come on, you knew the joke was coming at some point. This stuff writes itself.
The reports I’d read on Miller basically made him sound like a typical raw flamethrower; 6’6, mid-90s fastball, control and secondary pitches need work. Chapel Hill’s own Matt Thornton, basically. So, going in, that’s what I was expecting to see.
Apparently, Andrew Miller is tired of hearing it, because he was pretty much the anti-Matt Thornton. He’s tall, yes, but not super lanky, and his delivery is actually a bit lower than 3/4. I’d call it 5/8, but it’s not exactly that either. He doesn’t drop down, but the arm comes out from his body, and his release is certainly in the left hand batters box. He’s going to be murder on lefties with that release point.
Like Bard, he came out throwing fastballs, but unlike Bard, they were all two seamers. 91, 92, 91, 88, 92, 90, 87. His command was off as well, hitting the second batter of the game and walking Antonelli to put a couple men on. So, he busted out a top-down slider that is just pretty much unfair. Coming from his arm slot, it bores in on right handed hitters while having the bottom fall out, and ends up forcing an awful lot of fisted foul balls. He wasn’t using it as a knockout pitch, but it clearly could be.
As the game wore on, he worked in a few four seam fastballs, hitting 93 a couple times, 94 once, and 95 once, but mainly stuck to the two seam variety, getting a ton of choppers up the middle. While the box score won’t show it, he was a groundball machine. There was a lot of weak contact. The first hit off him was a slow roller (struck by the left fielder, who came into the game hitting .147 with aluminum bats. I hope he’s going to class) that went about 40 feet up the line and died for an RBI infield single.
Again like Bard, Miller clearly knew that Wake’s hitters weren’t going to be able to touch him, and he just focused on inducing contact and letting them get themselves out. While the DIPS theory has gained momentum at the major league level, it’s clearly not true in college. You watch guys like Andrew Miller knock the bat out of a kid’s hands and you know that he had everything to do with the weak ground ball.
Miller’s two seam fastball was impressive, his slider lethal, and he varied the speed on his fastballs enough to keep hitters off balance even without a change-up. His command wasn’t great, but he’s clearly not Matt Thornton, or anything like a raw fireballer just getting by on velocity. This kid can pitch.
In the end, Bard and Miller lived up to the hype, pitching 14 innings and allowing only an unearned run (seriously, this run was unearned – two errors and the aforementioned 40 foot single) while just outclassing Wake Forest’s hitters. This wasn’t a competition as much as it was a showcase of superior talent. Wake’s not a great college team, but I’m not sure it would have mattered.
Bard and Miller are vastly different animals. Bard looked like the velocity guy who lights up the radar gun, consistently hitting 97 and showing a good enough slider to miss a lot of bats. Despite the advanced reports, however, Miller’s not a project getting by on arm strength; he’s got a variety of weapons at his disposal and he showed the better idea of how to pitch.
Both have a ways to go; they aren’t polished, major league ready pitchers. But they aren’t supposed to be; they are starting their junior year in college, and there is enough there to like to see why major league clubs are getting excited.
They’re going to be lumped into the same conversation quite a bit this year. You’ll hear Bard and Miller become a phrase much like Laverne and Shirley or Bert and Ernie, but in the end, they’re going to be separated by the draft. At some point, teams are going to have to decide whether they prefer the right-hander with velocity or the left-hander with movement. I liked Miller’s package quite a bit more than Bard, but I wouldn’t cry if the Mariners selected Daniel Bard with the number five pick in the draft, either.
Comments
28 Responses to “Daniel Bard and Andrew Miller”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
And… It’s epic post weekend here at USSM. All your Homeric Baseball needs met on one (very long) page.
Not complaining, this stuff is great and you quite literally can’t get it anywhere else. And it is spring training when the games are meaningless and the mainstream media contentless. But whew, it’s going to take a while to get through all this.
What are the odds one of these guys will be available when the M’s draft pick rolls around? And would that be their best bet?
Actually, you will be able to get this post somewhere else. It’s running over on the Hardball Times website tomorrow. But you got it first…
There’s a great chance that Bard is there for the M’s at #5. Whether he’ll be their guy is going to play out over the next few months. With guys like Max Scherzer and Ian Kennedy in the mix as well, the M’s should have several good college arms to pick from.
Miller, on talent, probably won’t slide to #5, but the top talent often slides down if they’re deemed a hard sign or ask for a major league contract. There’s a real chance that Miller could be there for the M’s, but things would have to break their way. Miller still looks like the #1 overall pick at the moment.
Nice work Dave. That is interesting stuff. I had heard similar information about both pitchers, but I didn’t think that Bard was throwing that hard. I thought that he was topping out around 95 or so. That just makes him that much more interesting. Plus, after an initial mediocre start, Bard has strung together 3 excellent outings. He seems to be getting better each week.
I haven’t seen either pitch, but have been following their stats closely. The one thing that I have been impressed with is Bard’s command. Last season, his stats were pretty mediocre, due mainly to a lot of walks. This year, he has been much improved in that area. He is dominating, but he has also only given up 4 BBs this season. His 6 HBPs is a bit disconcerting, though.
The other guy that is really interesting is Max Scherzer. Thus far this season, Scherzer’s stats are very comperable to Bard and Miller, and Scherzer’s stuff is just as good. However, I read that he is throwing a much improved change this year, which is really promising.
I think that those three are pretty close as far as top pitchers in this draft. Miller is the consensus top guy still, but Bard and Scherzer have done nothing to hurt themselves. All three have great stuff, and all three are putting up big numbers.
Unfortunately, the talent in college pitchers really drops off after that. Guys like Ian Kennedy, Joba Chamberlain, and Brandon Morrow just aren’t on the same level. All three are great prospects, but I think that there is a notable difference between the first three and the last three. It remains to be seen how the prep pitchers do this year, as there are like 12 that could emerge as top 10 picks with a huge year.
The bummer is that there are four teams that pick in front of the M’s. Of those four teams, I think that three (KC, Colorado, and TB) are likely to take a starter. Hopefully, one of those clubs takes Kennedy, but he has not been excellent thus far this year, and he has mediocre stuff.
I am keeping my fingers crossed that Scherzer drops to the M’s. He is represented by Scott Boras, which could cause him to slide a few spots. I like Miller, but I just can’t see him fall that far. If KC doesn’t take him, I would imagine that Colorado would. A big lefty who gets a lot of K’s and has groundball tendencies would be a perfect fit for Coors. Bard could be available as well, but I would imagine that his very good performance would have him climbing up draft boards.
If all three of these guys are gone, the M’s best bet might be a prep guy like Kyle Drabek or Dellin Betances.
Baseball note…
Our friends over at USS Mariner have taken a break from their M’s spring training coverage to analyze, in detail, the baseball game played in the old Looney Tunes cartoon “Baseball Bugs”. As an aside, they’ve also explained why Bugs……
Dave, thanks for the write up. One question out of curiosity: do you bring your own radar gun?
No, I just sit with the scouts.
Jerry: I’m interested in your conclusion that Kennedy is on a lower level than Bard and Scherzer. He may well prove to be a Jered Weaver type whose size limits his upside, but I wonder if he isn’t being sold short. (I tried to avoid the pun, but I can’t think of a better way to put it.) I know Dave doesn’t see Seattle considering him because of his height, but with his competitive, smarts, polish, and stuff, I could see him turning out better than anyone. To use Nate Silver’s terminology, his upside is high, even if his ceiling is lower than Miller, Bard, and Scherzer. I look at Kennedy and I see a Greg Maddux like starter. He may not intimidate, but he dominates.
Got a chance to see the UNC team last year when they played Florida in the tourney last year– also Miller is from Gainesville, and he was someone the locals were concentrating on for a while. UF won, but Miller looked awesome.
Part of his appeal, I think, is size and the fact that he’s a lefty. He does look like he could be a good major leaguer, but I wonder if scouts look at him and think “tall, hard-throwing lefty, obviously a #1 pick” hoping to get the next Randy Johnson. That’s not to say Miller couldn’t handle the pressure– he did very well coming back to his hometown to pitch in a very important game– but I wonder if some of the expectations of him (like prospects past, hello Little Unit) are unfair. Also, what about some of the bats that might be available? Isn’t this a better year for college hitters?
No, actually, it isn’t. College pitching is the strength of this draft.
Which one of the creme de la creme college pitchers are represented by Boras, and thus likely to fall further in the draft?
Also, the other day, the UW’s own Tim Lincecum and Nick Hagadone combined for a no-hitter against Santa Clara. Lincecum (a late first round talent?) struck out 11 in 6 innings, but walked 7 and was lifted after 119 pitches.
http://gohuskies.collegesports.com/sports/m-basebl/stats/031206aaa.html
I should rephrase that: Are there any other top college pitchers besides Ian Kennedy (USC) that are represented by Boras?
Nice writeup, Dave. Regarding Bard’s fastball, reports are that it’s hard, but pretty straight. Any views on that?
Scherzer and Kennedy are Boras’ two top guys right now. So, yes, both could (and probably will) slide a bit from their projected spot.
And yea, Bard’s fastball was a little straight for my tastes. I think part of that is because he simply threw four seamers the whole time, and not too many folks have a four seam that moves that much. There were a few balls that were rocked off Bard, including an almost grand slam that was caught up against the wall in left center.
Bard looked to me like a flyball pitcher who was going to have to get a lot of strikeouts to succeed. Maybe a Jon Papelbon comparison would be apt here. Miller, on the other hand, looks like he can succeed with a lower K rate, because he’s got more movement and a better assortment of pitches. The fact that he’s also a strikeout guy is just the cherry on top.
Thanks for the in-depth on these guys, Dave. The pitch combination you describe for Miller makes my mouth water; one could scarcely ask for more, especially from a lefty.
RE #7,
I hope that the M’s stear clear of Kennedy for a variety of reasons:
-his stuff is pretty average, and he gets by with great command. He has three decent pitches, but no real good ones. I don’t see him having nearly as much success against better hitters with that type of stuff.
-he has racked up pretty brutal workloads, and figures to continue to do so this season. A lot of people argue that college pitchers are safer bets than prep guys, but college guys who have been overworked are worse than prep arms. Look no further than the Rice Trio of 2004 (Humber, Niemann, and Townsend). All three were overworked in college and went down with arm troubles almost immediately. Kennedy could be following that same path.
-Scott Boras is representing him, and he will milk Kennedy’s stats for everything they are worth. He did this with Jered Weaver with the unwarranted Mark Prior comps. I could understand going for a polished control guy if he is going to come cheap, but why take him when he is a near lock to get a stupid contract after a long holdout?
-Kennedy will get compared to Weaver a lot between now and the draft. But Weaver put up absoluely ridiculous stats in his Junior year, and Kennedy has been merely good thus far. When I see Kennedy compared to Weaver, I see it as a minus: Weaver was overrated, and is more of a safe pick than a potential ace. But at this point, Kennedy is no Weaver.
Don’t get me wrong. Kennedy is a good pitching prospect. He is just way too overhyped. As a mid-1st rounder, he would be a nice pickup. But I see him as a good #3 type pitcher. Your Jered Weaver comp may not be too far off. If Greg Maddux is his upside, consider how few guys there are out there who are righthanded ace pitchers who get by on command and ‘craftiness’.
If there is a real run for pitchers before the M’s pick, and Scherzer, Miller and Bard are off the board, the M’s should look at prep guys. There are a ton of really good highschool pitchers. Because it is early, there hasn’t been much said about them. But guys like Kyle Drabek, Dellin Betances, Jordan Walden, Matt Latos, and Brett Anderson would all be better picks than Kennedy, IMO. Drabek is also a bit on the short side, but he is also very very polished for a prep pitcher and has much better stuff than Kennedy. Anderson is very similar, but lefty. Both have ex-pro dads who have helped them a lot.
Also, Joba Chamberlain is a horse who is putting up great numbers with Nebraska this year. His stuff is better than Kennedy’s, but he is also big and will cost less. He could climb into the top-5 if he keeps pitching the way he has.
The guy that I am keeping my fingers crossed on is Max Scherzer. He could be the best prospect in this draft, and is very likely to fall because of Boras. I would rather see the M’s overspend on him than Kennedy. He has much better upside while also putting up stats equal or better than Kennedy’s.
Didn’t Bela used to have a “t” in his username, or am I imagining things?
Great writeup Dave – thank you for the analysis. I’ve been drooling over a Felix-Miller TOR for months. I know it’s unlikely to happen, but I’ll hold onto my dream until Miller comes off the board.
I’m interested in Dave’s take on Kennedy. Do you agree with Jerry that he doesn’t have the upside you’d want out of a top 5 pick? I’ve seen none of these guys pitch, so I’m pretty much relying on your accounts.
Thanks again for the info. Better than any of the stuff I pay for.
[…] For those of you looking forward to the draft, Dave Cameron at U.S.S. Mariner posted an article on Daniel Bard and Andrew Miller, who he saw pitch recently. […]
You’re not imagining things. Not sure why the change.
I haven’t seen Kennedy pitch, and I’m not willing to make definitive statements like Jerry has based on second hand reports.
Any chance you’ll get to see any of the other top draft-eligible college pitchers this season?
RE #19,
Thanks for not being snarky Dave.
The one thing that I love about the USSM is how the organizers of the site are always respectful of other peoples opinion.
I won’t get to see Scherzer or Kennedy in person, no. I’ll get video of both of them eventually, I’m sure.
And Jerry, no need to be offended. I’m just not sure why you expect us to take your opinions real seriously, when all they really are is recycled material from Baseball America put into your own words.
I don’t expect you to take anyone’s opinions seriously. That seems to be your MO. Its too bad, because it detracts from an otherwise excellent blog.
I try to get as much information from as many sources as I can. You are right, I do read BA stuff. I also check out information on scout.com, the baseball analysts, Baseball Prospectus, and any other source that has good information. All of these sources are published by people who go watch draft prospects play in person and talk to scouts a lot more than you or I do. For college players, I also look at a lot of stats.
You can’t seriously suggest that you don’t read this information, and make your own educated evaluations about draft prospects just by watching them pitch one single game. That seems pretty contrary to your MO. Besides, I would find it difficult to believe that your evaluation of Bard and Miller is not heavily influenced by information on the internet by people more knowledgable than yourself on this matter, especially since your comments are excatly in line with easily available scouting reports.
I will try to see these guys as much as I can, including tapes and the rare game in person. I really like following the draft. But I am not going to kid myself into thinking that I can evaluate a player’s potential by watching him pitch once. If you had a chance to talk to scouts at those two games you went to, then great. But that type of information is exactly the same type of stuff that you are criticizing me for using. It is silly to not realize that professional scouts and organizations like Baseball America know more than people with day jobs.
Information is information. As an contributor to a sabermetrically-oriented blog, I would expect you to understand that.
I don’t expect you to take anyone’s opinions seriously. That seems to be your MO. Its too bad, because it detracts from an otherwise excellent blog.
I take a lot of people’s opinions seriously, because they’ve earned it.
I try to get as much information from as many sources as I can.
Which you then redistribute without giving any kind of credit whatsoever. In academic circles, this is called plagarism.
You are right, I do read BA stuff. I also check out information on scout.com, the baseball analysts, Baseball Prospectus, and any other source that has good information.
When was the last time you posted anything that gave any credit to any of these places as the source for your information?
All of these sources are published by people who go watch draft prospects play in person and talk to scouts a lot more than you or I do.
Which are all valid reasons to take their opinions seriously.
For college players, I also look at a lot of stats.
Ever done any work on translating college statistics to the major league level? Run park factors or league factors to figure out how to adjust for different environments?
You can’t seriously suggest that you don’t read this information, and make your own educated evaluations about draft prospects just by watching them pitch one single game.
As it pertains to the 2006 draft, this post contains the extent of the “educated evaluations about draft prospects” that I’ve made public. And it was all based on primary source material.
Besides, I would find it difficult to believe that your evaluation of Bard and Miller is not heavily influenced by information on the internet by people more knowledgable than yourself on this matter, especially since your comments are excatly in line with easily available scouting reports.
Actually, my review of Miller is almost completely contrary to most publically available scouting reports. He is routinely described as a guy with a mid-to-high 90s fastball, poor command, and mediocre secondary pitches. If you think that’s the pitcher I wrote up, you didn’t read the post very carefully.
I will try to see these guys as much as I can, including tapes and the rare game in person. I really like following the draft. But I am not going to kid myself into thinking that I can evaluate a player’s potential by watching him pitch once. If you had a chance to talk to scouts at those two games you went to, then great. But that type of information is exactly the same type of stuff that you are criticizing me for using. It is silly to not realize that professional scouts and organizations like Baseball America know more than people with day jobs.
There’s nothing wrong with any of this. There’s also nothing in there that gives us any reason to care one lick what you think about the draft. You can have as many opinions as you want; if you want people to care about them, they need to be based on something besides your interpretation of someone else’s work.
Information is information. As an contributor to a sabermetrically-oriented blog, I would expect you to understand that.
I do. You just don’t contribute any information. You take someone else’s information, repeat it as fact, and give them no credit for the work they did.
I’m sorry that you’re offended that I don’t respect that. But I’m not sure why I would.
Thanks Dave. You just totally backed up every complaint I have about your arrogant attitude. That is exactly what I was talking about.
It is both funny and sad that you think that people have to somehow ‘earn’ your respect in order for their opinions to be dealt with in a respectful manner. It is really odd and ironic that someone with that type of outlook would devote so much time to developing a weblog, especially one that solicits comments from readers. This is not a me versus you issue either. I have seen you bash other posters here regularly. What excatly does someone have to do to be honored with the gift of your repect?
Regarding your nattering about citing references, a blog is not an academic outlet. I feel funny explaining this to you, since you run one, but comments posted on blogs are about as informal as a forum can get. Thus, the little button you hit to post information says “Submit Comment” not “Submit Fully-Referenced Publishable Essay”. In explaining why I didn’t think that Ian Kennedy was a good pick for the M’s, I backed this up by summarizing information from scouting reports that I have read. It was not from a single source, but information I have read in a variety of places. It was my opinion about a specific player based on a bunch of scouting reports I have read and from stats I have looked at. It wasn’t going into a book, online journal or article. It was off-the-cuff comments.
If you are going to start accusing people of plagarism, then you need to start leading by example, and include citations to back up every individual ascertation that you make, followed with a full bibliography. I hope that you don’t, because that would be pretty ridiculous. I just think that it is really hypocritical to expect people to treat the comment sections as an academic forum when it is clearly anything but. It may be appropriate to cite information in material put into original threads, but the posts are another thing all together. Get over yourself.
The real issue here is that you seem to be threatened whenever anyone posts any information on this blog that is not A) evidence to back up some point YOU have made, or B) a question for you to answer related to some thread you have started. Perhaps you are just insecure, and really need this blog to be the DAVE SHOW, and can’t stand anyone injecting any other relevant information. This is obviously the case, because you made no attempt to refute anything that I said. What I think happened is, you didn’t know the answer to the question that was posed to you in #16, you got upset about that, then you make a bunch of really odd, hypocritical attacks of me without really addressing the issue at hand at all.
The funniest part is, you do all the things you criticized me about all the time, like: making references to players strengths and weaknesses that are based on things you have read; making comments without citing specific sources, especially when it is pretty general info; or making comments that are not cutting-edge, original research, but reflect conclusions that are pretty widespread.
By the way, you should also be careful what you ask for. Basically, the gist of your little diatribe above is that people have to cite specific references to all relevant sources of information which they have drawn in formulating an opinion in any comments that they submit. Besides the common posting of citations to breaking news, I would say that 90% of the posts on this blog include summaries of various sources of information that people have read in the courses of their lives that are not accompanied with citations. I know that most of your own comments do not include citations, yet clearly you base your comments on things that you have read in magazines, books, other blogs, and numerous other sources. Do you really want to require every post that presents some sort of statement of fact or opinion to come with a full reference section. This is a blog, bro. Relax!
I’m sorry you feel that way Jerry, but you’re just wildly off the mark.
What’s odd about having to earn people’s respect? For my part, when it comes to respect for opinions, I don’t give people points just for breathing, and really, I don’t see that very many people do. I respect people’s opinions if they deserve respect, I respect people as opinionmakers if they establish a track record of opinions which deserve respect, and I give people plenty of chances to earn my respect; but this idea that people’s opinions should be respected regardless of the quality of those opinions or their concern for getting the facts straight has never made any sense to me. “Respect” given away that cheaply isn’t respect, merely indifference. True respect requires holding people to a certain standard.
And for what it’s worth, regarding post #19, you did make some pretty definitive-sounding statements based on second-hand reports; so I don’t see that you really had much in the way of grounds for complaint.
I’m not sure when a fastball sitting 90-93 with good movement and good command and two average but developing offspeed pitches constituted “average stuff” but Ian Kennedy has just that.
Kennedy hasn’t been overworked unless you are concerned that being 6 feet and 185 pounds with similar workloads as the Scherzer’s of the world will somehow make him on the same track as Niemann (6-foot-8, 240ls) and company. All were average or bigger sized pitchers, had similar to worse workloads in college and all have had problems.
Kennedy only tossed 93 innings in 2004 at age 19 and 117 last year at age 20.
To compare and contrast, M’s lefthander Ryan Feierabend, at age 19, tossed 150 innings after going for 161 frames at age 18.
There’s very little wrong with 93 and 117 and age 19 and 20, especially when it’s often spread out over more time in college (they don’t play 9 games in 10 days).
His size would be a concern of mine, personally, but not as much as UW’s Tim Lincecum, who’s going 120 pitches per start, even on three days rest, and has concerns with mechanics that raise the risk of injury.
I saw Kennedy last year. He was very good. Not sure he’s top 10 material, however.
Scherzer appears to be the best of the group right now, with Miller having the biggest upside for the future.