2017 Phillies Top Prospect Lists

Austinfan 2016-12-30 17:43:15 UTC #81

Eshelman is a perfect example of a "tweaks" pitcher, he's added a little velocity, he just needs to sharpen his secondary pitchers to where he has one plus and two average.
He doesn't need to throw harder than 90-92, t94, he just needs enough of a repertoire to go with his FB and command.
I suspect they'll work on the changeup as well as the slider.
Reading is a good park for pitchers like Eshelman, it forces him to improve, because the ballpark is as unforgiving as ML hitters will be when he hits the show.

fish 2016-12-31 14:49:26 UTC #82

Given what seems to be an aptitude for pitching, I feel like he's the kind of guy that should really be able to master a change up to give him a plus pitch.

andyb 2016-12-31 16:28:23 UTC #83

I am just not really sold on Eshelman. A little more velocity helps, but remember those stories talk about touching 93 which means he is still probably sitting 90-91. His performance in Reading was also not that encouraging. He got to Reading really quickly which was as expected. But he also got there quickly because he came out of college as a finished product in some ways (i.e. command). That means he has little room to improve there. His stuff is not that different than a Buchanan for instance. The difference is that he was as good as Buchanan at age 25 when he came out of college.

To me Eshelman was probably an overdraft by Houston. A safe college pitcher with good control that typically lasts a round or two longer in the draft than the 2nd. He is a nice extra arm to have around but I am not expecting much. An Asher seems to have more potential for instance. The bonus for him is the quick movement through the system will let us stash him in AA or AAA for a couple years without having to put him on the 40-man. That will give him a chance to develop at least.

allentown 2017-01-01 01:05:51 UTC #84

I disagree for a few reasons. First, I think Buchanon could have stuck in Philly if he had consistently good control/command. He did well in his first season, with a BB/9 a bit below 2.5. He bombed his second year in Philly, but his walk rate went up to 3.5 and the increase in HR suggests more mistake pitches. His K rate basically unchanged. Buchanon certainly didn't have top of rotation quality stuff, but he had enough stuff to be a #4/5 starter on his good control/command periods.

Eshelman is not Buchanon. Just look at the K-rates at every stop along the way. Buchanon is a consistent 5-5.5 K/9 guy. Eshelman is 2-3 K/9 better than that. Eshelman hit Reading at a younger age. I think he got a tad unlucky with his H/9 due to BABIP blip in SSS. His other peripherals are good. He's still got 8+ k/9 and only 2.5 BB/9 and a low HR rate in the Reading bandbox. It is just the H/9 which is bad. I'm willing to call that simply unlucky. We see pitchers at Reading who get two strikes on a hitter and don't have the stuff to get the 3rd strike. Eshelman got his Ks. I won't fault him on stuff, based on Reading.

One thing which does stand out is that both CLW/Reading show a lot better peripherals than his first year in Houston organization.

I think he is a legit 2nd rounder.

mdougherty12 2017-01-01 03:08:12 UTC #85

Given that Eshelman threw a total of 10.1 innings in the Astros organization, I'd argue that his peripherals there are pretty much meaningless.

Slinging_Southpaw 2017-01-01 13:13:29 UTC #86

I guess I'm much higher on Eshelman than many. To me, his issues just sound like he may need a little tweaking, like adding a cutter or changing a grip. A guy like Tirado sounds great because you can't teach 100mph, but I'm much more confident in a guy like Eshelman finding a way, than Tirado learning to find any semblance of control.

allentown 2017-01-01 17:07:17 UTC #87

I have Eshelman at about #20 and Tirado ranked ahead of him. While I think Eshelman has a better chance of being our #4 starter than Tirado has of making the team at all, I see Tirado possibly being a future closer or #2, although certainly not a high probability of that happening. I'd rank Eshelman higher if I didn't see quite a few guys capable of being future #3/4/5 starters for us and a dearth of guys I see as potential stars. That may cause me to rank the low probability potential stars higher than I should, but I also see improvements in Tirado's game as a starter this past season.

Austinfan 2017-01-01 17:07:28 UTC #88

The ceiling for Tirado is higher than Eshelman, but the odds he gets there are very low.
How many high velocity guys ever make it? It's just rare to find a guy throwing 95+ with command, or even 92-94. And as Cashman showed in the playoffs, ML hitters can handle 97-99 FBs if they know it's coming.

So while it's worth gambling on guys like Kilome, that as they add velocity and fill out, they can develop command and secondary pitches, it's also worth gambling on guys like Eshelman, that as they grow they add a tad bit more velocity, sharpen their secondary pitches and maintain command.

While the very top of the pitching list is dominated by the "freaks" who have velocity, command and secondary pitches, most of the top 60 or so ML starters tend to be in the 91-93 average velocity range, both command pitchers and former "freaks" who've lost velocity but learned how to pitch. While you hope to develop a "freak" or two (and pray their arms hold up), your starting rotation is going to be dominated by guys who have average to above average velocity combined with command and plus secondary pitches. There are few pitchers who can sustain 95+ over more than a few years, there are few pitchers who can be successful throwing less than 90-91, most fall between these two extremes.

And some guys with decent velocity can excel if they have great movement and command of their fastball, Nola is a good example.
Eickhoff doesn't throw much harder than Eshelman, and he's developed into a solid #3 starter with upside.

andyb 2017-01-01 18:35:10 UTC #89

How many low velocity guys ever make it? The percentage of high velocity guys like Tirado who make it is better than the percentage of low velocity guys like Eshelman. Ken Giles had less success in the lower minors than Tirado for instance. High velocity guys are decidedly not "freaks". They just have more room for error than the lower velocity guys. And the fact that there are more guys with lower velocity in the majors is due to the reality that there are simply many more of them.

Think of it this way. We draft and sign 20 pitchers a year. Internationally we probably sign another 20. Out of those pitchers maybe 3-5 will make the majors. And percentage wise it is more like 1 out of 3-5 high velocity guys. And then 2-3 more out of 35 low velocity guys.

I stand by the fact that Eshelman was overdrafted. He was overdrafted because of his low risk profile. At the same time though he also has much less room to improve. Maybe he has a little more stuff than Buchanan, but he probably has lesser stuff than Asher and is comparable to Morgan. That is fine. It is likely a 5th starter/middle reliever profile and he was the 3rd piece of the Giles deal (behind VV and Appel). He is probably end of top 30 for me and not top 20.

Slinging_Southpaw 2017-01-01 19:04:32 UTC #90

andyb:

How many low velocity guys ever make it? The percentage of high velocity guys like Tirado who make it is better than the percentage of low velocity guys like Eshelman. Ken Giles had less success in the lower minors than Tirado for instance. High velocity guys are decidedly not "freaks". They just have more room for error than the lower velocity guys. And the fact that there are more guys with lower velocity in the majors is due to the reality that there are simply many more of them.

Think of it this way. We draft and sign 20 pitchers a year. Internationally we probably sign another 20. Out of those pitchers maybe 3-5 will make the majors. And percentage wise it is more like 1 out of 3-5 high velocity guys. And then 2-3 more out of 35 low velocity guys.

I stand by the fact that Eshelman was overdrafted. He was overdrafted because of his low risk profile. At the same time though he also has much less room to improve. Maybe he has a little more stuff than Buchanan, but he probably has lesser stuff than Asher and is comparable to Morgan. That is fine. It is likely a 5th starter/middle reliever profile and he was the 3rd piece of the Giles deal (behind VV and Appel). He is probably end of top 30 for me and not top 20.

You can certainly stand by your "opinion."

andyb 2017-01-02 00:36:48 UTC #91

Obviously I phrased that incorrectly, though he is still an overdraft. He just does not have the stuff to have a high chance of success at upper levels and in the majors.

allentown 2017-01-02 01:17:20 UTC #92

I wouldn't be so sure of that Andy, although I guess it depends upon how you define success. I'd say he has a very good chance to be at least a #5 starter or middle (say 7th inning) RP. His control/command is a serious tool, analogous to the hit tool being the key tool for position players. He had 9+K/9 at CLW and 8+/9 at Reading, so his stuff is already playing well in the upper minors. Eshelman's control rarely falters. I've seen enough of not-super-stuff guys like Kendrick and Buchanon to respect their ability to get by in an MLB rotation on days their control doesn't falter. The problem with both of these guys is that their control faltered on far too many days. Eshelman seems not to be like that. He could very well be in Philly and a member of the rotation sometime in 2017. He seems far better positioned for such a leap than Kendrick was when he jumped Reading to Philly.

andyb 2017-01-02 15:50:00 UTC #93

Eshelman's K rate is about average but it is accompanied by an above average H/9 rate. This is something one would see with a pitcher who is consistently in the strike zone but also does not miss a whole lot of bats. Obviously we are all stating opinions here. I just think his stuff is pedestrian and he got drafted a little too high because of his otherworldly college walk rate.

I am not saying that Eshelman could not slot in as a number 5 starter. That is possible. I just think when he pitches to contact like a Buchanan or Kendrick he gets hit hard. That means he has to try to strike out more people and nibble around the corners. This approach often does not work in the upper minors and majors. I think his K rate is relatively high because of that control in the lower minors against less advanced hitters. He did less good at Reading at the same age as Kendrick did also. I think Kendrick had a better mix of pitches (sinker mainly) for a pitch to contact approach.

All I think was that Eshelman was probably drafted a round too high. This does not mean he could not become as effective as Kendrick (who was a lower pick because of HS bonus but was probably a 3rd to 4th round talent also).

If you put our starting prospects into tiers, there are 2 clear tiers better than he is IMO.

Tier 1: Kilome, Sanchez, Gowdy
Tier 2: Pivetta, Pinto, Medina, Appel, Elneiry Garcia (because he is left-handed, though he and Appel could easily be tier 3 too).
Tier 3: Lively, Romero, Eshelman, Tirado (as a starter here, a reliever maybe higher), Viza, Watson, Taveras

Other guys like Falter and Suarez and Fanti and Llovera could work their way into tier 3 at some point next year. I just don't see Eshelman as really better than anyone in tier 3 at this point. Viza was better than he was at Reading and was a year younger and is himself not a great prospect. Yes we can point to any number of 90 mph guys that make it. But most of them don't or end up as mediocre 5th starter/AAAA pitchers.

Austinfan 2017-01-02 15:59:09 UTC #94

It also depends on what you mean by "low velocity."
Buchanan was effective when he was hitting 91, then he had arm trouble and his velocity slipped to 89 and that's all she wrote.
Kendrick was 89-90 during his 3 peak seasons when he was a solid #4/#5, developing a changeup was the key.

So to me, anything below 90 is low velocity, and few pitchers are succcessful with low velocity without great command and secondary pitches.
90-91 is more than sufficient if you have command and one solid secondary pitch and 1-2 other "show them" secondary pitches.

What makes a high velocity pitcher a "freak" is the combination of velocity and command, which most high velocity pitchers lack.
Velasquez (average 94 MPH) is a perfect example, as promising as he looks at time, he was no better than Hellickson (90.0) and Eickhoff (91) because of his lack of command.
As far as potential, if Eickhoff can develop an average or better changeup, his ceiling is probably a #2.
Velasquez could be a #1 if he put it all together, but right now he has a plus FB and three mediocre secondary pitches and erratic command - can he develop consistent command of both his FB and at least one plus secondary pitch and stay healthy?
So which would you bet on, Velasquez putting it all together and become a pitcher who can holdup over 32 starts or Eickhoff refining one pitch in his repertoire?

allentown 2017-01-02 18:29:01 UTC #95

I think this is a mis-reading of the stats. Yes, Eshelman had a higher hit rate at Reading. If you were choosing to make an argument for him, rather than against him, you would offer the standard modern stat analysis conclusion that this was likely due to unlucky BABIP in just 61 IP. Why would one hone in on BABIP? -- because all of his peripherals were great. If he was just easy to hit and pitching in Reading, he would have given up a lot more than 4 HRs. If he were easy to hit, he also wouldn't have 8 Ks/IP. And that latter stat is why I say he has more effective stuff than Kendrick had. Kendrick only had 5.5 Ks/IP. All the write-ups on Eshelman talk of his unusually good deception, which makes his FB play up, beyond its velocity. That's also a part of stuff.

All of Eshelman's Reading peripherals are good to excellent. I see the high ERA as a BABIP anomaly.

andyb 2017-01-02 18:50:17 UTC #96

There is a small part of that which is different however. K rates are up all over the place. The Eastern League is probably 1 K/9 higher on average today than in 2007 when Kendrick was at Reading.

Agree that there was some luck on BABIP. But also the Kendrick comparison is not that great because their stuff is not that similar. Eshelman is a bit different with very good control. His Eastern League work is a small sample but he also probably got lucky with home runs (only 4). That could easily increase the next time around the league in that park.

Lively is probably a better comp to Eshelman than Kendrick. He probably has a tick better velocity and slightly lesser control - but also is a 90-91 guy relying on deception. Took him a couple of years to master the high minors but he has always missed bats at a fairly high rate. I put more stock in his chances than Eshelman at this point for instance because of his AAA success. Pitchers with dominant control often have issues moving up the ladder and that has been true of Eshelman so far. He has time to improve, but the stuff isn't there for much more than a #5 even if things come together for him.

andyb 2017-01-02 18:58:31 UTC #97

Kind of a false choice but I would still bet on VV. You can't just look at any pitcher like Eickhoff and say "as long as they refine one pitch...." That is just wishing on stuff rather than analyzing stuff. Velocity is only part of the definition of stuff but it is an important part. VV has better secondary stuff too even if he has lesser command. Eickhoff is a good pitcher and looks to be a #4 starter who is a #3 in good years when everything is working. Be happy with that and don't overanalyze him into being a #2 which he is likely not. Even Nola at full health is likely not much better than a #3. But that is a good outcome. Celebrate it. Don't wish they are something they are not.

allentown 2017-01-02 19:35:30 UTC #98

My only fear with VV is durability.

allentown 2017-01-02 19:49:25 UTC #99

Lively spent a year and a half at Reading. His full season, he was a year older than Eshelman was at Reading, and put up a comparable ERA, but with across the board worse peripherals. His almost 7 K/9 was closer to Eshelman than Kendrick was, but still not as high and his BB and HR rates weren't as good. He had about the ERA you'd expect from his peripherals. His second partial season, when he was two years older than Eshelman, Lively put up great peripherals, including a dramatic drop in HR rate.

allentown 2017-01-02 21:31:10 UTC #100

Victor Arano isn't mentioned among our best prospects -- admittedly he's a reliever, but he has eye-popping stats. The next Giles, who will be in Philly this year?