Diamondbacks Farm Round-Up 7/3: Arms Race Edition

by Dan Strittmatter on Jul 4, 2011 9:00 AM EDT in Diamondbacks Farm Teams

Plenty of action to look forward to tonight, particularly on the pitcher's mound. One of the system's top-10 prospects was making his Hi-A debut, a hopeful reclamation project was returning to action at Triple-A after spending time on the DL, and a good young arm toed the rubber in the Northwest Short-Season-A League. However, the best performance of the night came from one of the club's bats:

Snakelet of the Day:

David Nick (Hi-A): 5-5, HR, R, RBI

Triple-A: Reno 9, Salt Lake 11. (49-34) Armando Galarraga returned from the disabled list, but whatever it was that was bothering him before he went on the DL apparently wasn't what was causing him to struggle so much on the mound this year. Galarraga gave up five runs in the first inning. After Reno put up six runs in the third to grab the lead, Galarraga loaded the bases on a single and a pair of walks in the fourth before departing with one out, giving way to Derek Eitel, making his first appearance above Hi-A. Eitel didn't help matters by immediately giving up a double to score two of the runners, then allowing a sac fly to let the third runner Galarraga put on base to score before getting out of the inning. Simply put, Eitel isn't quite ready for Triple-A ball, and the PCL is particularly merciless to those not ready. His line ended up at 3.2 innings pitched, 3 ER, 1:3 K:BB, 6:2 GO:AO, 1 HR.

The nine run output means that Reno technically did its part offensively, but in all honesty, that ballpark (Aces Ballpark) is just not a place where nine runs appears to be sufficient in the hottest months of the season, when the ball carries like a sniper bullet. The offense was led by home runs from Cole Gillespie and Lucas May, the former of whom is putting up his best season OPS since Rookie ball, and the latter of whom has added over 150 bips to his OPS since joining Reno from Omaha. Call me crazy, but I'd prefer that May start getting more regular starts in favor of Konrad Schmidt, whose .313/.355/.502 line isn't all that impressive when you realize that the resulting .857 OPS ranks fourteenth on the team. The catcher position doesn't require a ton of offense, but I personally think May is a better option in spite of his rough start to the year in the Royals system.

Double-A: Mobile 6, Montgomery 1. (45-36) Starter Kyler Newby out-dueled Rays prospect Nick Barnese (7 IP, 2 ER), allowing just a solo home run in 7.1 innings of work before giving way to Ryan Cook, who notched the next five outs without much of a hitch. Mobile's offense was led by Taylor Harbin, who notched a single and a pair of doubles, and Ryan Wheeler, who went 1-3 with a double and a walk. A.J. Pollock added two hits, and (Your Daily) Paul Goldschmidt went 1-3 with a walk. Adam Eaton was plunked for the first time with the BayBears, continuing a trend he established last year at Missoula and had kept up all year long for the Rawhide.

Hi-A: Visalia 6, Inland Empire 11. (37-34) It was an interesting debut night for David Holmberg, who gave up a solo home run in the first, but struck out the side, then had nine strikeouts through five innings before things completely fell apart in the sixth. After recording one out, Holmberg surrendered three straight singles before being pulled for Christian Beltre, who promptly retired none of the three batters he faced and allowed all of Holmberg's runs to score. Taylor Sinclair, who followed Beltre, was equally poor, allowing three of his own runs in the seventh inning to build up a lead for Inland Empire that they'd never relinquish.

Jon Mark Owings doubled and tripled, while David Nick and Alfredo Marte - who was making his first appearance of the year at Hi-A - each homered. Nick was particularly awesome, whacking five hits on the night for an incredible eight total bases. Nick's line jumped to .287/.338/.411, a .749 OPS. While that figure isn't particularly enthralling, it's a definite improvement upon his .251/.318/.366 line at South Bend last year in his full-season debut, even in the friendlier league (that's offset partially by the jump in overall competition level). Nick still is just 21 years old, an age that would still be appropriate for South Bend, so if he needs to repeat Visalia before making the big jump to Double-A ball, it wouldn't be devastating to his prospect hopes.

Low-A: South Bend 1, Dayton 6. (39-40) The Silver Hawks tried to patch together a bullpen game, with Michael Bolsinger throwing the first 3.2 innings before giving way to a trio of relievers, each of whom pitched over one inning of work. It didn't work out, as Keith Cantwell was roughed up and Dayton starter Stalin Gerson was stellar through his 6.1 innings of work. The bats were particularly quiet, as South Bend managed just seven hits, all singles, and scraped across one run. Raywilly Gomez collected two of those hits, and also drew the team's only walk.

Short-Season-A: Yakima 2, Boise 1. (6-11) A run in the bottom of the eighth inning broke a 1-1 tie and gave Yakima a close win after Teo Gutierrez pitched yet another brilliant game. Gutierrez allowed just one run in seven innings of work, striking out seven with four walks. The high walk total in this game followed two games with a combined zero free passes, so I'm not particularly worried about his control long-term. He turned 21 in May, so he's a tad old, though age-relative-to-league is less of a concern for pitchers than it is for hitters. Yakima received a pair of doubles, one apiece from Westley Moss and Tyler Bream, and two-hit nights from Bream and Justin Hilt.

Advanced-Rookie: Missoula 4, Billings 1. (6-8) Jeremia Gomez keeps on rolling alone, hitting his first home run of the year in this one, helped out by triples from Eric Groff and Tom Belza, and doubles from Chris Ellison and Justin Bianco. Ellison's three hits and Belza's pair were the only multi-hit games the Osprey managed, but it was plenty with how effective the Missoula pitching was. Starter Taylor Siemens threw 5.2 scoreless innings, giving up just three hits and a walk with five strikeouts. Frank Santana came in for the ninth and struck out all three batters he faced for the save.

Low-Rookie: D-backs 13, Padres 2. (6-5) The Arizona League bats went wild today, with the lone (and depressing) exception of Wagner Mateo, who struck out four times in his six at-bats. Still, there were plenty of good performance, from outfielder Socrates Brito, who was 4-6 with a triple, and Pat Donahue, who was also 4-6, whacking a pair of doubles. Brito and Donahue each added a stolen base to their nights. Starter Bryan Escanio was solid, allowing two earned runs in five innings with a nice 5:1 K:BB ratio.

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Holmberg

if he continues up with such torrid strikeout and walk numbers in High-A…..

he WILL be a Top 100 prospect by year end

damn our pitching depth in the minors is sooooo good

by blue bulldog on Jul 4, 2011 10:32 AM EDT reply actions

DEPTH

yea i totally agree and it is nice to see such depth after the minors as a whole have been kind of down lately for us these past two years. i was wondering what realistic expectations are for rowland and bradley our 2nd and 3rd round guys from last year? i hear they have alot of projection but lets say hypothetically they both end up throwing 95 best case scenario. would there secondary pitches warrant them being legit mid rotation or even number two starters? or is that still not probably gonna happen?

by yogi1321 on Jul 4, 2011 11:32 AM EDT reply actions

scouts follow a strict formula when labeling a pitcher as a "number 2" or whatever

the first rule of thumb is that the label of “number 1” is almost never handed out.

for a pitcher to be considered a “number 2”, scouts have to see two plus pitches, an average third pitch, and average command. presumably, a plus third pitch with average command, or an average third pitch with plus command, would warrant a “number 1” label

for a pitcher to be considered a “number 3”, scouts just have to see one plus pitch, with two average pitches, and average command.

also it’s important to note, that we’re talking about major league calibre plus vs. average pitches, not what is projected to be a major league calibre plus vs. average pitch five years down the line.

so for instance, take a look at Tyler Skaggs. the reason he’s considered (by scouts like those at Baseball America) a “number 3” with a shot at being a “number 2” is because he already has one major league calibre plus pitch (the curveball), an average pitch (the changeup), and a slightly above average pitch (the fastball) that may end up being a plus pitch as he grows older.

the problem with trying to figure out realistic expectations for Rowland and Bradley, is that no one has a realistic idea what they will turn out to be. as of right now, they have zero plus pitches. what they do have, is clean deliveries that are easily repeatable, and scouts believe that pitchers with clean, easily repeatable deliveries can naturally get better as they grow older and fill out more. i will say this though. i don’t really see either of the two as being the type to end up as relievers. they will either be starters one day, or end up just being nobodies. for what it’s worth, when they were drafted, they were pegged as potential #3 rotation guys.

by blue bulldog on Jul 4, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions

Ok thanks alot for all the info. Do you have high hopes for them and like them as prospects or not so much? I only ask since they were fairly high picks id hope they could be darn good n not just crappy picks. I’ve heard mixed reviews

by yogi1321 on Jul 4, 2011 12:03 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

to be honest

i don’t particularly have high hopes for them. in some ways though, that is just because there are so many better prospects in the system to hope on. also, i tend to be a results-oriented guy. i want to see the plus pitches already be there, instead of hoping they will appear one day. mostly, this is because i think scouts don’t quite understand projecting future potential in a pitcher as well as they think they do.

of course, this type of mentality means that i’d never make it as a major league scout. if you think about it, every pitcher started from a point where they had no “stuff” to brag about, and just grew into their stuff. scouts earn their money by figuring out who will grow into a pitcher with “stuff” as opposed to who won’t. and at the end of the day, enough of these kids with no stuff and all projectability end up making it as starters, that there’s definitely hope that Rowland and Bradley will turn out alright.

also for what it’s worth, IHSB likes them more than I do.

by blue bulldog on Jul 4, 2011 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Yea I hear what you’re saying and make some good points for sure. I would love to be a professional scout, actually just starting school hoping to get there. Not saying anyone cares just saying ha. How great would that be though to get paid to watch and evaluate baseball. Couldn’t get much better imo

by yogi1321 on Jul 4, 2011 12:38 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

Well, the pay is basically a bag of beans

But working in baseball sounds awesome to me as well.

Founder and Chairman of the Hire A Manager's Assistant For Kirk Gibson Commission. A non-profit organization.
Founder and Chairman of the Hire A Body Double For David Hernandez's Right Arm Commission. A non-profit organization.

by Dan Strittmatter on Jul 4, 2011 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions

I realize not right away or anything but can’t you work your way up from just an entry level scout? Assuming you are good at what you’re doing of course

by yogi1321 on Jul 4, 2011 5:39 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

Pretty much all scouts

Get paid pretty poorly, especially for how many hours they spend on the road. But it’d be fun to do, imo.

by Dan Strittmatter on Jul 4, 2011 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions

The standard projections for those guys

Are #3 starting pitchers.

by Dan Strittmatter on Jul 4, 2011 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions

So much for the "Dry Heat" portion of summer

It is currently 8:30 AM in Phoenix, the airport temperature is 88 degrees with a Dew Point of 67 degrees, going to a high of a comparatively cool 105. For comparison, it is 11:30 AM in Atlanta Georgia, 85 degrees with a Dew Point of 69 degrees, going to a high of 94.

Why is this significant for baseball? The much higher humidity of the summer monsoon means thicker air, which will translate to more ‘bite’ on a pitcher’s breaking pitches, and slightly less distance on long fly balls.

The Flavian Arts and Crafts Festival Amphitheater in Rome from the Palatine Hill.

by NASCARbernet on Jul 4, 2011 11:32 AM EDT reply actions

um

this wasn’t a comment about our minor league pitching was it?

by blue bulldog on Jul 4, 2011 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions

Sure, why not?

Expand your mind, dooooood.

The Flavian Arts and Crafts Festival Amphitheater in Rome from the Palatine Hill.

by NASCARbernet on Jul 4, 2011 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Hate to burst your bubble

but this is a common fallacy that the majority of people believe, probably because when it’s more humid it just feels miserable on the body. But however odd as it may seem, the atmosphere actually becomes less dense and effectively thinner when there’s more moisture (higher dew point values). My Introduction to Meteorology professor at Arizona State University (Dr. Andrew Ellis: Who’s also an avid baseball fan) mathematically proved this to us through a simple comparison between the molecular weight of dry air vs. water (H2O).

Consider the following:

Dry air contains the following: 78% Nitrogen, 20.9% Oxygen, just less than 1% Argon and less than one percent Carbon Dioxide, Neon, Helium, Methane, Krypton, Hydrogen and a few others.

When the atmosphere becomes increasingly moist we are adding more Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules in the form of H2O.

For the purpose of simplicity, let us only factor the larger percentage elements of Nitrogen and Oxygen into the equation.

The molecular weight of dry air is a combination of N2 (Nitrogen) and O2 (Oxygen) in the following equation:

(0.78) x N2 + (0.21) x O2 = Avg Molecular Weight of Dry Air

from the periodic table of elements we see that the molecular weight of a Nitrogen molecule is 14 × 2 = 28

and

the molecular weight of an Oxygen molecule is 16 × 2 = 32

so back to our equation: (0.78) x N2 + (0.21) x O2 = Avg Molecular Weight of Dry Air

(0.78 × 28) + (0.21 × 32) = 21.8 + 6.7 = 28.5

Here’s the molecular weight of water (H20).

Hydrogen is the lightest of all elements with a molecular weight = 1. Oxygen, as described above, has a molecular weight of 16. Thus,

(2 x Hydrogen) + Oxygen =
(2 × 1) + 16 = 18

So if we were to add more water vapor into the atmosphere, we would be adding less dense elements in replace of more dense dry air. Therefore, with less dense of an atmosphere around a baseball could travel farther given less frictional resistance as the ball soars through the atmosphere. Meanwhile for pitchers this actually means pitches which require the seams of the ball to “bite” or catch the air will not work nearly as effectively since the imbalance between higher and lower pressure around the ball will not be as great as if the air had more density.

By the way, besides being an avid Diamondbacks/Missoula Osprey Fan, I am a meteorologist for the National Weather Service in Missoula, MT. I’m really not that big of a nerd, but I suppose this write up doesn’t help my case much. Also, the weather around here has been quite benign this week so I may make this a FanPost tonight while at work.

For further reference you can refer to this neat website about hot air ballooning. Air density is ~~very~~ extremely important to those in the hot air ballooning community. They even have a calculator you can use to calculate the density of the atmosphere using air temperature ©, Dew Point © and Atmospheric Pressure (hPa).

So, using the temperature and dew point combinations stated above I get approximately 1.15 kg/m3 in Phoenix and 1.593 in Atlanta. The air was more dense in Atlanta this morning because they had a little higher dew point but also higher surface pressure. Sure hope this helps y’all understand things a bit more and isn’t complete overkill.

by Mizzoula Osprey Fan on Jul 4, 2011 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions

This was freaking awesome

however I do have a question

your equations don’t take into account volume do they? So for instance, if one cubic meter of air is capable of holding more water than it’s capable of holding nitrogen and oxygen, doesn’t that mess up your equation?

in other words, what i’m saying is…how true is the statement “if we were to add more water vapor into the atmosphere, we would be adding less dense elements in replace of more dense dry air”

by blue bulldog on Jul 4, 2011 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Nope

but I believe in the equation used in the calculator does take volume into account. I showed a very simple proof to keep things to an understandable level. I would say that it’s true perhaps the vast majority of the time. This is primarily because the Law of Conservation of Mass (hypothesized originally by Antoine ~~Dodson~~ Lavoisier) states that in a closed system mass can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change phases throughout the course of time.

Truthfully the process of validating what I’ve shown above is painfully more complex and complicated than even I care to recount. There’s a reason why I didn’t complete my M.A. program at ASU and entered the workforce! :-P

by Mizzoula Osprey Fan on Jul 5, 2011 5:18 AM EDT up reply actions

Wouldn't the additional water vapor in the air effect the

weight and surface of the baseball itself, causing the observed differences in behavior, somewhat like the humidor? Another factor could be the moisture and temperature differentials caused by the pitcher handling the ball before throwing, and by his grip during the throw.

"And here I sit so patiently, Waiting to find out what price, You have to pay to get out of, Going through all these things twice" B. Dylan

by xmet on Jul 5, 2011 6:48 AM EDT up reply actions

The addition of water vapor to the ambient atmosphere

has a negligible affect on the physical characteristics of the ball. Humidors add additional moisture or maintain a consistent moisture for whatever objects are stored in them. However, this is more the result of prolonged exposure as opposed to the brief period by which baseballs are subject to the atmosphere during a game. This could be similarly said about the moisture added by a pitcher before throwing the ball.

by Mizzoula Osprey Fan on Jul 5, 2011 7:41 AM EDT up reply actions

I Have A Question Also :-)

If you are saying that a ball hit in moist air will travel further/faster than a ball hit in dry air, I’m really dubious. If you aren’t saying that (I’m not a physicist/meterologist) please disregard the following. Shoot a bullet at a target 50 yards away at a firing range. Now, shoot the same calibre in a 50 metre swimming pool. The bullet will hit the bottom of the pool not long after it leaves the barrel and dramatically short of the far wall.

by Rowdy Rawhide on Jul 6, 2011 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions

Good question!

But as you might recall from above, the simple answer to this question can be found in evaluating the physical state or phase of the water (H20) molecules. Water regardless of phase is indeed lighter and less dense than air. However, water when it is in the liquid or frozen state supplies far more friction to an object trying to pass through it than water in a gaseous or vapor form.

For this reason you can ascertain that a home run ball will travel farther in moist air but if it starts raining or heaven forbid snowing, then the additional friction supplied by water in the liquid of frozen state will ultimately supply more friction to the ball and keep it from traveling to its fullest potential.

So, using the example you provide about shooting a bullet, I can say with confidence that the bullet will travel farther when there is more water vapor in the atmosphere when compared to a drier atmosphere.

by Mizzoula Osprey Fan on Jul 6, 2011 6:27 AM EDT up reply actions

I think Galarraga will be released soon.

by rfffr on Jul 4, 2011 12:34 PM EDT reply actions

If they want to move someone up to Triple-A's rotation

He’s the next to go. Maybe when Mulvey gets off the DL.

by Dan Strittmatter on Jul 4, 2011 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Mateo

is still super young…he sports a very good walk rate (about 16%) giving him an OPS of .636 which isn’t that terrible considering he is hitting .167……hopefully he will start to hit the ball at some point in the summer

by phx suns on Jul 4, 2011 3:28 PM EDT reply actions

The K's are absurd

He’s super young, but it worries you that maybe the eyesight problems the Cardinals were scared off by could be legitimate.

by Dan Strittmatter on Jul 4, 2011 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions

exactly

it’s not about how raw he is right now. it’s about whether the eyesight problems are legit.

by blue bulldog on Jul 4, 2011 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions

IHSB

Who are the 5 best prospects in the NL West in your opinion (minus guys like Rizzo and Belt who’ve already seen time in the majors)?

by Husk on Jul 4, 2011 4:58 PM EDT reply actions

Oy...

Let’s see here. With Belt and Rizzo gone, this is going to look pretty optimistic, methinks. I’ll make two lists:

Not including draft picks:
Parker (AZ), Skaggs (AZ), Wheeler (SF), Darnell (SD), and Goldschmidt (AZ). Sleeper (#6 for me) is Gyorko (SD), and Bettis (COL), Lee (LA), Sands (LA), & Gordon (LA) all merit consideration but are more in the B tier than the B+ tier like the guys at the back of that list.

Including draft picks:
Bauer (AZ), Bradley (AZ), Parker (AZ), Skaggs (AZ), Wheeler (SF).

Yes, I know I’m one of the few remaining super-believers in Parker. I’m still encouraged by some of the baby steps he’s making in his recovery, and tantalized by the possibilities. His arsenal is more advanced than the other pitchers on that list, and he’s at the highest level of any of them.

I also know that I’m really really bullish on Bradley. But this kid is a top-3 pick in nearly any other draft, and is similar in composition to Jameson Taillon. The fact that he was the seventh pick in this awesome draft doesn’t make him any less of a prospect.

If Rubby De La Rosa is included, he’s #1 on the list, but I anticipate him being graduated by the end of the year. If Belt is included, he’s right after Rubby. Rizzo is neck-and-neck with Goldschmidt, maybe a tick below. I’d probably take Nicasio over Rizzo, tbh, but Nicasio will also graduate.

Best non-AZ draft pick was probably Joe Ross to San Diego or… Spangenberg? I dunno, the rest of the NL West made a serious habit of reaching in the first round of this draft… Spangenberg, Chris Reed, Joe Panik. All terrible picks. Heck, I’d take Chafin over Panik for sure, and probably Reed. Maybe even Meo, as well. None of these guys merit consideration with the likes of Gyorko, Lee, Sands, Gordon, (Matt) Davidson, Arenado (COL), and even Rosell Herrera (sp?) (COL) around.

by Dan Strittmatter on Jul 4, 2011 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Arenado is probably in the top ten (not including draft picks)

He’s getting rave reviews for his defense at 3B, and his offense has finally picked up.

I also don’t think there’s a problem with your top five picks at all (including draft). In fact, you may even consider it conservative. Wheeler is definitely not as good a prospect as the rest. Arguably, Goldschmidt’s a better prospect than Wheeler and Darnell.

End of year Top 100 lists will probably have five AZ prospects in the top 50, and conceivably not a single other NL West prospect.

by blue bulldog on Jul 4, 2011 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions

other random notes

(since i love debating about prospects with you)

Gyorko’s not really a sleeper in my opinion. putting up beastly numbers, and getting quite a bit of love from prospect followers. Bettis on the other hand has been flying under the radar (and also putting up awesome numbers).

No Decker? I would sort of have him ahead of Gordon (I think Gordon sucks as a prospect) and maybe even Sands.

I think you may have forgotten Casey Kelly and Simon Castro. I personally don’t like either that much, but the scouts who write-up Top 100 lists will be very high on Casey Kelly at least.

by blue bulldog on Jul 4, 2011 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Wow

Arizona can potentially have the best rotation in the league in a few years. What happens if 2013 rolls around and Parker/Bauer and IPK/Hudson are in the rotation and Skaggs, Corbin(or)Holmberg, and possibly Bradley are all ready to come up? Do we look to move those prospects or stick them in the bullpen? I know it’s early to ask these questions so early but the system is stacked with arms.

by Husk on Jul 5, 2011 1:46 AM EDT up reply actions

a quick look at ETA

at this point, Parker and Bauer are looking like mid-season 2012, Skaggs is looking like a mid-season 2013, Holmberg could probably start in 2014, and Bradley could probably start in 2015

by blue bulldog on Jul 5, 2011 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions