Baseball Prospect #2: Kyle Crick

[Rog]

Don't forget to subscribe to Baseball Prospectus.  Only $38 per year.  Recommended by SharksRog.

2. Kyle Crick

Position: RHP

DOB: 11/30/1992

Height/Weight: 6’4” 220 lbs

Bats/Throws: L/R

Drafted/Acquired: 1st round, 2011 draft, Sherman HS (Sherman, TX)

Previous Ranking: #1 (Org), #38 (Top 101)

2014 Stats: 3.79 ERA (90.1 IP, 78 H, 111 K, 61 BB) at Double-A Richmond

The Tools: 7 fastball; 6 potential CH; 6 potential CB; 6 potential SL



What Happened in 2014: Crick racked up 11.1 strikeouts per nine innings pitched in his Double-A debut, but an inability to find any consistency or command limited his innings tally and led to far too many walks.



Strengths: Very loud, pure stuff; fastball plays to double-plus in spite of marginal control and borderline non-existent command; lots of late life and easy mid-90s velocity that will climb higher; maintains velo past 75 pitch mark; excellent arm speed; maintains arm speed on changeup producing solid deception; tight slider with cutter action, works mid-80s to and through 90 mph; two-plane curve will flash depth and bite; good size; strength to hold stuff deep into starts; arsenal has top-tier potential.



Weaknesses: Throws with effort; inconsistent timing disrupts balance and release; arm drag; dramatic inconsistencies in execution regularly forces stuff to play down; changeup ineffective off-trajectory, tips early when release is off; slider will frisbee and play as a soft cutter when overthrown; control is fringy and well outdistances command.



Overall Future Potential: 6; no. 3 starter



Realistic Role: High 5; late-inning relief/second-tier closer



Risk Factor/Injury History: Moderate; extreme control issues holds back floor despite demonstrated bat-missing ability at Double-A.



Bret Sayre’s Fantasy Take: The stuff is generally unquestioned with Crick, but then again, so is his inability to throw strikes. For fantasy purposes, he looks to be more valuable with a move to the bullpen, which is unusual for a pitching prospect. In the rotation, he’s a high-WHIP, low-win probability pitcher who can strikeout 180 batters a year despite the shortcomings. In the bullpen, there are more interesting relief prospects.



The Year Ahead: Throughout 2014 Crick continued to display high-octane, swing-and-miss stuff, but his inability to wield that stuff with consistency drove down its effectiveness and limited the powerful righty to just 90.1 innings due to elevated pitch counts. The stat sheet points to a future in relief, but there is more than enough pure stuff and durability for the former supplemental first-rounder to turn over major-league lineups with regularity. Further, all four of Crick’s offerings can play above average or better, so there is room to ease the foot off the gas in order to try and find an operating speed that better facilitates more stable mechanics and consistent execution. In the end, it may come down to whether Crick is willing to make the conscious decision to sacrifice some stuff in order to give him a better chance to work more regularly in the zone and last deeper into games. The fallback is that of a late-inning power arm, with strike-throwing ability the determinant as to whether the Giants will be able to trust him with true high-leverage situations. Overall, this remains one of the most explosive arms in the minors, and incremental improvements could get him back on track in short order.

[rxmeister]

I'm hoping this is the year that Crick puts it together and dominates. By the way, now that he's dropped to second best prospect, the number one prospect according to BP is Adalberto Mejia. Not sure I'd put him ahead of Crick. Baseball America has Andrew Susac as our number one prospect, but I'm not sure he counts.

[Rog]

Susac is considered a prospect by every publication I've seen. I think maybe I saw that he is still technically a rookie. Which would still make him eligible to be a prospect.

I think Andrew is a pretty good prospect, so if there are two ahead of him, that bodes well. I wonder though if Andrew himself should be the top prospect.

[klaiggeb]

Susac showed me that he was a TON better than Sanchez last year, both behind the plate and AT the plate.

His technique is smooth, blocking balls fluidly, and instinctively.

Unlike Sanchez, with that ridiculous upper cut and no plan, or at least he never looked like he had a plan, at the plate, Susac never really looked over matched up there.

And considering his lack of MLB playing time, that's saying a lot.


THOSE are the reasons I said to move Posey to 3B and install HIM as the primary catcher.

Sanchez could back up.


My plan is STILL better than what we did.

Anyone tells me McGehee will hit more HRs and I flat out won't believe him.


And let us not forget, McGehee never impressed anyone with his glove work at 3B. I contend Posey could do just as well.


But the Giants didn't listen to my plan.

Yeah. Like they ever do.



boly

[Rog]

Boly -- I contend Posey could do just as well.

Rog -- Buster would need to work hard at it IMO. I have been surprised he hasn't been better at first base than he has been. I thought that as a former shortstop, he would be excellent there.

The corners involve reaction more than ground coverage, so he should be well suited for them. He appears to have soft hands, but he just hasn't caught the ball as well as I thought he would.

At third base, his strong arm should acquit him well, but he would need to play shallow against batters who could lay one down. He can react quickly, but he can't cover much ground. He seems more smooth than rangy to me.

As for Susac, I like him a lot and have for quite a while. He can draw walks, which helps make up for what likely won't be a high average (although it should be fine for a catcher). He appears to have 15-20 home run power, so he should be able to put up an OPS in the mid-.700's or higher.

That said, I don't think he hit as well last season as it appeared. If he doesn't begin to strike out less, I think he'll have a hard time hitting above .250. I do think he will adjust, but I don't think he is quite as ready as he appeared.

What was VERY impressive about Andrew was that he swung at fewer than one pitch out of every four outside the strike zone (even better than Joe Panik). What was far less impressive is that he made contact less then three out of every four swings, far less than Pablo Sandoval and slightly behind Hunter Pence.

Despite his good eye, he struck out four times for every walk.

Andrew is a strikeout hitter and a fly ball hitter. That's a poor combination on which to build a batting average. He did hit for power last season, with 11 of his 24 hits being for extra bases (8 doubles and 3 home runs). But that level of power isn't likely to last. In the minors, only about 35% of his hits went for extras.

He did hit well against every pitch except the change up. The average fastball he faced was just two ticks below 93 mph, so speed doesn't seem to overwhelm him.

A couple of oddities about Andrew: For a fly ball hitter, he's had very few sacrifice flies, hitting just 5 in over 800 minor league at bats. Probably because he is a fly ball hitter, he has hit into very few double plays for a catcher -- just 19 in those 800+ at bats. As a Giant last summer, he neither hit a single sacrifice fly nor grounded into a double play, which is quite rare for a catcher. Over 300+ at bats in both the majors and minors last season, he hit just one sacrifice fly and grounded into only four double plays.

I think Andrew will succeed as a hitter and will become an average to slightly-above-average starting catcher. I just don't think he was quite as developed last summer with the Giants as he appeared.

Boly does make a good point that he did so while not playing a whole lot, so his swing may not be high-maintenance.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2690/baseball-prospect-2-kyle-crick#ixzz3QW1lZWkt

[Rog]

Boly -- But the Giants didn't listen to my plan.

Rog -- In fairness, we know that the Giants DID listen to your plan and that they did indeed consider it. They strongly believe though that they are a better team with Buster behind the plate and therefore chose to go in a different direction.

The Giants feel their pitchers prefer to throw to Buster, although I can't find evidence it makes all that much difference.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2690/baseball-prospect-2-kyle-crick?page=1#ixzz3QWH4Eiv7

[klaiggeb]

My thing about Susac, Rog, is that I don't care if he strikes out a lot. He puts the ball in play when it's needed the most.

What he showed me... proved to me, was that he was a smart hitter.

He came up in many, many clutch situations, and more often than not, put the ball in play.


More than that, he frequently hit it hard.

And my biggest point is that, IN those situations, you could SEE he was not only thinking, but that he had a plan that he was following.

So many hitters do... NOT.


Defensively, he's much smoother, much better than Posey. He's more natural back there.

And I flat out DON'T BELIEVE that pitchers prefer pitching to him.

I do NOT.

That's why they say to the press.


Note I NEVER wanted to move Posey full time to 1B. No how, no way.


Why? You reference playing one of the infield corner positions.

I've played BOTH extensively, and they are NOT, repeat, NOT the same.

And I'm not just talking about having a throwing arm or not.

As a SS, or left side infielder, you see the ball coming off the ball one way... on the other side of the field, totally different.

The fielder on the right side gets a better, quicker read.

I was BETTER, and not by just a little, at 2B BECAUSE of that.

It's one of the subtle reasons why some players excell at 2B, but are just average, or below, at SS.

Dee Gordon comes to mind.

At 2B he didn't make the same kind of blunders he did at SS.

It all has to do with the "read."

Crawford, Ozzie, Vizquel, and so many others excelled at it.

But so many didn't, and THAT'S why they ended up on the right side, or barely playing at all.

Heck, even BURRISS was better on the right side, but seemed to have "rocks" for hands on the left.

boly

[Rog]

Boly -- The fielder on the right side gets a better, quicker read.

I was BETTER, and not by just a little, at 2B BECAUSE of that.

Rog -- The first thing that came to mind is that it might depend on a player's dominant eye. It may have to do with balls curving mostly to the forehand rather than the backhand (except for southpaws). It may have to do with more balls being hitting hard to left field than to right.

As you mentioned it would also have to do with a better angle to see the ball off the bat from right-handed hitters.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2690/baseball-prospect-2-kyle-crick#ixzz3QXKF1GYt

[klaiggeb]

You might be right, Rog. I know my right eye is very dominant.

I just "saw" the ball better, and reacted much, much more quickly.

boly

[Rog]

My point with Susac isn't that he's not going to be a good player. I just think his batting average last season may have involved a little luck.

Andrew's career minor league average is just .254. That was based on a slightly above average .306 Batting Average on Balls In Play (BABIP). If Andrew had put up what was essentially a league-average .297 BABIP, his average would have been just .227.

Andrew is going to need to strike out less. I think he will do so. I simply believe his .273 average last season was a bit lucky. If Andrew can hit around .250 as he did in the minors, he can still be an average starting catcher IMO. And I think he'll do just a few ticks better than that.

Andrew's numbers with the Giants were actually very similar to those he put up at Fresno, and at Richmond the previous season. But he posted those numbers with more normal .299 and .305 BABIPs. With the Giants, Andrew struck out once every 3.1 at bats, which is as often as Adam Dunn had struck out entering his disastrous 2011 season.

My point isn't that Andrew is due for a disastrous season or career. Rather it is that unless he hits 40 home runs and draws 100 walks a season as Dunn did, he'd better not strike out once every 3.1 at bats. In the minors he had a more realistic one strikeout every 3.8 at bats. If he can cut his strikeouts back to that level in the majors, he can hit.

More walks and fewer strikeouts would enable Andrew to be a good hitter, just as he was in the minors (.254/.362/.422/.784). At that level he would be a top 10 catcher.

In the minors, Andrew had a nice 1.6 strikeouts per walk. With the Giants, that swelled to 4 strikeouts per walk, which is why I say he didn't hit as well last season as it appeared. I think he'll "bounce back" and put up a career OPS approaching .750, which is plenty good enough for a starting catcher. The average OPS last season by catchers was .705.

Let's put it this way: If we could guarantee Andrew could catcher for 8 more years and put up say a .740 OPS, the Giants could get a fair amount for him in trade.

Personally I'm glad the Giants have three catchers (even though only two will likely make the roster). Each of the three has missed time in his career due to one or more concussions.

So why is it that catchers have so many more concussions now than before? Part of it is there is much more awareness of concussions. But another part is that pitches are faster and harder to hit, meaning more and faster foul tips.

By the way, the only concussion I know for sure that has been suffered by Buster Posey came on a HBP at San Jose, not a foul tip. I'll bet though that somewhere along the line he has had at least a small one behind the plate. That seems to be the nature of the game now -- and perhaps the most likely reason that the Giants would move him from behind the plate.

I don't believe the Giants will allow Buster to get anywhere nearly as badly beaten up behind the plate as Hector Sanchez has been.

[klaiggeb]

Rog, I would not trade Susac unless I received an offer that literally KA-knocked my socks off.

I've been very adamant, and so has Don, that Buster is just an average catcher, with a pretty good arm.

He's a pretty darned good hitter, though, and because of that, I want to optimize his effectiveness for the team.

Thus, my suggestion that he move to 3B.

Now such a move could not be made UNLESS we have a good replacement, which, I'm hoping that after this season, Susac proves that he is.

boly

[donk33]

Feb 4, 2015 11:34:42 GMT -5 klaiggeb said:

Rog, I would not trade Susac unless I received an offer that literally KA-knocked my socks off.

I've been very adamant, and so has Don, that Buster is just an average catcher, with a pretty good arm.

He's a pretty darned good hitter, though, and because of that, I want to optimize his effectiveness for the team.

Thus, my suggestion that he move to 3B.

Now such a move could not be made UNLESS we have a good replacement, which, I'm hoping that after this season, Susac proves that he is.

boly

dk..it should be noted that Posey is very mediocre in catching runners stealing...his average is inflated because of the number of runners picked off base by the Giants pitchers (the catcher gets credit for catching a runner stealing on a pickoff even though the catcher doesn't even touch the ball)..the fact that the pitchers have good moves to first...outside of Tim, who Posey only catches when they need his bat..... and the Giants call for the pitcher to throw to first a lot, all tends to cut down on steals..Posey is rated #8 overall as a  fielder by the Fielding bible people in the James yearbook ...they also give him a -2 for runs prevented with his fielding...a stat that I don't really understand...despite what the experts say, I don't think he frames pitches well..I think he puts his target too far off the black...but it is hard to tell on TV...and I have to admit he doesn't jump up to avoid blocking pitches in the dirt as much as he has in the past...

[Rog]

Don -- despite what the experts say, I don't think he frames pitches well..I think he puts his target too far off the black.

Rog -- What you are saying here could be one indication of WHY he is a good pitch framer. The last thing a catcher wants to do is take the ball AWAY from the strike zone after he catches it. If he sets up a little off the plate, he will be moving his glove back to the plate instead of away from it on that pitch right on the corner. And on the pitch just OFF the corner, he won't have to move his glove at all.

That said, an umpire can tell when a catcher is setting up off the corner. Maybe the catcher can buy an inch (which would be significant), but if he overdoes it, the umpire can tell.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2690/baseball-prospect-2-kyle-crick#ixzz3QszSxmiN

[donk33]

Feb 5, 2015 10:49:24 GMT -5 Rog said:

Don -- despite what the experts say, I don't think he frames pitches well..I think he puts his target too far off the black.

Rog -- What you are saying here could be one indication of WHY he is a good pitch framer. The last thing a catcher wants to do is take the ball AWAY from the strike zone after he catches it. If he sets up a little off the plate, he will be moving his glove back to the plate instead of away from it on that pitch right on the corner. And on the pitch just OFF the corner, he won't have to move his glove at all.

That said, an umpire can tell when a catcher is setting up off the corner. Maybe the catcher can buy an inch (which would be significant), but if he overdoes it, the umpire can tell.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2690/baseball-prospect-2-kyle-crick#ixzz3QszSxmiN

dk...I don't understand your reasoning...A good framer does not move his glove, especially if it is on the corner....the best result is to keep the glove still once you catch the ball, especially if it is close or on the strike zone...however, if you set up off the black the umpire can see you calling for a "ball" and if the glove stays still, it is a "ball"...if the glove moves, it is a "ball" as the catcher is trying to pull it into the strike zone....can't win situation....I have noticed too many pitches that Posey "frames" and are called "balls"...

[Rog]

dk...I don't understand your reasoning...A good framer does not move his glove, especially if it is on the corner....the best result is to keep the glove still once you catch the ball, especially if it is close or on the strike zone...however, if you set up off the black the umpire can see you calling for a "ball" and if the glove stays still, it is a "ball"...if the glove moves, it is a "ball" as the catcher is trying to pull it into the strike zone....can't win situation....I have noticed too many pitches that Posey "frames" and are called "balls"...

Rog -- I don't know how accurate the measurements of framing are, but I do know that Posey rates very high.

The reasoning I am offering is sound. If the catcher lines up off the plate and the pitcher hits his glove, he has a slightly better chance of having the pitch called a strike than if he moves his glove off the plate to catch it. And if the pitch is on or just missing the corner, he is bringing his glove BACK to the plate, which also gives him a better chance.

If one stops to think about it, it's pretty obvious. If one has his glove OFF the strike zone, he is moving back toward the plate to catch a strike -- instead of perhaps moving away from the plate as, for instance, Hector Sanchez sometimes does.

It's not a problem to have the glove moving back toward the middle of the strike zone. It can be a problem is the glove is moving away from it.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2690/baseball-prospect-2-kyle-crick#ixzz3QvkR46kD

[sfgdood]

enough with the advertisements to Baseball Prospectus subscriptions. You can quote their statsgeekery all you want but I don't need these damn ads

[Rog]

El Dooderino -- enough with the advertisements to Baseball Prospectus subscriptions. You can quote their statsgeekery all you want but I don't need these damn ads

Rog -- I agree they are annoying, and I hate to put them in. But since I'm essentially breaking copyright laws when I cut and paste their stuff here, I think the fair thing to do is advertise for them. Nobody here is going to subscribe anyway, but they COULD do so. And perhaps my suggesting it would at least result in their spending something like $4 for a month to try the thing out.

The nice thing is that there is a TON of good stuff out there that is free. But subscribing to things such as Baseball Prospectus and ESPN's Insider allow a reader access to more really good things to read.

There are a ton of good baseball books out there too. Sometimes one can pick them up on Amazon for as little as one cent (plus $3.99 shipping and handling).

Anyway, sorry about the commercial. But to me it seems the fair thing to do.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2690/baseball-prospect-2-kyle-crick#ixzz3QyQJu76P