"He got 16 swings at curveballs in his last start, and not one of them even made contact. I know it's Double-A, but this kid has a big-league, swing-and-miss curveball. . . . Bryce Harper is the real thing, believe me, but Harvey made him look so bad with that curveball. He struck him out twice with it, and honest to God, the guy swung over one of them by at least a foot."

And one more thing: if Niese does end up being better than the best of those four (whomever that turns out to be), the Mets will be back in the post-season sooner than any of us might think.

Backman also made the point that Harvey's numbers in AA are a bit deceptive because he's been hurt when throwing his change-up, which is the pitch he's got to work on -- where they sacrifice pure results for development. The article has both Backman and a scout from another club saying Harvey and Familia have major-league quality fastball and curveballs right now.

Right now, Wheeler/Harvey/Familia/Mejia would probably all rank somewhere between Dotel and Niese.

There is a whole lot of baby in that bathwater, Mark.

Dotel-Heilman-Wheeler-Meija

I can't believe Dotel made it that high onto the list at age 24 and having a pretty scattered minor league career. I mean, he always struck out guys, but he was pretty old for the level.

I was just a bit shocked that he was 25 when he made his major league debut... I could have sworn he was younger.

Or they are, at least as regards the important factor of their ML-ready ability.

Speaking of Mets' aces, anybody want to make something out of nothing -- as in, the lack of any word on the check-up Johan was supposed to have after "lingering discomfort" in his shoulder after pitching at St. Lucie last week?

Is this a "no news is good news" thing, in the "at least they haven't announced they're sending him to see Dr. Andrews" sense?

Or an "uh-oh," they're trying to figure out how to spin the bad news, he's shutting it down for the winter, kind of thing?

I agree, but that's not a particularly important quality -- being major-league ready -- for a prospect like Harvey, who has thrown all of 105 minor league innings (to date).

Or they are, at least as regards the important factor of their ML-ready ability. If your minor-league numbers aren't great because you can't fool A-ball hitters with your changeup, you've probably got a long way to go to be an ML pitcher (well, starter at least).

Dotel had fantastic stuff. He struck out 145 in 105 IP with Houston one year. If he met the 1,000 IP minimum, he would be B-R's active leader in K/9!

To contend next year, the Mets probably still need to hope that Santana can recover from shoulder surgery and once again be something of an ace next season, because their young pitching probably isn't ready to make them San Francisco Giants East quite yet. But at least you can see the possibilities.

So, if the Mets believe that Wheeler needs to work on his changeup more (because it isn't good enough), then he will be throwing a not good enough pitch more often with the accompanying bad results. But, from a development standpoint, he is right on track despite the bad results.

So, if the Mets believe that Wheeler needs to work on his changeup more (because it isn't good enough), then he will be throwing a not good enough pitch more often with the accompanying bad results. But, from a development standpoint, he is right on track despite the bad results.

Is this at all likely, that the Mets contend in 2012? Other than as a fluke, I mean.

The tea leaves of the offseason are unreadable, but most of us would take 25 starts with an ERA of 3.75 from Santana next season. That leaves the Mets with a 2 through 5 of Dickey, Niese, Pelfrey, and Gee. Dickey will be 37 and to date has one and a half good ML seasons in a fifteen year pro career. However we might read his peripherals, Niese has been utterly consistent in putting up an ERA+ in the mid90s. Pelfrey never has turned the corner, and has only two respectable seasons, seasons with an ERA+ over 85. This season isn't one of the good ones. Lastly, there's Gee, 4.14 FIP and an xFIP of 4.53. I probably put less stock in those stats than most, but they back up my sense that he's been more than a little fortunate. The Mets have no one else under contract likely to put up tolerable numbers as a starter in 2012. (I'm not assuming they'll be able to bring Capuano back.)

I am very suspicious of this argument. It is so self-serving. If his ERA is low, it's good news. If his ERA is high, it's also good news, because it means he's getting good practice.

If a guy as a 2.00 or 5.00 ERA in A ball, then I don't care.

Zack Wheeler with a 2.50 ERA in A-ball is a better prospect than Zack Wheeler with a 4.00 ERA in A-ball.

Not necessarily. Let's say that Zack Wheeler is using his fastball to overpower A ball hitters, but not working on his secondary pitches. Then he is getting good results, but not working on stuff that will make him a better prospect.

Zack Wheeler with a 2.50 ERA in A-ball is a better prospect than Zack Wheeler with a 4.00 ERA in A-ball.

You're right, it is not necessarily true. But in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, we ought to assume that it's true.

Also, Petit is a weird example - kind of the opposite of what you're talking about. He was ignored by scouts because he had bad stuff, and was apparently getting minor league hitters out with a polished and diverse repertoire of pitches.

Why?

Petit had higher strikeouts, lower walks, lower hits, lower HR than Kazmir. But Kazmir was a much better prospect and the results in the upper minors and MLB.

You're right, it is not necessarily true. But in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, we ought to assume that it's true.

Why?

But it's another thing to say that he was working on a change-up over which he had no command, that was the pitch he was walking people with, and noting that he still had a very strong K/IP rate, produced when he was throwing the stuff he's already good at. If you don't have an actual basis to say that the year (despite the bad results) was spent on worthwhile development, then I think the default assumption ought to be that the prospect in question is not as good as we thought he was.

In those cases, I'm just saying that I like to have some actual reason that comes across in what the scouts say, or in what I see if I'm lucky enough to see the kid play, to tell me it isn't that he's an overrated bust, but that something really is going on with his development program to explain the struggles. I mean, hey -- it's not like there aren't actual busts out there, players who get hyped and over-drafted and then suck in A ball. There are.

My general feeling is that scouting matters more below AA than results.

Look, that's fine. Nobody has a problem with this. But you're arguing (whether you realize it or not) that results are irrelevant below AA. That's the position you've got to back down from.

5) Bum arm, coulda, woulda, shoulda - Life sucks.

I do realize it and I believe it. I don't care about stats below AA.

Zack Wheeler, St. Lucie Met: 15 G, 100 IP, 2.00 ERA, 140 K
Zack Wheeler, St. Lucie Met: 15 G, 60 IP, 6.00 ERA, 40 K

I know the Mets didn't have a pick until # 72 that year, but geez.

Depends on the scouting reports.

When you don't start picking until #72, you can't really expect many high upside players. Especially with the Mets sticking to slot recommendations.

Depends on the scouting reports.

They are identical. He's both Zack Wheeler.

They are identical. He's both Zack Wheeler.

So which one of those I like depends entirely on how he got there and what approach produced it.

I will also state that I don't understand why you think there is a huge world of difference between A and AA. I get what you're saying, and I agree that scouting is more important the further away you are from MLB, but I do not understand why the STATS MEANINGFUL / STATS MEANINGLESS barrier is set between A+ and AA.

So which one of those I like depends entirely on how he got there and what approach produced it.

But you are exploding the question by introducing a variable I didn't allow for. I agreed in #45 that a scenario like yours is possible.

It's not a barrier, it's a spectrum. I trust AA numbers more than A ball numbers which I trust more than Rookie league numbers which I trust more than college numbers (and so on).

Mark, you keep contradicting yourself.

You go back and forth between claiming that sub-AA numbers are "irrelevant" and that they are only less relevant.

I've stated before that I believe numbers below AA are too far away from MLB to be meaningful and I trust scouting information at that level more than numbers.

You're doing it again, even in this very sentence. You keep saying, and I'm paraphrasing and emphasizing to underscore the contradiction:

"I do not trust the statistics at all. I trust them less than scouting."

That's not what I said at all. I said that it is a spectrum from extremely meaningful numbers (MLB career numbers) to completely meaningless (Little League). I see AA as the point where the numbers start being more meaningful than the scouting reports. At A(+) ball, the scouting reports are still more meaningful and if they are different(bad numbers with good scouting or good numbers with bad scouting), then I'll ignore the numbers.

I'm with you until the very last clause, but that just puts me back at zack's response in #12. Your position doesn't make sense to me. If you can weigh scouting reports vs stats at AA, why can't you do the same at A+? You don't have to weigh them the same. Hell, you can make it 95% scouts and 5% stats. But as soon as they're at odds, you throw one out entirely? Doesn't make any sense.