Jump to content

Track The NL Central Champion Reds (Week 13)


LRCW

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 424
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Being that you're an age of the prospect guy for position players at age 23 Wood was in the majors for a majority of the year. I would guess he was a top 30 prospect at some point last year the age of 23. I'm not saying he'll be as good as Lee. I am willing to bet the Mets won't do better picking 35th or so in the draft. He's still young.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wood isn't a position player ... age isn't quite as important when evaluating a pitcher.

 

For what it's worth, though:

 

Wood's numbers at High-A ... 21 starts, 93 innings, 6-6, 3.78 ERA, 88 hits, 48 BB, 95 SO

Lee's numbers at High-A ... 20 starts, 109 innings, 6-7, 2.79 ERA, 78 hits, 46 BB, 129 SO

 

Wood's numbers at Double-A ... 36 starts, 199 innings, 13-12, 3.58 ERA, 169 hits, 85 BB, 163 SO

Lee's numbers at Double-A ... 17 starts, 98 innings, 8-2, 3.02 ERA, 68 hits, 27 BB, 118 SO

 

Wood's numbers at Triple-A ... 24 starts, 148 innings, 9-8, 3.09 ERA, 40 BB, 131 SO

Lee's numbers at Triple-A ... 19 starts, 106 innings, 9-3, 3.47 ERA, 98 hits, 53 BB, 91 SO

 

Lee was clearly better at two of the three levels, particularly in the key areas to evaluate ... hits/innings, walks and strikeouts. Wood definitely had better numbers at Triple-A.

 

Personally, I think Wood has a bright future. At the same time, however, Lee wasn't necessarily the centerpiece of the Colon deal ... Phillips was considered a big-time prospect and Sizemore was a year or so removed from receiving a million-dollar bonus.

 

Making the point again ... Wood would probably be a piece useful to landing someone like Reyes, but it's going to take more than that, and mid-20s blocked prospects aren't going to cut it.

Edited by westsider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wood isn't a position player ... age isn't quite as important when evaluating a pitcher.

 

For what it's worth, though:

 

Wood's numbers at High-A ... 21 starts, 93 innings, 6-6, 3.78 ERA, 88 hits, 48 BB, 95 SO

Lee's numbers at High-A ... 20 starts, 109 innings, 6-7, 2.79 ERA, 78 hits, 46 BB, 129 SO

 

Wood's numbers at Double-A ... 36 starts, 199 innings, 13-12, 3.58 ERA, 169 hits, 85 BB, 163 SO

Lee's numbers at Double-A ... 17 starts, 98 innings, 8-2, 3.02 ERA, 68 hits, 27 BB, 118 SO

 

Wood's numbers at Triple-A ... 24 starts, 148 innings, 9-8, 3.09 ERA, 40 BB, 131 SO

Lee's numbers at Triple-A ... 19 starts, 106 innings, 9-3, 3.47 ERA, 98 hits, 53 BB, 91 SO

 

Lee was clearly better at two of the three levels, particularly in the key areas to evaluate ... hits/innings, walks and strikeouts. Wood definitely had better numbers at Triple-A.

 

Personally, I think Wood has a bright future. At the same time, however, Lee wasn't necessarily the centerpiece of the Colon deal ... Phillips was considered a big-time prospect and Sizemore was a year or so removed from receiving a million-dollar bonus.

 

Making the point again ... Wood would probably be a piece useful to landing someone like Reyes, but it's going to take more than that, and mid-20s blocked prospects aren't going to cut it.

 

I mentioned position players because I knew you would and I kind of agree with that. However Wood was younger at all of those levels right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned position players because I knew you would and I kind of agree with that. However Wood was younger at all of those levels right?

Younger by about a year ... in terms of age, Wood reached the majors about six months before Lee, hardly a big difference.

 

Still, the age comparison doesn't necessarily mean that much with pitchers ... performance is more critical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.