Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The MMA Hour Is Back

The Ultimate Anderson vs. Cahill Fanpost

I was comparing our two young, bright-futured pitchers and I was surprised to find that their careers mirror each other's so closely, and yet they're still such different pitchers. It's actually kind of ridiculous. That's why I'm writing this fanpost.

Star-divide

Brett Anderson was drafted by the Diamondbacks in the second round of the amateur player draft in 2006, 55th overall. His father is the head baseball coach at Oklahoma State, and it kind of seems like he was born and bred in baseball--a real natural freak. He earned an all-state selection in 2006 in Oklahoma.

He didn't see any time in 2006, but dominated the first half of 2007 for Arizona's low-A affiliate, going 8-4 and posting an FIP of 2.01. After being moved up to high-A Visalia, he slowed a little bit, perhaps due to fatigue, perhaps due to the higher level of competition.

Nevertheless, he was ranked by Baseball America as Arizona's #3 prospect, behind Carlos Gonzalez (hey!) and Jarrod Parker. In a trade that benefitted both sides, Arizona moved Anderson along with five others for Danny Haren and Connor Robertson. BA also ranked him as Oakland's #3 prospect behind CarGon and Gio Gonzalez.

Anderson split time in 2008 between Stockton and Midland, dominating at both stops, putting up FIP's of under 3.00 in both leagues. His numbers at Stockton were slightly misleading, as his ERA of 4.14 was due to a handfull of bad outings caused by a thumb injury.

2008 also saw Anderson pitch a scoreles sinning in the Futures Game along with two starts for the USA Olympic team, putting up an ERA of 4.98, while still striking out 10 and walking only 3 in 12.2 innings.

Anderson's control has really been his calling card. Lord knows his stuff is always in question by somebody. He can occasionally dial the fastball up into the mid-90s which could be considered "plus" for a lefty, but none of his curve, slider or change rate as "plus," though all are well above average.

Even if you argue his stuff, you cannot argue his makeup. He is fun to watch in the Glavine/Maddux way (I'm not comparing him to them performance wise) in that he is able to disect a hitter and not get flustered when things go poorly. His first start against the Mariners (two broken bat hits that could have been the third out) could easily have gone the way of his second start against Boston.

***

Trevor Cahill's story is not unlike Andersons. Cahill was born on March 1, 1988, one month after Anderson. He was also selected by Oakland in the second round of the 2006 MLB Draft at 66th overall (11 spots after Anderson). He appeared in a handfull of games in 2006, putting up promising numbers.

In 2007, Cahill spend the entire season at Kane County, going 11-4 with an ERA of 2.73. It was not a fluke as his FIP was nearly identical at 2.74. Also in 2007, Cahill was ranked 10th among Oakland's prospects by BA.

Cahill followed up a stellar 2007 with a fantastic 2008 between Stockton and Midland. He went 5-4 at Stockton with an FIP of 2.63. He earned a call up to Midland late in the year and in 37 IP, he saw his ERA lower and his peripherals rise.

Like Anderson, he also pitched a scoreless inning in the MiLB Futures Game and saw 8 innings on the Olympic team before being shut down for precautionary reasons with an oblique strain.

Although the path was similar, the scenery was anything but. In terms of style, Cahill is anything but like Anderson. While Anderson relies on his control and natrual instinct, Cahill's stuff is off the charts. He did have a scholarship to Dartmouth, so the A's are relying on his intelligence to help him get to where he could go. Cahill is an incredibly controversial prospect, though in my opinion his sinker is already on the same tier as Webb and Lowe, but his control is not. His slider, knuckle-curve and change-up are all also very good pitches.

Hopefully his Dartmouth scholarship was deserved and he can use his head to figure it all out. So far I have noticed a tendency to overthrow in certain situations where he should just let his sinker do its sinking. He doesn't have the velocity or control to overpower hitters, but his sinker his enough to induce some pretty awkward swings.

Unfortunately, posting a K/9 of 2.6 threw his first 17.1 IP isn't enough to warrant the nickname K-Hill, so I think you should all hold off before awarding such lofty monickers.

***

I didn't include Vince Mazzaro in this discussion because it's clear that he even though there was much talk of MAC and the second coming of the next Big Three (the Little Three), Mazzaro isn't even close to being on the same level as Cahill and Anderson.

So far this year, Anderson has basically done what he usually does. His walk rate sits at 2.8 BB/9, along the line of his minor league walk rates, which has never been above 3. His strikeouts have taken a dip, but his H/9 is also in line with his minor league numbers, although all of this can be chocked down to sample size.

Cahill's numbers are a little stranger. His ERA sits at 2.60 but his periphals (and all A's fans) say that it shouldn't be that low. He benefits from being a groundball pitcher. His minor league GO/AO rate has been around 2ish. He will get double-play inducing grounders more often than other pitchers, but he cannot rely on this. He's walked 13 batters in 17.1 IP and has yet to allow a homerun. Those numbers should eventually catch up to him, but who knows? He could fluke his way through the season.

I have been openly pessimistic about throwing these two directly into the rotation this early in their careers. They are two of the youngest players in the MLB (I believe they are only behind Rick Porcello, but I could very well be mistaken), and I don't think 21 year olds should be 40% of our rotation.

However, if they continue to pitch well, they would easily be one of the biggest stories in baseball. Though if I wasn't a fan of the A's, I would never know--Thanks, ESPN.

This is your place to share your thoughts on the future of Oakland's two best prospects. What are your worries? What are your hopes? What are your expectations?

Finally... everybody loves polls!

Poll
Take your pick: In the long run, who would you rather have?
Trevor Cahill
99 votes
Brett Anderson
96 votes

195 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 34 comments  |  3 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I'll play

Hopes:

- Cahill begins to strike batters out and stop walking so many, and evolves into Brandon Webb.
- Anderson evolves into the 2001 version of Mark Mulder
- Both players sign 15 year extensions for $5M per season and never get injured or suffer declines in performance, and retire together on the way to HOF inductions.

Worries:

- Cahill doesn’t strike out enough batters and the league starts to figure him out a bit, meaning he doesn’t get so many balls hit weakly against him.
- Anderson gets hurt or forgets how to pitch

"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."

by mikev on Apr 20, 2009 8:09 AM PDT reply actions  

Worries:

- Oakland A’s offense still sucks for 15 years and they never reach 15 wins

Clear its radiance shine...

by ATarHeel on Apr 20, 2009 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm pretty confident the A's will win at least 15 games

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Apr 20, 2009 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

optimist

"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT

by travdog6 on Apr 20, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

So you're projecting 30 wins for the team?

More reasonable, but you don’t think the A’s can crack the 50 game mark this year?

"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball." - Connie Mack

by GoA's on Apr 20, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Of course

Clear its radiance shine...

by ATarHeel on Apr 21, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

It looks to me like Cahill has better stuff and therefore has a better chance at 200 Wins

in his career, but Anderson’s no slouch and both have a chance at 150+ Wins if they stay healthy.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Apr 20, 2009 8:49 AM PDT reply actions  

Cahill

probably has a higher ceiling, but Anderson is a safer bet.

I, for one, prefer Cahill. It’s the one-month age advantage.

"To this day and dating back 25 years, before every game he plays, Henderson stands completely naked in front of a full length locker room mirror and says, "Ricky’s the best," for several minutes."

by VORP is too nerdy on Apr 20, 2009 2:19 PM PDT reply actions  

Does anybody have any feelings towards these comparisons?

Trevor Cahill = Derek Lowe
Brett Anderson = Andy Pettitte

I think they both have the potential to be even better than that, but with only two full minor league seasons and a handful of major league starts, it is difficult to project higher expectations onto them.

Both Derek Lowe and Andy Pettitte have had very good years shuffled in with some average years, and that it was what I expect from them—barring any flameouts. Both Lowe and Pettitte had a couple more years in the minors, so I expect there to be plenty of learning on the job.

by NateHST on Apr 20, 2009 3:12 PM PDT reply actions  

Better than Lowe or Pettitte is a HOF

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Apr 20, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

So you're saying that neither of them as the potential to be a HOF?

Or in other words, neither have them has the ability to be an ace for several years plus longevity? I would say that they have a chance, just like everybody has some chance, albeit extremely slim. I think they could both become Pettitte/Lowe, with a tiny chance of being better.

by NateHST on Apr 20, 2009 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think WaddellCanseco is just saying

that it’s a bit of a stretch to think of a guy as a HOF candidate before his 4th major league start.

Do you know the way to San Jose?

by eastcoasta'sfan on Apr 20, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't mind thinking HOF after a guy wins a CYA though.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Apr 20, 2009 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm not saying they'll be HOF players

I see where it may have come off like that. I just think that Lowe and Pettitte are apt in looking at what kind of pitchers C/A could become. Not in overall performance, but in style and methods.

by NateHST on Apr 20, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

i think cahill has better stuff than

lowe, its just a matter gaining better control, if he can do that i think he will be better than Lowe, but i’d be happy if he were similar to lowe.

by BIGa's on Apr 20, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

i mean as good as Lowe

by BIGa's on Apr 20, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't think Pettitte

ever had a 94-95mph fastball. And Anderson’s cutter is nowhere near what Pettitte’s was when he broke into the league.

by oakballnack on Apr 21, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yes, I have feelings toward those comparisons.

My feeling is I don’t like seeing our young pitchers compared to former Yankees and Red Sox pitchers.

Yeah, I know, that’s not very rational, but it’s still how I feel.

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Apr 23, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

You mean because our guys are worse?

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Apr 23, 2009 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

Is is just me, or has Anderson's "stuff" looked better than Cahill's so far this season?

I know that all the scouting reports over the past year seem to indicate that Cahill is the “upside/stuff guy” and Anderson is the “command/reliable” guy…but so far this season, I’ve been more impressed with Anderson’s stuff than with Cahill’s.

From the ticker on Comcast it seemed like Anderson was throwing 92-93 with the fastball his Opening Night start in Oakland and hit 95 a few times and was spotting it pretty well. He was also able to bury his curve/slider to lefties when needed keep righties off-balance with his changeup.

Cahill, on the other hand, just seems to live off of his sinker, which, I agree, has looked like a “plus” pitch so far this season, although the fact that it rarely tops 90 is of come concern. His other pitchers have not looked all that impressive, at least to me, and when his knuckle-curve is not “on” he seems to be a one-trink pony without any real way to keep hitters off his fastball…hence his low-strikeout rate.

Anderson, on the other hand, seems like he can throw quality strikes with any of his four-pitches at any time and can even blow a mid-90s heater by someone if he really needs to.

Advantage Anderson so far, IMHO…

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Apr 20, 2009 6:16 PM PDT reply actions  

I disagree about Cahill not throwing over 90 is a concern

89 for a sinker is pretty good. His four seamer was hitting 94 on his first start.

by BIGa's on Apr 20, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with this. Cahill's secondary offerings haven't been that good in the majors.

But his sinker is the best pitch either of the two have, and might be the best pitch on the entire staff, when Duke isn’t there.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Apr 20, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Stuff doesn't necessarily mean velocity

Cahill’s sinker is ridiculous. Anderson actually has looked better than I expected, and with a 92-93 mph fastball as a lefty, he can overpower somebody not and then. But Cahill’s stuff is definitely better, IMO. His upside can pretty much only be reached by learning control—if he gains the ability to hit the outside corner and then bury it with two strikes, there will be games when he could be untouchable.

by NateHST on Apr 20, 2009 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'

"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau

by King Richard on Apr 20, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

Whoops, I accidentally hit return,

I’ve been thinking this quietly to myself too, and hoping that Cahill will start to get his secondary pitches working and change my mind, but it hasn’t happened yet.

I think that once Cahill’s curve starts landing in the lower portion of the strikezone with good bite (which scouts have previously said it has), it will make his sinker look even more impressive and he’ll start getting strikeouts and his stuff will look really good.

But until then, Anderson really seems to have better pitches and better control…

"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau

by King Richard on Apr 20, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think Anderson's "stuff" has looked better

but that the hype for Cahill is growing because he has more projectability. He has basically been able to survive his first few starts with a poorly controlled 2-seamer that sits at 87-89 mph. His peripherals have been terrible but the pitch just moves so much it seems like he can be one of those rare pitchers who has a repeatable skill of generating low babip.

Cahill’s sinker is wicked, it almost looks like a power screwball it has so much downward and arm-side break. Hitters have a very hard time making contact with it even though he has trouble controlling it and get keep hitters honest with the curve or change-up. If he can add these thing over time he will not just be surviving but potentially dominating.

Anderson has looked great like you said, pitching to both sides of the plate and mixing up his pitches to keep hitters honest. But where does he go from here? I just don’t know that there is much room for Anderson to get better.

by OkayJay81 on Apr 21, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

Lock them in a cage.

Two men enter, one man leaves. That guy then becomes my pick.

by OldhamA on Apr 21, 2009 3:15 AM PDT reply actions  

good idea

sounds arousing interesting

"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT

by travdog6 on Apr 21, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

Not to, you know, be completely full of myself ...

but, well, I am completely full of myself, so …

I can personally attest that academic intelligence has NOTHING at all to do with the ability to control one’s emotions and keep one’s physical performance in a neutral, balanced place in stressful situations …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Apr 21, 2009 6:32 PM PDT reply actions  

Disagree.

An intelligent player like Maddux late in his career knows that he shouldn’t overthrow and just to let his pitches use their natural movement, whereas another player might think, “Man, I just need to overpower this guy,” so he overthrows, losing control and movement and gets away from what he does well.

You’re saying that baseball knowledge and academic knowledge have absolutely no correlation. While I think an intelligent baseball player can know to do this or that, I think an academically intelligent person can use reasoning better in a given situation.

by NateHST on Apr 21, 2009 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm with Devo on this.

Academic intelligence does not correlate positively with ability to control one’s emotions.

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Apr 23, 2009 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

You're right, but being unable to control one's emotions

doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t know to not overthrow in any situation.

by NateHST on Apr 24, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hey it's Devo!

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Apr 23, 2009 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
A's relocation option from a legal expert on the issue
Oakland_athletics_team_logo_photofile_small
Prospects 1Q Report

Recent FanPosts

Small
GOG 2012 #18: The Twins have a shiny new park, and not much else
Small
Gotta Be Their Pitching
Hardly-boys_small
Minor League notes on Major League Day Off
Small
Cespedes Upate?
Small
The SF Warriors, the LA Raiders and the Oakland A's
Photo__11__small
COG #17 - Yankees vs. Athletics or Spank me! Spank me!
100_1536_small
What to do? What to do?
Small
Fans Should Buy the A's
Reg3_small
Tom Milone's Nickname

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Front Page Writers

Maya_papi_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

Img_1877_small Billy Frijoles

Img_0653_small dwishinsky

Sb_nation1_small ahhall

Front Page Writers

Smiley_face_small gigglingone

Venasfans_small OaklandSi

60-minutes-clock_small cuppingmaster

Patpicturebucky2_small YonYonson

Img_3830_small David Fung

Moderators

Photofunia-5c770b_small coffee roaster

Denver_small Colorado Fan

Ls_logo100_small LoneStranger

Thumbs_up_small LongTimeFan

Marty_profile_in_green_small mrod

Babycomputergeek_small paris7

Img_0115_small Tutu-late