I watched the game yesterday (and own him in a 14-team Roto) and he looked filthy. He definitely looked like he has the potential to be a #3/4 starter this year.
He was once highly touted, but that was around the time Mazzone left Atlanta for Baltimore. Many people speculated that he left because the talent well had finally dried up.
Davies is a good play for 14-team leagues or deeper 12-team leagues. I wouldn't say a breakout season is immenent, but an improvement is certainly possible. 4.50 ERA, 1.45 WHIP, with a tad less than a K per inning seems possible.
Mexecutioner is one of the more clever nicknames out there . Another one I like is Big Puma.
I know the OP has tempered expectations, but I'm just sayin'.
His failure at the Major League level is even a smaller of a sample size as his success at the minor league level.
He's got 400+ MLB innings, with 7 good ones this year, compared to just under 600 innings of minors ball.
It's not like we're looking at 100 innings here.
No, we aren't looking at 100 innings. But its not just the 7 innings that most have been looking at either. Its 600 innings of minor league ball where he was sub-3 ERA at every level, plus a dominating 30 innings to end 2008, plus a solid 2009 spring, and then add in a great start to the season and you have a guy who has shown the ability to be very successful. The 370 innings of bad major league history is a fine counterpoint to blow the guy off, but to make it out to be a bandwagon based on his first start is a disservice.
Tavish wrote:... to make it out to be a bandwagon based on his first start is a disservice.
I was merely attempting to head that off at the pass.
He could very well have found something that righted his ship a la Grienke. Definitely not disregarding that possibility, but I'm not gonna be super excited yet. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go claim him in my league.
He was rushed to the majors by the Braves, not his fault. They skipped him past AA and he only had 70+ip above A ball. Unless the pitcher is a rarity, it never works out well in the short term. It messes with them from a developmental stand point from their pitches to their mental frame of mind. Gavin Floyd is another that comes to mind who the Phillies screwed up, yet finally came around last year. It's not like Davies can't be good or is coming out of nowhere, he's just been off the radar for a bit so people tend to forget.
If you watched him pitch recently you could tell the potential is there. He has 4 pitches and mixes them up really well, w/ a very good curve.
Picked him up late last season and helped me down the stretch. Had to make room so I dropped him. Thought about adding him, but found what I thought to be better options. Then I see his line and go to pick him up.....only to find he's now taken in every league already.
I know the OP has tempered expectations, but I'm just sayin'.
From that article:
But anyways, there you have it, my plea to avoid overestimating value based on small sample sizes. Waiting until the 50 game mark might be too much to ask, but at least get past 20 games before you claim having advanced knowledge about the causes of a player’s performance this season.
The only thing I claimed was that if you have an empty roster spot or a droppable bum he's worth a look; if anything keep tabs on him to see if he keeps it up. I don't even own the guy in either of my leagues,I'm not trying to pimp has my "OMG grab him now, '09s Voltron/Cliff Lee!" sleeper by any means. The only comparison I made was Gavin Floyd and that's just because he was a mid twenties pitcher that finally put it together, I'm not saying Davies will do the same but it's not impossible. As you know, you have to take a shot at an unproven player whose shown glimpses of potential every now and then if you want to keep an edge over your competition. If you wait 50 games for a player to prove that they're for real (and they do), they'll be long gone.
One thing I WILL claim is that Davies had a great September and carried that momentum into his first start