It will be ok gentleman Mr. Law has over projocted many more prospects than he has under. A very safe answer from him and I wonder how many starts he actually seen as opposed to jumping on fan graphs. Mr. Hagler is right in that there seems to be something there with the the debth of Diamonds pitches. He pitches like he's 6'7". BTW Jack Morris had a k rate (5.9) below league average in 91 and nobody thinks of him anything but an ace #1 type.
Law's comment is very consistent with his view on Diamond when the Diamond/Bullock trade went down. He's incredulous that Diamond can have sustained success, which, given Diamond's strikeout rate is understandable.
That said, what I wrote about recent (http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?90...inues-to-Shine) shows that Diamond does have enough tools to continue to be a good pitcher. He's got the high release point which helps him change planes. He's got the effective velocity where his fastball/curve look very similar and fools hitters. He works quickly and out in front of the count avoiding walks. Those are all traits of someone able to be a good starter.
Like everyone else here seems to be insinuating, it just depends on whose rotation Diamond is in whether or not he is a fifth starter.
I mean, his K/9 is lower than Nick Blackburn's when Blackburn was league average his first two years as a starter.
I don't see Blackburn's track record as a fair comparison for Diamond.
Technically, Diamond's 4.9 K/9 is higher than Blackburn's 4.5 in '08 and 4.3 in '09 and Diamond's swinging strike rate is higher as well, not to mention, his ground ball rate (56%) is far better than Blackburn's (45% in both '08 & '09).
Diamond's ERA/Win Total etc.. are all very good right now, but as Seth says, like Blackburn, he's doing what he's doing in a non-typical fashion for a #1 or even #3 type starter, which is pretty much unsustainable long term. Keith Law's point I think is that if you look how some define #1 through #5 type starters, Diamond would fall into the #5 category. Look at who the Twins have in their starting rotation right now, of course Diamond is the Twins #1 this year, but an individual team's #1 or #3 is often times a lot different than a scout's classification of a #1 or #3. I'd say every starter the Twins are rolling out right now falls into the "fifth starter" category, most probably the "borderline fifth starter/spot starter" in actuality.
That is a valid point, but even when Blackburn was at his peak he did not come close to being as effective as Diamond is right now. I believe Diamond can be a valid number three, four at the lowest. The stuff is there, he has posted numbers like this at almost every level he has played at. But if people want to discredit that he can continue the success he is having now, like they did with Revere, so be it.
I also think that Law might be looking at the ideal 5th starter, not necessarily the Twins' 5th starter. If Diamond was the 5th starter on your team, you would take that. If he is your ace, odds are, your team is 20 games under .500.
I want to say he's wrong. I just don't know how to argue against his opinion.... I mean, his K/9 is lower than Nick Blackburn's when Blackburn was league average his first two years as a starter. He's the Twins #1, and next year even if they bring in two good pitchers, he's still the Twins #3... but it's hard to call him a #3 long term...