Tnstaapp

[DrungoHazewood]

There's No Such Thing as a Pitching Prospect. That's the idea that pitchers are so injury-prone, and so subject to irrational development or non-development that it's almost unrealistic to call any pitcher a prospect in the same way you'd call a position player one.

In a recent Prospectus Unfiltered post Nate Silver wrote a bit that I think has special relevance for the Orioles:


I’m just leeching off other people’s work here, but Gary Huckabay said something so succinctly in today’s Giants‘ Hope & Faith piece that I believe it deserves a second look:

When I first wrote that “There’s No Such Thing as a Pitching Prospect,” it meant two things, one of which has kind of become lost over time. Yes, it means that pitchers get hurt at approximately the same rate that methheads swipe identities and lose teeth. That’s what all pitchers do, not just prospects. But it also had another meaning—that guys who are totally blowing people away in the minors like they’re so many hot dog pretenders before Kobayashi are absolutely not pitching prospects—they’re already pitchers, and more time in the minors only means time off the living, pulsating clocks that are their labrums, rotator cuffs, and elbows.

[emphasis added]

One thing that distinguishes young hitters from young pitchers is that young hitters can pretty much count on making steady improvements from the time they start playing professional ball until the time they’re 26 or 27. You might have a guy like Cameron Maybin who would be pretty overwhelmed if he tried to play in the major leagues today — but we can be fairly certain that he’ll be able to handle the big leagues in two or three years time. Cameron Maybin is a prospect.

The same is not the case with pitching prospects. Although there are a few categories of pitching prospects — particularly guys with good stuff, high strikeout rates and highish walk rates (think Homer Bailey) — that tend to improve more often than not, in general there is no systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so. Sometimes guys get better, of course, and sometimes they do so in a hurry — but you can’t take a young pitcher in a vacuum and expect him to improve the same way that you can for a hitting prospect. Mark Rogers (to pick on some low-hanging fruit) will probably never get his command sorted out, Yusemiro Petit will never add enough ticks to his fastball to become a useful major league starter, Gavin Floyd will never learn how to keep the ball down, and so forth. All of these things are possible — but they’re not very likely.

The flip side, as Gary also alludes to, is that young pitchers often take less time to become dominant big league performers. Pitching, somewhat contrary to the mad genius reputation of pitchers like Greg Maddux, is more of a purely physical skill and less of a learned behavior than hitting is. Pitchers like Francisco Liriano and Jered Weaver and Cole Hamels — these guys weren’t just holding their own last year, they were among the very best pitchers in baseball. Someone like Hamels — or Tim Lincecum or Philip Hughes — might very well be as effective today as he’s ever going to be, before he’s had a chance for injuries and mileage to accumulate. Keeping those guys down on the farm is not conservative — it’s a downright irresponsible way to run a ballclub.

We’ll have more on these themes when we get around to the pitchers in the PECOTA takes on prospects series.

We talk an awful lot about how any group of players or pitchers taken as a whole peak at 27. And it's true. But where this breaks down is with individuals, and especially individual pitchers. I often bring up a few of my favorite out-of-character pitchers, like Dazzy Vance who had a HOF career after having zero wins at the age of 30. Or Billy Taylor, who was a good closer despite being a AAA journeyman at 30. But what balances that out is the number of pitchers who figure things out at 21 and peak at 22, but blow their arms out at 25.

Where this relates to the Orioles is with their pitching promotion logic. I've sometimes found fault with things like promoting Jim Hoey from low A to the majors in about two months. But maybe once a pitcher figures it out, or gets completely healthy there's no reason to not do this. There's every chance Hoey only has so many pitches, so many innings in that arm, and it makes sense to get most of them in the majors, helping the team win.

And with pitchers like Sidney Ponson or Adam Loewen. Guys who weren't exactly ripping through the minors like Martians in War of the Worlds... but if the team thinks they're at a point where their stuff and makeup is as good as it gets, maybe getting as much value out of them at the major league level as possible now is the right path.

If you believe this way of thinking, then maybe it's justification for not signing a Trachsel or trading for a Wright. Garrett Olson has looked great at every level - he's a polished college pitcher with multiple major league pitches. There's an argument here that he's never going to be any better than he is right now, and sending him back to AAA (which they've already done) is just using up innings and pitches that just might be ticking down to the inevitable injury or loss of ability.

What do you think? Is Nate Silver crazy? I tend to think there's a good bit of validity in this.

[NewMarketSean]

I believe in this more than I believe in giving Wright and Trachsel uncontested spots in the 2007 rotation.

[RZNJ]

Who do we rely on, to tell us when a specific pitcher is ready, Nate Silver?

[Frobby]

Now we're back to the litany of young pitchers who made their way to Baltimore in a hurry in the 1960's. Some as teenagers (Palmer, McNally, Bunker, Pappas), others in their early 20's.

With that said, I think the O's have moved them quickly enough. Bedard, Cabrera and Loewen each had less than a season of AA before reaching the majors. Penn moved very quickly from low-A to AA, and only appendicitis and some early arm issues kept him from spending more time in the majors last year. Olson and Liz each moved 2 levels last season. Britton was called up after just a few weeks in AA. And you already mentioned Hoey.

[tennOsfan]

I believe this author has a point, and it's a viewpoint that could be valid somethings. However, until proven otherwise, I will subscribe to the theory that pitchers can improve into their late 20s by simply learning to better apply their craft.

I'd certainly take this author's logic and promote an Olson or Penn for that fifth rotation spot rather than waste $3 million on Trachsel.

[Herbie]

Who do we rely on, to tell us when a specific pitcher is ready, Nate Silver?

How about the people getting paid to like Duquette, Falnagan, Mazzone and Stocksill? Crazy thought.

[Sports Guy]

I think most players need a certain amount of time in the minors but it does get to a point where its like, what else do they have to learn?

This is the way i felt about Markakis last year.

I just don't really believe in the idea of a player being rushed in most cases. You either are going to be good or you aren't.

[NewMarketSean]

Being rushed has more to do with their mental make-up than it does their physical talent. I think Penn's mental make-up was what caused him to have problems in his 2 stints in the majors.

I do think, however, that most pitchers work through them.

[Frobby]

Being rushed has more to do with their mental make-up than it does their physical talent. I think Penn's mental make-up was what caused him to have problems in his 2 stints in the majors.

To me, Penn's mental makeup was quite impressive when he was called up in May 2005 at age 20. I happened to be on hand for his first major league start and was really impressed. And if you look at his game log from that year you'll see that he kept the team in just about every game he pitched, with a couple of exceptions. I thought it was a great performance for a 20-year old.

Last year Penn was unimpressive to say the least, but I'm not going to ascribe that to his mental makeup. For whatever reason, his command wasn't sharp last September. I still have lot of confidence in this kid and I don't think his mental makeup will be an issue.

[Leitch]

I think it's a very interesting point, how unpredictably pitchers age. I don't know if I necessarily take the training wheels off of sub age-25 flamethrowers, but there is less and less justification for boring a Philip Hughes or a Hayden Penn(not that they're terribly similar, don't get me wrong) against AAA hitters when they've clearly got nothing left to learn.

[Baltimoron]

I believe this author has a point, and it's a viewpoint that could be valid somethings. However, until proven otherwise, I will subscribe to the theory that pitchers can improve into their late 20s by simply learning to better apply their craft.

You misunderstand the author's viewpoint.


One thing that distinguishes young hitters from young pitchers is that young hitters can pretty much count on making steady improvements from the time they start playing professional ball until the time they’re 26 or 27. You might have a guy like Cameron Maybin who would be pretty overwhelmed if he tried to play in the major leagues today — but we can be fairly certain that he’ll be able to handle the big leagues in two or three years time. Cameron Maybin is a prospect.

The same is not the case with pitching prospects. Although there are a few categories of pitching prospects — particularly guys with good stuff, high strikeout rates and highish walk rates (think Homer Bailey) — that tend to improve more often than not, in general there is no systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so. Sometimes guys get better, of course, and sometimes they do so in a hurry — but you can’t take a young pitcher in a vacuum and expect him to improve the same way that you can for a hitting prospect.

[Leitch]

To me, Penn's mental makeup was quite impressive when he was called up in May 2005 at age 20. I happened to be on hand for his first major league start and was really impressed. And if you look at his game log from that year you'll see that he kept the team in just about every game he pitched, with a couple of exceptions. I thought it was a great performance for a 20-year old.

Last year Penn was unimpressive to say the least, but I'm not going to ascribe that to his mental makeup. For whatever reason, his command wasn't sharp last September. I still have lot of confidence in this kid and I don't think his mental makeup will be an issue.

Didn't someone say he was overthrowing, hence the missing up and the straightness of his fastball? I don't think I saw him break off that nice hook he's supposed to have, either.

[Baltimoron]

His point is pretty basic - hitting is more a skill whereas pitching is more about physical traits. You can learn skills but not physical traits.


Pitching, somewhat contrary to the mad genius reputation of pitchers like Greg Maddux, is more of a purely physical skill and less of a learned behavior than hitting is.

[Frobby]

Didn't someone say he was overthrowing, hence the missing up and the straightness of his fastball? I don't think I saw him break off that nice hook he's supposed to have, either.

His curve was awful last September. He's capable of much better. And his eagerness to "make up for lost time" may have had something to do with it, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that a temporary overagerness doesn't necessarily equate to lack of good mental makeup.

[Leitch]

His curve was awful last September. He's capable of much better. And his eagerness to "make up for lost time" may have had something to do with it, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that a temporary overagerness doesn't necessarily equate to lack of good mental makeup.

I know, I was kind of speculating as to his command issues, not really his makeup.

[davearm]

Silver says a lot of interesting things here, but I wouldn't agree with all of it.

In particular I'd take issue with the implication that pitchers typically don't/won't improve over time. That's just kind of silly, IMO. Sure, there are some pitchers that peak in their early 20s (and many more pitchers than hitters fit this profile), but these guys are more the exception than the rule.

I also think he carries the nature versus nurture analogy too far when comparing pitching to hitting. There's definitely a different mix of both inherent in each skill, but yet there's still plenty of learning that a pitcher has to do too.

However I can go along with the notion that every guy's arm has a finite (albeit unknown) number of pitches in it, and that lifetime supply gets used up while in the minors. That, naturally, provides a certain incentive to elevate a pitcher to the majors ASAP.

The question I keep coming back to is this. Would being in a minor league environment be better, the same, or worse for the development of a promising19 year old pitcher like Brandon Erbe? That is, will Erbe be better at age 25 if he learns OTJ with the O's for the next 5+ years, or will he be better at age 25 if he pitches a year each at lo-A, Hi-A, AA, and AAA before joining the O's? Which progression leads to the better "finished product"?

And then ask the same question about a 19 year old hitter like Billy Rowell.

IMO you could make a pretty solid case that a pitcher like Erbe could be as good or better at 25 if he goes straight to the bigs and learns OTJ with the O's. And I think the opposite might very well be true for a hitter like Rowell.

If you accept that premise, then with pitchers the question you ask yourself is whether it's in the team's best immediate interests to suffer through the growing pains with a guy like Erbe (versus giving that rotation spot to someone like Wright), and what the expectation is for how Erbe will do relative to how Wright would do.

If that analysis is close or possibly in Erbe's favor, then the choice is easy, and you bring Erbe up. If you think the team will likely lose more games with Erbe in the rotation than Wright, then you've got a choice to make, weighing long-term goals with short-term goals.

With a hitter, however, the analysis is different, since there's the potential for retarding a guy's development by advancing him too quickly. There you have to assess whether the guy is "ready", and how much of a chance for regression you're taking by promoting him.

Anyway, interesting discussion.

[El Gordo]

His point is pretty basic - hitting is more a skill whereas pitching is more about physical traits. You can learn skills but not physical traits.

Throwing a good fast ball is a physical trait; locating it is a skill. Mazzone would say that the location is more important than the velocity. Changing speeds is also a skill as is pitch selection. Many pitcher's are able to win relyng on these skills.

[hoosiers]

in general there is no systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so. Sometimes guys get better, of course, and sometimes they do so in a hurry — but you can’t take a young pitcher in a vacuum and expect him to improve the same way that you can for a hitting prospect.


I think there is something beneath these numbers that Mr. Silver still has to understand. As a whole, he appears to conclude that that, ON AVERAGE, pitchers as a class do not improve much after age 21 - but I do not see this as any revelation - some pitchers improve and some regress and that the net results are flat.

The general revelation also hints that treatment by managers and advice from pitching coaches would have not have an impact -- something I find difficult to believe. The numbers suggest some prospects figure out how to improve - through better command, new pitchers, ditching bad pitches - while others don't. So, my question to Mr. Silver would be, 'what is it that causes the improvement in those pitchers who do improve'? Why can't that be duplicated from pitcher to pitcher?

I believe the conclusion that young prospects should be promoted fast to use the good arms while they last as in DH's Hoey and Olson examples is a bit misleading. I think the experience and maturity gained from pitching in the minors is substantial in a case by case basis and it is wrong to conclude that, just because the numbers said the effect is negligible to the population as a whole, a pitching prospect should be shepherded quickly through the minors.

[DrungoHazewood]

The question I keep coming back to is this. Would being in a minor league environment be better, the same, or worse for the development of a promising19 year old pitcher like Brandon Erbe? That is, will Erbe be better at age 25 if he learns OTJ with the O's for the next 5+ years, or will he be better at age 25 if he pitches a year each at lo-A, Hi-A, AA, and AAA before joining the O's? Which progression leads to the better "finished product"?

And then ask the same question about a 19 year old hitter like Billy Rowell.

You know, there's a test case. Bonus Babies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_baby). In the 50s there was a rule that was designed to keep teams from hoarding talent straight out of high school, where if you took a teenager and paid him a certain bonus he had to spend a certain number of years on the major league roster. Kind of like the Rule 5 now, but remember this was pre-draft, so if you signed a big star out of high school he had to hang around on the end of the bench for several years.

Most of the guys who fell under this rule didn't amount to anything. But that's also the case for a lot of 1st and 2nd round high school draft picks. But some of them were great.

Harmon Killebrew was one. He spent most of his age 18-22 seasons sitting the pine in Washington, taking batting practice, shagging flies, and not playing much baseball. After a while he was allowed to go back to Chattanooga in the minors, but he lost several key development years just hanging out in the majors. And he went on to a HOF career.

Sandy Koufax, Al Kaline, and Jay Hook were others. So were Joey Jay, Mike McCormick, Lindy McDaniel, and Billy O'Dell.

It seems that, at least for some players, it doesn't hurt their development to spend one or more teenage years as a major league fly on the wall.

Of course the difference between the 50s and today are salaries. Today teams want to be darn sure a player is ready before they start their arbitration clock.

[billyc123]

The general revelation also hints that treatment by managers and advice from pitching coaches would have not have an impact -- something I find difficult to believe. The numbers suggest some prospects figure out how to improve - through better command, new pitchers, ditching bad pitches - while others don't. So, my question to Mr. Silver would be, 'what is it that causes the improvement in those pitchers who do improve'? Why can't that be duplicated from pitcher to pitcher?

I believe the conclusion that young prospects should be promoted fast to use the good arms while they last as in DH's Hoey and Olson examples is a bit misleading. I think the experience and maturity gained from pitching in the minors is substantial in a case by case basis and it is wrong to conclude that, just because the numbers said the effect is negligible to the population as a whole, a pitching prospect should be shepherded quickly through the minors.
I'm leery of developing or suggesting a general rule that applies to all pitchers or all hitters. Certainly, I'd agree that each player can become only so good. After that, it seems to me that his mental make-up will have significant bearing on what he gets out of his talent. While it would be a lot easier if a rule like this existed, I agree with hoosiers: each player has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The number of factors that play some role in each player's development is immeasurable and means, I think, that there is no answer to this difficult question that is right all the time.

As an aside, it will be interesting to watch Loewen this year in light of this discussion. He's young & seems to want the ball in a way that some pitchers don't. I wonder how the balance of his talent & "bulldog" mentality will fare over the course of a full season in the bigs.

[davearm]

You know, there's a test case. Bonus Babies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_baby). In the 50s there was a rule that was designed to keep teams from hoarding talent straight out of high school, where if you took a teenager and paid him a certain bonus he had to spend a certain number of years on the major league roster. Kind of like the Rule 5 now, but remember this was pre-draft, so if you signed a big star out of high school he had to hang around on the end of the bench for several years.

Most of the guys who fell under this rule didn't amount to anything. But that's also the case for a lot of 1st and 2nd round high school draft picks. But some of them were great.

Harmon Killebrew was one. He spent most of his age 18-22 seasons sitting the pine in Washington, taking batting practice, shagging flies, and not playing much baseball. After a while he was allowed to go back to Chattanooga in the minors, but he lost several key development years just hanging out in the majors. And he went on to a HOF career.

Sandy Koufax, Al Kaline, and Jay Hook were others. So were Joey Jay, Mike McCormick, Lindy McDaniel, and Billy O'Dell.

It seems that, at least for some players, it doesn't hurt their development to spend one or more teenage years as a major league fly on the wall.

Of course the difference between the 50s and today are salaries. Today teams want to be darn sure a player is ready before they start their arbitration clock.
I wasn't considering the case of a young guy coming to the majors just to sit around not playing. I see no reason why a team today would contemplate such a tactic for even a second. Regardless of level, you want your kids playing.

So the question is whether a current-day Billy Rowell would be better after 2000 ML ABs (beginning at age 19 or 20), or 500 in Lo-A + 500 in Hi-A + 500 in AA + 500 in AAA (culminating with a ML debut at age 23 or 24).

Same question pertains to Brandon Erbe types, using, say, increments of 150 IP.

My hypothesis is that the bigleague OTJ training is less likely to be the better route for hitters than it is for pitchers, owing to Silver's idea that a hitter's development is biased more toward "learning" than is a pitcher's. (The OTJ approach might not be the right route for either hitters *or* pitchers, but my guess is it stands to be more appropriate for the latter than the former.)

[Sports Guy]

I wasn't considering the case of a young guy coming to the majors just to sit around not playing. I see no reason why a team today would contemplate such a tactic for even a second. Regardless of level, you want your kids playing.

So the question is whether a current-day Billy Rowell would be better after 2000 ML ABs (beginning at age 19 or 20), or 500 in Lo-A + 500 in Hi-A + 500 in AA + 500 in AAA (culminating with a ML debut at age 23 or 24).

Same question pertains to Brandon Erbe types, using, say, increments of 150 IP.

My hypothesis is that the bigleague OTJ training is less likely to be the better route for hitters than it is for pitchers, owing to Silver's idea that a hitter's development is biased more toward "learning" than is a pitcher's. (The OTJ approach might not be the right route for either hitters *or* pitchers, but my guess is it stands to be more appropriate for the latter than the former.)
At the end of the day, Rowell should have shown improvement as he moves up. If he ends the year this year in Frederick and got better than he was in Delmarva(like markakis did), i see no reason to have him get a certain number of ab's in single A.

I would immediately move him to Bowie for the 2008 season. If, over 100-250 ab's, he is doing well in Bowie, send him to Norfolk or maybe even Baltimore.

You do need to see that these guys don't get overwhelmed in the higher leagues and if they don't, there is very little incentive in keeping them down there too long.

Certain players are just that good.

[DrungoHazewood]

I wasn't considering the case of a young guy coming to the majors just to sit around not playing. I see no reason why a team today would contemplate such a tactic for even a second. Regardless of level, you want your kids playing.

What I was kind of getting at was what about using a guy like Erbe like a Rule 5er. He'd play, but not all that often, and not in key situations. I'd be willing to bet that if you used Erbe as a 40-50 inning mopup man this year he'd do as well as your random James Baldwin, and it wouldn't hurt his development.

[Leitch]

At the end of the day, Rowell should have shown improvement as he moves up. If he ends the year this year in Frederick and got better than he was in Delmarva(like markakis did), i see no reason to have him get a certain number of ab's in single A.

I would immediately move him to Bowie for the 2008 season. If, over 100-250 ab's, he is doing well in Bowie, send him to Norfolk or maybe even Baltimore.

You do need to see that these guys don't get overwhelmed in the higher leagues and if they don't, there is very little incentive in keeping them down there too long.

Certain players are just that good.

For hitters, not wanting to start their arbitration clock early is an incentive. Not that I necessarily agree with it driving the decision, but there it is.

[Sports Guy]

For hitters, not wanting to start their arbitration clock early is an incentive. Not that I necessarily agree with it driving the decision, but there it is.

Yea and that is a good point and always has to be considered.

OTOH, you want the best team out there possible and if he is better than what you have out there and he has shown solid improvement at higher levels, bring him up.

[Baltimoron]

In particular I'd take issue with the implication that pitchers typically don't/won't improve over time. That's just kind of silly, IMO. Sure, there are some pitchers that peak in their early 20s (and many more pitchers than hitters fit this profile), but these guys are more the exception than the rule.


That's a good implication to take issue with, since it wasn't one in the article.


The same is not the case with pitching prospects. Although there are a few categories of pitching prospects — particularly guys with good stuff, high strikeout rates and highish walk rates (think Homer Bailey) — that tend to improve more often than not, in general there is no systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so. Sometimes guys get better, of course, and sometimes they do so in a hurry — but you can’t take a young pitcher in a vacuum and expect him to improve the same way that you can for a hitting prospect.

[davearm]

At the end of the day, Rowell should have shown improvement as he moves up. If he ends the year this year in Frederick and got better than he was in Delmarva(like markakis did), i see no reason to have him get a certain number of ab's in single A.

I would immediately move him to Bowie for the 2008 season. If, over 100-250 ab's, he is doing well in Bowie, send him to Norfolk or maybe even Baltimore.

You do need to see that these guys don't get overwhelmed in the higher leagues and if they don't, there is very little incentive in keeping them down there too long.

Certain players are just that good.
I agree that's what will happen with the actual Billy Rowell.

But the question at hand is, what would happen if the generic Billy Rowell (or Maybin, or Bruce, or Tabata, or Travis Snyder, or whoever) was promoted to the majors now, and fed to the wolves, so to speak?

Would he come out the other end at age 24 or whatever a better player than he would've been if he had instead taken a typical progression up through the minors?

And what results would you get from using the same approach with the generic Brandon Erbe (or Kershaw, or Adenhart, etc.)?

And weigh all of that with how the ~4-year production of the raw-but-learning kids would compare to the veteran replacement alternatives -- the Moras and Paytons and Wrights and Traschels of the baseball world.

[davearm]

That's a good implication to take issue with, since it wasn't one in the article.
Give me a friggin break.

The statement, "in general there is no systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so" clearly implies that most pitchers typically don't/won't improve over time, just as I inferred.

That premise I don't agree with.

[Leitch]

That's a good implication to take issue with, since it wasn't one in the article.

I really fail to see how "Pitchers don't age/develop as predictably as hitters do" is such a controversial thing.

[Chollie Eckman]

Physiologically bodies are still growing (albiet outward) in the early 20 and thus still developing. David Clyde comes to mind in this discussion. If he would have had a few years in the minors to build up his endurance who knows what kind of career he would have had?

I know that's an extreme example, but all bodies aren't the same. I guess it depends on the maturitity of the pitcher physically and mentally. I wonder if you bring these guys up soon whether the have the mentality of over throwing where they get scared to pitch to contact.

In the end it probably depends on the commitment of an organization to a philosophy of using/rushing young pitchers.

If it works, everyone will start doing it and the book written about it will make some obscure journeyman the Greek God of WHIP.:)

[DrungoHazewood]

Physiologically bodies are still growing (albiet outward) in the early 20 and thus still developing. David Clyde comes to mind in this discussion. If he would have had a few years in the minors to build up his endurance who knows what kind of career he would have had?

What's the difference between pitching on a strict pitch count in the majors and in the minors? Why can't a pitcher build up his endurance in the majors just as well as in the minors?

I guess there's the idea that the minor league teams don't care if they win or lose, so they'd have less of a problem limiting their 19-year-old to 125 innings and 80 pitches a start.

I just don't see that much difference between Brandon Erbe pitching 100 innings in the Carolina League or Brandon Erbe pitching 100 innings in Baltimore when it comes to his future health or development.

[davearm]

I really fail to see how "Pitchers don't age/develop as predictably as hitters do" is such a controversial thing.
The significantly higher injury risk inherent with pitching has a whole lot to do with that unpredictability though.

If you could control for that factor, I think you could reasonably conclude that minor league experience results in a "systematic pattern of improvement" for pitchers as well as hitters: more guys get better than get worse.

[Baltimoron]

Throwing a good fast ball is a physical trait; locating it is a skill. Mazzone would say that the location is more important than the velocity. Changing speeds is also a skill as is pitch selection. Many pitcher's are able to win relyng on these skills.

Wow. Keeping the spirit of confusion and misinterpretation alive, I'll go double negative. The idea *is not* that location and changing speed are not learned skills (although the extent to which you likely think they are is likely inflated), but:

1) they are not skills that a pitching prospect is a certain to develop if he doesn't already possess them, and
2) they aren't skills that take years of repetition to develop, and most importantly
3) if they already are a pitching prospect they likely already possess these skills (meaning there isn't a whole lot of upside growth).

[Hallas]

What I was kind of getting at was what about using a guy like Erbe like a Rule 5er. He'd play, but not all that often, and not in key situations. I'd be willing to bet that if you used Erbe as a 40-50 inning mopup man this year he'd do as well as your random James Baldwin, and it wouldn't hurt his development.

So in essence, go back to Earl's old rule of bringing prospects up earlier than they might otherwise be in the majors to pitch in long relief?

[Leitch]

So in essence, go back to Earl's old rule of bringing prospects up earlier than they might otherwise be in the majors to pitch in long relief?

I don't think Earl's rule was necessarily that you bring prospects up early so much as that every rookie pitcher should serve an apprenticeship in long relief.

[davearm]

Wow. Keeping the spirit of confusion and misinterpretation alive, I'll go double negative. The idea *is not* that location and changing speed are not learned skills (although the extent to which you likely think they are is likely inflated), but:

1) they are not skills that a pitching prospect is a certain to develop if he doesn't already possess them, and
2) they aren't skills that take years of repetition to develop, and most importantly
3) if they already are a pitching prospect they likely already possess these skills (meaning there isn't a whole lot of upside growth).
1) Nothing's certain, for pitchers or for hitters. That's obvious.

2) Couldn't disagree more. Sound, repeatable pitching mechanics and sharp command most definitely take years of repetition to develop. Developing the ability to throw a baseball 90 MPH into a teacup from 60 feet time after time takes every bit as much repetition as shooting free throws or putting: hours and hours of it every year, even for the very best in the world.

3) A great number of pitching prospects are considered prospects simply because they have the armstrength to throw the living daylights out of the ball. These guys most definitely need time to "learn" to harness these raw skills, make their delivery repeatable, develop offspeed pitches, etc. etc.

Now obviously some guys are more advanced and polished than others. But the notion that the advanced guys can't get better with practice and repetition seems really silly to me.

[Leitch]

3) A great number of pitching prospects are considered prospects simply because they have the armstrength to throw the living daylights out of the ball. These guys most definitely need time to "learn" to harness these raw skills, make their delivery repeatable, develop offspeed pitches, etc. etc.

He's not talking about those guys, though; Silver's talking about the 20 year olds that are throwing Playstation baseball in AA. The Baileys and the Erbes actually have a record of improving more often than not, the ones who smoke hitters by the ton and are wild.

[Baltimoron]

Give me a friggin break.

The statement, "in general there is no systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so" clearly implies that most pitchers typically don't/won't improve over time, just as I inferred.

That premise I don't agree with.

Ok. You wrote:


In particular I'd take issue with the implication that pitchers typically don't/won't improve over time. That's just kind of silly, IMO. Sure, there are some pitchers that peak in their early 20s (and many more pitchers than hitters fit this profile), but these guys are more the exception than the rule.

Ok, lets try this again. The absence of a "systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so" does not imply "that pitchers typically don't/won't improve over time."

Instead, it means we can't expect a pitching prospect to get better with more seasoning to the same degree that we can expect a comparable hitting prospect to get better. He might, but he might not. Its much harder to predict.

That is a separate point than the one you seek to attribute to Nate: "the implication that pitchers typically don't/won't improve over time. "


The same is not the case with pitching prospects. Although there are a few categories of pitching prospects — particularly guys with good stuff, high strikeout rates and highish walk rates (think Homer Bailey) — that tend to improve more often than not, in general there is no systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so. Sometimes guys get better, of course, and sometimes they do so in a hurry — but you can’t take a young pitcher in a vacuum and expect him to improve the same way that you can for a hitting prospect.

[davearm]

Ok. You wrote:



Ok, lets try this again. The absence of a "systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so" does not imply "that pitchers typically don't/won't improve over time."

Instead, it means we can't expect a pitching prospect to get better with more seasoning to the same degree that we can expect a comparable hitting prospect to get better. He might, but he might not. Its much harder to predict.

That is a separate point than the one you seek to attribute to Nate: "the implication that pitchers typically don't/won't improve over time. "
My read of it is that Mr. Silver is making two distinctly different points in his article.

The first point is to compare the development of hitters to the development of pitchers: "you can’t take a young pitcher in a vacuum and expect him to improve the same way that you can for a hitting prospect".

The second point, and the one that I disagree with him on, is that you can't even expect any improvement at all from a pitcher: "Although there are a few categories of pitching prospects... that tend to improve more often than not, in general there is no systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so."

There's no contrasting to hitters going on in that latter statement. None. He's saying that, in general, pitchers don't improve much after age 21 or so. He notes that the exception to this rule is guys in the Homer Bailey category, which presumably is a small subset of all minor league pitchers.

I paraphrased all of that to, "pitchers typically don't/won't improve over time." That inference is completely consistent with what he's implying.

[davearm]

He's not talking about those guys, though; Silver's talking about the 20 year olds that are throwing Playstation baseball in AA. The Baileys and the Erbes actually have a record of improving more often than not, the ones who smoke hitters by the ton and are wild.
Actually, Silver expressly states in the article that the guys that are dominating the minors are not prospects, they're pitchers.


guys who are totally blowing people away in the minors like they’re so many hot dog pretenders before Kobayashi are absolutely not pitching prospects—they’re already pitchers

[skipshot26]

What's the difference between pitching on a strict pitch count in the majors and in the minors? Why can't a pitcher build up his endurance in the majors just as well as in the minors?

I guess there's the idea that the minor league teams don't care if they win or lose, so they'd have less of a problem limiting their 19-year-old to 125 innings and 80 pitches a start.

I just don't see that much difference between Brandon Erbe pitching 100 innings in the Carolina League or Brandon Erbe pitching 100 innings in Baltimore when it comes to his future health or development.

I have to respectfully disagree here. Learning to get major league hitters out requires solid confidence in your stuff. There is something to be said for consistant success that can be built in the minor leagues. Anyone who has pitched at a high level will tell you that good hitters will hit your best stuff. To be successful you have to trust your stuff and throw it. Even if the last guy hit your best fastball 400+ feet. I think that if a young pitcher is pitching in the majors, instead of the minors, there's a heck of alot more guys that he will face who can hit his best pitches. I just don't think it's good for a young kid to get rocked on a regular basis as he is learning his craft.

[Leitch]

My read of it is that Mr. Silver is making two distinctly different points in his article.

The first point is to compare the development of hitters to the development of pitchers: "you can’t take a young pitcher in a vacuum and expect him to improve the same way that you can for a hitting prospect".

The second point, and the one that I disagree with him on, is that you can't even expect any improvement at all from a pitcher: "Although there are a few categories of pitching prospects... that tend to improve more often than not, in general there is no systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so."

There's no contrasting to hitters going on in that latter statement. None. He's saying that, in general, pitchers don't improve much after age 21 or so. He notes that the exception to this rule is guys in the Homer Bailey category, which presumably is a small subset of all minor league pitchers.

I paraphrased all of that to, "pitchers typically don't/won't improve over time." That inference is completely consistent with what he's implying.

It says to me that the only types of pitchers that are more likely than not to improve beyond age 21 are the power guys who are wild but not terribly so, and that the rest are way more risky and/or less likely to improve after age 21. This includes the Mike Mussina types who come out of college ready to get big league hitters out, and the stuffless types who usually dominate rookie ball and A ball but never really improve.

I think the entire point of the article is that Philip Hughes's equivalent numbers are already those of one of the best pitchers in baseball, and that putting him in AAA is essentially wasting a finite resource on AAA hitters. Hughes could already be as good as he's getting, kind of like Mussina was.

[Leitch]

Actually, Silver expressly states in the article that the guys that are dominating the minors are not prospects, they're pitchers.

He's talking about guys who completely cut swaths through the minors, not necessarily guys who rack up big strikeout numbers. Look at their PECOTA cards and the difference between Hughes's equivalent numbers and Erbe's equivalent numbers and their player profiles.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/ERBE19871225A.php
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/HUGHES19860624A.php

One of those guys is already one of the top pitchers in baseball, and it's not Erbe. Philip Hughes is ready for prime time. He may not get a whole lot better than he already is, which is the point.

Actually, he was talking about Lincecum, but the point remains. Look at Lincecum's Eq's.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/LINCECUM19840615A.php

Lincecum, like Hughes, is projected for a Major League EqERA in the mid-to-low 3's next year. That's the kind of guy they're talking about.

[Chollie Eckman]

What's the difference between pitching on a strict pitch count in the majors and in the minors? Why can't a pitcher build up his endurance in the majors just as well as in the minors?

I guess there's the idea that the minor league teams don't care if they win or lose, so they'd have less of a problem limiting their 19-year-old to 125 innings and 80 pitches a start.

I just don't see that much difference between Brandon Erbe pitching 100 innings in the Carolina League or Brandon Erbe pitching 100 innings in Baltimore when it comes to his future health or development.

Well in my Clyde example, how much coaching from the major league level did he have before he threw his first pitch? He was used to just throwing the ball by batters all his life. That's all he knew. Then he gets to the majors and he can't just throw the ball by people anymore. He's pitching with men on alot more and he's overthrowing. Thus, straining his arm, shoulder,elbow. What's wrong with that observation?

Just like Clyde on one extreme I'm sure there are others who could and have handled it, but to make it conventional wisdom to advance pitchers more rapidly would take an organizational commitment and subsequent success.

The way pitchers are coddled nowadays that concept coming to fruition is a ways away.

It depends on the individual really. If he can handle it, why not.....but if he can't then the clock starts ticking sooner and clubs need to ask themselves is the risk worth taking?

[Chollie Eckman]

He's talking about guys who completely cut swaths through the minors, not necessarily guys who rack up big strikeout numbers. Look at their PECOTA cards and the difference between Hughes's equivalent numbers and Erbe's equivalent numbers and their player profiles.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/ERBE19871225A.php
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/HUGHES19860624A.php

One of those guys is already one of the top pitchers in baseball, and it's not Erbe. Philip Hughes is ready for prime time. He may not get a whole lot better than he already is, which is the point.

Actually, he was talking about Lincecum, but the point remains. Look at Lincecum's Eq's.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/LINCECUM19840615A.php

Lincecum, like Hughes, is projected for a Major League EqERA in the mid-to-low 3's next year. That's the kind of guy they're talking about.

I agree. Hughes and Lincecum(better than 100% of his contemporaries at strikeouts) are wasting their time in the minors but they're a little older than Erbe, right?

[Leitch]

I agree. Hughes and Lincecum are wasting their time in the minors but they're a little older than Erbe, right?

Hughes is 21 and Lincecum is 23 to Erbe's 19.

[Tony-OH]

Seriously, this is why stat guys like Silver need to stick to the major leagues and stay as far away from development as possible. It is absolutely silly in my opinion to think that pitchers don't improve after 21-22 or that pitching is not a skill.

Davearm has eloquently made most of the arguments I would make, but this could quite possibly be the silliest thing I've read.

I love you Jon, but you're waaaaaay off the mark here my friend. I don't see how anyone can suggest a 21 year kid is better off throwing 40-50 mop up innings in the major leagues instead of working on the things it will take to be a big league starter. Things like commanding three pitches, pitching without your best stuff, maintaining his stuff as his pitch counts goes up, picking up a routine for pitching every five days and learning how to set batters up.

I have a question for those of you who believe Mr. Silver's analysis, what measures is he using to systematically evaluate these pitchers in order to conclude "there is no systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so."

I hope he's not using stats in the minors, especially the low minors, because they are a tool, but you can not judge major league ability based SOLELY from them. Yes, statistical analysis can help in the total analysis of a player, but you can not judge a player just off his stats because he's playing against inferior players than major leaguers.

Ask Erik Bedard if he's a better pitcher now then when he was with Frederick? Does he throw harder? A little bit, but really he's learned to pitch better. He hits his spots better partly due to his muscle memory from repeated innings on the mound. I've seen Erik Bedard in Delmarva, Frederick and Bowie, and trust me, he's a better pitcher now. He has a much better changeup, and he his better command of his slider and fastball.

Maybe I'm missing the point of Mr. Silver's analysis, but I wholeheartedly reject his analysis that suggests pitching is not skill and pitchers don't improve after 21-years of age.

[Leitch]

Tony, it really looks to me like he's mainly talking about the rare Mike Mussina type(who comes out of college, spends a token few months in the minors and explode onto the scene young and are as good as they're going to get in their early 20's), and the guys who don't have good stuff and don't put up huge strikeout numbers in the minors that don't generally improve past age 21. The Bedard/Bailey/Erbe/Humber types who have good stuff and put up gaudy K numbers improve more often than not.

[Tony-OH]

Wow. Keeping the spirit of confusion and misinterpretation alive, I'll go double negative. The idea *is not* that location and changing speed are not learned skills (although the extent to which you likely think they are is likely inflated), but:

1) they are not skills that a pitching prospect is a certain to develop if he doesn't already possess them, and
2) they aren't skills that take years of repetition to develop, and most importantly
3) if they already are a pitching prospect they likely already possess these skills (meaning there isn't a whole lot of upside growth).

1) Wrong
2) Wrong
3) Wrong

Seriously, you can not possibly buy into this, can you?

There are plenty of pitching prospects in the low minors who will learn over time to improve their breaking ball or develop a change. You can't teach a good fastball, but you certainly can teach the other aspects of pitching and with the right muscle memory, a pitcher will continue to improve those pitches, either by improving the movement of the pitches, or the command of them through repetition and coaching.

I realize the guys who come up with these theories are probably pretty smart guys, and a lot of you who are buying into this hook line and sinker are smart guys as well, but you may want to think that the guys who have been developing pitchers for the last 30-40 years may know a a little something as well. Sometimes I really think some stat guys read Moneyball and now think every baseball professional is just some dumb jock who are so stupid because they don't bow down to the EQa and PECOTA Gods to do their evaluations.

I know it's hard to believe, but human beings are playing this game. They have feelings, react to pressure differently, learn through muscle memory and instruction, and mature both physically and mentally. To believe anything esle goes against simple psychology and biology.

[Chollie Eckman]

I realize the guys who come up with these theories are probably pretty smart guys, and a lot of you who are buying into this hook line and sinker are smart guys as well, but you may want to think that the guys who have been developing pitchers for the last 30-40 years may know a a little something as well. Sometimes I really think some stat guys read Moneyball and now think every baseball professional is just some dumb jock who are so stupid because they don't bow down to the EQa and PECOTA Gods to do their evaluations.


Is there any possible way I can make this my signature? A classic! Thanks Tony.:D

[Tony-OH]

Tony, it really looks to me like he's mainly talking about the rare Mike Mussina type(who comes out of college, spends a token few months in the minors and explode onto the scene young and are as good as they're going to get in their early 20's), and the guys who don't have good stuff and don't put up huge strikeout numbers in the minors that don't generally improve past age 21. The Bedard/Bailey/Erbe/Humber types who have good stuff and put up gaudy K numbers improve more often than not.

Why would anyone creat a thoery based off the rare elite player? Besides, I've already said that Bedard is a much better pitcher now then he was when he was 21-years old. Hell, if you don't believe me, look at his numbers in the major leagues. If Silver's thoery held any weight, pitchers would step into the major league and be dominant from the start.

No one can believe that the rare player like Doc Gooden, is the norm.

[Leitch]

This is another example of what he means when he says there's no systemic improvement:


Sometimes guys get better, of course, and sometimes they do so in a hurry — but you can’t take a young pitcher in a vacuum and expect him to improve the same way that you can for a hitting prospect. Mark Rogers (to pick on some low-hanging fruit) will probably never get his command sorted out, Yusemiro Petit will never add enough ticks to his fastball to become a useful major league starter, Gavin Floyd will never learn how to keep the ball down, and so forth. All of these things are possible — but they’re not very likely.

[Leitch]

Why would anyone creat a thoery based off the rare elite player? Besides, I've already said that Bedard is a much better pitcher now then he was when he was 21-years old. Hell, if you don't believe me, look at his numbers in the major leagues. If Silver's thoery held any weight, pitchers would step into the major league and be dominant from the start.

No one can believe that the rare player like Doc Gooden, is the norm.

Not just the rarities, but also the legions of prospects who fail, for whatever myriad reasons(no stuff, injury, uncoachable, etc.).

Overall, the point was that some of the guys destroying the minor leagues to the point where there is virtually no comparison could be as good as they're going to get, and that you can't count on incremental improvement from pitchers like you can from hitters.

There are certain types that improve post 21 more often than not - guys with stuff that strikeout a lot and aren't wild as Steve Dalkowski among them, but those guys are rarer than we think! Not every live-armed high school pitcher is Bailey and Erbe, quite a few are guys who never get their control down, never learn a good secondary offering, guys who have shoulder injuries and lose their stuff, etc.

Meanwhile, there's the Tim Lincecums and the Philip Hugheses and the like who could be as good as they're getting straight out of the gate.

[Lucky Jim]

1. they are not skills that a pitching prospect is certain to develop if he doesn't already possess them


1) Wrong.

Tony, whether I agree with you in general or not - your response to this makes it appear like you didn't even read what was written. This isn't wrong - and can't possibly BE wrong. How can they be certain to develop anything?

Look, I'm going to take a different approach to this discussion. I think what he's saying is that top prospects only (often) have so many pitches in them. And, because their use can be structured such that they offer value to a major league team - even while young - there might not be any reason to fool around with them in the minors (where the risk of injury is high but where they have no value in terms of contributing wins).

This is, really, just an attempt to maximize value NOW because a lot of uncertainty exists about whether there ever WILL be a later.

It's a provocative theory - one that takes into account risk factors in pitching and attempts to maximize a prospects' value by not banking on a development that may not occur.

All you need to know is that if there's some potential value (in major league contribution to wins) in a prospect (at any age) then that value is wasted if the pitcher gets hurt in the minors. He's essentially saying teams should draw blood while there's still blood to be drawn.

[Tony-OH]

Not just the rarities, but also the legions of prospects who fail, for whatever myriad reasons(no stuff, injury, uncoachable, etc.).

Overall, the point was that some of the guys destroying the minor leagues to the point where there is virtually no comparison could be as good as they're going to get, and that you can't count on incremental improvement from pitchers like you can from hitters.

There are certain types that improve post 21 more often than not - guys with stuff that strikeout a lot and aren't wild as Steve Dalkowski among them, but those guys are rarer than we think! Not every live-armed high school pitcher is Bailey and Erbe, quite a few are guys who never get their control down, never learn a good secondary offering, guys who have shoulder injuries and lose their stuff, etc.

Meanwhile, there's the Tim Lincecums and the Philip Hugheses and the like who could be as good as their getting straight out of the gate.

I saw Lincecum in college last year out in Hawaii, and I said that he could pitch in the majors right then so we'll agree on that one. :)

[Camden_yardbird]

I have to fall on the Davearm, Tony-OH side of the ball on this one. I think that it not smart to think that a player does not improve with experience. There is the rare exception that throws lights out and can not think too much and still be successful, but this is the rare case, and at the very least bringing them to the ML might increase the chance of injury.

Look at Liriano. He comes to the bigs, and throws lights out. He's making the best hitters look like little leaguers. But to do it he is turning to speed rather than location. If he had stayed in the minors two things would have happened.

1. He wouldn't have to turn up the juice to get everyone out
2. He would be learning more about how hitters react to his pitchers. And subsequently how to get them out with less power.

I think pitchers learn in the minors. Things they can't learn in the majors.

1. They learn how to think, in HS or Latin America all these guys have to do is throw hard and get guys out. I would say that this cannot be totally learned in the ML, the minors has instructors who teach instead of coaches who adjust.

2. Young pitchers face young hitters in the minors. That means they are learning about the guys they are going to be facing for the majority of their careers.

3. You dont destroy sykes. Some guys just don't come back when they get rocked. The older a player is the more he understands the game.

These are just a few smaller argument. I believe the best ones have been made.

[billyc123]

1) they are not skills that a pitching prospect is a certain to develop if he doesn't already possess them, and
2) they aren't skills that take years of repetition to develop, and most importantly
3) if they already are a pitching prospect they likely already possess these skills (meaning there isn't a whole lot of upside growth).
I think #1 should read:
1) they are not skills that a pitching prospect is likely to develop if he doesn't already possess them

Yes? In this case, Tony's "wrong" makes a lot more sense.

I agree with him. There are LOTS of pitchers who have learned how to pitch in the minors and during the early part of their major league careers; there are very few pitchers who can come up & be as dominant as the several who are doing it now (perhaps this influx is what has led to Silver's, IMO, half-baked theory?). The particular danger with Silver's theory is that young pitchers who might continue to develop if given an opportunity won't be given that chance.

[Hallas]

Seriously, this is why stat guys like Solver need to stick to the major leagues and stay as far away from development as possible. It is absolutely silly in my opinion to think that pitchers don't improve after 21-22 or that pitching is not a skill.

Davearm has eloquently made most of the arguments I would make, but this could quite possibly be the silliest thing I've read.

I love you Jon, but you're waaaaaay off the mark here my friend. I don't see how anyone can suggest a 21 year kid is better off throwing 40-50 mop up innings in the major leagues instead of working on the things it will take to be a big league starter. Things like commanding three pitches, pitching without your best stuff, maintaining his stuff as his pitch counts goes up, picking up a routine for pitching every five days and learning how set batters up.

I have a question for those of you who believe Mr. Silver's analysis, what measures is he using to systematically evaluate these pitchers in order to conclude "there is no systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so."

I hope he's not using stats in the minors, especially the low minors, because they are a tool, but you can not judge major league ability based SOLELY from them. Yes, statistical analysis can help in the total analysis of a player, but you can not judge a player just off his stats because he's playing against inferior players than major leaguers.

Ask Erik Bedard if he's a better pitcher now then when he was with Frederick? Does he throw harder? A little bit, but really he's learned to pitch better. He hits his spots better partly due to his muscle memory from repeated innings on the mound. I've seen Erik Bedard in Delmarva, Frederick and Bowie, and trust me, he's a better pitcher now. He has a much better changeup, and he his better command of his slider and fastball.

Maybe I'm missing the point of Mr. Silver's analysis, but I wholeheartedly reject his analysis that suggests pitching is not skill and pitchers don't improve after 21-years of age.

I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion from this blurb. And I think there's a lot of truth to what he's saying.

I don't think the conclusion is (or should be) that 20-21 year old pitchers don't improve as they get older and more experience. Rather, I think the conclusion is that a pitcher's performance is more closely tied to 1: talent, and 2: his ability to remain healthy. I'll call these factors the God factor (since they're largely tied to genetics/god-given ability). Given these factors involved, it makes sense that there is no systematic pattern for improvement. This doesn't mean that all pitchers don't improve. It means that, based on the stastical analysis, we can't say for certain whether a pitcher will improve or not.

So what I draw from this blurb is that you need to evaluate each pitcher on a case-by-case basis. This means visual scouting, radar guns, videotape, etc.

I think Drungo is suggesting that we weigh a pitcher's potential for improvement against his risk of injury. There has to be a point where a pitcher's risk of future injury is greater than his potential for improvement. For these guys, maybe it's better to cash in on their value and stick them in long relief. This way, at least we get *something* out of their arms before they flame out. The application of this theory would be in mid ceiling guys who have performed well (Garrett Olson comes to mind) and pitchers with exceptional stuff that are an injury risk (I think Radhames Liz might fit this profile.)

I don't think Erbe fits this profile because he's not currently an injury risk, and he hasn't performed at a high enough level in the minors for me to confidently say that he won't pitch like Russ Ortiz in the Majors.

[Tony-OH]

Tony, whether I agree with you in general or not - your response to this makes it appear like you didn't even read what was written. This isn't wrong - and can't possibly BE wrong. How can they be certain to develop anything?

Look, I'm going to take a different approach to this discussion. I think what he's saying is that top prospects only (often) have so many pitches in them. And, because their use can be structured such that they offer value to a major league team - even while young - there might not be any reason to fool around with them in the minors (where the risk of injury is high but where they have no value in terms of contributing wins).

This is, really, just an attempt to maximize value NOW because a lot of uncertainty exists about whether there ever WILL be a later.

It's a provocative theory - one that takes into account risk factors in pitching and attempts to maximize a prospects' value by not banking on a development that may not occur.

All you need to know is that if there's some potential value (in major league contribution to wins) in a prospect (at any age) then that value is wasted if the pitcher gets hurt in the minors. He's essentially saying teams should draw blood while there's still blood to be drawn.

I don't understand Jim. Are you saying a pitcher can't develop a change up if he never had one when he was 21? Are you saying a pitcher can't improve his breaking ball after 21? I would disagree with both of those assessments. Velocity is the only thing that you can normally assess by the age of 21, although there are certainly cases where pitchers improve these numbers after the age of 21 as well.

[Tony-OH]

I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion from this blurb. And I think there's a lot of truth to what he's saying.

I don't think the conclusion is (or should be) that 20-21 year old pitchers don't improve as they get older and more experience. Rather, I think the conclusion is that a pitcher's performance is more closely tied to 1: talent, and 2: his ability to remain healthy. I'll call these factors the God factor (since they're largely tied to genetics/god-given ability). Given these factors involved, it makes sense that there is no systematic pattern for improvement. This doesn't mean that all pitchers don't improve. It means that, based on the stastical analysis, we can't say for certain whether a pitcher will improve or not.

So what I draw from this blurb is that you need to evaluate each pitcher on a case-by-case basis. This means visual scouting, radar guns, videotape, etc.

I think Drungo is suggesting that we weigh a pitcher's potential for improvement against his risk of injury. There has to be a point where a pitcher's risk of future injury is greater than his potential for improvement. For these guys, maybe it's better to cash in on their value and stick them in long relief. This way, at least we get *something* out of their arms before they flame out. The application of this theory would be in mid ceiling guys who have performed well (Garrett Olson comes to mind) and pitchers with exceptional stuff that are an injury risk (I think Radhames Liz might fit this profile.)

I don't think Erbe fits this profile because he's not currently an injury risk, and he hasn't performed at a high enough level in the minors for me to confidently say that he won't pitch like Russ Ortiz in the Majors.

Good God, if that's all he meant, then I agree. Pitchers with more talent and health will be more successful. I would hardly say this is a revelation though.

[Lucky Jim]

I still disagree - I think the probability of a pitcher developing these things is difficult to quantify. And that it's impossible to say that the likelihood of developing them is greater than the likelihood that they won't. If you include the probability that a pitcher won't develop major-league caliber location/command and add to that possibility of injury - do we still assume that years in the minors (where no wins are contributed) are more valuable than what might be offered by that pitcher in the pros, now?

Even if he's not as good now as he would be then, the fact that the value offered now is real and quantifiable while the then remains entirely hypothetical points to some merit in what Silver is saying.

[Lucky Jim]

Are you saying a pitcher can't develop a change up if he never had one when he was 21? Are you saying a pitcher can't improve his breaking ball after 21? I would disagree with both of those assessments. Velocity is the only thing that you can normally assess by the age of 21, although there are certainly cases where pitchers improve these numbers after the age of 21 as well.

No, I'm saying the probability of him developing that change-up after 21 is lower than the probability that he won't. And that if we look at the frequency of injury that occurs to young pitchers, we have yet another foreclosure.

His argument isn't that these things CAN'T happen. It's that they don't, often, in any way that significantly adds value at the major league level. In the meantime, we have pitchers in the minors who are good enough to offer some value now - but that value will never be reached because they'll be toiling away in the minors, making minor and/or insignificant improvements until an injury derails their career.

You're reading this as if there's something finite, definite, or absolute. Rather, Silver is proposing something wholly opposite - where there are no definites, no absolutes, you play strict odds. You maximize value while there is value to be found. Delaying cashing in for a remote pay-off will lead to inefficiency.

[Tony-OH]

I still disagree - I think the probability of a pitcher developing these things is difficult to quantify. And that it's impossible to say that the likelihood of developing them is greater than the likelihood that they won't. If you include the probability that a pitcher won't develop major-league caliber location/command and add to that possibility of injury - do we still assume that years in the minors (where no wins are contributed) are more valuable than what might be offered by that pitcher in the pros, now?

Even if he's not as good now as he would be then, the fact that the value offered now is real and quantifiable while the then remains entirely hypothetical points to some merit in what Silver is saying.

Right, the 1000s of major league pitchers who were better by the time they where 27 than 21 is hard to quantify. :rolleyes:

We'll have to agree to disagree because honestly, this is absurd to me. Besides, the people who think the US governemnt staged the moon landing will swear on their lives it's true, so it doesn't make much sense to argue the points.

[Leitch]

I don't understand Jim. Are you saying a pitcher can't develop a change up if he never had one when he was 21? Are you saying a pitcher can't improve his breaking ball after 21? I would disagree with both of those assessments. Velocity is the only thing that you can normally assess by the age of 21, although there are certainly cases where pitchers improve these numbers after the age of 21 as well.

I don't think anyone is saying that pitchers can't or won't improve after they're 21. Don't most of the hard-throwing phenoms come to the pros sans changeup anyhow, because they often don't need it to smoke the inferior talent they've competed against?

What Nate is saying is that most pitching prospects aren't likely to do it. You know, "if you want to develop a good starting pitcher, develop 5"? One guy gets hurt. The other guy is a nutcase. One guy can't get his control down. Another guy flat refuses to pitch inside/away/up/down/listen to coaching. One guy gets discouraged after getting shelled and quits and goes back to football. One guy won't learn a changeup. Another guy crumbles under the pressure. One dies in a horrible flaming bus wreck. One shows up hung over every day.

[billyc123]

...it's impossible to say that the likelihood of developing them is greater than the likelihood that they won't....
Then the converse must also be true, seriously undermining the theory that pitchers should always be brought up sooner so as to contribute what they can. This brings us right back to where we were before this beautiful blurb entered our lives: sometimes they should come up (when they're ready to contribute) & sometimes they shouldn't (when they aren't).

[Lucky Jim]

You're obviously not following the argument - because you're not including the exponentially larger number of pitchers who never pitched in the majors but who may have been able to contribute some value while they were still in the minors.

That's the argument. Sure, some major league pitchers got better. But, first, it's impossible to know that they wouldn't have improved as much if they weren't in the minors. And, second, the approach Silver puts forward also derives utility (or value) from players who aren't currently offering value within the traditional method of refining talent.

[Leitch]

Then the converse must also be true, seriously undermining the theory that pitchers should always be brought up sooner so as to contribute what they can. This brings us right back to where we were before this beautiful blurb entered our lives: sometimes they should come up (when they're ready to contribute) & sometimes they shouldn't (when they aren't).

Which is why it's a mystery that this is so controversial. ;)

[Lucky Jim]

Then the converse must also be true, seriously undermining the theory that pitchers should always be brought up sooner so as to contribute what they can.

I'm not sure the numbers back this up. But I'm also not suggesing that Silver is right. It's just a provocative, interesting take on player- & prospect-management.

In the end, you're probably right, some should come up early. Some later. But I like the idea of thinking this one through a little more.

[RZNJ]

I don't think anyone is saying that pitchers can't or won't improve after they're 21. Don't most of the hard-throwing phenoms come to the pros sans changeup anyhow, because they often don't need it to smoke the inferior talent they've competed against?

What Nate is saying is that most pitching prospects aren't likely to do it. You know, "if you want to develop a good starting pitcher, develop 5"? One guy gets hurt. The other guy is a nutcase. One guy can't get his control down. Another guy flat refuses to pitch inside/away/up/down/listen to coaching. One guy gets discouraged after getting shelled and quits and goes back to football. One guy won't learn a changeup. Another guy crumbles under the pressure. One dies in a horrible flaming bus wreck. One shows up hung over every day.

Shoot! That was nine guys, and still we don't have one that worked out. Geez! :D

BTW, this thread is a hoot. I think there's a whole lot of confusion going on around here. It's like the Tower of Babel. No one understands what the other one is saying. I know, because I'm having a hell of a time understanding anyone. :confused:

[Leitch]

Right, the 1000s of major league pitchers who were better by the time they where 27 than 21 is hard to quantify. :rolleyes:

We'll have to agree to disagree because honestly, this is absurd to me. Besides, the people who think the US governemnt staged the moon landing will swear on their lives it's true, so it doesn't make much sense to argue the points.

Well, almost by definition if a guy reaches the majors he has improved significantly from age 21, is one of the rare gods who comes out of A ball shutting down big league lineups, or is part of a very, very bad organization. But I venture the failures outweigh the successes by a hefty, hefty margin.

[RZNJ]

Am I getting this right? You should call up your better prospects before they hurt their arms? Have a got a little piece of the pie? Have I? Have I?

[Leitch]

Shoot! That was nine guys, and still we don't have one that worked out. Geez! :D

BTW, this thread is a hoot. I think there's a whole lot of confusion going on around here. It's like the Tower of Babel. No one understands what the other one is saying. I know, because I'm having a hell of a time understanding anyone. :confused:

I'm not even sure what I was talking about anymore. I went from comparing Hughes to Bailey to talking about high school flamethrowers getting run over.

[Leitch]

Am I getting this right? You should call up your better prospects before they hurt their arms? Have a got a little piece of the pie? Have I? Have I?

Kind of. Don't expect Brandon Erbe to progress in the same way Billy Rowell does, and if you have Tim Lincecum in your system, don't bother with AAA because he's as good as he's getting(or is ready now), and he could get hurt any day now.

[Tony-OH]

No, I'm saying the probability of him developing that change-up after 21 is lower than the probability that he won't. And that if we look at the frequency of injury that occurs to young pitchers, we have yet another foreclosure.

His argument isn't that these things CAN'T happen. It's that they don't, often, in any way that significantly adds value at the major league level. In the meantime, we have pitchers in the minors who are good enough to offer some value now - but that value will never be reached because they'll be toiling away in the minors, making minor and/or insignificant improvements until an injury derails their career.

You're reading this as if there's something finite, definite, or absolute. Rather, Silver is proposing something wholly opposite - where there are no definites, no absolutes, you play strict odds. You maximize value while there is value to be found. Delaying cashing in for a remote pay-off will lead to inefficiency.


Ok, this is my last comment on this. It's utterly ridiculous to lump all pitchers together and say the majority won't learn it so it means that pitchers most likely won't improve.

Most pitchers in the minor leagues are NOT major league prospects. Of course most of them will not learn these skills, because they are not good enough. They do not have the muscle memory capability or physical God-given talent to do it.

Maybe this is the best way to look it, each pitcher is a unique individual and each must be handled according to their physical and mental makeups. some may have the physical and mental makeup to pitch successfully very early in their careers. Others, for various reasons will need more years of development.

It makes no sense to take an arbitrary age like 21 and suggest that pitchers will MOST LIKELY not improve after 21 because most do not. Again, it's not black and white. There are several shades of gray when it comes to the development of a minor league pitcher. Some may not improve and may be better off in a relief role. That's up to the professional pitching coaches, scouts and developmental people who know the player better than anyone else. Will they sometimes make mistakes, sure, they are humans as well, so they will make mistakes, but I will continue to reject any type of analysis that uses arbitrary ages to make general comments that suggest this should be the norm.

[Lucky Jim]

We'll have to agree to disagree because honestly, this is absurd to me. Besides, the people who think the US governemnt staged the moon landing will swear on their lives it's true, so it doesn't make much sense to argue the points.

This is both dismissive and condescending and, really, unnecessary. No one's arguing that players don't improve. No one.

If player X has a potential value of 10 four years from now if his command improves.
And player X has an actual, major-league value of 4 right now.
And the likelihood of his command improving that much is 40%.
And the likelihood of injury is 15%.

Then his value, used now, of 4 is greater than his four-year value of 2.5.

That's just an example, and I'm not claiming the numbers are right, but you can see how this system might work.

[Baltimoron]

2) Couldn't disagree more. Sound, repeatable pitching mechanics and sharp command most definitely take years of repetition to develop. Developing the ability to throw a baseball 90 MPH into a teacup from 60 feet time after time takes every bit as much repetition as shooting free throws or putting: hours and hours of it every year, even for the very best in the world.


That is simply not true. The polished college pitcher is an example of this phenomenon. Diminishing marginal returns (even negative returns) is a huge issue with "practicing" pitching. Hitters can hit in a cage all day, every day. Not so for pitchers.


3) A great number of pitching prospects are considered prospects simply because they have the armstrength to throw the living daylights out of the ball. These guys most definitely need time to "learn" to harness these raw skills, make their delivery repeatable, develop offspeed pitches, etc. etc.

So Nick Markakis was a pitching prospect. Yes, if we define pitching prospects as those with the best arm strength, as opposed to the best minor league pitchers, than we can include a great number of people within the class of "pitching prospects" who are unrefined.

[RZNJ]

This is both dismissive and condescending and, really, unnecessary. No one's arguing that players don't improve. No one.

If player X has a potential value of 10 four years from now if his command improves.
And player X has an actual, major-league value of 4 right now.
And the likelihood of his command improving that much is 40%.
And the likelihood of injury is 15%.

Then his value, used now, of 4 is greater than his four-year value of 2.5.

That's just an example, and I'm not claiming the numbers are right, but you can see how this system might work.


Maybe I'm lost but let me try this. You can find lots of guys to give you that 2.5 value but very few to give you that value of 10. That's why you don't call the guy up when he has the 2.5 value. You're hoping to get him as close to 10 as you can before you call him up. How bout it?

[Lucky Jim]

The problem, Tony, is that you're claiming there are "major league" pitchers and "minor league" pitchers. In your book, the slow gestation of the minors is worth producing possible major-leaguers. In Silver's book, this is a false dichotomy.

Someone who isn't a "major league" pitcher in your book may actually have value to a major league team, if used correctly, in a way that masks inadequacies. This isn't a foreign concept. LOOGYs and platoons both show how this works.

[Lucky Jim]

Maybe I'm lost but let me try this. You can find lots of guys to give you that 2.5 value but very few to give you that value of 10. That's why you don't call the guy up when he has the 2.5 value. You're hoping to get him as close to 10 as you can before you call him up. How bout it?

This is certainly the argument. But, you've got to acknowledge that over endless, repeat transactions, you're going to end up deriving less value from that approach than from the approach that maximizes value now.

[Leitch]

Maybe I'm lost but let me try this. You can find lots of guys to give you that 2.5 value but very few to give you that value of 10. That's why you don't call the guy up when he has the 2.5 value. You're hoping to get him as close to 10 as you can before you call him up. How bout it?

Yeah, the thing is that some guys are already 10 and leaving them in the minors just because they haven't pitched in AAA yet is a waste of precious resources. That's what we're debating, not that Brandon Erbe should be a mopup guy for us, that Tim Lincecum should be the Giant's number 2 starter.

And don't count on a guy who looks like he could be a 10 but is currently a 2.5 turning into a 10 just because he's young enough to make that improvement.

Things we already know.

There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

[Baltimoron]

My read of it is that Mr. Silver is making two distinctly different points in his article.

The first point is to compare the development of hitters to the development of pitchers: "you can’t take a young pitcher in a vacuum and expect him to improve the same way that you can for a hitting prospect".

The second point, and the one that I disagree with him on, is that you can't even expect any improvement at all from a pitcher: "Although there are a few categories of pitching prospects... that tend to improve more often than not, in general there is no systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so."

There's no contrasting to hitters going on in that latter statement. None. He's saying that, in general, pitchers don't improve much after age 21 or so. He notes that the exception to this rule is guys in the Homer Bailey category, which presumably is a small subset of all minor league pitchers.

I paraphrased all of that to, "pitchers typically don't/won't improve over time." That inference is completely consistent with what he's implying.

No, he is saying pitchers don't follow a systematic pattern of improvement. Some improve a whole lot, much more than expected, and some fall flat on their face.

The absence of a systematic pattern of improvement does not mean pitchers fail to improve. It means their rate of improvement is atypical.

[billyc123]

This is both dismissive and condescending and, really, unnecessary. No one's arguing that players don't improve. No one.

If player X has a potential value of 10 four years from now if his command improves.
And player X has an actual, major-league value of 4 right now.
And the likelihood of his command improving that much is 40%.
And the likelihood of injury is 15%.

Then his value, used now, of 4 is greater than his four-year value of 2.5.

That's just an example, and I'm not claiming the numbers are right, but you can see how this system might work.
The only problem I have with this approach is that it requires a crystal ball of sorts in order to project potential value with enough certainty to "run the numbers."

[Leitch]

No, he is saying pitchers don't follow a systematic pattern of improvement. Some improve a whole lot, much more than expected, and some fall flat on their face.

The absence of a systematic pattern of improvement does not pitchers fail to improve. It means their rate of improvement is atypical.

You mean pitchers don't age and develop in the same predictable way hitters do?

[Lucky Jim]

Yeah, the thing is that some guys are already 10 and leaving them in the minors just because they haven't pitched in AAA yet is a waste of precious resources. That's what we're debating, not that Brandon Erbe should be a mopup guy for us, that Tim Lincecum should be the Giant's number 2 starter.

But even if they're not a 10, they could very well be good enough to be a 4-5 right now. And, given atypical patterns of improvement and the prospect of injury, there's no reason not to go ahead and bring them up. And use them accordingly.

[Sports Guy]

End of the day, this needs to be looked at on a case by case basis....So, with that being said, this isn't some great revelation by Silver IMO.

[RZNJ]

But even if they're not a 10, they could very well be good enough to be a 4-5 right now. And, given atypical patterns of improvement and the prospect of injury, there's no reason not to go ahead and bring them up. And use them accordingly.

Ok. Let me see if I'm getting warmer. Are you saying that Brandon Erbe based on is great arm is a better bet to help the Orioles in the majors the next 3 years, than if we advance him one level at a time, hoping he'll be more of a finished product in 3 years? You're saying the odds favor the former approach over the latter approach. No?

[Lucky Jim]

Well, I'm saying it's possible. Which is why I think the article is provocative and interesting. (Though I might wait until Erbe is 20 or 21. For physiological reasons, not future development of skills.)

[Leitch]

But even if they're not a 10, they could very well be good enough to be a 4-5 right now. And, given atypical patterns of improvement and the prospect of injury, there's no reason not to go ahead and bring them up. And use them accordingly.

Except that some types of prospects are more likely to follow that path.

In the end, the decision to move a prospect up a level or 5 levels depends on a lot of other concerns - would you bring Brandon Erbe up to MLB in a lost season at 19 to do mop-up work for 15 innings in September, or leave him to pitch Frederick to the Carolina League championship or whatever? Would you bring Philip Hughes up to start the season in NY knowing that your pitching staff is half useless and that all his on-the-field results so far point to him already being one of the top few pitchers in baseball or let him continue his reign of terror in the minor leagues, possibly costing him and the Yankees a year of excellent work at the MLB level along with the injury risk young pitchers have?

[Lucky Jim]

That's the debate, like I said.

It's nothing more than a question of local maximizing v. global maximizing. If you're looking to maximize value derived from individuals, then it's likely the case-by-case approach will work. If you're looking to maximize value, period, then it's possible the global approach - which eschews the high-risk, high-reward for a lower-risk, medium-reward - will be more successful.

The unpredictability, and the way in which a strict probabilistic approach over multiple and repeat transactions can mitigate risk, make thinking about these things fun.

[billyc123]

Except that some types of prospects are more likely to follow that path.

In the end, the decision to move a prospect up a level or 5 levels depends on a lot of other concerns - would you bring Brandon Erbe up to MLB in a lost season at 19 to do mop-up work for 15 innings in September, or leave him to pitch Frederick to the Carolina League championship or whatever? Would you bring Philip Hughes up to start the season in NY knowing that your pitching staff is half useless and that all his on-the-field results so far point to him already being one of the top few pitchers in baseball or let him continue his reign of terror in the minor leagues, possibly costing him and the Yankees a year of excellent work at the MLB level along with the injury risk young pitchers have?
If Erbe's pitching for a championship & the big team's season is lost, he stays down to experience the minor league playoff race. Hughes should come up if he's dominating. I see both these questions, though, as fact-specific and answerable without reference to the theory that began this thread.

[Sports Guy]

The other thing to think about is the difference between facing MiL hitters and ML hitters.

Brandon Erbe would have to throw more breaking pitches, at age 19 or 20, to major league hitters than he will to minor league hitters.

So, you increase the chance he gets hurt, especially before his arm is more physically mature.

[Lucky Jim]

Well, I did say I'd wait until Erbe was 21 (hypothetically).

[Sports Guy]

Well, I did say I'd wait until Erbe was 21 (hypothetically).

And that is fine...By then, we should have a good idea about him and he may be ready to be up here anyway.

[Sports Guy]

I look at a guy like Olson...What else does he have to learn in the minors?

He is already showing good command, strikes out alot of hitters and doesn't give up homers.

Many you have him pitch in AA some more and make sure he is playing well and if he is, he is ready.

[Leitch]

The other thing to think about is the difference between facing MiL hitters and ML hitters.

Brandon Erbe would have to throw more breaking pitches, at age 19 or 20, to major league hitters than he will to minor league hitters.

So, you increase the chance he gets hurt, especially before his arm is more physically mature.

Sure, if you use him as a starter. But with a strict pitch limit and the right coaching(Leo Mazzone anyone?) he could be a guy who throws once through the order in relief every 5 days in roles of increasing leverage until he's about 25, at which point you turn him loose on the major leagues. Kind of like the Nolan Ryan career path.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: PURELY HYPOTHETICAL I AM NOT SUGGESTING THIS AT ALL

[Lucky Jim]

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

Or: Koufax.

[Sports Guy]

Sure, if you use him as a starter. But with a strict pitch limit and the right coaching(Leo Mazzone anyone?) he could be a guy who throws once through the order in relief every 5 days in roles of increasing leverage until he's about 25, at which point you turn him loose on the major leagues. Kind of like the Nolan Ryan career path.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: PURELY HYPOTHETICAL I AM NOT SUGGESTING THIS AT ALL

Well, in this case, i would prefer to have the guy building up his arm and innings in the minors.

[Leitch]

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

Or: Koufax.

Koufax is a scary example. Scary because his arm didn't last past age 30.

[Sports Guy]

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

Or: Koufax.

You really need to learn how to quote..lol

[Leitch]

Well, in this case, i would prefer to have the guy building up his arm and innings in the minors.

I would, too, but it's an interesting thing to consider.

[Lucky Jim]

I'd take Koufax's career the way it was.

Who did I quote, SG, that I need to learn something?

[RZNJ]

Well, in this case, i would prefer to have the guy building up his arm and innings in the minors.

Ah! But is it building up the arm or wearing out the arm to "build" up innings in the minors? Just some food for thought.

[Leitch]

Ah! But is it building up the arm or wearing out the arm to "build" up innings in the minors? Just some food for thought.

The thing is, at Erbe's current ability level, it's likely not a waste to develop him in the minors for now.

[Leitch]

Ah! But is it building up the arm or wearing out the arm to "build" up innings in the minors? Just some food for thought.

Also, arms get stronger by throwing. "Work, not workload" I think is one of Mazzone's core tenets.

[RZNJ]

Also, arms get stronger by throwing. "Work, not workload" I think is one of Mazzone's core tenets.

Then you don't believe in limiting innings before a certain age?

[Sports Guy]

Ah! But is it building up the arm or wearing out the arm to "build" up innings in the minors?

I am not too worried about wearing down an arm until the player gets around 30(give or take a few years either way..depending on free agency, extensions and things like that) and at the point, i am ready to let them go anyway.

[Leitch]

Then you don't believe in limiting innings before a certain age?

Sure I do. But we're not working Erbe hard and I don't think there's reason to worry about pitching related injury until we take the training wheels off, so to speak.

The "work not workload" comment is about the low-effort extra side sessions Mazzone does. I think we should do that all the way through the minors if we're not already.

Basically, isn't it true that Mazzone's throwing program generally makes pitchers stronger and less injury prone?

He's got to work at some point is my point. I'm talking about conditioning, not pitcher abuse.

ETA: And I don't know why. I need to go home.

[davearm]

The thing is, at Erbe's current ability level, it's likely not a waste to develop him in the minors for now.
This begins to get at the thrust of the question that I was asking earlier, way back on page 2 or whatever, which is:

Assuming full health, will somebody like Brandon Erbe be a better, worse, or about the same major league pitcher on his 25th birthday if he:
A) spends the next 5 years all at the bigleague level, versus
B) spends one year each at Lo-A, Hi-A, AA, AAA, and MLB.

I surely don't know the answer to that one, but IMO it's a fascinating question.

If there was good reason to believe that approach A), growing pains and all, produces the better bigleague pitcher by the time the dust settles, then it would seemingly follow that Erbe being in the minors right now, although not a total waste, is inefficient for his long-term development.

FWIW, if this same question were applied to a teenaged hitter (Billy Rowell is a perfect example), I'd be much more comfortable hypothesizing that approach B) would produce the better 25-year-old bigleague hitter.

On the pitching side, though, I'm not as convinced that OTJ training in the majors is ultimately detrimental. In either situation, the guy's more likely than not to develop and improve (again, assuming good health). The question is, which approach yields *more* development, and *more* improvement?

[Sports Guy]

This begins to get at the thrust of the question that I was asking earlier, way back on page 2 or whatever, which is:

Assuming full health, will somebody like Brandon Erbe be a better, worse, or about the same major league pitcher on his 25th birthday if he:
A) spends the next 5 years all at the bigleague level, versus
B) spends one year each at Lo-A, Hi-A, AA, AAA, and MLB.

I surely don't know the answer to that one, but IMO it's a fascinating question.

If there was good reason to believe that approach A), growing pains and all, produces the better bigleague pitcher by the time the dust settles, then it would seemingly follow that Erbe being in the minors right now, although not a total waste, is inefficient for his long-term development.

FWIW, if this same question were applied to a teenaged hitter (Billy Rowell is a perfect example), I'd be much more comfortable hypothesizing that approach B) would produce the better 25-year-old bigleague hitter.

On the pitching side, though, I'm not as convinced that OTJ training in the majors is ultimately detrimental.
See, i am not even convinced they even need to spend a full year at each level.

Take Erbe for example. If he goes to Frederick and tears it up in the first half, i see no reason not to promote him to Bowie. Now, he needs to show good control, not give up homers, strike out alot of guys and show that he can pitch into the 6th inning or later but if he does that, i am not sure what good it does to leave him in Frederick for the whole year.

[Chollie Eckman]

Like I said on page 2....until a team consistently produces MLB pitchers by promoting them early (and you can't count teams like the Royals and the Pirates) it will only be a theory.

[weams]

This begins to get at the thrust of the question that I was asking earlier, way back on page 2 or whatever, which is:

Assuming full health, will somebody like Brandon Erbe be a better, worse, or about the same major league pitcher on his 25th birthday if he:
A) spends the next 5 years all at the bigleague level, versus
B) spends one year each at Lo-A, Hi-A, AA, AAA, and MLB.

I surely don't know the answer to that one, but IMO it's a fascinating question.

If there was good reason to believe that approach A), growing pains and all, produces the better bigleague pitcher by the time the dust settles, then it would seemingly follow that Erbe being in the minors right now, although not a total waste, is inefficient for his long-term development.

FWIW, if this same question were applied to a teenaged hitter (Billy Rowell is a perfect example), I'd be much more comfortable hypothesizing that approach B) would produce the better 25-year-old bigleague hitter.

On the pitching side, though, I'm not as convinced that OTJ training in the majors is ultimately detrimental. In either situation, the guy's more likely than not to develop and improve (again, assuming good health). The question is, which approach yields *more* development, and *more* improvement?


I got the distinct impression that the only question to be asked was if those pitches that a pitcher had in his arm, were better utilized at the major league level. If so then the only element that could answer this would be the level of command that a young pitcher possesses and if that command could be improved with additional minor league training before being thrust in the the pitching that counts, i.e. in the majors.

Has Daniel Cabrera benefited from being in the majors directly from the mid minors at a young age? I would postulate yes, in that he has shown improvement in command when taking a bit off what his natural physical ability allows him to do.

If a brilliant young pitcher has only a finite number of pitches in that brilliant arm, does it make sense to use those pitches to win major league games at the expense of honing a craft? It would appear that is the question.

[El Gordo]

Seriously, this is why stat guys like Silver need to stick to the major leagues and stay as far away from development as possible. It is absolutely silly in my opinion to think that pitchers don't improve after 21-22 or that pitching is not a skill.

Davearm has eloquently made most of the arguments I would make, but this could quite possibly be the silliest thing I've read.

I love you Jon, but you're waaaaaay off the mark here my friend. I don't see how anyone can suggest a 21 year kid is better off throwing 40-50 mop up innings in the major leagues instead of working on the things it will take to be a big league starter. Things like commanding three pitches, pitching without your best stuff, maintaining his stuff as his pitch counts goes up, picking up a routine for pitching every five days and learning how to set batters up.

I have a question for those of you who believe Mr. Silver's analysis, what measures is he using to systematically evaluate these pitchers in order to conclude "there is no systematic pattern of improvement after the age of 21 or so."

I hope he's not using stats in the minors, especially the low minors, because they are a tool, but you can not judge major league ability based SOLELY from them. Yes, statistical analysis can help in the total analysis of a player, but you can not judge a player just off his stats because he's playing against inferior players than major leaguers.

Ask Erik Bedard if he's a better pitcher now then when he was with Frederick? Does he throw harder? A little bit, but really he's learned to pitch better. He hits his spots better partly due to his muscle memory from repeated innings on the mound. I've seen Erik Bedard in Delmarva, Frederick and Bowie, and trust me, he's a better pitcher now. He has a much better changeup, and he his better command of his slider and fastball.

Maybe I'm missing the point of Mr. Silver's analysis, but I wholeheartedly reject his analysis that suggests pitching is not skill and pitchers don't improve after 21-years of age.
Totally agree Tony. If pitching isn't a large part skill than Maddox wouldn't still be pitching.

[davearm]

See, i am not even convinced they even need to spend a full year at each level.

Take Erbe for example. If he goes to Frederick and tears it up in the first half, i see no reason not to promote him to Bowie. Now, he needs to show good control, not give up homers, strike out alot of guys and show that he can pitch into the 6th inning or later but if he does that, i am not sure what good it does to leave him in Frederick for the whole year.
I don't disagree with you here, but by the same token, you're kinda sitting on the fence with that answer.

We're talking hypothetically here. 5 years in the bigs versus 1 year at each level of the minors. Either one or the other.

Naturally, the real world isn't nearly so black and white. But assuming it was, which approach would produce the better bigleaguer 5 years out?

[Sports Guy]

I don't disagree with you here, but by the same token, you're kinda sitting on the fence with that answer.

We're talking hypothetically here. 5 years in the bigs versus 1 year at each level of the minors. Either one or the other.

Naturally, the real world isn't nearly so black and white. But assuming it was, which approach would produce the better bigleaguer 5 years out?

Tough question there Dave....One that i don't think there is a right or wrong answer to...It really has to be taken on a case by case basis.

[davearm]

I got the distinct impression that the only question to be asked was if those pitches that a pitcher had in his arm, were better utilized at the major league level. If so then the only element that could answer this would be the level of command that a young pitcher possesses and if that command could be improved with additional minor league training before being thrust in the the pitching that counts, i.e. in the majors.

Has Daniel Cabrera benefited from being in the majors directly from the mid minors at a young age? I would postulate yes, in that he has shown improvement in command when taking a bit off what his natural physical ability allows him to do.

If a brilliant young pitcher has only a finite number of pitches in that brilliant arm, does it make sense to use those pitches to win major league games at the expense of honing a craft? It would appear that is the question.
Well there's hardly just one question being contemplated in this thread.

More like many variations on a similar theme.

My own spin on the issue is as I laid it out... would a guy like Daniel Cabrera (who got his first callup to MLB at age 23) be a better or worse pitcher today if he had been promoted to the majors at 22 right out of rookie ball, even if he wasn't fully ready? Would he be better or worse today if he'd have spent his age 22-24 seasons at A, AA, and AAA?

[davearm]

Tough question there Dave....One that i don't think there is a right or wrong answer to...It really has to be taken on a case by case basis.
What if we were to think of it this way.

Say MLB was set up like the NFL, with no minor leagues at all, and draftees would either go straight into the league or be cut. (I know it's a strained analogy and there are certainly some unintended consequences, like HS kids would be out of the picture entirely, but play along anyway.)

What impact would that have on the overall quality of pitching around baseball? How about hitting?

[Lucky Jim]

The problem with much of this thread is that you're looking to individual examples as rebuttals to the theory. For instance:


If pitching isn't a large part skill than Maddox wouldn't still be pitching.

This is problematic, regardless: Maddux threw his first major league pitch at age 20 in 1986. He wasn't "ready" or "not ready" for the majors - he threw to a 5+ ERA his first few years. But, if it's a skill, is it a learned one, in Maddux's case, or an innate one? He seemed to be too good for the minors from the beginning.

Further, Daniel Cabrera: the question isn't if bringing him up from the minors at a young age made him better, but whether or not leaving him in the minors would've helped in any appreciable way. His WARP for his three years is 12.7. That's nearly 13 wins the O's gained over three years - that they wouldn't have had if they left him in the minors. And never would've had if he suffered an arm injury while still "honing his craft."

The approach Silver suggests isn't going to be validated by individual case analysis - every "formal" approach, which suggests that the same move be made whenever X is satisfied is going to have an error rate. Silver's plan needs to be analyzed from a global perspective. Not refuted by individualized, anecdotal analysis.

[JohnD]

See, i am not even convinced they even need to spend a full year at each level.

Take Erbe for example. If he goes to Frederick and tears it up in the first half, i see no reason not to promote him to Bowie. Now, he needs to show good control, not give up homers, strike out alot of guys and show that he can pitch into the 6th inning or later but if he does that, i am not sure what good it does to leave him in Frederick for the whole year.

But if you rush too soon you don't give teams a chance to adjust to what he does, which then forces him to readjust. Brian Finch threw a handful of really good starts at Delmarva and was sent right up to Bowie while Ray went to Frederick. Both of those guys went from having great Aprils to having disappionting seasons, even after Finch then dropped to Frederick.

You can look good in a first start against someone else, especially in a pitcher's park which Delmarva is in April. But they were rushed up, in part because those psychological tests said they'd handle it just fine, and then totally bombed.

Jeremy Guthrie was rushed through the Indians system and never panned out the way they thought he would.

There are lots of failed prospects who were rushed up even after a string of successful starts. Advance scouting in terms of strategy at the minor league level isn't as proficient as it is in the big leagues.

Now I know how you explained your comments and in some cases it works fine like that. But in many cases it's better to make pitchers adjust to the adjustments hitters make and go through it in the long haul. I think that's why it's done that way now and will likely continue to be.

[Lucky Jim]

But if you rush too soon you don't give teams a chance to adjust to what he does, which then forces him to readjust. Brian Finch threw a handful of really good starts at Delmarva and was sent right up to Bowie while Ray went to Frederick. Both of those guys went from having great Aprils to having disappionting seasons, even after Finch then dropped to Frederick.

Isn't the rebuttal to this that Finch didn't fail because he was rushed, but rather failed because he's not a prospect?

[JohnD]

At the time he was in his first full season of pro ball and a 2nd round pick and most definitely a prospect. He had a really good season in SS A the previous year and was certainly a prospect. In fact, that season played a big part in his descent down the lists. Other factors have dropped his status, but that season alone really, really stunted him. He got absolutely shelled for about two months or so at Bowie and was never the same.

[Lucky Jim]

At the time he was in his first full season of pro ball and a 2nd round pick and most definitely a prospect. He had a really good season in SS A the previous year and was certainly a prospect.

We thought he was a prospect, because with our limited information, we projected that he was one. My point was that Finch likely failed when he was brought up because he wasn't, legitimately, a prospect - rather, the deficiencies in our ability to estimate how good he was were brought to light specifically by his failure.

Prospects play behind a veil of ignorance, in a sense: we can't see what will happen at the next stage - and only that next stage can definitively tell us what we're dealing with.

In Silver's eyes*, the move up wasn't the end of Finch. Finch's limitations were the end of Finch, we just got our first recognition of them when he was brought up. Finch wasn't going to make the improvements needed to be a big league prospect with more time at a lower level - he didn't have the "it" that Silver is talking about.


* I'll confess this is just my elaboration on Silver's article. I've taken what he said and run with it, admittedly.

[JohnD]

Well we obviously just can't go back and do everything over again. But I would maintain that things would have likely been different had Finch not been rushed. He wouldnt' necessarily be in the mix with Olson, Liz, and Penn for a starting job right now. But he might not have fallen so far off.

[Lucky Jim]

I'm not really arguing with you about whether Finch was rushed or not - it's certainly possible that he would be in the mix now if not rushed (though I think one would have to admit it's MORE likely that the fact that he never recovered is indicative of a deficiency than some nebulous psychology of failure.)

It's sort-of an Okham's Razor-type of situation: do we assume that Finch always had the talent and make-up, but the set-back ruined him psychologically? Or do we point to the fact that he never really rebounded as a sign that, psychology aside, Finch might have been a pint low on the talent? I have a hard time believing ONE set-back will deter true major-league talent, in the end. And a far easier time believing that a long record of mediocrity (with a brief, small sample of success in A ball) is just a sign that Finch isn't the prospect we briefly, misguidedly, thought he was.

Again, though, we're getting into anecdotal evidence, which isn't the strength of a theory like the one being discussed. If the diminishing utility of pitching prospects (taken as a whole) can be countered by bringing them up earlier, and this isn't outweighed in terms of win-shares by the 1 or 2 major league pitchers who actually benefit from a strategy that maximizes their individual value (at the expense of those pitchers who languish in the minors when they could be offering us win-shares now), then the theory has some validity.

Of course, as was mentioned earlier - measuring all of this is nigh-impossible.

[Lucky Jim]

But he might not have fallen so far off.

It all comes down to probabilities. And banking on the certainty (a win share now) over the uncertainty (he might not have done X) is rational, at worst, and could be very value-maximizing at best.

[DrungoHazewood]

At the time he was in his first full season of pro ball and a 2nd round pick and most definitely a prospect. He had a really good season in SS A the previous year and was certainly a prospect. In fact, that season played a big part in his descent down the lists. Other factors have dropped his status, but that season alone really, really stunted him. He got absolutely shelled for about two months or so at Bowie and was never the same.

The other side of that is a lot of scouts and analysts thought Finch in the 2nd round was really a reach. His last year at Texas A&M he was a swingman, splitting time between the pen and the back end of the rotation. He had a 5.40 ERA in 65 innings, which was 2nd-worst among Aggie pitchers with 10 or more innings. I know college stats are notoriously misleading, but when you're the 7th-best pitcher on your college staff, you're usually not a MLB prospect.

I agree that he was rushed, but I don't think he was that good to begin with.

(Little tangent - the only pitcher with a higher ERA than Finch on that A&M team was Zach Dixon, who the O's also drafted. They must love A&M pitchers with awful ERAs. Anyway, after getting bombed in Frederick two years ago missed all of last year. I think he was hurt, but was released last year.)

[Sports Guy]

But if you rush too soon you don't give teams a chance to adjust to what he does, which then forces him to readjust. Brian Finch threw a handful of really good starts at Delmarva and was sent right up to Bowie while Ray went to Frederick. Both of those guys went from having great Aprils to having disappionting seasons, even after Finch then dropped to Frederick.

You can look good in a first start against someone else, especially in a pitcher's park which Delmarva is in April. But they were rushed up, in part because those psychological tests said they'd handle it just fine, and then totally bombed.

Jeremy Guthrie was rushed through the Indians system and never panned out the way they thought he would.

There are lots of failed prospects who were rushed up even after a string of successful starts. Advance scouting in terms of strategy at the minor league level isn't as proficient as it is in the big leagues.

Now I know how you explained your comments and in some cases it works fine like that. But in many cases it's better to make pitchers adjust to the adjustments hitters make and go through it in the long haul. I think that's why it's done that way now and will likely continue to be.
If he is in Frederick for 3-4 months, that is enough for him to get around the league at least twice and hitters will be able to make adjustments.

[Sports Guy]

What if we were to think of it this way.

Say MLB was set up like the NFL, with no minor leagues at all, and draftees would either go straight into the league or be cut. (I know it's a strained analogy and there are certainly some unintended consequences, like HS kids would be out of the picture entirely, but play along anyway.)

What impact would that have on the overall quality of pitching around baseball? How about hitting?

I think the one thing that would be an issue is maturity.

That is one thing that can't be measured. That is one thing that Nate Silver can't write about intelligently. Alot of these guys need some time in the minors mentally.

That is why it has to be taken on a case by case basis.

[tywright]

Thought we should bump this thread

[Lucky Jim]

Thought we should bump this thread

Man, I was eloquent back then. I wonder what's happened to me since.

[GoOs3]

Just a head's up: Rosenthal is going to be on MLB's Baseball Channel in a couple minutes to talk Bedard

You can watch for free... just go to the front page and click on the "baseball channel" box on the front picture menu...

[tywright]

This thread illustrates why Erbe did not succeed last year and why Spoone has developed. SG hit the nail on the head about not being able to measure maturity. Erbe's mental makeup limited him from succeeding last year, but it does not mean he won't breakout this year. Rarely do we see 19 year old pitcher succeed in A+ ball, unless they are named Felix Hernandez. Same goes for Tillman and Butler. Spoone on the other hand was 2 years older and more polished. It will be interesting to see if that translates into continued success at Bowie.

[weams]

So how many "No such things" will we have accumulated by the end of the day?