Is Bundy this special?

[harp6]

I find it amazing how people want to compare Bundy and Strasburg. They are in two different worlds at this time. Strasburg is over four years older. Strasburg has made it to the majors and has been successful. Therefore, he currently has more value than Bundy. Bundy is projected to be a top starter. He may or may not live up to that, but at this point he is has more potential than any other current pitching prospect out there. Therefore, he would be of great value to any team but obviously does not have the value of Strasburg. Every other team in baseball would want Bundy at the right price. Many would be willing to trade a top current player around Upton's talent to obtain a top prospect like Bundy. But it would depend on the needs of that other team. I don't think that the O's could get a player more talented than Upton for Bundy at this time. Strasburg could because he is more established.

For those who want to compare Bundy to Strasburg, let's be real. Strasburg got such a high draft bonus compared to Bundy because he was a college player and was the best. He proved that in college. He was major league ready, because he was a great college pitcher. There has never been a high school pitcher that has ever come close to that bonus because, let's face it, it is "High School" and a team is drafting a 18 year old. What kind of bonus would Bundy get if he had gone to college? Well that is hard to predict because Bundy would still be two years away from that point at this time and it would very much depend on how he develops. At this point in Bundy's career he does look like he could be very, very good.

I can tell you what kind of bonus that Strasburg would have gotten out of high school. Let's see, what kind of bonus does an overweight pitcher with a temper get out of high school. They don't get drafted. They don't even get to go to the college of their choice. When Strasburg was Bundy's current age he had pitched one year of college as a closer. He then went on to become a great starter in college and was able to get the great draft bonus because he showed that he was that good, but at that point he was three years older that Bundy was when Bundy was being drafted.

To the poster that said that he has seen Strasburg pitch and Bundy pitch and there isn't a comparison. Really. Did you see Strasburg pitch his freshman year at college, because that would be a better comparison to the current Bundy. Bundy has four years to go to get to Strasburg's age and development.

Please note that Strasburg himself is a risk. He has already blown out his arm once and has a delivery that is known to have the potential to cause injury.

Bundy has a delivery that has less risk for injury, but at the same time, it is pitching and any pitcher can have a career ending injury. Hopefully, that doesn't happen to either pitcher.

[crawjo]

Nice post.

I think there are a couple of "formal" studies available on line that do this, but I can't remember links. I think Frobby's 50% - 70% estimate is not bad, but 70% might be a little high.

In general, I think trading prospects for young talent is a very good idea even if you have to sign them to expensive deals to gain control for a while. Paying for a young, proven player is better than paying tons of money for free agents that don't come close to earning their contracts. And paying would include money plus prospects. Just think about the O's...how many O's prospects have met expectations in the last ten years? 15 years? Heck, even Wieters hasn't met offensive expectations. Has ANY Oriole prospect met expectations in the last ten years?

So if I was in a front office, I would advocate trading prospects for young, proven players that you can still control and then signing those players to extend control. I think that's a strategy that minimizes risk while focusing dollars on players that are more likely to "earn" their contracts.

So, I think I would put aside being an Oriole fan, do some hard math, and think real, real hard about trading Bundy. Upton might not be the player depending on the math, but I would certainly dangle Bundy to get a more proven young player.

I understand this argument and sympathize with it, but I don't think Upton is that guy. For me, if I were looking to trade Bundy for a young impact player, I'd want him to be a catcher or a shortstop or a center fielder. I'm just not going to do it for a corner outfielder, unless it's somebody who is VERY consistent at a VERY high level. I mean if I'm going to send off the best pitching prospect in all of baseball, and a guy who has been scouted as one of the best high school pitchers of the last 20 years, then I'm only doing it if I'm getting a sure thing. And if it required giving away more prospects, so be it. But the target would be an ELITE player. Somebody at the talent level of Tulowitzki or Braun or something like that. Maybe that's asking too much. So be it. In that case I'll hang onto the prospect and see how it shakes out.

I'd be more interested in trading Bundy for a player like Machado (very young, polished, future shortstop) than for a guy like Upton. And I do like Upton quite a bit, but not enough to give up Bundy. With Bundy I think he's going to be an ace, UNLESS (and this is big) he gets hurt. That's what worries me; not his talent level but his continued health. Guys like Prior and Wood would have been HOFers if they could have stayed healthy. But I look even at other pitchers on that list, and the guy who stands out is Beckett. If Bundy turns out to be like Beckett, then you have to keep him. Because even though Beckett has fallen apart a bit over the last couple years, he basically pitched his teams to two world championships in 2003 and again in 2007. A guy like Upton I don't think can ever have that kind of impact on a team.

[skanar]

One thing to remember is that current MLB players (often described as "proven") are not a no-risk proposition. Injuries happen to position players, as well as pitchers, and there is always the possibility that a player's current level of performance won't be sustained going forward.

Consider this: Nick Markakis, at the end of his age 24 season in 2008, had a MLB career line of .299/.375/.476 in 1949 PAs (122 OPS+). At the time, there were people who thought there was nowhere to go but up, that he was on the verge of superstardom, etc. As we all know, he's been a solid player, even very good, to the tune of a 114 OPS+ over the past 4 years, but certainly not a superstar. This result was a part of his risk-reward profile as a trade asset in 2008, as was the chance that he'd suffer a career-ending injury, and the chance that he'd become the next Matt Holliday.

In 2008, would you have wanted to trade "proven" major leaguer Nick Markakis for David Price (14 MLB innings total, #2 prospect in baseball) or Clayton Kershaw (just completed an age-20 season with a 4.26 ERA)? Yet those trades would have been fantastic bargains for the Orioles, especially because Markakis has been quite a bit more expensive over the past 4 years than either Price or Kershaw.

Justin Upton, at the conclusion of his age 24 season (ie now) has a MLB career line of .278/.357/.475 in 3030 PAs (117 OPS+) - just a bit lower than Nick's at the same point in their careers. He might do better than that line in the future, yes, but he also might do worse. He has a risk-reward profile just like a prospect does.

It's crucial to remember that when considering trading prospects for veterans, it's not a matter of trading a risk-reward proposition for a sure thing. Current MLB players carry risk, as well; less risk than prospects, obviously, but risk none the less.

As an exercise, considering creating such a profile for Upton and Bundy. Here's how I'd handicap Bundy's possible WAR totals over the next 6 years:

0 WAR: 15%

0-2 WAR: 5%

2-7 WAR: 15%

7-12 WAR: 20%

12-18 WAR: 40%

18+ WAR: 5%

(these are based on my BA top 100 reanalysis model, which suggests that for a RHP ranked #2 by BA, there is a 20% chance of a bust, 35% chance of decent player, 45% chance of stardom, with the WAR totals adjusted down to account for the shift from whole career to 1st 6 years - this shift may not be mathematically justified)

And here's how I'd handicap Upton over the next 3. He's averaged 3.5 WAR/yr so far in his career:

0 WAR: 1%

0-2 WAR: 4%

2-7 WAR: 15%

7-12 WAR: 60%

12-18 WAR: 15%

18+ WAR: 5%

[luismatos4prez]

As an exercise, considering creating such a profile for Upton and Bundy. Here's how I'd handicap Bundy's possible WAR totals over the next 6 years:

0 WAR: 15%

0-2 WAR: 5%

2-7 WAR: 15%

7-12 WAR: 20%

12-18 WAR: 40%

18+ WAR: 5%

(these are based on my BA top 100 reanalysis model, which suggests that for a RHP ranked #2 by BA, there is a 20% chance of a bust, 35% chance of decent player, 45% chance of stardom, with the WAR totals adjusted down to account for the shift from whole career to 1st 6 years - this shift may not be mathematically justified)

And here's how I'd handicap Upton over the next 3. He's averaged 3.5 WAR/yr so far in his career:

0 WAR: 1%

0-2 WAR: 4%

2-7 WAR: 15%

7-12 WAR: 60%

12-18 WAR: 15%

18+ WAR: 5%

Awesome work on Bundy. I love what you did there.

Since 1954 16 other players logged 15-20 WAR in at least 2500 PAs by their age 24 season. I listed their total WAR over their next 3 years.

Robin Yount - 22.2

Tim Raines - 20.2

Ivan Rodriguez - 20

Rusty Staub - 19.8

Adrian Beltre - 17.2

Eddie Murray 17.1

Alan Trammel - 16.9

Buddy Bell - 14.6

Boog Powell - 12.3

Carl Crawford - 12.0

Lloyd Moseby- 10.4

Jose Reyes - 10.1

Chris Speier - 7.5

Terry Puhl - 7.0

Butch Wynegar - 6.8

Gerry Templeton - 4.5

Take that for what you will. It's obviously a flawed way of looking at things. I'm very strongly against trading Bundy for Upton, but I think you're underestimating him in your projection. Players tend to be better at age 25-27 than at ages 22-24. Link to Michael Lichtman's Study

[skanar]

Take that for what you will. It's obviously a flawed way of looking at things. I'm very strongly against trading Bundy for Upton, but I think you're underestimating him in your projection. Players tend to be better at age 25-27 than at ages 22-24. Link to Michael Lichtman's Study

Your method of identifying past players who were similar and seeing how they turned out is the basis for my prospect work. The problem is that you've got a sample size of 16 - one of my main issues has been figuring out how to justifiably expand a sample. In other words, when trying to predict a #2 prospect, I can't just look at past #2 prospects who were pitchers, because there are only 10-20 of them. So I try to make a model that also takes into account performance of #1 prospects, #3 prospects, #4 prospects - it makes a holistic prediction.

Still, using your list, we get a prediction of:

0-2: 2% (remember, with a sample size of 16, one additional player = 5%)

2-7: 18%

7-12: 25%

12-18: 30%

18+: 25%

I may well be underestimating Upton; unlike Bundy's risk profile above, I don't have my own statistical work to back it up. Your method of looking at past young players with lots of playing time and value is very interesting, and I'd be interested in seeing if it could be built out to a decent sample size and used to make predictions across a sample of past young players.

Part of my point is that only looking at the aging curve misses the bigger picture: the curve provides an average case, but doesn't give any breakdown of risk. Indeed, Upton is a good example of how looking at averages is only part of the story. The aging curve suggests that the average player sees a massive improvement between ages 21 and 24 (about 2.5 WAR/year over the three years). But Upton obviously hasn't done that; he's bounced around.

And Lichtman's curve isn't great to argue that Upton will be much better over the next three years. It's built on a year-to-year correlation, and if you check out the graphs at your link, you'll see that ages 25, 26, and 27 are only slightly better than age 24 (total difference of about 7 runs by linear weights): so Upton's average case would be 3.5 WAR *3 + 0.7 = 11.2 WAR.

One more quick-and-dirty way of projecting Upton would be the 3/2/1 method, where you weight the most recent season by 3, the next one back by 2, and the third one back by 1, then average. That gives Upton a projection of (3.0*3+6.4*2+2.5*3)/6 = 3.9 WAR, and if we repeat the process assuming a 3.9 WAR in 2013, we get a 3.9 WAR in 2014 and a 3.5 WAR in 2015 for a total of 11.4.

[Frobby]

Mark Hulet of fangraphs thinks Bundy is pretty special, or perhaps he is just prone to hyperbole:

Only an injury appears capable of derailing this once-in-a-generation talent.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/baltimore-orioles-top-15-prospects-2012-13/

[Ruzious]

Mark Hulet of fangraphs thinks Bundy is pretty special, or perhaps he is just prone to hyperbole:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/baltimore-orioles-top-15-prospects-2012-13/

Well, he's not Strassburg, so it doesn't matter.

[weams]

Oh sure. But if you don't look at the whole picture, you're not really honestly assessing the player. You're looking for reasons to be down on him, right?

Right. Absolutely.

[Can_of_corn]

Well, he's not Strassburg, so it doesn't matter.

Strasburg is so last generation.

I think any time you have a guy in the minors inviting others to share his workout and facilities during the offseason you have something pretty special.

Who has ever heard of a guy in the minors showing that type of leadership?

(Yes I understand that DSD is a business.)

[Frobby]

Strasburg is so last generation.

Yeah, I posted Hulet's remark because it was germane to the discussion in this thread, but I think his statement was ridiculously hyperbolic.

[andrewrickli]

Why do you keep comparing Jones to Upton? You're not proposing that they be traded for each other. Nowhere did you say, "Look, you all think that Jones is a star, and since Upton is better, we should want to trade for him too."

Your interpretation of an ace is also a bit too strict. You didn't list the Cliff Lee's, Greinke's, Gallardo's, Gio Gonzalez's, James Shields' etc etc. Granted, even if you run the list of aces to 20-25, I agree that the math might not add-up. I don't think that Frobby was saying based on on the odds...he was stating that he thinks that there's a better chance than not of Bundy being an ace.

I compared Jones to Upton to show you that Upton is better and worth more than Adam Jones was at this point in his career. Adam is 27. Upton is 25, I'd bet that Upton will be as valuable and if not more valuable than Jones in his career. Upton get's on base more, and steals more.

[Frobby]

I compared Jones to Upton to show you that Upton is better and worth more than Adam Jones was at this point in his career. Adam is 27. Upton is 25, I'd bet that Upton will be as valuable and if not more valuable than Jones in his career. Upton get's on base more, and steals more.

Upton should be the better hitter over his career, as he has been to date. Of course, Jones plays CF and Upton is a corner OF. Per rWAR, the postional difference is worth about one win per year in Jones' favor, in terms of the offense you expect from a CF vs. a RF. Even so, I'd give Upton the edge.

But this isn't so much about what Upton is worth. It's about what you think Bundy is worth.

[skanar]

Upton should be the better hitter over his career, as he has been to date. Of course, Jones plays CF and Upton is a corner OF. Per rWAR, the postional difference is worth about one win per year in Jones' favor, in terms of the offense you expect from a CF vs. a RF. Even so, I'd give Upton the edge.

But this isn't so much about what Upton is worth. It's about what you think Bundy is worth.

Jones has been worth 7.5 WAR over the last two seasons, and if we use his composite fan projection for 2013, he'll be worth 11.8 WAR between ages 25 and 27 - more or less what I suggested was Upton's average case, above.

[jjnono]

I understand this argument and sympathize with it, but I don't think Upton is that guy. For me, if I were looking to trade Bundy for a young impact player, I'd want him to be a catcher or a shortstop or a center fielder. I'm just not going to do it for a corner outfielder, unless it's somebody who is VERY consistent at a VERY high level. I mean if I'm going to send off the best pitching prospect in all of baseball, and a guy who has been scouted as one of the best high school pitchers of the last 20 years, then I'm only doing it if I'm getting a sure thing. And if it required giving away more prospects, so be it. But the target would be an ELITE player. Somebody at the talent level of Tulowitzki or Braun or something like that. Maybe that's asking too much. So be it. In that case I'll hang onto the prospect and see how it shakes out.

I'd be more interested in trading Bundy for a player like Machado (very young, polished, future shortstop) than for a guy like Upton. And I do like Upton quite a bit, but not enough to give up Bundy. With Bundy I think he's going to be an ace, UNLESS (and this is big) he gets hurt. That's what worries me; not his talent level but his continued health. Guys like Prior and Wood would have been HOFers if they could have stayed healthy. But I look even at other pitchers on that list, and the guy who stands out is Beckett. If Bundy turns out to be like Beckett, then you have to keep him. Because even though Beckett has fallen apart a bit over the last couple years, he basically pitched his teams to two world championships in 2003 and again in 2007. A guy like Upton I don't think can ever have that kind of impact on a team.

Bundy + Hardy for Tulo, with the Rockies eating some cash. I'm probably overvaluing Bundy, but the Rockies are in desperate need of young, potential-plus pitching. They are loaded with not only the Tulo contract (10 yr $157M) but the Cargo (7 yrs $80) and Cuddyer contracts (3 yr $31.5M) as well. Losing Tulo would give the free-spending Montforts immediate ability to improve their club now. Tulo is beloved here, but I think it's only a matter of time before he gets traded.... Why can't it be to us? Or does a Machado move to short in the future just short-circuit all of this? Maybe Tulo would play third?

BTW, who put the 'shrooms in my salad....??

[BohKnowsBmore]

Upton should be the better hitter over his career, as he has been to date. Of course, Jones plays CF and Upton is a corner OF. Per rWAR, the postional difference is worth about one win per year in Jones' favor, in terms of the offense you expect from a CF vs. a RF. Even so, I'd give Upton the edge.

But this isn't so much about what Upton is worth. It's about what you think Bundy is worth.

As far as Jones vs. Upton, though, can't some of this value difference be attributable to some of the potential defensive scoring at Camden Yards? I'm not sure if that discussion ever went anywhere, but I thought it was worth having. Comparing their oWAR's from 2012 (Jones) and 2011 (Upton) gives values of 5.2 for Jones and 4.7 for Upton. Obviously defense cannot be excluded, but I think it's worth mentioning when one considers the questionable defensive metrics at OPACY. Also, to those saying that OH'ers would be defending Upton to no end if he were an Oriole, there is probably some truth to that. It cuts both ways, however. There would be plenty of posters tearing him down and underrating him, like those that seem upset that Jones finished #6 in MVP voting or just telling everyone how he's not that good.