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.

[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.