Tnstaapp

[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. 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. 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.