Tnstaapp

[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.