Do we overrate our pitching prospects' chances of success?

[LookinUp]

I just want to make it clear, I am not necessarily advocating trading any of these guys. Just pointing out that the odds they all make good major league starters aren't real high.

I take the point that scouting reports and stats tell a lot, and you can't rely only on the general numbers I cited. At the same time, a lot of posters here (certainly including me) tend to know an awful lot about the Orioles' prospects, but don't know as much about all the other prospects in MLB, and so we tend to think of ours as elite without appreciating that there are lots of equally highly regarded prospects in other organizations, and a good number of them nevertheless don't pan out.

This is spot on. I may be guilty of this in particular.

I have the orange sunglasses on when it comes to our pitching drafting and development program. It just seems like we're doing things the right way, and probably better than most teams do it. So, if an Oriole is rated 35 and a Yankee is rated 34, I'd probably take the Oriole pitcher 9 times out of 10. In other words, I think our top pitching prospects are more likely to be successful major leaguers than the top prospects in many other organizations.

[Frobby]

I think "we" are equally guilty of overrating what it takes from a pitching staff to compete. The Yanks were clearly the best team in baseball last year and they had three starters throw 162+ innings. The Sox won 95 games in the AL East and they had two. The Rays had a winning record and three qualifying starters, plus a 5th-6th slot in the rotation that combined for an ERA north of 6.00 in 200+ innings. The Angels won 97 games and had three qualifiers, one of which had an ERA of 4.60.

If Matusz throws 200 innings to a 3.50, Tillman 180 to a 3.75, Bergesen 180 to a 4.00, and the remaining starters put up a 5.00-something the O's will have a rotation equal to or better than most contenders.

The stats in the OP prove your point -- 78 pitchers who threw 162 innings for 30 MLB teams. If you have three of these guys, you are head of the game.

As to your final paragraph, I wholeheartedly agree, so long as the 4th and 5th spots are in the low to mid 5's, not up in the 6's and above.

[Lucky Jim]

I take that as a compliment. I do agree with Stole's comments though. I don't expect Tillman and Matusz to pitch like #2's or even #1's, but a year like Cahill is what I am expecting. I would be thrilled if they pitched like Brett Anderson.

I'm sure you do. It's in keeping with the observational acumen you displayed in the opening post.

I'm not sure who's "over-rating" our prospects. Most of us realize their value is, in cocktail napkin math, some triangulation of their upside discounted by probability and their floor/probability. Injuries will factor. But most will float somewhere along that continuum. While some will fall to the bottom side of that spectrum, some will float to the top. Mixing different risk profiles (for every Tillman, a Matusz, for every Erbe, a Bergesen) is key.

If you really take Stotle at his word, the best way of determining what the Orioles can expect is to compare like-to-like. Which means we need to look at the very top stockpilers of pitching arms and see what kind of attrition rate they have.

I'm interested in what I see from Tillman and Matusz this year, but it's 2011 that really matters to me. I don't have any concerns - yet - about where either pitcher will be in 2011.

[NewMarketSean]

TINSTAAPP, people, TINSTAAPP.

[Stotle]

I'm sure you do. It's in keeping with the observational acumen you displayed in the opening post.

I'm not sure who's "over-rating" our prospects. Most of us realize their value is, in cocktail napkin math, some triangulation of their upside discounted by probability and their floor/probability. Injuries will factor. But most will float somewhere along that continuum. While some will fall to the bottom side of that spectrum, some will float to the top. Mixing different risk profiles (for every Tillman, a Matusz, for every Erbe, a Bergesen) is key.

If you really take Stotle at his word, the best way of determining what the Orioles can expect is to compare like-to-like. Which means we need to look at the very top stockpilers of pitching arms and see what kind of attrition rate they have.

I'm interested in what I see from Tillman and Matusz this year, but it's 2011 that really matters to me. I don't have any concerns - yet - about where either pitcher will be in 2011.

Yes, the bolded is correct -- and was what I was driving at. BAL should be compared to the likes of ATL, OAK, CLE (to an extent), LAN, LAA, TAM, BOS, TEX (recently), etc., rather than the league as a whole.

[Lucky Jim]

At the same time, a lot of posters here (certainly including me) tend to know an awful lot about the Orioles' prospects, but don't know as much about all the other prospects in MLB, and so we tend to think of ours as elite without appreciating that there are lots of equally highly regarded prospects in other organizations, and a good number of them nevertheless don't pan out.

That's why you create a diversified risk approach, that isn't wholly reliant on top prospects and allows for the possibility of grinders (Bergesen) and fliers (Coffey/Wirsch/Beal/Bundy) working out.

[LookinUp]

TINSTAAPP, people, TINSTAAPP.

:angryfire::angryfire:

If this were true, we've been spending way too much energy on folly.

[Stotle]

TINSTAAPP, people, TINSTAAPP.

I.N.C.O.R.R.E.C.T., Sean. I.N.C.O.R.R.E.C.T.

[Lucky Jim]

TINSTAAPP, people, TINSTAAPP.

That's like saying there's no such thing as a stock.

[NewMarketSean]

We'll know a lot more about our pitchers this time next year. However by then it will likely be too late to trade a few of them for anything other than this.

[RandyM]

Chris Tillman is 21 years old...for him to even be throwing in the Majors is a feat in and of itself. He had a 2.70 ERA in 96.2 innings at AAA Norfolk...we know that the ability is there...he just hasn't fully adjusted to the Majors yet. Just as with Wieters in the second half of last season, I think we will start to see some big things from Tillman this year. The butterflies should be gone at this point, now it's time to play ball and show us what he's got (which I think is a lot...that curveball is straight up filthy).

I know, just saying I don't expect him to pitch like a #2 or #3 type pitcher next year, more like a #4 which I would be happy with as his first full year. I expect some flashes of potential with bumps in the road. That isn't an insult to Tillman, just realistic expectations for any 21 year old pitcher.

[vab]

Yeah, it's a crap shoot but it's their only alternative. They just have to throw enough good arms at it that they can put a decent staff together and get to a level where that big time free agent pitcher may actually be attainable.

[Lucky Jim]

We'll know a lot more about our pitchers this time next year. However by then it will likely be too late to trade a few of them for anything other than this.

And this is based on what, Sean? Myopic pessimism isn't a methodology, as much as you've sort-of trademarked it.

[DrungoHazewood]

TINSTAAPP, people, TINSTAAPP.

There's no sure things in pitching prospects, which is why it helps to have more of them than anyone else. Thankfully for us, the O's do.

[Frobby]

I know, just saying I don't expect him to pitch like a #2 or #3 type pitcher next year, more like a #4 which I would be happy with as his first full year. I expect some flashes of potential with bumps in the road. That isn't an insult to Tillman, just realistic expectations for any 21 year old pitcher.

I'd be pleased with Tillman taking the ball every 5th day and posting an ERA below 5.00 in 2010. I'm hoping for better than that, but I think it may take a year or two before we see Tillman really break out. In the meantime, I'm just hoping for a solid, healthy pitcher.