Do we overrate our pitching prospects' chances of success?

[Pedro Cerrano]

You forgot about the biggest (in more ways than one) prospect or talent of all that didn't pan out - Sidney Ponson. I believe Sir Sid at one time was labled as a "can't miss prospect."

Law of averages. For all the ones we missed on, fate, karma, or whoever, owes us that many in direct hits!:clap3:

[Stotle]

You forgot about the biggest (in more ways than one) prospect or talent of all that didn't pan out - Sidney Ponson. I believe Sir Sid at one time was labled as a "can't miss prospect."

One of these things is not like the others...

[andrewrickli]

Showed us a lot of what? That he is still not fully mature, has a very good curve ball, has command issues with his fb, and has fly ball tendencies?

Think we are definitely overrating our pitching prospects and are expecting a heck of a lot early on, but what do you expect this is an O's fan board. At least we have something to "hope" for.

His fastball was flat. That's the only thing I saw...he can get it up around 95 with a great 16-6 hook. His changeup was very nice to.

Matusz's change up is better

[joldey]

We're all very reluctant to trade away young pitchers. But I wonder if we are overrrating their chances of success.

Last year there were only 78 pitchers in MLB who threw enough innings to qualify. You can break them down this way:

Ages 20-24: 9

Ages 25-29: 39

Ages 30-34: 25

Ages 35+: 5

Focusing on the 39 pitchers who were 25-29, that means that all of MLB is only producing something like 8 pitchers a year who eventually will throw 162 innings in a season. If a team is producing a 162-inning pitcher once every three years, they are ahead of the game.

So, what are the odds that Matusz, Tillman, Arrieta and Britton are all guys who will be 162-inning pitchers in MLB? Probably not very high. Think of all those pitchers who make BA's top 100 list every year, and how few of them are going to end up throwing 162 innings in a major league season. If all four of these guys throw 162 innings some time in the next three seasons or so, we'll have pulled off a pretty amazing feat. And if all four are actually average to above average, it would be the equivalent of a royal flush.

[b][i]Name			2000 BA Rank	        Years with 162+ IP[/i][/b]Barry Zito		        #41		9 (2001-present)C.C. Sabathia		        #57		9 (2001-present)John Garland		        #32		8 (2002-present)A.J. Burnett		        #19		6 (2001, 2002, 2005, 2007-2009) Brad Penny		        #22		6 (2001, 2003, 2005-2007 and  2009)Mark Mulder		        #12		5 (2001-2005)Josh Beckett		        #18		5 (2005-present)Ramon Ortiz		        #28		5 (2001-2003, 2005 and 2006)Kip Wells		        #14		4 (2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007)Ben Sheets		        #65		4 (2002-2004 and 2008)Jason Jennings		        #87		4 (2002-2004 and 2006)Wade Miller		        #69		3 (2001-2003)Tony Armas Jr.		        #27 		2 (2001 and 2002)Adam Eaton		        #64		2 (2003 and 2004)Rick Ankiel		        #1		1 (2000)John Patterson		        #10		1 (2005)Danys Baez		        #39		1 (2002)… 448 IP as a relieverByung-Hyun Kim	                #81		None (841 MLB IP)Rob Bell		        #59		None (686 MLB IP)Dan Reichert		        #75		None (395.1 MLB IP)Sun-Woo Kim		        #94		None (337 MLB IP)Kyle Snyder		        #70		None (237.2 MLB IP)Chris George		        #40		None (237.1 MLB IP)Aaron Myette		        #63		None (154.1 MLB IP)Kurt Ainsworth		        #58		None (126.2 MLB IP)… the ‘prize’ of the Ponson to Giants tradeTim Drew		        #91		None (84.2 MLB IP)Orber Moreno		        #83		None (50.2 MLB IP)Wascar Serrano 	                #54		None (46.2 MLB IP)Ed Yarnall		        #55		None (20 MLB IP)Pat Strange		        #78		None (17 MLB IP)Luis Rivera		        #51		None (7.1 MLB IP)… the ‘prize’ of the Surhoff to Atlanta tradeChad Hutchinson	                #45		None (4 MLB IP)Wilfredo Rodriguez	        #25		None (3 MLB IP)Ryan Anderson		        #9		None (0 MLB IP)Wes Anderson		        #43		None (0 MLB IP)Brad Baisley		        #52		None (0 MLB IP)*#29 Francisco Cordero, #47 Jason Standridge, #49 Eric Gagne, #53 Jesus Colome, and #84 Grant Roberts were turned into relievers.

I chose the year 2000 to give the pitchers close to 10 years body of work. Of the top 100 prospects according to BA, 41 of them were pitchers. 5 of them spent over 100 IP in the majors basically full-time in the bullpen. So that leaves you with 36 SP. Of those 36 SP, only 12 of them have more than 2 seasons of 162+ IP, and 19 of them never had a single one.

To think that Matusz, Tillman, Arrieta and Britton will be able to consistently throw 162+ is, as you said 'equivalent to a royal flush,' and the odds might even be greater than that (I would say the Marlins hit that jackpot with having Burnett, Beckett and Penny each having 5+ seasons of 162+ IP.) Realistically, you should only expect two of them to throw three seasons of 162+ IP.

[byrdz]

One of these things is not like the others...

Matusz wearing a different cap?

[TonySoprano]

We're all very reluctant to trade away young pitchers. But I wonder if we are overrrating their chances of success.

Last year there were only 78 pitchers in MLB who threw enough innings to qualify. You can break them down this way:

Ages 20-24: 9

Ages 25-29: 39

Ages 30-34: 25

Ages 35+: 5

Focusing on the 39 pitchers who were 25-29, that means that all of MLB is only producing something like 8 pitchers a year who eventually will throw 162 innings in a season. If a team is producing a 162-inning pitcher once every three years, they are ahead of the game.

So, what are the odds that Matusz, Tillman, Arrieta and Britton are all guys who will be 162-inning pitchers in MLB? Probably not very high. Think of all those pitchers who make BA's top 100 list every year, and how few of them are going to end up throwing 162 innings in a major league season. If all four of these guys throw 162 innings some time in the next three seasons or so, we'll have pulled off a pretty amazing feat. And if all four are actually average to above average, it would be the equivalent of a royal flush.

First, I find it amusing that a self-proclaimed "know nothing about pitching" is talking about projections for the staff. But seriously, I think a healthy bit of skepticism, or a reality check is in order, and that's what this topic brings.

I remember how the local press lauded how we had so much pitching depth, that we brought thirty-seven, count 'em, 37 pitchers to camp this past Spring, and had a hard time finding enough innings for them all. Within a matter of weeks, we had to patch together a rotation with the likes of Adam Eaton.

There has been a large consensus here that couldn't wait for the "cavalry" to arrive, feeling excited that the light of tunnel would finally arrive. In that regard, I felt that there was overrating of our chances for everything coming together. It happens. We knew 2009 was a write-off and people are anxiously looking for a reason to believe in the future.

Recognizing that I hold a minority opinion, I've always wondered what if the "big three" turned out to be a "dynamic duo" or even just "one to bring balance to the force." In the event of anything less than success from the entire "cavalry," what happens to the plan of one Andy MacPhail?

Obviously, it remains to be seen which scenario comes to fruition. Dreamers will dream, and maybe someday they will be rewarded. After twelve years of losing, we all do.

[Lucky Jim]

I remember how the local press lauded how we had so much pitching depth, that we brought thirty-seven, count 'em, 37 pitchers to camp this past Spring, and had a hard time finding enough innings for them all. Within a matter of weeks, we had to patch together a rotation with the likes of Adam Eaton.

There has been a large consensus here that couldn't wait for the "cavalry" to arrive, feeling excited that the light of tunnel would finally arrive. In that regard, I felt that there was overrating of our chances for everything coming together. It happens. We knew 2009 was a write-off and people are anxiously looking for a reason to believe in the future.

Did anyone really think our pitching was going to be good based on 37 invitees? The cavalry and the 37 (mostly) retreads in camp last spring are two wildly different things, with two wildly different projections and probabilities. Sheer numbers don't equal depth.

[DrungoHazewood]

Recognizing that I hold a minority opinion, I've always wondered what if the "big three" turned out to be a "dynamic duo" or even just "one to bring balance to the force." In the event of anything less than success from the entire "cavalry," what happens to the plan of one Andy MacPhail?

I thought one Andy MacPhail had a plan to stock the cupboard with as many good, young, pitchers as he could get his hands on so that the failure of one or more of the big three wouldn't be that big of a deal. The cavalry isn't just Matusz, Arrieta, and Tillman. It's also Britton and Bergesen and Hobgood and Erbe, Patton and Bundy, Johnson and Coffey, and the next guys, and the guys after that.

[LookinUp]

I thought one Andy MacPhail had a plan to stock the cupboard with as many good, young, pitchers as he could get his hands on so that the failure of one or more of the big three wouldn't be that big of a deal. The cavalry isn't just Matusz, Arrieta, and Tillman. It's also Britton and Bergesen and Hobgood and Erbe, Patton and Bundy, Johnson and Coffey, and the next guys, and the guys after that.

For like the 12th time, I have to spread rep around before it comes back to you. This post took the words out of my mouth.

AM is consitently, if deliberately, adding potential major league contributors to the system while drafting an impressive pedigree of arms.

I'd love it if Matusz, Tillman and Arrieta turn into Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. Unfortunately, that's just not likely. Luckily, our plan isn't 100% dependent on them all panning out.

[Mackus]

Clearly, I agree. Plagiarist.

Mine goes dun dun dun dun dah dun duh

[RShack]

So now that I've shown how this isn't correct, what else are you going to come up with?

Showed what isn't correct? You think the A's were super-strong teams who battled to the top of the toughest division right before they got bounced in the 1st round? Or do you think Cox usually did have 3 solid RP's he could count on, rather than a BP that consisted largely of whichever marginal guys Schuerholz picked up for nothing? (Not dissing Schuerholz, he had an amazing run... but it had it's flaws. Nobody's perfect.)

[mweb]

Showed what isn't correct? You think the A's were super-strong teams who battled to the top of the toughest division right before they got bounced in the 1st round? Or do you think Cox usually did have 3 solid RP's he could count on, rather than a BP that consisted largely of whichever marginal guys Schuerholz picked up for nothing? (Not dissing Schuerholz, he had an amazing run... but it had it's flaws. Nobody's perfect.)

The A's were not a team that barely made the playoffs year after year due to a weak division. That is clear.

I showed that the Braves almost always had at least 2-3 good relievers plus the closer. That is clear. Now whether those guys were good/healthy in the post-season is a different matter. But yes, he did have plenty of good relievers during his time. He didn't have Rivera though, which is one big difference between the Braves and Yanks.

[andrewrickli]

Any chance we start Tillman in Triple A?

That's what I have been thinking, but the more I think, the more I believe he will start in the rotaion. The dude is only 21, and is still learning a 2.-something ERA in 93 IP at AAA is insane for a 21 year old...

[Orioles West]

Obviously, what you do over 162 games is more impressive over what you do in 11 playoff games.

I can't say I agree with that. Sure, winning seasons are cool, but it sounds like the suggestion is that all that we or any other team should be aiming for is a good 162-game season. Isn't the goal for every MLB team to win the World Series?

If AM only need a few winning seasons without pennants or rings, he may not have that far to go.

-Don

[mweb]

I can't say I agree with that. Sure, winning seasons are cool, but it sounds like the suggestion is that all that we or any other team should be aiming for is a good 162-game season. Isn't the goal for every MLB team to win the World Series?

If AM only need a few winning seasons without pennants or rings, he may not have that far to go.

-Don

Of course the goal is to win it all. However, the way to achieve that is basically to put together the best team you can to win in the regular season, and hope they do well in the post-season. Sure there are a few things you can adjust that will likely led to better chances in the post-season, but generally great regular season teams have are great post-season teams. What actually happens in the post-season is largely out of the architects hands though.