SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
How Often are Frontline Pitchers Projected as Less?
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 5, 2014 19:32:54 GMT -5
The Sox are in an uncommon and tantalizing position. They are in desperate need of a frontline starter or two, while they have no less than eight young actual, projected or potential mid-rotation starters between MLB and AAA: Joe Kelly, Rubby De La Rosa, Allen Webster, Steven Wright, Matt Barnes, Henry Owens, Eduardo Rodriguez, and Brian Johnson. (Sorry, Anthony.)
The obvious question is: how often does a projected #3 / #4 starter who has made it to AAA or beyond turn out to be a frontline starter?
Well, that's a formidable research project. You wouldn't want to have to hunt down all the candidates, let alone decide which ones were truly comparable.
However, it's very easy to do the opposite: identify all the recent frontline starters, and see how they were rated as prospects. That won't answer our question, but it will give us an idea. Is it rare for a frontline starter to have been underrated as a prospect, or reasonably common?
In other words, how often does one of the 10 most valuable SP of the last decade, a guy with 3 ace-caliber seasons and 4 number-two caliber, get projected as "a solid #2 or #3 starter" (Sickels), with "some scouts thinking he's more a #3 than a headliner" (BA)? * Or how often does a projected "solid fourth starter" (BA) who's a B- prospect (Sickels) end up with two ace seasons, three #2-caliber ones, and a silly nickname? **
I used bWAR as my metric. I classified the best 150 seasons of the last decade (bWAR 4.8 or better) as ace seasons, and the next 305 (bWAR 2.9 or better) as #2 caliber. An ace is a guy with at least two ace seasons and three total seasons as a 2 or better, or a young guy who just put up his first ace season (Jose Fernandez, Matt Harvey, Corey Kluber, Dallas Keuchel, Jake Arrieta, Tanner Roark). A #2 is anyone else with 2 or more seasons of that quality; I separated out the guys who had just 2 seasons as a #2, and were not a #2 aged 28 or younger in 2014, as “brief #2.”
I only looked at guys who had their rookie year in 2001 or later, when BA started publishing their Handbook with a top 30 for each team. I think it's also true that prospect evaluation has evolved since then, so you don't want to far too far back in this study. Sickels didn't even have Mark Buerhle in his 2000 book, but I'm not sure a guy who profiled like that now would be so overlooked.
This methodology found 33 aces, 56 number twos, and 11 brief number twos.
Before I give the results, it might be interesting for people (especially the moderators and other mavens) to give their gut feeling or guesses. What percentage of aces were not projected to be frontline starters (aces or number twos)? What percentage of number twos were not? Because I think this is true: the more common it is for frontline starters to have been projected as less, the better our chances are of developing one or more from within, from that group of eight. And there is almost nothing more valuable than that.
* Jered Weaver
** James (Some Game) Shields
|
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Nov 5, 2014 20:32:07 GMT -5
I'd guess that more 60% of aces and #2's were projected as less (so aces were projected as #2/#3's or less and #2's were projected as #3/#4's or less).
|
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Nov 5, 2014 20:34:08 GMT -5
Thank you for such a great read, I'll be very interested in the results. I don't know if I want to dare guess but if my memory serves me correctly didn't Jon Lester project as a back of the rotation starter with mid rotation potential?
Also, and this doesn't fit into your timeline, I do remember reading an old scouting report on Roger Clemens pegging him as a middle of the rotation starter. Some guys just put it all together.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 5, 2014 21:08:20 GMT -5
Going back quite a bit further, Tom Glavine was definitely not projected as an ace. He's the one Bill James would single out in his player ratings book as an ace that he'd barely rated a B prospect.
As far as guys in your timeframe, let me make some guesses:
-John Lackey comes to mind - his 2007 was incredible but there's a chance he's a #2 in your typology. Anyhow, I don't remember him getting any prospect hype at all. He may have been a Grade B though.
-Brandon Webb probably qualifies. In fact I'd put a dollar on it. I wasn't quite as plugged in with minor league ball back in '03 but I followed the top 100, and I'd never heard of him when the Diamondbacks brought him along.
-Roy Oswalt? I don't think he'd get overlooked now, but I could see them missing on him back in 2001 because he's such a little dude. The Astros really did well in development in the '90's and into the 2000's by overlooking the traditional bias against short righties.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Nov 5, 2014 21:15:38 GMT -5
So happy you are doing this ... I've been wondering the exact same thing.
I'd bet it's something really high, like 75-80%, and I feel like I still may be low-balling it. I feel like folks are incredibly cautious with the projection of an ace-quality pitcher, PLUS they are very narrow in their definition of what prospects qualify (have to have a blazing fastball), so they are inevitably going to miss on a bunch. But, honestly, that's probably appropriate because it's such an inherently risky thing to project.
I think the real point if the results come out the way I expect is that the Sox approach of stockpiling as many "mid-rotation" arms as possible is probably the smart way to go. But I've thought that for a while, so this is very much making a projection to fit my preconceived notions.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,689
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Nov 5, 2014 21:34:37 GMT -5
This is the beauty of pitching.
Cliff Lee figured out how to absolutely minimize his walk rate long after he was considered a prospect, and then became a dominant starter. Hard to project that happening.
Talent evaluators can predict pitchers completely changing their molds, but some manage to and find great success. Every year there's new pitching studs who seem to come out of nowhere. That's why I love having the type of depth we have now in our farm? Some, maybe even most of our guys will fall short of what we want them to be, but the hope is that some will also overachieve, and those are the guys I'm glad I followed throughout their careers.
Barnes is the guy I see becoming more than how many view him now. He's always had that #3 type label on him, but it wouldn't shock me if something just clicks for him and he becomes a force.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 5, 2014 22:07:25 GMT -5
The Sox are in an uncommon and tantalizing position. They are in desperate need of a frontline starter or two, while they have no less than eight young actual, projected or potential mid-rotation starters between MLB and AAA: Joe Kelly, Rubby De La Rosa, Allen Webster, Steven Wright, Matt Barnes, Henry Owens, Eduardo Rodriguez, and Brian Johnson. (Sorry, Anthony.) The obvious question is: how often does a projected #3 / #4 starter who has made it to AAA or beyond turn out to be a frontline starter? Well, that's a formidable research project. You wouldn't want to have to hunt down all the candidates, let alone decide which ones were truly comparable. However, it's very easy to do the opposite: identify all the recent frontline starters, and see how they were rated as prospects. That won't answer our question, but it will give us an idea. Is it rare for a frontline starter to have been underrated as a prospect, or reasonably common? In other words, how often does one of the 10 most valuable SP of the last decade, a guy with 3 ace-caliber seasons and 4 number-two caliber, get projected as "a solid #2 or #3 starter" (Sickels), with "some scouts thinking he's more a #3 than a headliner" (BA)? * Or how often does a projected "solid fourth starter" (BA) who's a B- prospect (Sickels) end up with two ace seasons, three #2-caliber ones, and a silly nickname? ** I used bWAR as my metric. I classified the best 150 seasons of the last decade (bWAR 4.8 or better) as ace seasons, and the next 305 (bWAR 2.9 or better) as #2 caliber. An ace is a guy with at least two ace seasons and three total seasons as a 2 or better, or a young guy who just put up his first ace season (Jose Fernandez, Matt Harvey, Corey Kluber, Dallas Keuchel, Jake Arrieta, Tanner Roark). A #2 is anyone else with 2 or more seasons of that quality; I separated out the guys who had just 2 seasons as a #2, and were not a #2 aged 28 or younger in 2014, as “brief #2.” I only looked at guys who had their rookie year in 2001 or later, when BA started publishing their Handbook with a top 30 for each team. I think it's also true that prospect evaluation has evolved since then, so you don't want to far too far back in this study. Sickels didn't even have Mark Buerhle in his 2000 book, but I'm not sure a guy who profiled like that now would be so overlooked. This methodology found 33 aces, 56 number twos, and 11 brief number twos. Before I give the results, it might be interesting for people (especially the moderators and other mavens) to give their gut feeling or guesses. What percentage of aces were not projected to be frontline starters (aces or number twos)? What percentage of number twos were not? Because I think this is true: the more common it is for frontline starters to have been projected as less, the better our chances are of developing one or more from within, from that group of eight. And there is almost nothing more valuable than that. * Jered Weaver ** James (Some Game) Shields This is great, Eric - can't wait to see the results. Three years is a pretty long stretch of ace consistency, so I'll guess approx 55% of these guys are predicted aces, but really that's a blind guess. |
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Nov 5, 2014 22:20:43 GMT -5
This is the beauty of pitching. Cliff Lee figured out how to absolutely minimize his walk rate long after he was considered a prospect, and then became a dominant starter. Hard to project that happening. Talent evaluators can predict pitchers completely changing their molds, but some manage to and find great success. Every year there's new pitching studs who seem to come out of nowhere. That's why I love having the type of depth we have now in our farm? Some, maybe even most of our guys will fall short of what we want them to be, but the hope is that some will also overachieve, and those are the guys I'm glad I followed throughout their careers. Barnes is the guy I see becoming more than how many view him now. He's always had that #3 type label on him, but it wouldn't shock me if something just clicks for him and he becomes a force. I've long been of this opinion too. Of course, there's really nothing to back up a statement like that, but I've always just got that feeling from him. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 5, 2014 22:30:07 GMT -5
I agree that the proportion is likely very high (I'd guess 80%), but I still think this is backwards logic. Most talent evaluators will stick a mid-rotation projection/ceiling on any decent pitching prospect, and maybe only a dozen prospects a year get projected to be a number two or better. Your query doesn't answer the more relevant question-- what are the odds that a pitcher projected to be a mid-rotation guy either reaches that projection or exceeds it? And those odds are rather low, especially if you limit it to mid-rotation prospects who stay with the team that drafted them.
I also think there's a rather large difference between a guy who has the ceiling of a mid-rotation starter and a guy who projects to be a mid-rotation starter. For the former, I think only Owens really fits, though maybe you could include Kelly, De La Rosa, Barnes, and Rodriguez, depending on how bullish you were on each of them. I think it would be a stretch to say that Webster, Wright, and Johnson (+Ranaudo) project to be mid-rotation starters.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 5, 2014 22:54:15 GMT -5
I remember there was a study on BA's top 100 and pitchers were unsurprisingly the most volatile comodity, however at the elite level, say top 20 it was pretty accurate. Unless am having an Andy Pettite moment and miss remembered.
Don't know how that coralates with this project but I'll guess a decent (don't know what number maybe 50-55) of the projected aces do indeed become aces.
As for projected mid rotation guys beating the projection I'll say the percentage is low because while it is more volatile, so more chances to be wrong, it's not necessarily because they beat the projection more because they didn't reach it.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 5, 2014 22:54:59 GMT -5
Going back quite a bit further, Tom Glavine was definitely not projected as an ace. He's the one Bill James would single out in his player ratings book as an ace that he'd barely rated a B prospect. As far as guys in your timeframe, let me make some guesses: -John Lackey comes to mind - his 2007 was incredible but there's a chance he's a #2 in your typology. Anyhow, I don't remember him getting any prospect hype at all. He may have been a Grade B though. -Brandon Webb probably qualifies. In fact I'd put a dollar on it. I wasn't quite as plugged in with minor league ball back in '03 but I followed the top 100, and I'd never heard of him when the Diamondbacks brought him along. -Roy Oswalt? I don't think he'd get overlooked now, but I could see them missing on him back in 2001 because he's such a little dude. The Astros really did well in development in the '90's and into the 2000's by overlooking the traditional bias against short righties. Indeed, neither Lackey (1 ace season, 3 #2, "workhorse middle of the rotation starter," Sickels grade B) nor Webb (4 ace seasons, just the D'backs #5 prospect his rookie year) was a BA Top 100 prospect. Oswalt, though, was their #13. Look for the results some time tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 5, 2014 23:56:19 GMT -5
Oswalt, though, was their #13. Wow. Well, I guess that shows that I didn't cheat. |
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Nov 6, 2014 1:03:09 GMT -5
Thank you Eric, I've been wondering this all season long. What made me curious was Corey Kluber's sudden dominance and thinking, "where the hell did this guy come from?" Though he needs to show continued success, Jacob DeGrom's emergence had me wondering this too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 6, 2014 1:12:08 GMT -5
Good exercise, even as it moves off in the direction of Bayesian inference. Off the top of my head, I'd guess the likelihood is that 2/3 were not highly rated given that they are top starters. That's just a guess but as I run through the mental rolodex there are quite a few names that don't ring a bell as having been highly rated. A lot of guys just seem to come out of the blue. Jmei has a point about determining the likelihood of a prospect exceeding his mid-level projection. But this isn't a bad way to start to get at that question. |
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Nov 6, 2014 3:11:52 GMT -5
Don't have any idea how many (over 50 percent id guess for sure), but isn't that exactly the kind of question we're all debating about since the emergence of Henry Owens?
Finally we maybe get an idea if what we might have with him (and Rodriguez, and Johnson...)
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Nov 6, 2014 7:23:54 GMT -5
A few examples I can think of
- I remember hearing about some reliever in LA that was small and skinny and wanted to start. I don't remember what happened to him but I think he was traded to the Expos.
-Schilling wasn't supposed to be an ace at all. He always had the stuff but only put it together when he reached Philly. He was projected to be middle of the road.
-Someone I believe mentioned Shields already. He didn't get a lot of love because he relied more on his change up than anything else at the time.
Obviously Pedro Schilling and Shields are small examples but perhaps they aren't the outliers after all. Maybe the ones who are uncommon are the ones who actually reach their lofty potential. I remember when Livan Hernandez was one of the most hyped players in all of baseball. Hideki Irabu almost started an international war between Japan, the Padres, and Yankees. Both guys were projected as front line talent and then nothing long term.
Oh and I forgot about the D-Train. For the few years he was actually a starter this guy was incredible. I could never figure out what actually happened there. Maybe HGH?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 6, 2014 7:56:02 GMT -5
A few examples I can think of - I remember hearing about some reliever in LA that was small and skinny and wanted to start. I don't remember what happened to him but I think he was traded to the Expos. Don't confuse the Dodgers' myopia with the scouting community at large. Pedro was BA's #10 prospect in MLB. |
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 6, 2014 10:03:36 GMT -5
This suspense is killing me.
I'm going to say players who performed as Ace's or #2's generally outplayed their prospects projections more time's than would of been expected.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Nov 6, 2014 11:00:10 GMT -5
I agree that the proportion is likely very high (I'd guess 80%), but I still think this is backwards logic. Most talent evaluators will stick a mid-rotation projection/ceiling on any decent pitching prospect, and maybe only a dozen prospects a year get projected to be a number two or better. Your query doesn't answer the more relevant question-- what are the odds that a pitcher projected to be a mid-rotation guy either reaches that projection or exceeds it? And those odds are rather low, especially if you limit it to mid-rotation prospects who stay with the team that drafted them. Well, it answers a different question, but I don't know if it's necessarily less relevant. If a very high majority of ace-quality pitchers come from a broad pool of guys projected as "mid-rotation" guys, it implies a strategy of stockpiling as many of them as possible is a valid one. And it certainly argues for less determinism in talking about ceilings of pitchers ... The obvious follow up question is if the "surprise aces" have any commonality that separates them from the much larger pool of guys who never reached that, or if it's functionally random. I mean, if someone could tease that out, I'd argue strongly against posting it here because you could monetize that little insight for a boatload of cash. It's the Holy Grail. I tend to think that it's functionally random ... However, back to the earlier point, even if that's true about stockpiling pitchers as a viable strategy, there's an interested counter-example from the very recent past: the Sox at the deadline. It seems clear that the Tigers offered the Sox multiple solid pitching prospects, while the Orioles offered one really good one. And the Sox took the latter. I'd guess that's in part because they already have enough solid prospects in the AA/AAA level, in fact, they have a bit of a glut. So, while it may be true that stockpiling solid prospects is a good strategy in the abstract, you just run into roster limits and the pace of developing pitchers may create some log jams in the system. OK, I'm just throwing random thoughts out there at this point ... |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2014 11:19:10 GMT -5
I agree that the proportion is likely very high (I'd guess 80%), but I still think this is backwards logic. Most talent evaluators will stick a mid-rotation projection/ceiling on any decent pitching prospect, and maybe only a dozen prospects a year get projected to be a number two or better. Your query doesn't answer the more relevant question-- what are the odds that a pitcher projected to be a mid-rotation guy either reaches that projection or exceeds it? And those odds are rather low, especially if you limit it to mid-rotation prospects who stay with the team that drafted them. Well, it answers a different question, but I don't know if it's necessarily less relevant. If a very high majority of ace-quality pitchers come from a broad pool of guys projected as "mid-rotation" guys, it implies a strategy of stockpiling as many of them as possible is a valid one. And it certainly argues for less determinism in talking about ceilings of pitchers ... The obvious follow up question is if the "surprise aces" have any commonality that separates them from the much larger pool of guys who never reached that, or if it's functionally random. I mean, if someone could tease that out, I'd argue strongly against posting it here because you could monetize that little insight for a boatload of cash. It's the Holy Grail. I tend to think that it's functionally random ... However, back to the earlier point, even if that's true about stockpiling pitchers as a viable strategy, there's an interested counter-example from the very recent past: the Sox at the deadline. It seems clear that the Tigers offered the Sox multiple solid pitching prospects, while the Orioles offered one really good one. And the Sox took the latter. I'd guess that's in part because they already have enough solid prospects in the AA/AAA level, in fact, they have a bit of a glut. So, while it may be true that stockpiling solid prospects is a good strategy in the abstract, you just run into roster limits and the pace of developing pitchers may create some log jams in the system. OK, I'm just throwing random thoughts out there at this point ... Agree with the glut point. Having 2014 to evaluate our young pitchers was actually quite valuable for us. We now know that it's likely that Ranaudo and Workman are borderline starters at best and that RDLR and Wright could be quite good and are worth keeping them there for a longer look. We probably would not know as much if we didn't suck so bad. I'm also quite encouraged by Webster, but that's up for debate. If something just clicks for him, he's the kind of guy who could become an ace. Usually it doesn't happen though. Hopefully this year we'll find out a lot more about Barnes. I don't think this is the year we see Owens, Rodriguez or Johnson yet unless there are quite a few injuries or we're under .500 in July again. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 6, 2014 11:30:05 GMT -5
I'm interested in seeing what comes out of this, but can we PLEASE all agree not to use this to refute whatever the projection is on a player in the future? Like, if a guy with great stats is only projected to be a back-end starter (let's call him Ranthony Anaudo), can we not be like "But Eric said aces are sometimes projected to stink, so he's going to be a star!" every time?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2014 11:32:25 GMT -5
I'm interested in seeing what comes out of this, but can we PLEASE all agree not to use this to refute whatever the projection is on a player in the future? Like, if a guy with great stats is only projected to be a back-end starter (let's call him Ranthony Anaudo), can we not be like "But Eric said aces are sometimes projected to stink, so he's going to be a star!" every time? yeah, I knew this would come up, but I think (hope) that people realize that far more projected #3s bust than become aces. I think it's more about guys like Owens/Rodriguez than a Ranaudo type. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 6, 2014 11:46:07 GMT -5
I'm interested in seeing what comes out of this, but can we PLEASE all agree not to use this to refute whatever the projection is on a player in the future? Like, if a guy with great stats is only projected to be a back-end starter (let's call him Ranthony Anaudo), can we not be like "But Eric said aces are sometimes projected to stink, so he's going to be a star!" every time? yeah, I knew this would come up, but I think (hope) that people realize that far more projected #3s bust than become aces. I think it's more about guys like Owens/Rodriguez than a Ranaudo type. Point stands even for those guys. I'm just afraid "but Eric's study said" will become the new "but Greg Maddux didn't have great velocity." |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2014 11:53:54 GMT -5
yeah, I knew this would come up, but I think (hope) that people realize that far more projected #3s bust than become aces. I think it's more about guys like Owens/Rodriguez than a Ranaudo type. Point stands even for those guys. I'm just afraid "but Eric's study said" will become the new "but Greg Maddux didn't have great velocity." Well yeah. But I've argued pretty much the same thing as the premise of this thread based on the absurd results that Owens has gotten at every level with the exception of his end of year slides when approaching his innings limit. I liked it when he was compared to Pedroia regarding looking at the results rather than what you think a guy that looks like him is going to do in the majors. Was that Speier? |
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 6, 2014 11:58:35 GMT -5
I'm interested in seeing what comes out of this, but can we PLEASE all agree not to use this to refute whatever the projection is on a player in the future? Like, if a guy with great stats is only projected to be a back-end starter (let's call him Ranthony Anaudo), can we not be like "But Eric said aces are sometimes projected to stink, so he's going to be a star!" every time? You're asking people not to misinterpret something posted on the internet, but since you said PLEASE in all caps I think we will be ok. |
|
|
