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.
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 10, 2016 1:29:12 GMT -5
D'Oh! *3.3%*
I think I just destroyed my whole statistical argument with an embarrassing arithmetic slip their. They'res really no way to recover. Your gonna skewer me for that I guess.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 10, 2016 3:41:32 GMT -5
(Maybe one more Owens post will get all of them moved to the appropriate thread!) Lost in this discussion is that Owens graded out well last year in advanced metrics. In fact, the more advanced the metric, the better he grades. Baseball Prospectus has cooked up DRA-: "DRA does a very good job of measuring a pitcher’s actual responsibility for the runs that scored while he was on the mound—certainly better than any metric we are aware of in the public domain. And only DRA gives you the assurance that a pitcher’s performance is actually being considered in the context of the batter, catcher, runners on base, as well as the stadium and stadium environment in which the baseball game occurred." There were 174 MLB pitchers last year who threw 60 or more IP as a starter. Owens was in a 6-way for 42nd with an 88 DRA-. For a point of comparison, Lester was 91. And maybe that's not a surprise given that he was in a 3-way tie for 17th in Swing-and-miss %. And most of that was done in the zone. Here is the Z-Contact% Leaderboard: .790 Scherzer .783 Sale .806 Kershaw .811 Owens.820 Price .827 Estrada .830 Gausman .836 Harvey .837 de Grom .839 Fernandez .839 Dickey There is, of course, an insanely significant statistical correlation between Z-Contact and ERA-, and .811 predicts an ERA- of 82. Steamer's projection knows nothing of such advanced analysis, and it has Owens with 2.0 RA9-WAR per 30 starts, which would have ranked him 77th last year out of 150 MLB starters. So, he's a longtime near-elite pitching prospect who everyone acknowledges is still very much a work in progress, and he made 11 starts last year and was better than MLB average and quite possibly quite a bit better, with some indications of elite ability. And we have the luxury of sending him back to AAA to work on his one missing skill, plus FB command. Who are we trading him for again? (If you're wondering how he did this despite ranking 156th out of 173 in FB effectiveness [raw Pitch/fx data, combining FA, FT, and SI], he ranked 3rd in changeup effectiveness, and 1st among guys who threw it often [more than than a standard deviation above average]. Hamels was second. And yes, there's a relationship between FB effectiveness and CH effectiveness, but last year, among the 81 guys who threw the change more often than average, the former explained just 8.5% of the latter. When you adjust for that, Owens ties Greinke for the 2nd best change. Adam Warren was second unadjusted, first adjusted.) So, as it so happens, Baseball Prospectus provides a breakdown of the factors that are used to adjust actual RA to their DRA. In Owens' case, the big factor is the park adjustment, which they do based on the breakdown of LHB and RHB faced in each park. Owens' 109 ERA- at FanGraphs is based on a 1.046 park multiplier (109 park factor for an equal number of IP home and away). BP has the true factor at 1.263 (which I calculated based on their reported IP, DRA, and DRA added runs from park). They have Eduardo Rodriguez at 1.260 (which gave him a DRA- of 80, tied for 20th among SP with 120 IP or more). IOW, their data says that Fenway had a crazy park factor for RHH last year, and that our young lefties who faced RH-heavy lineups were a heck of a lot more impressive than they appeared to be. Now, in Owens' case, they're probably over-adjusting, because HitTracker has only 1 of his 7 Fenway homers (he gave up 0 on the road) being a cheapie. But you need less than half of their additional adjustment to be real (43%, to be exact) to get him to league-average and the #3/#4 border last year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 10, 2016 7:15:29 GMT -5
Right, if every tall, lanky lefty has the ceiling of Cliff Lee (or even Jamie Moyer), you've gutted every bit of usefulness of the concept of a "ceiling." I think you ignored this clarification: "Now, there's a lot to get in the way of Owens becoming Cliff Lee"
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Feb 10, 2016 8:34:13 GMT -5
Right, if every tall, lanky lefty has the ceiling of Cliff Lee (or even Jamie Moyer), you've gutted every bit of usefulness of the concept of a "ceiling." I think you ignored this clarification: "Now, there's a lot to get in the way of Owens becoming Cliff Lee" Not every tall, lanky lefty has a plus plus change as part of their repertoire, as does Lee. Heck dreaming and being optimistic is part of being a fan so why not dream big. On another note I have read a lot about the positive affect Price has had on the young pitchers that have played with him. While just the thought of that gives me more optimism for the future of the Sox staff, I was wondering if you guys could exbound on if that is real and measurable. This is just one more thing that I am looking forward to watching this season. How far can one guy elevate the staff? It seems to me the talent is there to be coached up as last season proved at times.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 10, 2016 8:47:28 GMT -5
I think you ignored this clarification: "Now, there's a lot to get in the way of Owens becoming Cliff Lee" Not every tall, lanky lefty has a plus plus change as part of their repertoire, as does Lee. Heck dreaming and being optimistic is part of being a fan so why not dream big. On another note I have read a lot about the positive affect Price has had on the young pitchers that have played with him. While just the thought of that gives me more optimism for the future of the Sox staff, I was wondering if you guys could exbound on if that is real and measurable. This is just one more thing that I am looking forward to watching this season. How far can one guy elevate the staff? It seems to me the talent is there to be coached up as last season proved at times. From everything I've read about Price, he acts as an extra pitching coach and everyone who has played with him raves about how much he helped them. So I am excited to see how Owens and ERod benefit from him. They all have similar repertoires.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Feb 10, 2016 9:01:51 GMT -5
"Now, there's a lot to get in the way of Owens becoming Cliff Lee"
For sure and the same can be said for all the prospects. But it is more fun to dream big with these guys, while remaining realistic. Being an all Boston teams fan for the past 40 years I know about failure and now my loyalty has been repaid with 15 of the best years any city can claim. And this Sox team along with the prospects still in the system has me dreaming of a very good future. IMO Price will be a very big reason for that success.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,794
|
Post by nomar on Feb 10, 2016 9:06:14 GMT -5
That Z contact leaderboard helps explain how Estrada came close to not hitters twice this year while being an average pitcher overall. Must have days where people can't make contact or good contact.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 10, 2016 10:16:13 GMT -5
I'm not claiming that Owens's 50% is Lee, but I am saying his 10% is. Cliff Lee isn't his 10% projection, it's his 1% projection... maybe. But really, it's a useless comparison altogether. You can look at their minor league numbers all you want, but Lee had a unique path to ace status. In 2007, he 28 years old, had a 6.29 ERA, and was sent to the minors and left off the Indian's playoff roster. He was a broken pitcher. It would have been not the least bit surprising if he had never pitched a full season in the big leagues again. The next year, at age 29, he lead the AL in FIP and ERA, and won a Cy Young. This is a 0% projection for anyone. It's a Jamie Moyer comp. It's a Tom Glavin comp. It's a Greg Maddux comp. It's a Pedro comp. That is to say, it's a comp that should never be made. Let us never speak of Cliff Lee in relation to Henry Owens ever again.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 10, 2016 10:54:10 GMT -5
As far as more reasonable comps go, does anyone else get an Ian Kennedy vibe from Owens? Obviously there's no physical comp (tall lefty/short righty), but in terms of results... gets strikeouts (Owens hasn't actually done that yet but I think they're coming given the swings and misses he's able to get), gives up too many walks, heavy fly ball guy with a tendency to give up home runs (again, hasn't happened to Owens YET but it seems likely). Potential to mix some good years with some ugly ones based on a few gusts of wind on those fly balls, more or less league average for his career.
People will of course take this as some sort of insult to Owens, but good lord, how many Red Sox seasons of recent vintage would have been saved by an Ian Kenny type or two on the roster at the league minimum?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 10, 2016 10:55:04 GMT -5
I'm bullish on Owens. I fully admit it. But you're still using a reduction to absurdity to argue your point. You've created an estimated theoretical percentage outcome based on assumptions inconsistent with the statistical theory you're basing that outcome on. And you've failed to account for additional outcomes. Besides, I've heard you say that you think of Owens now as a 4/5. Where, then, are your 10/50/90 outcomes? And are they really all that outrageously different from mine? I've said before that I envision Owens as an unlikely, but potential, 2 or 1a. That's the category I'd put Lee in. Or Glavine (who was incredibly consistent for a long time). Or Moyer, in his best years...though he was more a very good 2. Or Pettite (2) Or Lester (more 2, and also with a similar minor league career as Owens). Throw out your Z scores, because we all know that scouting grades are not normally distributed and, in particular, the population is non-random, particularly as attrition claims players on their climbs through the minors. If you want to argue *wholly* based on analytics, you'd be better served looking at all LH starters who made the majors at, say, 23 or younger in the last 20 years or so. You could whittle it down to those with more than 8K/IP in the minors, and a career minor league ERA less than, say, 3.75. I'm pretty sure that at least one in 20 went on to become excellent pitchers. And it's really not all of a stretch to me to say, hey, I just have a good feeling about Owens so I think he's twice as likely as those guys. For one thing, you're dramatically underrating Cliff Lee. He had either a four-year peak where he averaged 6.7 fWAR per season and was the second-best pitcher in baseball over that span or a six-year peak where he averaged 6.2 fWAR per season and was the best pitcher in baseball over that span. That's a true blue ace, not a high-end number two/low-end number one. He had arguably the best command of any pitcher in his generation and has a borderline HOF case, and it seems insane to me to say that Owens (or any other pitching prospect, for that matter) has a 10% chance of being that good. I'm pretty sure that no matter what filters you want to add, the percentage of pitchers with Lee's minor league performance/handedness/height/repertoire/etc. who turned out to be as good as Lee was is pretty low-- in fact, I'm pretty sure only Cliff Lee himself fits that criteria. My 10/50/90 outcomes on Owens are not in the major leagues, third/fourth starter (think 2013 Felix Doubront), and good number two starter (think Gio Gonzalez or a poor man's Cole Hamels). ADD: Ian Kennedy or Trevor Bauer also seem like the kind of pitcher along the lines of what I'm thinking about for a median Owens projection, production-wise.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,794
|
Post by nomar on Feb 10, 2016 12:02:22 GMT -5
Cliff Lee is a freak case of someone flipping a switch and drastically improving his command. Betting on anyone doing that is wishful thinking.
I like Owens and can see him being a 3, but I'm not going to be afraid to trade him just because of the slim chance he's the next Cliff Lee. Any young talented player you trade could end up being better than you expect. As long as a team isn't undervalue Owens for what he's projected to be, I wouldn't say he's off the table.
This isn't to say I want him traded or anything, but I don't think he's a guy you build around. Young guys like Bauer (if you like that rough comp - I think it's solid) are valuable pieces but not franchise altering.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 10, 2016 12:16:25 GMT -5
The swing and miss and soft-contact ability Owens has shown is something that rarely is seen in a prospect. There are plenty of prospects who show that and don't develop, but there are almost no prospects that turn into elite pitchers who don't have that outside of maybe sinker ball pitchers with elite control. I imagine it's a lot more likely that a pitcher significantly improves command than it is that he significantly improves his stuff.
As I've said a few times in this thread, he serves as valuable starter depth right now so there is pretty much no point in trading him anytime soon. There are no glaring needs that would be solved by trading him. So they can take their time and see what he becomes while he's also serving the team's need of depth. He has not stagnated or gone backwards and he's still so young for such a tall pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 10, 2016 16:40:29 GMT -5
I'm bullish on Owens. I fully admit it. But you're still using a reduction to absurdity to argue your point. You've created an estimated theoretical percentage outcome based on assumptions inconsistent with the statistical theory you're basing that outcome on. And you've failed to account for additional outcomes. Besides, I've heard you say that you think of Owens now as a 4/5. Where, then, are your 10/50/90 outcomes? And are they really all that outrageously different from mine? I've said before that I envision Owens as an unlikely, but potential, 2 or 1a. That's the category I'd put Lee in. Or Glavine (who was incredibly consistent for a long time). Or Moyer, in his best years...though he was more a very good 2. Or Pettite (2) Or Lester (more 2, and also with a similar minor league career as Owens). Throw out your Z scores, because we all know that scouting grades are not normally distributed and, in particular, the population is non-random, particularly as attrition claims players on their climbs through the minors. If you want to argue *wholly* based on analytics, you'd be better served looking at all LH starters who made the majors at, say, 23 or younger in the last 20 years or so. You could whittle it down to those with more than 8K/IP in the minors, and a career minor league ERA less than, say, 3.75. I'm pretty sure that at least one in 20 went on to become excellent pitchers. And it's really not all of a stretch to me to say, hey, I just have a good feeling about Owens so I think he's twice as likely as those guys. For one thing, you're dramatically underrating Cliff Lee. He had either a four-year peak where he averaged 6.7 fWAR per season and was the second-best pitcher in baseball over that span or a six-year peak where he averaged 6.2 fWAR per season and was the best pitcher in baseball over that span. That's a true blue ace, not a high-end number two/low-end number one. He had arguably the best command of any pitcher in his generation and has a borderline HOF case, and it seems insane to me to say that Owens (or any other pitching prospect, for that matter) has a 10% chance of being that good. I'm pretty sure that no matter what filters you want to add, the percentage of pitchers with Lee's minor league performance/handedness/height/repertoire/etc. who turned out to be as good as Lee was is pretty low-- in fact, I'm pretty sure only Cliff Lee himself fits that criteria. My 10/50/90 outcomes on Owens are not in the major leagues, third/fourth starter (think 2013 Felix Doubront), and good number two starter (think Gio Gonzalez or a poor man's Cole Hamels). ADD: Ian Kennedy or Trevor Bauer also seem like the kind of pitcher along the lines of what I'm thinking about for a median Owens projection, production-wise. I'm not a huge fan of WAR for pitchers, but I'll admit I'm underestimating Lee, partly because he pitched for some bad teams at the tail end of that run, and because of his style of pitching (perhaps ironically). I think you're holding my comparison to a very strict interpretation so as to discount it, though. Maybe I'd have been better-served predicting his ceiling as "approaching" (a slightly watered-down) Lee, a 5-WAR/year pitcher. I don't feel like nitpicking over the stringency of my language. Our 10/50/90s are fairly close, with my curve shifted about half a SP "level" higher (5-3-1a). Seems like a remarkably roundabout way to get to "I think you're underestimating Lee's peak."
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 10, 2016 17:09:16 GMT -5
I'm not claiming that Owens's 50% is Lee, but I am saying his 10% is. Cliff Lee isn't his 10% projection, it's his 1% projection... maybe. But really, it's a useless comparison altogether. You can look at their minor league numbers all you want, but Lee had a unique path to ace status. In 2007, he 28 years old, had a 6.29 ERA, and was sent to the minors and left off the Indian's playoff roster. He was a broken pitcher. It would have been not the least bit surprising if he had never pitched a full season in the big leagues again. The next year, at age 29, he lead the AL in FIP and ERA, and won a Cy Young. This is a 0% projection for anyone. It's a Jamie Moyer comp. It's a Tom Glavin comp. It's a Greg Maddux comp. It's a Pedro comp. That is to say, it's a comp that should never be made. Let us never speak of Cliff Lee in relation to Henry Owens ever again. Lee walked 4/9 in his first full season, dropped into the 2s, then hurt his knee in 2007. He didn't "suddenly" de novo develop command. And he was "broken" because he got injured. Now, his subsequent further step forward to a BB/9 rate in the mid-1s was very unusual, to say the least. The "path" you talk about isn't entirely unique, as Roy Halladay was similar, although he imploded rather than getting hurt. And, given that you named five names, and I named another (hell, Schilling was a late bloomer, too), it's obviously not a 0% comp. I obviously erred in not qualifying my Lee comp as "approaching" rather than "being," but that probably would've gotten the same response, regardless.
|
|
|
Post by ryantoworkman on Feb 10, 2016 18:10:15 GMT -5
I think you ignored this clarification: "Now, there's a lot to get in the way of Owens becoming Cliff Lee" Not every tall, lanky lefty has a plus plus change as part of their repertoire, as does Lee. Heck dreaming and being optimistic is part of being a fan so why not dream big. On another note I have read a lot about the positive affect Price has had on the young pitchers that have played with him. While just the thought of that gives me more optimism for the future of the Sox staff, I was wondering if you guys could exbound on if that is real and measurable. This is just one more thing that I am looking forward to watching this season. How far can one guy elevate the staff? It seems to me the talent is there to be coached up as last season proved at times. Price is not just a talented pitcher, he's a student of the game of baseball, and his Vanderbilt pedigree suggests he's one heck of a student. He told the staff, during his initial presser, to expect him watching during their bullpens, and if he sees something, he's going to voice it. That's what leaders do, they raise all boats.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,794
|
Post by nomar on Feb 10, 2016 18:28:09 GMT -5
While his impact in that capacity isn't quantifiable, I do like the idea of having Price around as a big brother type of teammate. Stroman and Archer, two of the game's best young talents, are basically obsessed with the guy. I'm feeling bold so I'll venture to say Beckett didn't go out of his way like Price has in the past to help the young guys.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 10, 2016 22:35:16 GMT -5
On the 20-80 scale, Owens had a 40 walk rate (hereafter "control") last year (you can either read the geekage note at the end, or trust me that the methodology here is cool and very thorough). In the last 30 years, there have been 64 [not 71 as originally stated; Excel screwup!] pitchers who had 40 control in their first year pitching 50 or more innings as a starter, and had at least two more such seasons.
We'll measure the pitcher's peak as his best set of three successive such seasons (that is, if you miss a year due to injury or a year in the pen, I'll measure your peak going across the missed season.)
Here is the distribution:
70: 2 65: 3 60: 10 55: 10 50: 14 45: 12 40: 10 35: 3
That is, 61% of these pitchers developed at least average control, and 39% [not 36%] developed better than average control.
For guys who began at age 23 or younger, the results are even better. 21 of the 32 developed 50 or better control, and 15 (47%) developed 55 or better control.
So who are these guys? I'll give ages for the guys who were 23 or younger.
70: Bartolo Colon, Roy Halladay (22) 65: John Smoltz (21), Jamie Moyer (23), Mark Portugal (23) 60: Ramon Ortiz, Aaron Sele (23), Jake Westbrook, Ted Lilly, Steve Avery (20), Clayton Kershaw (20), Eric Stults, Homer Bailey (23), Jeff Ballard (23), Jack McDowell (22) 55: Chris Hammond, Doug Waechter (23), Wandy Rodriguez, Anibal Sanchez (22), Mat Latos (21), Scott Olsen (22), Dillon Gee, Paul Maholm, Eric King (22), Scott Sanders
And I'll continue with just the 23 and younger guys (who were 23 unless noted):
50: A.J. Burnett, Kip Wells, Tim Lincecum, Justin Thompson, Ramon Martinez (21), William Van Landingham 45: Calvin Maduro (22), Barry Zito (22), Chad Durbin (22), Rob Bell, Geremi Gonzalez (22), Jhoulys Chacin 40: Ruben Quevedo (21), Tony Armas Jr. (22), Willie Banks 35: Jeff Sellers (22), Brian Williams
Later I'll post the entire table showing the initial versus peak control grades.
BTW, Cliff Lee started as a 45, regressed to a 40, and peaked as a 70. Randy Johnson started as a 25, regressed to a 20, and peaked at a 65. Anyone else you're curious about, ask me.
Geekage note: All walk rates are unintentional walks only. All were adjusted relative to the league rate for that year. I found no convincing evidence that I needed to regress samples of 50 IP or more significantly to the mean. In the whole database, 57% of the seasons were above average, so instead of taking a straight standard deviation, I mirrored the above average guys and used that (.220 instead of .231). There was absolutely no variation in standard deviation across seasons, so I used the overall figure. Walk rates were translated into scouting scores by taking 1 standard deviation per 10 points (which works beautifully). They were then rounded to the nearest grade, separately for the first season and for the peak three.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 11, 2016 0:03:12 GMT -5
On the 20-80 scale, Owens had a 40 walk rate (hereafter "control") last year (you can either read the geekage note at the end, or trust me that the methodology here is cool and very thorough). In the last 30 years, there have been 71 pitchers who had 40 control in their first year pitching 50 or more innings as a starter, and had at least two more such seasons. We'll measure the pitcher's peak as his best set of three successive such seasons (that is, if you miss a year due to injury or a year in the pen, I'll measure your peak going across the missed season.) Here is the distribution: 70: 2 65: 3 60: 10 55: 11 50: 17 45: 15 40: 10 35: 3 That is, 61% of these pitchers developed at least average control, and 36% developed better than average control. For guys who began at age 23 or younger, the results are even better. 22 of the 33 developed 50 or better control, and 15 (45%) developed 55 or better control. So who are these guys? I'll give ages for the guys who were 23 or younger. 70: Bartolo Colon, Roy Halladay (22) 65: John Smoltz (21), Jamie Moyer (23), Mark Portugal (23) 60: Ramon Ortiz, Aaron Sele (23), Jake Westbrook, Ted Lilly, Steve Avery (20), Clayton Kershaw (20), Eric Stults, Homer Bailey (23), Jeff Ballard (23), Jack McDowell (22) 55: Chris Hammond, Doug Waechter (23), Wandy Rodriguez, Anibal Sanchez (22), Mat Latos (21), Scott Olsen (22), Dillon Gee, Paul Maholm, Eric King (22), Scott Sanders, Walt Terrell And I'll continue with just the 23 and younger guys (who were 23 unless noted): 50: A.J. Burnett, Kip Wells, Tim Lincecum, Justin Thompson, Sid Fernandez, Ramon Martinez (21), William Van Landingham 45: Calvin Maduro (22), Barry Zito (22), Chad Durbin (22), Rob Bell, Geremi Gonzalez (22), Jhoulys Chacin 40: Ruben Quevedo (21), Tony Armas Jr. (22), Willie Banks 35: Jeff Sellers (22), Brian Williams Later I'll post the entire table showing the initial versus peak control grades. BTW, Cliff Lee started as a 45, regressed to a 40, and peaked as a 70. Randy Johnson started as a 25, regressed to a 20, and peaked at a 65. Anyone else you're curious about, ask me. Geekage note: All walk rates are unintentional walks only. All were adjusted relative to the league rate for that year. I found no convincing evidence that I needed to regress samples of 50 IP or more significantly to the mean. In the whole database, 57% of the seasons were above average, so instead of taking a straight standard deviation, I mirrored the above average guys and used that (.220 instead of .231). There was absolutely no variation in standard deviation across seasons, so I used the overall figure. Walk rates were translated into scouting scores by taking 1 standard deviation per 10 points (which works beautifully). They were then rounded to the nearest grade, separately for the first season and for the peak three.So what you're saying is...there's a chance? What's most interesting to me is that there are 3 HOFers and 1 soon-to-be HOFer (Kershaw) among those 33 23-and-under guys. Not to mention a number of very good pitchers (Ramon Martinez, Steve Avery, Tim Lincecum, to name a few) who were 1a-or-better caliber and lost it, Moyer, who's grossly underrated and had an extended 1a-2 peak of about 10 years, and guys like Sele, Sanchez, and Colon who had fair stretches of #2-or-better work. That there are only 71 pitchers in the last 30 years meeting those innings and control criteria suggests to me that attrition in the minors/early career or delayed graduation for questionable control are common. So Owens would have already separated himself from a much larger, marginal cohort (no surprise, since he made the majors). That a lot of the younger guys are highly regarded, enough so that they move "quickly" despite relatively poor control, seems to bode well for their futures. Just looking at names, there are a lot of well-regarded prospects in there. Thanks for running those numbers, Eric. Feel like doing Cliff Lee's "45" cohort? Seriously, though, great info.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 11, 2016 1:00:36 GMT -5
So what you're saying is...there's a chance? What's most interesting to me is that there are 3 HOFers and 1 soon-to-be HOFer (Kershaw) among those 33 23-and-under guys. Not to mention a number of very good pitchers (Ramon Martinez, Steve Avery, Tim Lincecum, to name a few) who were 1a-or-better caliber and lost it, Moyer, who's grossly underrated and had an extended 1a-2 peak of about 10 years, and guys like Sele, Sanchez, and Colon who had fair stretches of #2-or-better work. That there are only 71 pitchers in the last 30 years meeting those innings and control criteria suggests to me that attrition in the minors/early career or delayed graduation for questionable control are common. So Owens would have already separated himself from a much larger, marginal cohort (no surprise, since he made the majors). That a lot of the younger guys are highly regarded, enough so that they move "quickly" despite relatively poor control, seems to bode well for their futures. Just looking at names, there are a lot of well-regarded prospects in there. Thanks for running those numbers, Eric. Feel like doing Cliff Lee's "45" cohort? Seriously, though, great info. You're missing the third criterion: they needed to have three 50-IP seasons. There are a ton of guys who had a 40 first year and never had another, or had just one more -- 65, in fact. Vaughn Eshelman and Lenny DiNardo among them. I'm pretty sure that I could do a lot more work to predict which guys go on to have two or more following seasons based on the quality of their first, but I'm even more sure that if I did so, Owens would qualify as very, very likely. So let's just pretend I did that. At this point I should note that my method is including guys who were starters before 1986 and were re-converted in 1987 or afterwards. (There's at least one, Matt Young, who's on the list of 65.) I outsmarted myself by not bothering to create a list of actual rookie seasons since the extra work would also eliminate guys who lost their rookie eligibility while pitching relief. I may or may not try to clean the database of those guys before posting the grid showing initial season versus peak. Re the odds of Owens developing 55 command -- I think that you have to add his being a tall lefty, having plus makeup, and really only struggling with his FB command to the 47% base rate for guys his age. I think it's likelier than not.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 11, 2016 8:14:30 GMT -5
I think you're downplaying the selection bias that comes with only counting guys with three or more 50+ IP as a starter seasons. That weeds out a lot of guys who never improved their control or command-- it's tough to stick in the majors with 40 control, and if you haven't improved much after two+ years, there's a good chance you might not get a third year in the rotation. It's easy to say that Owens had the pedigree or upper-levels performance to be comparable to the three+ seasons cohort, but you could say the same thing about guys like Felix Doubront or Michael Bowden, and those guys crashed and burned.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 11, 2016 10:20:02 GMT -5
Doubront lost about 3 mph off his fastball way earlier than most pitchers would. I would say that's the main reason he crashed. Bowden was only ever decent when his control was excellent.
It's a lot easier to stick in the majors with 40 control with great stuff. Doubront didn't have it when he lost velocity and Bowden never had it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 11, 2016 11:23:56 GMT -5
Yeah, but jmei's point about selection bias is true. It's the same reason Eric's data set was skewed above-average...because of attrition. I would argue, however, that using the age 23 criterion, there's likely to be substantially less attrition...maybe 50% at most, probably much less, because early graduation to MLB (in spite of control trouble, which is a confounder since it it likewise probably a product of early graduation) suggests a high talent level, organizational confidence, and a greater vested interest with second- and third- chances more likely.
Regardless, I stand by my belief that Owens has a reasonable ceiling of a 1a. I'm actually more encouraged about his floor, as well.
I'm also curious as the where Lester falls on the initial control continuum and what his cohort looks like. He, like Lee, had a similar minor league career as Owens.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 11, 2016 11:25:54 GMT -5
I think you're downplaying the selection bias that comes with only counting guys with three or more 50+ IP as a starter seasons. That weeds out a lot of guys who never improved their control or command-- it's tough to stick in the majors with 40 control, and if you haven't improved much after two+ years, there's a good chance you might not get a third year in the rotation. It's easy to say that Owens had the pedigree or upper-levels performance to be comparable to the three+ seasons cohort, but you could say the same thing about guys like Felix Doubront or Michael Bowden, and those guys crashed and burned. Except Doubront did get three seasons (he's a 40 / 40) and Bowden didn't get one. Guys are weeded out for all sorts of reasons other than command. In fact, there's no correlation between weed-out rate and initial command, beyond the 20's. Control WOR 20 58% 25 47% 30 37% 35 40% 40 50% 45 44% 50 45% 55 44% 60 44% 65 47% 70 46% It might be edifying to look at some of the 11 guys who were weeded out out after putting up a 70 season. Numbers that aren't 20-80 are ERA+. Bill Long (1987): converted to the pen after seasons of 106 and 65 / 99 at ages 27 and 28. Rene Arocha (1993): converted after a 104 rookie season, age 29. Eric Hillman (1993): had a 101 at age 27, looks like he got hurt next year. Brian Keyser (1995): had a 91 at age 28, pitched another year out of the pen. I think we get the idea. In fact, only 2 of these guys were younger than 26: Bobby Livingston (2007): Had an 88 in 56.1 IP at age 24. Blake Beaven (2011): Had an 88 at age 22, followed it with a 70 / 86. Gave up 36 HR in 249 IP -- for the Mariners. So, here are the weed-out rates for guys younger than 24: Control WOR 20 60% 25 33% 30 24% 35 34% 40 33% 45 34% 50 26% 55 31% 60 26% 65 18% 70 17%
The 40s who were weeded out, with best BA top 100 ranking if any: Age 20: Rick Ankiel (1). Age 22: Rocky Coppinger (19), Dave Borkowski, Alex White (47), Randall Delgado (35). Age 23: Eric Bell (N/A), Pat Combs (20), Joe Grahe, Bob Wickman, Hilly Hathaway, Marty Janzen (40), Jim Pittsley (24), Ken Cloude, Nick Bierbrodt, Sean Marshall, Tony Cingrani (82). The rate for guys 22 and younger is 26% (everyone 30 through 55, where there's no trend). In this age 23 and under 40-control group, 8 of the 25 top 100 prospects were weeded out, essentially the same rate as the non-top 100. The 17 non-washouts: Age 20: Steve Avery (1), Clayton Kershaw (7). Age 22: Roy Halladay (12), Tony Armas (27), Barry Zito (41), Anibal Sanchez (40), Scott Olsen (34), Jhoulys Chacin (46). Age 23: Willie Banks (13), Brian Williams (24), Aaron Sele (71), Justin Thompson (79), A. J. Burnett (20), Kip Wells (14), Rob Bell (35), Tim Lincecum (11), Homer Bailey (5). We know the Ankiel story. Cingrani was never as good a prospect (although he is a tall LHP, which will certainly give the doubters pause). Someone might want to look at Coppinger, White, Delgado, Combs, Janzen, and Pittsley and see if there are any factors that distinguish them from the second group.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 11, 2016 11:41:03 GMT -5
Doubront lost about 3 mph off his fastball way earlier than most pitchers would. I would say that's the main reason he crashed. Bowden was only ever decent when his control was excellent. It's a lot easier to stick in the majors with 40 control with great stuff. Doubront didn't have it when he lost velocity and Bowden never had it. If you're implying that Owens has great stuff, I don't think I agree. Yes, he has a great changeup, but there are questions about his fastball (most of the grades I've seen are 50/55s) and he doesn't really have a third pitch. I don't know that his stuff is significantly better than Doubront's or Bowden's.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 11, 2016 11:41:43 GMT -5
Yeah, but jmei's point about selection bias is true. It's the same reason Eric's data set was skewed above-average...because of attrition. I would argue, however, that using the age 23 criterion, there's likely to be substantially less attrition...maybe 50% at most, probably much less, because early graduation to MLB (in spite of control trouble, which is a confounder since it it likewise probably a product of early graduation) suggests a high talent level, organizational confidence, and a greater vested interest with second- and third- chances more likely. Regardless, I stand by my belief that Owens has a reasonable ceiling of a 1a. I'm actually more encouraged about his floor, as well. I'm also curious as the where Lester falls on the initial control continuum and what his cohort looks like. He, like Lee, had a similar minor league career as Owens. So, including the 33% bust rate for guys age 23 and younger (which seems wholly independent of prospect status), there's a 44% chance of developing 50 control and a 31% chance of developing 55. I put a lot of stock in Owens' makeup (as part of the Sox track record with same) and even more in the very strange fact that his changeup control is much better than his FB control, together with the evidence that suggests the latter problem may have a component that has to to do with grip and release. If you want to add the tall LHP factor, be my guest. I'd put his odds at 67% for 50 control, and 50% for 55. Lester's seasons: 35 (at the same age as Owens), 35, 55, 55, 40, 40, 50, 50, 60, 60. He needs one more year like his last two to up his peak from 55 to 60. Once I clean out the handful of false entries, I'll gladly share the spreadsheet with folks. Especially if they want to add data for height and handedness!
|
|
|