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.
Cole Hamels, David Price, and the Pitcher Aging Curve
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Jul 27, 2015 20:41:09 GMT -5
patrickokeefe.org/2015/07/the-2000-inning-wall-for-starting-pitchers-in-baseball/Looking forward to the Red Sox potential pitcher acquirees, I did an analysis of the players who could potentially be acquired and what can be expected for future value when compared to past trends. The results are fairly astounding. To summarize: pitchers aging curve is more like a cliff or wall than a curve and it's fairly consistent for most past aces. I believe based on past trends that Jordan Zimmermann would by far be the best acquisition candidate with Price representing the worst. What do you guys think of my analysis?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,930
|
Post by nomar on Jul 27, 2015 20:42:58 GMT -5
I think Zimmermann has inflated his bake off of one outlier year in the K department, pitches in a pitchers' park and division, and would be a #3 in this division. Price may rapidly decline eventually but he's far better than Zummermann ever will be IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Jul 27, 2015 20:58:25 GMT -5
Zimmermann was a 4+ WAR pitcher prior to last year though and has once again put up a good stat-line consistent with his career.
Personally, I think it's a much smarter idea to deal the prospects you need to deal for a pitcher like Sonny Gray whose excess value will be significant.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 27, 2015 21:03:33 GMT -5
patrickokeefe.org/2015/07/the-2000-inning-wall-for-starting-pitchers-in-baseball/Looking forward to the Red Sox potential pitcher acquirees, I did an analysis of the players who could potentially be acquired and what can be expected for future value when compared to past trends. The results are fairly astounding. To summarize: pitchers aging curve is more like a cliff or wall than a curve and it's fairly consistent for most past aces. I believe based on past trends that Jordan Zimmermann would by far be the best acquisition candidate with Price representing the worst. What do you guys think of my analysis? I have some issues with it, and I really hope this doesn't come off as rude. First of all, some of your WAR numbers seem to be off, Schilling's for example I know is over 80 yet you have it at 54. Also, your first group ranges from 1400 to 2200 innings, which is about a four season difference, a pretty significant one when deciding risk, and one that doesn't suggest to me a strong correlation. I also feel like a good number of pitchers met your criteria but weren't included on the list, and I'm not totally sure why, especially when the pool you used feels very small to me. I think the point that workload rather than strictly age might be a useful indicator of when a pitcher will break down is a good one, but I think you could do a better job of demonstrating that - if correct. |
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Jul 27, 2015 21:14:55 GMT -5
I used bWAR as a point of reference for aggregation. You're right on Schilling. I need to go back and make edits because of that. I made a mistake on his.
1400 was Ben Shields, 2200 was Carpenter, but looking at the larger group, you get 1700-2075, which is a fairly small gap.
Regarding pitchers making the list: I stuck to pitchers post-steroid era and 1000+ IP because it's difficult to know which guys were juicing. Also, in the last 15 years throwing programs have changed a lot and prior workload can be normalized far more than could be done in the past.
The pitchers I took all had 1 prior season in the top 10 in WAR for pitchers in MLB. Let me know who guys you think would be good to add as references.
|
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 27, 2015 21:50:07 GMT -5
patrickokeefe.org/2015/07/the-2000-inning-wall-for-starting-pitchers-in-baseball/Looking forward to the Red Sox potential pitcher acquirees, I did an analysis of the players who could potentially be acquired and what can be expected for future value when compared to past trends. The results are fairly astounding. To summarize: pitchers aging curve is more like a cliff or wall than a curve and it's fairly consistent for most past aces. I believe based on past trends that Jordan Zimmermann would by far be the best acquisition candidate with Price representing the worst. What do you guys think of my analysis? I have some issues with it, and I really hope this doesn't come off as rude. First of all, some of your WAR numbers seem to be off, Schilling's for example I know is over 80 yet you have it at 54. Also, your first group ranges from 1400 to 2200 innings, which is about a four season difference, a pretty significant one when deciding risk, and one that doesn't suggest to me a strong correlation. I also feel like a good number of pitchers met your criteria but weren't included on the list, and I'm not totally sure why, especially when the pool you used feels very small to me. I think the point that workload rather than strictly age might be a useful indicator of when a pitcher will break down is a good one, but I think you could do a better job of demonstrating that - if correct. He has Schilling over 80 WAR. Also, here are the selection criteria: "thrown 1000+ productive innings, and previously finished in the top 10 in pitcher Wins Above Replacement (WAR) in a single season since the early 2000’s." A specific date ought to be used, because Pedro's latter career seems to qualify him, but he fits right in that 2000-2500 group also. I think the "tiering" is a good way to think of it: HOFers are the supreme outliers, and it's probably folly to anticipate anyone cracking that group out of today's pitchers, beyond Kershaw and maybe one or two others like Felix Hernandez. Even those two may hit the "wall." Pedro certainly did...it's only because he was so absurdly good for seven years that he made the HOF. The next group of "really, really good borderline HOFers" like Schilling or Halladay usually have longevity issues or late starts a la Wainright (or Schilling himself). They may actually have HOF-level innings totals when their pre-productive seasons and the minors are included, so this is a point to consider. And then there are a fair number of pitchers who are "good" to "really good," but they either lack the baseline stuff or adaptability to be productive when they hit 2000 innings and their velocity takes a big hit. FWIW, I would look at minor league careers as well when looking at FAs, but I think it's a useful analysis. |
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Jul 27, 2015 22:16:47 GMT -5
I have some issues with it, and I really hope this doesn't come off as rude. First of all, some of your WAR numbers seem to be off, Schilling's for example I know is over 80 yet you have it at 54. Also, your first group ranges from 1400 to 2200 innings, which is about a four season difference, a pretty significant one when deciding risk, and one that doesn't suggest to me a strong correlation. I also feel like a good number of pitchers met your criteria but weren't included on the list, and I'm not totally sure why, especially when the pool you used feels very small to me. I think the point that workload rather than strictly age might be a useful indicator of when a pitcher will break down is a good one, but I think you could do a better job of demonstrating that - if correct. He has Schilling over 80 WAR. Also, here are the selection criteria: "thrown 1000+ productive innings, and previously finished in the top 10 in pitcher Wins Above Replacement (WAR) in a single season since the early 2000’s." A specific date ought to be used, because Pedro's latter career seems to qualify him, but he fits right in that 2000-2500 group also. I think the "tiering" is a good way to think of it: HOFers are the supreme outliers, and it's probably folly to anticipate anyone cracking that group out of today's pitchers, beyond Kershaw and maybe one or two others like Felix Hernandez. Even those two may hit the "wall." Pedro certainly did...it's only because he was so absurdly good for seven years that he made the HOF. The next group of "really, really good borderline HOFers" like Schilling or Halladay usually have longevity issues or late starts a la Wainright (or Schilling himself). They may actually have HOF-level innings totals when their pre-productive seasons and the minors are included, so this is a point to consider. And then there are a fair number of pitchers who are "good" to "really good," but they either lack the baseline stuff or adaptability to be productive when they hit 2000 innings and their velocity takes a big hit. FWIW, I would look at minor league careers as well when looking at FAs, but I think it's a useful analysis. He was right. I originally did screw up Schilling's, but went back and fixed it. Pedro fell off right around 2500 innings too, further proving the point that even the high elite don't always make it beyond 3000. I avoided minor league numbers a bit now because since the steroid era, kids have started coming under pitch counts at a younger age and are now on throwing programs in the minors. While it could be dug in deeper to figure out why one pitcher gave out at 2000 while another was at 1800, which should be done when you're on the fence about acquiring someone, I think that this general template could serve good use when we talk about acquiring one pitcher versus another. |
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 27, 2015 22:45:57 GMT -5
I used bWAR as a point of reference for aggregation. You're right on Schilling. I need to go back and make edits because of that. I made a mistake on his. 1400 was Ben Shields, 2200 was Carpenter, but looking at the larger group, you get 1700-2075, which is a fairly small gap. Regarding pitchers making the list: I stuck to pitchers post-steroid era and 1000+ IP because it's difficult to know which guys were juicing. Also, in the last 15 years throwing programs have changed a lot and prior workload can be normalized far more than could be done in the past. The pitchers I took all had 1 prior season in the top 10 in WAR for pitchers in MLB. Let me know who guys you think would be good to add as references. Just guys I thought fit the criteria: Pedro, Roy Oswalt, Bartolo Colon, Derek Lowe, Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, Jamie Moyer, Brandon Webb, Dontrelle Willis, Aaron Harang, Bronson Arroyo, Ryan Dempster might be some more but it depends on what starting year you used. Some might help your case, some might hurt it, I'm not really sure but I think it's important to have as large a sample size as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by rangoon82 on Jul 28, 2015 10:30:38 GMT -5
Good read. Is "wall" defined and I just missed it? Ie was there an objective criteria for determining when to split war? Also cosmetically feel free to round decimals to 1-2 places.
Ps this could be interesting as a survival analysis using IP until wall as the outcome
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871 
|
Post by danr on Jul 28, 2015 11:08:37 GMT -5
There is an aging curve for position players as well. A couple of years ago there was a piece on here showing aging data for position players. It was remarkably consistent over time. The baseball player body seems to peak around the age of 28 and decline begins in the early 30s. An amazing number of players have their best season around the age of 28.
I think this pitcher curve needs more data and more data over time. It could exist and I don't know about it, but I have never read that PEDs prevented injuries or even prolonged careers. I personally believe they are greatly over-estimated. I think this analysis would be far more interesting if it were done for pitchers since WWII. It then would include many pitchers who had long careers.
I am a little dubious of this kind of analysis with such a small amount of data. There are a lot of factors that go into how long a pitcher can be effective including how much stress is in his pitching motion, the kinds of pitches he throws and how he is used.
I disagree about Price. He has been getting better as he has gotten older. It is just a guess on my part, but I bet of all the around 30-year old pitchers on the market he will be among the top two or three for at least five more years.
|
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Jul 28, 2015 23:17:12 GMT -5
Good read. Is "wall" defined and I just missed it? Ie was there an objective criteria for determining when to split war? Also cosmetically feel free to round decimals to 1-2 places. Ps this could be interesting as a survival analysis using IP until wall as the outcome Wall, cliff, same idea. Basically the wall is when an ace like production falls off significantly. For most guys, it's a wall because they don't have as natural an aging curve as position players. They "lose it" and are out of the game much quicker usually due to injury. My goal was to find when pitchers generally fall off so we can set some expectations for whether we are signing guys for solid value. Trying to remove emotions of "how good a guy is now" because in reality, most guys are still that good up until the moment they're completely toast. |
|
|
|
Post by rangoon82 on Jul 29, 2015 11:21:10 GMT -5
Sorry if this is tedious to read for others, happy to follow up by PM if so.
My question about wall or cliff is how its defined (maybe I missed it, i admit i just skimmed), i.e. it could be something like the first time where there's a 2 point drop in WAR between seasons or something? An objective criteria for split would be good to define, otherwise someone could maybe accuse you of cherry picking arbitrary splits that backed up your point the most.
Also to follow up on rounding, 1-2 decimals should be good in order to avoid conveying "false precision"
|
|
|
