Pitcher Projectability

quote:

Originally posted by Bum:
And you can't go by results, either.

For example, say I have pitcher #1 who always goes against the opponents #1 pitcher and lineup. He goes 3-4 with a 3.03 ERA.

Pitcher #2 goes 6-2, with a 2.87 ERA. He typically goes against the third or fourth best pitcher each time he pitches, as he is lower on the depth chart for his team. Typically too, when he pitches the other team is putting in subs to get in their "reps".

Do results tell the whole story?

That’s why I said it takes a combination of factors to make any valid judgment.

quote:

Originally posted by bacdorslider:
Stats have you ever played baseball ?

When someone asks a question like that, its usually in challenge to someone’s credibility. Is that why you’re asking? If it is, please quote exactly what it is that I’ve said that somehow leads you to believe I’ve NEVER played the game. But even more to the point, what difference does it make?

You know the 1st thing many people do when someone says something that challenges their way of thinking, is to attack that person’s veracity, rather than simply make a cogent argument to refute them.

bacdor asked a question, knowing him I don't think that it was done to challenge you, not his style. Don't take it personally, most here think I should know nothing because I am just a mom.

What puzzles me is the argument that these things should not be important at the amatuer level. Well, they are, not in necessarily for young LL players but for HS players.

I am not going to argue about height being important, for some coaches recruiting HS players it IS very important and for ML scouts if is as well. I am not going to argue velocity, for some coaches recruiting HS players it IS very important and for ML scouts it's primary.

This topic was about projecting pitchers, not so much perhaps on height but how hard they throw, and as stated by Bum, that's primary.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
bacdor asked a question, knowing him I don't think that it was done to challenge you, not his style. Don't take it personally, most here think I should know nothing because I am just a mom.

On your recommendation then, I’ll just take it as a random question. But I’d still like to know why it was asked before I attempt to answer it.

quote:

What puzzles me is the argument that these things should not be important at the amatuer level. Well, they are, not in necessarily for young LL players but for HS players.

I am not going to argue about height being important, for some coaches recruiting HS players it IS very important and for ML scouts if is as well. I am not going to argue velocity, for some coaches recruiting HS players it IS very important and for ML scouts it's primary.

This topic was about projecting pitchers, not so much perhaps on height but how hard they throw, and as stated by Bum, that's primary.

To me, the whole issue of projecting players depends entirely on the thinking predominant in the game about what is and what isn’t “important”, and what place in the matrix it holds. FI, if from the 1st kid pitch leagues the thinking is that the “most mature” and “hardest” throwers will get the lion’s share of opportunities, the thinking throughout the entire game, through the ML is affected, because who is allowed to have the limited opportunities is definitely affected.

Heck, I’m still waiting to see evidence that stature is any kind of performance guarantee. Unless that’s true, I can not accept the premise that it should be given the extreme prejudice it is. And it the same for velocity. Its really simple to say that pitchers 90+ are more successful than those who don’t, but how in the world is that being measured? Of course if there are 1,000 pitchers and 900 throw 90+ they are going to be more everything.

As a Ray fan, I want to give a few shout outs to some shorter pitchers: Alex Torres- listed 5'10", but most say closer to 5"8" our hero last night,
Brandon Gomes- 5'11", Joel Peralta has had a very solid season for us- 5"11" at the tallest. Also, Matt Moore, who we have been following the past two seasons and my son had the opportunity to visit with at Durham, is listed at 6"2"- certainly not short, but that may be a generous listing. The velocity he can generate is overwhelming, and he is so smooth. David Price said he throws the easiest 98 fastball he has ever seen. I think Jeter had some things to say about his delivery the other night as well. Like has been said, height is certainly a nice thing, but fast ball command even more so.

I do have a question for those who follow this stuff. Matt Moore was drafted by the Rays in the 8th round out of HS the same year Price was taken as their first round pick. I can't find much about his HS, but know he was throwing 91-92 as a LH pitcher then. Don't think his "nasty" was developed, and he had some command issues. He is not listd on Perfect Game, unless he attended a different school at the time. (Thre are other Matt Moores) I'm wondering how big he was then. Could that have taken his draft stock down? Not that the 8th is high, but he just might have the potential to be the very best pitcher of all on the Rays staff; actually I think he does. We absolutely love Jeremy Hellickson as well, and he certainly isn't big.

smalltownmom,
The Rays are exceptional (I think they are the best) at developing players (and recognizing talent).

They are awfully good. I can not believe the pitchers they have developed. Am going for the Yankees tonight. Two more innings to score some runs. Hard to believe they even have a chance.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
The Rays are exceptional (I think they are the best) at developing players (and recognizing talent).

Threads like this have a funny way of eventually examining some very interesting things because they twist and turn and get into all kinds of things, and you’ve gotten into one of them.

I have to be completely honest and admit that I know very little about any ML team’s farm system or scouting, other than the team I root for. Other than them, the only way I judge ML teams’ scouting and how they develop their talent, is by their W/L record. And to be honest about that, its really impossible to make any kind of valid judgment about that because very often a team’s W/L record depends much more on management’s ability to make trades and sign free agents.

So having exposed my woeful ignorance on the subject, and not trying to put you on the spot, what makes you feel the Rays do a better job at spotting talent and developing it than say the Indians or the Royals?

Do they have some kind of special formula no one, or at least very few other teams have figgered out? Or, is it that they’ve somehow cornered the market on scouts who can spot talent, and coaches who can develop it? I’m asking because I really believe a great deal of a team’s success in spotting, acquiring, and developing talent has a great deal to do with luck. If it didn’t the movement of personnel from organization to organization would eventually even things out, much more than they are.

Really have gotten off track and I don't want to debate with you.

But since you asked...the Rays got rid of players that made huge contributions, this was supposed to be a rebuilding year, but still able to compete like champs in a very difficult division with youngsters. If that doesn't make them exceptional, not sure what would. They deserve a lot more than they get from their fans.
So if you go by a W/L record the Rays get it right. The difference between them and a team such as the Royals, they both often had early picks and able to pick up the creme of the draft crop, yet the Royals never seem to quite get it right. Their farm system is amazing, why isn't their home team?

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
Really have gotten off track and I don't want to debate with you.

I’m not trying to stick it to you or offend you at all. Threads very seldom stay precisely on point, and have a tendency to meander once the original thought has pretty much petered out and no one wants to add anything new. I said I wasn’t trying to put you on the spot, so why do you think I’m, looking for a “debate”? You brought something up I found interesting, and I’d like to explore it. If you’d rather, I’ll gladly start a new thread or drop it entirely, but you’re the one who took what smt said and headed further in this direction.

quote:

But since you asked...the Rays got rid of players that made huge contributions, this was supposed to be a rebuilding year, but still able to compete like champs in a very difficult division with youngsters. If that doesn't make them exceptional, not sure what would. They deserve a lot more than they get from their fans.

So if you go by a W/L record the Rays get it right. The difference between them and a team such as the Royals, they both often had early picks and able to pick up the creme of the draft crop, yet the Royals never seem to quite get it right. Their farm system is amazing, why isn't their home team?

Those are pretty much standard platitudes heaped on teams that are being successful. They’re almost exactly what was said about the Royals and Indians early this season, and what’s being said about Arizona right now. I get that people will always try to find the reasons for success and failure, and that they’re pretty much gonna be the same things, but really, how much of it is planned and based on repeatable skill, and how much is luck?

At one point in time this season, the Indians looked like they’d totally collapsed, and they had compared to the 1st half they had. But unless one paid a lot of attention to them, he wouldn’t know how injuries ripped the team apart. Heck, at one point in time, 5 of the 9 players in the starting lineup hadn’t played 50 ML games, and yet they were still battling and in 2nd place. Not 1 of their outfielders was even on the team for the 1st 2 months of the season, and they lost their 3B to injury, traded their starting 2B and the kid who replaced him went on the DL, as did 1 of their young starters who had given them 30 straight starts of over 5 innings since coming to the ML. And, they lost their DH not once, but twice to the DL.

Now I’m not trying to take anything away from the Rays or even compare them with the Indians, but except for a broken thumb here, a pulled hammy there, a fractured hamate, or strained oblique, they could very well be the Cinderella team this season. And look at the Twins! In yesterday’s game, their manager said they had to start 7 players who weren’t on the roster, 2 months into the season. And I don’t mean they started to get a look at them and give them some experience. They HAD to start them because their team has been completely torn apart by injuries.

As for why some teams seem to get the talent but never make it to the dance, I wish I knew, but I’ll keep trying to find out. Maybe its that the Rays have more short players on the team than anyone else, and it turns out those guys are more durable than the knuckle dragging giants.