The Projectability Problem
by Nico on Aug 19, 2009 9:29 AM PDT
Email
PrintLike most fans, I enjoy watching young players and trying to figure out whether they will get better, never progress, get worse. Some guys, like Brett Anderson, will make big strides, some guys, like Travis Buck, will suddenly stall, some guys, like Eric Patterson, will keep getting new chances with old results, and some guys, like Trevor Cahill, and Vin Mazzaro, and Aaron Cunningham, will...?
Here's what I think makes projecting future performance so especially tricky. I had Dallas Braden pegged as a 4th starter because while I liked his demeanor, fastball command, and changeup, I also saw that his fastball lacked great movement, and that his only other weapon, a curve, was primarily effective against lefties but that did he didn't have a lot of weapons against right-handed batters other than to spot the fastball and pull the string with the changeup.
And on this one, I don't think I was exactly wrong. The Braden I projected was a different Braden than the one who has taken the mound in 2009. He learned to add and subtract on the fastball and then he learned a cutter, and I think this pitcher has a chance to be more than a 4th starter. So how do you look at a drafted player, or a young player you see in the big leagues, and project whether or not they will able to add new skills that might elevate their game in important ways?
Will Cahill be able to repeat his delivery better, in which case the pitches he has right now could make him a #2 starter, or does he not have that particular potential, in which case he'll likely stall? Are we only seeing 2/3 of what Mazzaro's arsenal will be as a 24 year old starter, or is he stuck trying to make it with a good fastball, decent slider, and "show me" changeup? Will Cunningham take his excellent swing and minor league numbers to match, and converge them at the big league level due to one of Jim Skaaaaaaalan's famous "timing devices," or will Mark McGwire get to him first and Cunningham won't hit .474 until he joins the Cardinals?
My question for this discussion is: When trying to project a player's future, how do you factor in the additions and changes they might be able to make? Not everyone can learn how to add and subtract on the fastball, or can adjust their hands to suddenly stay back better on offspeed pitches, no matter how good the tutelage may be. Yet a player with poor results now may be a star in the making, if you just imagine the changes they are capable of making between now and when you want to count on them to be good.
I didn't see it coming with Braden, but maybe I should have. Maybe I should have seen a guy with the perfect competitive makeup, excellent fastball command, the intelligence and resolve to learn new things, and realized that he would, and could, learn whatever he needed to learn to get a lot better. What should I see about Trevor Cahill, Vin Mazzaro, Aaron Cunningham, Gio Gonzalez, Tommy Everidge, Cliff Pennington, that I can't see now because it hasn't actually happened yet?
105 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Pitchers and hitters pose very different projectability problems
1) PItchers get injured all the time. Every projection of a pitcher needs to be accompanied by a disclaimer that at any time, no matter what else is happening, he could come out of a game in the middle of an inning and never return to the mound again. Or return but have lost 8 mph off his fastball, or not be able to throw his breaking pitch any more. And even guys with good mechanics, like Duke, can get hurt again and again.
2) Pitching isn’t reactive. A pitcher can learn a new pitch — like Braden learning a cutter — literally in half an hour. Hitting is reactive — I don’t think it’s possible for a hitter to learn to lay off a 90 mph slider, or learn to take pitches to the opposite field, as quickly. I don’t think Patterson can learn to catch up to a big-league fastball, for instance, as easily as Gio could learn to just let his fastball go and throw strikes.
As far as trying to project success is concerned, my guess is that empirical analysis would tend to show that hitters who are successful as youngsters in the minors, who demonstrate knowledge of the strike zone, and who adjust well to promotions within the minors are the kinds of hitters who are “projectable” as major leaguers. But that’s probably not a very controversial statement.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
The thing I'd say about hitting, though,
is that hitting is a lot about making adjustments. So while most players who can’t catch up to a fastball, or who can’t recognize a slider, won’t make it or won’t be highly rated (exception: Crosby), amongst those who have these basic abilities going for them, some will adjust in the ways they need to at the speed they need to and some won’t.
And some may be good if they just make one key adjustment or a relatively minor (easy) one to make, whereas others may fail because they’re 2-3 adjustments behind or because the adjustments they’d need to make are too huge or too difficult.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I don't think this is true
So while most players who can’t catch up to a fastball, or who can’t recognize a slider, won’t make it or won’t be highly rated (exception: Crosby),
There are a ton of highly rated minor league players who can’t recognize or hit a pitch and the lack of skill of minor league pitchers just doesn’t allow that weakness to be exploited. This is why so many player have a difficulty transitioning to the big leagues. Alex Gordon was suppose to be the second coming and hasn’t hit in the big leagues for example.
Eventually, my colleague and I trotted from the two-bit seats to the three-bit seats to get a closer view of the action. - Jlaff on Turn Back the Clock Day
by designatedforassignment on Aug 19, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
And was just demoted
(Gordon)
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
hey, Pedroia hit like .150 in his first month with the red sox
Francona just left him out there and he turned it into a rookie of the year season.
Sometimes they just need time.
Cop out
And on this one, I don’t think I was exactly wrong. The Braden I projected was a different Braden than the one who has taken the mound in 2009.
I love this rationalization. Where else might it be useful?
“I’m not exactly late. The clock I followed was a different clock from the one that’s here.”
“I don’t think I exactly failed that test. The question I answered was a different question from what was asked.”
“I wasn’t exactly speeding. The speed limit I observed was different from the one on the sign there.”
Dude, the whole point of projecting is you’re trying to guess how he will change. Of course Braden became a “different Braden”. If the different Braden he became isn’t the on you projected, that means you guessed wrong. Wear it.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Absoutely I was wrong on Braden
My point wasn’t to “excuse” myself. My point was that sometimes you can be wrong because you guess wrong about the player as you see them, and other times you can be wrong because the player actually changes the things on which you are guessing.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Also, what does it matter if you were right or wrong?
It’s not your job to be definitive, it’s your job to be interesting. Or at least, more interesting than a replacement level activity.
Whether I agree or not with your Braden projections, it makes me think about them, and really, isn’t that what’s important?
Also, the projections on NICO were not as good as how he has performed in 2009.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
+1,000
And this has absolutely destroyed my fantasy blogging team, since I passed up a chance to draft Nico and went with Rev Halofan instead.
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 19, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Now really, GreenNGoldSooner, who's to blame for that choice?
Well me, obviously, but after that?
bobnothing, your point is, IMO, really important. I wish more people would realize that I’m not that interested in being “right” or in “taking a stand” so much as to put interesting ideas out there interestingly, ideally with a good knock-knock joke or couscous recipe in there as a pleasant bonus.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
butternut squash recipes, please...
I have a shit-ton of those things growing in my backyard!
"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Aug 19, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Who has recipes growing in their backyard?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Aug 19, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's really cool that you're growing butternut squash
I’ve never really been successful with it, or any squashes. How much light / shade do you give your plants?
As for a recipe, they are niced roasted and mashed with some cumin (what isn’t?) or with some sage. Or in a curry of some discription.
Or in soup.
Ok, I’ve really just described my diet – mash it, or make it into soup.
Butternuts
Make a fine pie. Similar to Pumpkin in appearance and texture, but so much better tasting. Recipes for this delicacy abound on the intarwebs.
In my real life job, I write web content for a finance place
and I caught myself writing the other day
’it’s important to take into acount the worth of a property over replacement value of another property’.
too much inside baseball?
I have tons of problems with Nico, Im sure everyone knows that, but he is a million times better than Rev Halofan
Eventually, my colleague and I trotted from the two-bit seats to the three-bit seats to get a closer view of the action. - Jlaff on Turn Back the Clock Day
by designatedforassignment on Aug 19, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions
(searches for embedding statement of)
Who cares about your fantasy blogger team?
alaska A residing in northern Idaho.
Billy knew something about Braden
I seem to recall from one of Blez’s interviews with Beane several years ago that he singled out Braden at a time when he was still in the mid-minors and struggling a little (if I remember he had some injury issues). At the time, Braden wasn’t putting up the sort of numbers Harang and Harden had put up a year or so before. So I didn’t get what Beane was talking about. But it must have been those other things, the competitive makeup, the intelligence, and the command of the fastball, that led Beane to believe in Braden’s potential.
chronic
Exactly -- when I look back and ask myself
“What did the A’s see that I didn’t see?” it was the mental part not, “Oh we’re going to teach him a cutter just as soon as we can find a washed-up veteran who can at least teach it to someone else.”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
It was obviously in the master plan to find a washed up veteran to teach Braden
a cutter to turn him into a ML pitcher. Just like it was in the master plan to find several washed up hitters to teach Rajai Davis to hit and turn him into an All Star.
Some motherfcukers are always trying to ice skate uphill - Blade.
I found the interview with Beane
July 2005
Blez: (Laughing) Who is currently in the A’s minor league system that A’s fans should pay attention to that they may not be all that familiar with? You mentioned Dallas Braden.
Beane: Braden is a great one. That was one I was going to go back to. Dallas was someone we drafted in the 15th or so round and he’s only 21-years-old and he’s already at Double-A. He won again last night. He’s a low-round pick who is just flying through the system. Windsor, the kid we took from Fullerton last year, is already at Double-A. And again, I’m eliminating guys that people already probably know about, you know the Herrera’s of the world and Putnam. But the first one to come to mind is Braden. To be that young and already pitching at Double-A is a pretty rapid rise AND he’s pitching well there.
Blez: What do you attribute it to?
Beane: If we were that smart, we would’ve taken him a lot higher. I always love the Rich Harden, who was what, our 16th or 17th rounder that year? And people say, great job, if that was your 17th, what do the first 16th look like? There’s a significant amount to luck. It’s an imperfect system. That’s why the job is so difficult with scouts. When a guy like Hudson comes out in the sixth round or Harden comes out in the 17th round or Piazza comes out of the 50th round or wherever he came from, it shows you the risk that’s in there and that no one has really nailed it down. There’s a lot of luck and miscalculation involved.
chronic
Note that in the first paragraph...
…only ONE player (Braden) is worthy of note four years later.
Windsor, Herrera, Putnam… nada.
In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.
I was thinking the same thing
PREPAREDNESS_Because those goddamn zombies aren’t going to kill themselves
I recall an interview
Where Beane pointed out specifically that Braden was getting alot of swinging strikes which, he said, was a good sign of potential.
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 19, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Good point. That's something in Gio favor compared to Cahill/Mazzaro
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
At times, Mazarro’s slider has been really, really good. That first run through the Yankees lineup in July where he struck out 6 comes to mind. I think he could potentially be a decent starter, if he figures things out.
Cahill’s just worrying. He doesn’t get many strikeouts, and I feel like batters make way too much hard contact against him.
Cahill's changeup gets some swing-throughs,
and he seems to be making some strides with repeating his delivery. Given his age, he still has a chance to be very good at age 23, though IMO he is still a ways away.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think he's probably 2 years away, i.e., 2011 season,
from hitting a consistent stride. Which might inform why the A’s brought him up in 2009 — that he might need 2 seasons of Young/Romanick working with him in order to be “really ready for prime time” in 2011.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Yeah, I can see that too.
It’s just mind-boggling that, for example, his HR/9 is literally more than 4 times than his minor league career’s HR/9. If he can just reduce that to a somewhat more reasonable rate, he’d be a helluva lot better. Obviously very easy to say, much more difficult to do.
Maturity and Trust
Cahill needs to find a consistent delivery/release-point and trust his stuff more. This should come w/ maturity.
Same thing w/ Mazzaro… His “sinker” doesn’t seem to be sinking very much lately. He might not be trusting his stuff and trying to overcompensate w/ velocity.
Brett Anderson is a stud. Consistent delivery. I could see Brett Anderson starting opening day next season.
Gio seems to have mental makeup issues. I wouldn’t expect him to be anymore than a #4/#5 starter for 3-4 years w/ Oakland.
by Colorado Fan on Aug 19, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I still have hopes for Gio to settle in at #3
That’s where I think of guys who have the stuff, and give you some starts to match, but are too maddeningly inconsistent to be slotted higher. Gio has a “money pitch” and gets a lot of swinging strikes — he’s not that far away from being a #3 if he can just pitch like he did 2, 3, and 4 starts ago as the rule and not the exception.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think Cahill and Mazzaro are doing what Gio did last year.
Gio came up and was having all kinds of problems. Even earlier this year with spot starts or relief. Then he got his chance again and has really matured. Or at least he has appeared to have matured as a pitcher and is looking good. I think both Cahill and Mazzaro will be better next year.
Also I think Romanick has done a lot to help the pitchers. He will have the same success with Cahill and Mazzaro, and continue to work with Anderson and Gio. I am looking forward to next spring training and how they do then. Anderson is the obvious # 1 starter in the group at this point but the level of talent in the next three is very close.
Also look at Outman. He was showing really good stuff before he got hurt. So in another year he can come back and then we have 5 A+ pitchers.
The hitters, I have no clue. BB like Davis last year even though he didn’t show a lot.. but now.. after finally getting to play everyday he is showing good talent. He is still young, he will improve and he has great energy. Cunningham has the talent, now he only needs to play everyday for awhile to see if it comes through.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Gio has a history of failing in his first try at a level, but then
mastering it the next year. Cahill was rushed to the Majors.
Some motherfcukers are always trying to ice skate uphill - Blade.
After watching an interview with Tim Hudson last week....
I wouldlove to see him return as a pitcher/mentor for the A’s. I think he has excellent skills and the right mental make-up to make them all better. Just a thought.
by Keystone State on Aug 19, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
maybe someday...
some washed up, cheap day…
"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Aug 19, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions
The Brian Bannister story is very interesting
He studied his own pitching using pitchfx and determined how to improve his results. This type of improvement is very hard to predict, especially when it’s intitiated by the playter himself.
Link: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/bannister-love-pitchfx
by Flash G on Aug 19, 2009 11:01 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
New dogs and old tricks
I think that Nick’s analysis is excellent. Pitchers have a chance to enhance their repertoire which may make or break whether or not they will pitch out of the bullpen or become a starter with the ability to get hitters out with an assortment of pitches at their disposal. But I think this is harder to do with a pitcher who may be beyond age 28. If we noticed with the Athletic’s pitching staff their youth is the first thing that jumps out at you. Beane’s philosophy of maximizing players within their 1st 6 years of MLB eligibility has always lent itself to this scenario.
The factors which determine a pitcher’s potential will always be measured by: 1) injury history 2) durability 3) talent 4) mental makeup/resolve not necessarily in that order. Looking back on our Big3 to me just seems as if we caught lightning in a bottle and Beane received maybe more credit and notoriety than he deserved. I am not knocking Beane at all, I have always appreciated his brilliance but he was also a little lucky in the process. Likewise, while we have some excellent young pitchers, their potential is far from being reached and as part of the process we are seeing discussions about 6 man rotations in order to prevent injury.
Regarding hitting, we know that the A’s philosophy of patience was brought to prominence when Giambi1 was here. But was that the A’ s mandate to develop that player or was that just his ability. Tejada, on the other hand earned MVP honors and was a great hitting shortstop just prior to free agency but he didn’t display those skills as well as Giambi. Talent, and how it projects is still talent regardless of the hitting philosophy applied. We shall see if Chris Carter, who has drawn more on my imagination of reincarnating McGwire than any other 1st baseman we have had, will live up to the “potential” we all hope for.
"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King
Jamie Moyer is an interesting outlier -- a guy who was very unsuccessful
before he was 28. I wonder what it was that allowed Moyer to turn the corner so dramatically so relatively late.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Ditto Randy Johnson.
He always had the stuff, but there are plenty of people who can strike people out but never amount to much because they’re so wild.
I wonder if...
Malcolm Gladwell is a baseball fan? He kind of looks like Art Garfunkel, I think.
by Keystone State on Aug 21, 2009 6:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Random thoughts:
Patterson is AAAA players.
Ive given up on Buck and Barton. People like Cunningham/Brown/Doolittle/Carter has all passed them up in my opinion.
Brett Anderson is an Ace in waiting.
Cahill/Mazzaro were rushed.
"Carter's 25-game hitting streak isn't any normal streak. He's 46 for 97 (.474 average) during the run, adding 16 walks and compiling 81 total bases in the process. I'm out of superlatives for what he's doing." - Kevin Goldstein
Buck, sure.
Barton, no.
Doolittle must have had a pretty badass 28 games in Sacramento this year to pass up Barton on the depth chart, huh?
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
More of Barton being absolute shit.
"Carter's 25-game hitting streak isn't any normal streak. He's 46 for 97 (.474 average) during the run, adding 16 walks and compiling 81 total bases in the process. I'm out of superlatives for what he's doing." - Kevin Goldstein
I don't think Mazzaro was rushed at all
His results this year are reflective of two things:
1. He isn’t that good, and
2. He’s been insanely unlucky (and played in front of the worst A’s defense in years, which from his perspective is the same thing).
Ultimately I’d expect him to turn into something in the Joe Blanton range, but Blanton had his struggles early in his career too.
Cahill’s an entirely different kettle of fish, as he shouldn’t even have started the season in AAA, much less the majors.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
+1
Mazzaro will be a good three range starter with an outlier year where he pitches like a number 1.
Eventually, my colleague and I trotted from the two-bit seats to the three-bit seats to get a closer view of the action. - Jlaff on Turn Back the Clock Day
by designatedforassignment on Aug 19, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Mazzaro only got what?
1/3 of a year in AAA.
"Carter's 25-game hitting streak isn't any normal streak. He's 46 for 97 (.474 average) during the run, adding 16 walks and compiling 81 total bases in the process. I'm out of superlatives for what he's doing." - Kevin Goldstein
He spent a lot of time in the low minors, though,
relatively speaking.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Well he spent more time there since he was a HS kid.
"Carter's 25-game hitting streak isn't any normal streak. He's 46 for 97 (.474 average) during the run, adding 16 walks and compiling 81 total bases in the process. I'm out of superlatives for what he's doing." - Kevin Goldstein
I don't see Cahill as that far behind Anderson
Their performance level in the minors was pretty close together. Leaving Cahill in AA would have done him no good at all. He was certainly ready for AAA. Of course, if Duke were pitching Cahill would no doubt have gone back to Sacramento, but as it was, who did the A’s have that was better than Cahill? He still is absurdly young and I think in two years he’ll be a fine mid-rotation starter, at least as capable as Mazzaro, perhaps better.
chronic
I’m not sure I’d even go so far to say that he was ready for AAA. His ERA (2.19) was a mirage probably mostly driven by a really low BABIP (.236). Now, obviously, if he’s just jamming people/constantly having them pound balls into the dirt and completely dominating them, his BABIP should be low, but his FIP was 3.90. Leaving him in AA for a few starts wouldn’t have been the worst thing in the world; having him begin at AAA probably would’ve been the best idea though.
I'd feel better about Cahill if his GO/AO ratio was more in line
with his reputation, but currently we know that major leaguers are able to hit his pitches in the air far too often and often too far. That’s what has to change.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Cahill had a tRA of over 4 in AA last year
and spent only 6 starts there. He needed to go back to AA.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Well, he didn't look so unlucky in those first four games
So if you’re measuring his bad luck over the whole season you have to factor that in.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
He had a few very lucky games followed by about 10 very unlucky games
Overall, way into negative territory.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
There's something about Cahill's style of pitching that seems to reflect his age.
His delivery is erratic and unrepeatable, and, coming from a non-expert but did-take-six-years-of-piano-lessons vantage point, his posture is awful. I question whether he’ll still be able to throw that way in several years – sort of like how you can sit with your legs in the “shape of a W” just fine when you’re 10, but if you’re still doing it when you’re 30 you should expect to have problems. If anything good can come from his premature cup of coffee, I think it would be motivation to make some major stylistic changes to his approach, mechanically and even ergonomically, this offseason.
As for Cunningham, in that last week before he got nailed in the head I thought he was starting to look a lot more comfortable at the plate, and a bit less like Eric Patterson. He’s often criticized for his long swing, but so are a lot of young hitters. Give him a chance to get comfortable with tracking big league pitching, and maybe we see him start to shorten up in pitcher’s counts, or drive the ball in hitters counts.
Bob Garen is incontinent
I'm having trouble picturing
what sitting position puts one’s legs in the shape of a W.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Projecting hitting isn't very hard
With MLEs, adjustments for age relative to level, and a careful approach to neutralizing luck, it’s fairly easy to get a ballpark estimate of what a hitter is going to do.
Pitching, by contrast, is a complete crapshoot. Guys change their pitch selection, their arm angle, even their entire delivery and suddenly make old stats worthless or near-worthless. You can literally throw out Brad Ziegler’s entire performance track record from before 2006. It’s worthless, because he’s in no sense the same pitcher. That’s a rare extreme, but a lot of similar situations occur when pitchers pick up new pitches or motions.
That being said, if you want to project a minor league pitcher to the majors, there are only 3 numbers you really need to look at: age, K/BB ratio, and GB/FB ratio. That’s about it. Minor league ERA, hit rate, WHIP, etc should be completely ignored.
You’ll get a half-assed guess result, but all projection of pitchers is half-assed guessing. You probably should mentally adjust the result up or down based on what the pitcher’s scouting report tells you (eg junkballers should be projected worse than hard throwers, give him credit for average or better offspeed stuff, etc). That’ll get you a little closer. But ultimately, most of it is just luck.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Aug 19, 2009 12:30 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Tim Lincecum's development of a changeup also comes to mind.
Before he developed it, he still got a lot of K’s, but he wasn’t really and truly dominating. I don’t think anyone would’ve predicted that he’d develop literally the best pitch in baseball (as valued by Fangraph’s runs/100 pitches thrown).
Maybe this is just a semantic question,
but how do you jump from too-hard-to-project (which I think you’ve demonstrated quite well) to “just luck”, which comes out of the blue.
Or are you using “luck” in the sense that anything which cannot be projected within a system is by definition called “luck”?
As a case in point, I think all of us would agree that Braden’s recent success was not something anyone could have projected three years ago, but I don’t think many would say Braden is just lucky.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
This would make a good fanpost topic: what is "luck"?
I tend to define it as “anything outside the control of the party to whom you’re referring.” If we’re on a team together (and I’m not a player-owner or player-manager or some weird hybrid role like that), your skill is my luck, because I can’t make you play better or harder.
Similarly, from a GM’s perspective, a pitcher picking up a new pitch or more velocity or something like that is mostly luck. Sure, you can have your pitching coaches teach a guy a new pitch, but if that always worked, every pitcher in MLB would have a 10-pitch arsenal. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it throw a plus-plus splitter.
From the player’s own perspective, some of it may not be luck (it may be more effort- or practice-related
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Hooray for failure to punctuate sentences...
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Semantics are interesting, because often
on AN I get mad when I see the word “luck” used, yet if it’s replaced by “unsustainable” I don’t mind at all. I guess the difference is that if I teach a few kick-ass lessons where I’m on like I’ve never been on before, and never will be again, I know I can’t sustain that level of teaching but man, don’t take those lessons away from me by calling it luck!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
That's not the same thing, though
An actual performance peak is something different from an apparent performance peak which is just the result of multiple random performance fluctuations happening to fluctuate in the same direction at a given time.
To perhaps carry the analogy to an unhealthy extreme, it’s the difference between “a lesson where you explain everything perfectly” and “a lesson where every single kid in the class just so happens to have actually gotten a full night’s sleep the day before.”
There are true performance peaks in baseball, it’s just that they’re hard to detect because you need a large sample of at-bats or innings pitched to really tell you anything.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
In your analogy, I wonder which is less likely to happen!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
When talking about projections for hitting...
….is there any place that actually examines the success ratio of projections? Or how close a player needs to be to the majors in order for a projection to actually be successful? A friend of mine was looking up players who’d gone to his college and found a position in the minors who, in 2008, was a C+ by Sickels. One year later, in 2009, he was a C-. So, which was he, and how does this guy really project? And at that point, what does a C+ actually mean if a year later the guy can deteriorate so quickly?
Until someone actually does research on projection and its accuracy - and that research may be out there - then I think putting too much into projections is kind of pointless. I mean, based on everything we’d seen, it didn’t look like Pennington ever even deserved to be in a major league uniform, it didn’t appear that Suzuki would ever be able to hit the ball for average, it looked like Eric Chavez was a lock for a high average player, that Barton would be the second coming, that Howie Kendrick was a major talent, etc etc etc.
Projection is part of the baseball landscape, and it’s really fun. And I think that statistics help quite a bit, beyond what a scout sees. But until there’s something rigorous out there about projections, I’d take them all with grains of salt.
Yeah, there are studies done periodically testing the accuracy of projections
See, e.g.
Important note: Sickels is not doing projections. He’s a scout (albeit a pleasingly statistically-informed one) who evaluates players based on his own and other scouts’ opinions as well as their statistics. I’d call what he’s doing “heuristics” rather than “projection.”
He also reevaluates his own grades periodically. He’s in the middle of a series reviewing the performance of the players in his prospect book from last season.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Ah, yeah
But I’m talking about a different kind of projection - maybe I didn’t make that clear enough - which involves projecting minor leaguers as major leaguers. I know the range of success for major league projection systems…it’s around 73-74% accuracy. There have been articles about that. But it also seems that the place PECOTA and others fail to success is when examining the transition of minor leaguers to major leaguers.
This comes in to play here when someone is discussing whether to give Everidge 100 AB or Barton 100 AB. I mean, Barton has already failed for an entire season. Everidge is still in transition mode. Do the A’s dump Everidge because he might project poorly but hasn’t had a shot to work on the transition? Do they give Barton those ABs because he projects well but continues to have a low MLB batting average? Paul, you yourself see Jeff Gray as a bottom-feeder, even though his work at the MLB level has been immaculate. Santiago Casilla, who has better stuff, has been mostly atrocious throughout his major league career. I look at that particular comparison and again, I wonder about the nature of projection.
This is not to say that, in an analogy, Casilla started life on second base and Gray on first base and would have had far less to run to get to home plate, but still, it looks right now as if Gray might be a better pitcher, and better option.
Thanks for that analysis of Sickels.
But some great questions.
It’s a fascinating topic, largely because no one has anywhere close to 100% success projecting baseball players so there’s lots of room to analyze and argue.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
There's no question that it's tougher to predict minors-to-majors transitions
but, if you want to know my opinion, I think that most non-injury-related “failures” of minor league projection are really just failures of faith by front offices. (Not all— sometimes you’ll get someone who really does have a career collapse at age 25. But usually it’s the Travis Buck pattern— guy comes up, guy hits poorly for a short period, guy gets benched for a while and loses his edge, gets sent down again, takes a while to readjust to AAA, gets called up again, rinse repeat etc etc etc.)
That being said, I think there’s a lot of room for improvement of projection systems. If we could get things like O-Swing and Contact Percentage and real batted ball velocity data (instead of the half-assed grounder/liner/flyball distinction, which is doubly poor in the minors because half the official scorers making those calls are alcoholics or early-20s deadbeats) for minor leaguers, we might be able to make some real progress. People are already making inroads into projecting hitters’ BABIP, which has always been kind of a black box (we know good hitters do it well and bad hitters do it poorly, but not why) but now is starting to be understood a lot better.
All that aside, I still doubt there will ever be as good of projections for minor leaguers as for major leaguers— less information is out there because there’s less demand for the information.
A final note: I wouldn’t put any money on Jeff Gray being anything… Casilla’s had longer runs of dominance than 2009 Gray before. Fortunately, the A’s have plenty of other bullpen prospects who are better than either of them…
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Thanks
Your second paragraph really did answer my questions. And while I think the question regarding projections for minor leaguers as minor leaguers may never have much demand, what does beg for demand, particularly from front offices, would be projections for minor leaguers in terms of their major league futures.
When I interviewed Michael Lewis a couple of years ago, he said that one area where there seemed to be minimal quality control was the track record of professional scouts. While folks might point to successes, or even failures, nobody was examining how these scouts fared in their analyses, year after year after year, and it seemed to him at least that this could be one area where Moneyball - finding undervalued or non-valued expertise - could still be exploited.
That still doesn’t deal with the up/down failures of a Travis Buck or Howie Kendrick, but at least it gets a bit closer to finding people who actually do project - even if it’s just by intuition - the success or failure of prospects.
2009 Athletics: The Best and The Worst So Far
The Best:
Rajai Davis brings emotion, talent, spirit and a “can do” attitude – and being in the everyday lineup has reinforced his value to the team. Kurt Suzuki is exceptional – he’s going to be an all-star catcher when people realize how well he handles young pitchers, how good he is on defense, and how consistent he is at the plate. He’s a keeper. Mark Ellis has shown that he’s a good second baseman and an excellent hitter this August. Although he’s been slowed by injuries, he’s a valuable player, although he lacks personality. Adam Kennedy has done the job at second and third – an excellent utilityman, although he too lacks emotion and personality. Andrew Bailey has been uniformly excellent – another keeper
The Not Quite There but Have Potential Group:
This could be a long list – Everidge (needs a weight management program); Sweeney (needs to keep his head in the game – too spacey, and to develop a power stroke); Hairston (just average in most areas); the entire starting pitcher group (young, have potential, but need lots of instruction); most of the bullpen staff. And what about Travis Buck?
The Worst:
Jack Cust – who needs no emotion, no excitement, no defense and three strikeouts a game, and no homers/RBI’s in a month (he’s a luxury the team can’t afford); Bobby Crosby (get rid of his whining, unproductive, selfish persona as soon as possible); Bob Geren (his plodding demeanor and lack of emotion is unfortunately infectious). We need a manager and coaching staff who bring emotion, personality. and yes, dynamic leadership to this young team.
Emotion? Excitement? Leadership?
Blah blah fucking blah.
How about “good play”?
Solace: Law says he's a fourth OFer
PaulThomas: I think Keith Law is only a fourth analyst
This season hasn't shown you the correlation?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
You gotta have Wa.
"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Aug 19, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
What correlation?
As determined by Nico:
When the A’s lose games, they have no emotion, passion or excitement.
When the A’s win games, they have emotion, passion, and excitement!
Gee whiz. Are you completely unaware of post hoc fallacies and ex post facto arguments?
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Aug 19, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
+ infinity
you forgot that when they don’t win they aren’t trying hard enough.
Eventually, my colleague and I trotted from the two-bit seats to the three-bit seats to get a closer view of the action. - Jlaff on Turn Back the Clock Day
by designatedforassignment on Aug 19, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions
There are guys in the Hall of Fame who lacked emotion and personality. Those criterion seem beyond subjective.
JJ Martin
The best way to catch a knuckleball is to wait until the ball stops rolling and then pick it up. ~Bob Uecker
I agree, it's ridiculous
In addition, we have literally no idea how people interact with their teammates – all we get is a few moments when they’re interviewed on tv, or when they frown after an at bat? Seriously?
Is anyone going to tell me they are such a great psychologist that they can tell a man’s charactor from that? That’s misguided, at best, and arrogance at worst. Mark Ellis is a bit dull? So what? Seriously? man, this makes me quite cross. It’s hard enought trying to evaluate players without having this nonsense tossed around as some sort of significant factor.
What I’m not saying mind, is that people shouldn’t say things liks – ‘Player X seems like a good guy, I like him’. This is a natural human reaction. But deciding that that makes him a good player? No thanks.
This.
In addition, we have literally no idea how people interact with their teammates – all we get is a few moments when they’re interviewed on tv, or when they frown after an at bat? Seriously?
I’m open to the whole emotion/leadership/good teammate thing, but I just don’t get how we make such concrete evaluations about a players intangible value when we don’t see much at all about it. It bugs me even more about Bob Geren. We know pretty much nothing about him, yet everyone seems to know about his managing style, personality, how he interacts with players based on what?
"Surely these gents are talking about the dashing rookie campaign of southpaw Jamie Moyer. Now, that cat is on the up and up." JLaff, in 1929.
The "X" Factor
How do the intangibles get factored into the potential of a player? It seems the intangibles that can NOT be quantified are the “X” factor that makes the difference between players who seem to project as great players and don’t develop and those with apparently less skill who become great successes (if this is even possible)?
A classroom analogy is the student whose skills might indicate (or project) they will struggle with a subject but their strong desire to succeed leads them to work so hard that they become that success. This is the one you never expected. Conversely, there are students who seem to learn effortlessly and do not reach their potential b/c it always comes so easily to them they don’t work hard; they think they don’t have to. They have so much upside and it is too frustrating when they don’t achieve.
Perhaps these things do not belong in the argument and, as bobnothing and travdog6 correctly state, we have so little information about these things we can’t possibly use them to support our arguments. This season, I have been thinking a lot about a player’s motivation and desire and skill set and ability to learn. These factors are important in learning and players – especially young ones – are always learning. If they can’t/don’t/won’t – they fail.
It might sound like psychomumbojumbo but I think the intanglibles are important even while they are as different from stats as night is from day.
"I never blame myself when I'm not hitting. I just blame the bat, and if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn't my fault that I'm not hitting, how can I get mad at myself?" Yogi Berra
by BERRYJO on Aug 20, 2009 12:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree. They're not as important skill sets, but they're far from negligible.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think it has a lot more to do with the limitations of the evaluators than with the "intangibles" of the evaluated
We aren’t gods— we can’t look into the future and perfectly visualize a player’s destiny. Some element of projection is always— always, no matter how well we refine it— going to be luck. We can asymptotically approach that “final frontier,” but we can’t cross it.
I think most of the, as you put it, psychomumbojumbo is nothing but post facto justification. Try it— I bet I can spin any psychological concept you throw at me in such a way that it has the opposite insinuation w/r/t a player’s talent level. I’ll start us off:
Self-confidence/hubris
Humility/self-doubt
Consistency/refusal to change
Affability/lack of competitive edge
Grittiness/aggression
Got any more for me?
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Unicorn power
Q.E.D.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Unicorn power/Bobby Crosby
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I think if you mention Bobby Crosby, you automatically lose
I learned that from overhearing Bob Geren discussing his lineups.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
On top of which, I mean, we have the disproof of the "character=winningz!" theory sitting right in front of us
Namely, Jack Hannahan. Stand-up guy. Gritty, plays the game the right way. Overcame life obstacles and remained positive. Always gives 100%. Can’t f***ing hit a baseball.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Proving the correlation to be way less than 1.0
Just more than 0.0 was my point.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
You're dead wrong about Kennedy
when it comes to personality. I’ve read several articles about how he’s been a leader in the clubhouse and just because someone doesn’t wear their emotons on their sleave doesn’t mean they don’t have emotion. I’m all for hustle but let’s not pretend we know how these guys really are from watching on TV.
I would add to the BEST
Pepe, B. Anderson & Outman, (just because two of them are hurt does not exclude them from the list)
PREPAREDNESS_Because those goddamn zombies aren’t going to kill themselves
If I had to choose an all time team...
It would include Jeff Bagwell at 3rd, barry bonds in LF, and The Rocket Roger Clemens on the mound.
I will gladly trade personality for performance and, in the case of Barry Bonds, be willing to go deeply into negative territory.
by eastbayexpat on Aug 20, 2009 5:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Let's see let me check my records for my own CarGon projections
“will show flashes of brilliance at the plate then tail off but upon being traded he will still struggle, be sent down to minors, get called up then have break out get-it-together phase in late summer 2009 helping said team traded to, to a wild card race.”
alaska A residing in northern Idaho.
Isn't Ervin Santana the #4 starter for the Halo's?
He’s way better the Braden.
That guy with a 6.25 ERA?
"Surely these gents are talking about the dashing rookie campaign of southpaw Jamie Moyer. Now, that cat is on the up and up." JLaff, in 1929.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
