Kershaw's ceiling is at least as high as Bucholz, if not higher.

If we are currently not weighting upper-level performance high enough AND are not discounting the super-young enough (i.e., the eye of their needle is much smaller than we're assuming), then a few other things might follow:

1. Johhny Cueto might be a better prospect that Little Faut - similar numbers, but Cueto's dominance was at a higher level at the same age (and Cueto actually improved with level in 2007)
2. Gio Gonzalez might be a pretty damn good prospect.  He's not too young and not too old(22), and was dominant at a relatively high level last year (AA).  Are we discounting him a little too much here?  Same goes with Ian Kennedy (who I have been criticized for placing too low).
3. Based on Silver's statements, I;m going to predict that PECOTA will "rank" Jacob McGee higher than Kershaw.  Relative to Kershaw, McGee had a much better walk rate, better K/BB ratio, and his   "disadvantage" of beng a year older may actually be a positive.    

{It's interesting that this view on Kershaw comes from a stathead stance, given that the stathead element of the public tends to really like Kershaw.}

The statheads are the ones that are discounting Kershaw because of the BB rate.  The pure scouts are the ones in awe of Kershaw.  His reportoire is the best of any pitcher in the minors.  His frame is very projectable.  Honestly, the height is probably a bit of a hinderance on him.  Tall pitchers seem to have more problems honing in their control.  Why?  The body parts are longer and that makes the delivery less repeatable.  Randy Johnson is a perfect example of this.  He took a couple years in the bigs to really refine his control.

After seeing Kershaw pitch a couple times last year, I really think the main issue with him is that he tries to strike everyone out.  Rather than trusting his stuff, he tries instead to paint the black with every pitch.  This is a very fixable issue, and one that I am sure the LA coaches will work with him on extensively in 2008.  

KG, in a BP chat recently, said it best.  Kershaw is one of maybe 6 pitchers in the minors that has ace ability.  Silver saying Kershaw is "leaps and bounds" behind Bucholz is more just Silver saying he needs to see Kershaw refine that control, rather than him saying Kershaw's ceiling is lower than Bucholz's ceiling.

This diary is a good example of why I feel the ARL argument gets overweighted in these parts. Buccholz has the possibility of being an ace and he's ready - what more do you want? But apparently that's not good enough because there is another prospect out there with a chance to be an ace AND is younger! I guess some of you guys would have preferred some 19 yo with great stuff over Roger Clemens when he throttled New Britain and Pawtucket after being drafted out of college.

Lot's of good stuff already in this thread. I'll add as much as I can.

First of all, I want to say I agree with Nate, although possibly for different reasons. I have Buchholz/Chamberlain and Kershaw as a different class of prospects in December 2008. I also have Cueto rated higher than Buchholz, which I'll explain later.

First, let me defend Kershaw a little. He was 19 years old, and pitched in A ball. Looking at the peak DT translations, Kershaw is one of two teenagers (Braddock) to project to whiff 8 or more per nine innings at his peak (8.3). The downside is he projects to 3.6 BB/9. Then he moved up to AA, and his peak translation was even better at 7.8 K/9 and 3.0 BB/9. I'm sure you realize that that a guy who has a K/IP and K/BB ratio like that is going to be a good pitcher, possibly even a #1 starter. Combine that with the scouting reports, and you have an excellent pitching prospect.

Kershaw's ceiling is as high as anybody, we know that. So why would he have much less value than Buchholz or Chamberlain or even Cueto, who has a lower ceiling? The way I look at it is, I'm going to take a net present value of all future outcomes, and that is going to be a prospects total value. So even if Kershaw and Buchholz had identical projections for their first six years in the bigs, Buchholz would be more valuable since he'll start two years earlier.

As for the older is better thing, I don't believe that's the case nor do I believe that is the point Silver was trying to get across. I think what he's saying is, ARL stats, Buchholz is better than Kershaw, which I may or may not agree with. Kershaw is three years younger and pitched two levels lower. Given that, Buchholz should be expected to have better stats than Kershaw, and he did. A lot better. So from a statistical profile, Buchholz is better (I've convinced myself), and from a NPV standpoint he's better. Those two combined would make Buchholz a clearly better prospect, but there's more.

Here's the thing with pitching prospects. They are going to lose at least 25% of their seasons to injury, some of them debilatating. That means the risk is higher with pitchers than hitters, so the discount rate on future production should be higher as well. Looking back at the 1998 prospects, I gave the same discount rate for pitchers and hitters, which is reasonable, since we're comparing actual production. Looking forward in 2008, you've got to discount pitchers more than hitters and potentially young pitchers more than old pitchers because of that extra risk. When you're talking similar reward like Kershaw and Buchholz, the risk is a big negative and will push one above the other. You would be more than willing to take that extra risk if the reward was higher. An example of this would be Kershaw vs Laffey.

Given only the stats, I would have rated Buchholz, Chamberlain, and Cueto ahead of Kershaw for sure. When you take into account the extra risk, the top two move head and shoulders above. Kershaw has the scouting reports and ceiling in his favor, so that narrows the gap somewhat, but still keeps him behind those three. I don't have my list done yet, but I'd have to assume that Kershaw is going to be my #4 pitcher, and somewhere around 15-20 overall.

As for transfering this theory to other pitchers, guys like Price and Porcello come to mind on readiness/stats and Morales with the walks.

I do believe Buchholz is the better prospect. He has a deeper repetoire and has better control. He's also passed the "injury nexus."

I compare Kershaw (at this stage in development) to Chad Billingsley. They both dominated rookie ball after they were drafted and reached Double A by the time they were 19. Both had high walk rates in their second season. Chad still struggles with his control at times but has shown that he's one of the better young pitchers in the game. I expect the same of Clayton.

And I don't agree with Silver that Kershaw is "leaps and bounds" behind Buchholz. I also don't believe that Kershaw's walks are as much a negative as his strikeouts are a positive. In BA's scouting report, it's noted that Kershaw "tends to load his left shoulder late, causing his arm to drag during his follow-through." A minor, non-injury mechanical flaw that should be corrected isn't something that should cause that much concern for a 19 year old.

in this thread, but I have to admit that the tone of nearly every poster here detracts greatly from your analysis.  I'm not sure at what point these threads turned from debates into battles and insults, but everyone posting here should be ashamed.  

I feel bad for John as he has created a great site (it was one of my favorite reads in the off-season) that has been overrun my a bunch of know-it-alls.  John's analysis, which relies heavily on statistics, invites debate and conjecture. I enjoy having my views tested, and seeing others viewpoints.  I do not understand people who resort to attacking people with different views, or who fail to see that even the best analysts of prospects are wrong more than 1/2 the time.  

This thread started off with a great summary of a change in thinking from one of the preeminent statistical analysts of minor leaguers. Buchhonz and Kershaw are both great pitching prospects.  Clay is a little closer and has shown more command.  Clayton is young with a TON of upside, but has some things to work on.  Why would anyone feel agitated enough over these facts to act like a 10 year old???  

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

-- Jonathan Swift

I have discovered this thread so late that I wonder if I should even bother putting in a comment, since people who posted earlier may have "moved on" by now. But for the sake of putting my thoughts on the record...

Nate Silver's comments about Kershaw were quite predictable, given Silver's known "bent" when it comes to pitching prospects, and that bent is really vintage stathead. I have witnessed a transformation in many statheads' attitudes towards pitching prospects over the last three years.  The anti-high school pitcher ideology that was once widespread and virulent has faded, in the wake of so many high school pitchers becoming great successes in the last three years, and every stathead now seems embarrassed by things like Michael Lewis, in Moneyball, poking fun at the Mets for drafting Scott Kazmir, and pointing to Jeremy Bonderman as an Oakland draft mistake.  But still, the old orthodoxy is not completely gone.  There is still a faction of sabermetricians out there that doesn't like HS pitchers, and at least in the abstract, many statheads still esteem "polish" over "potential" and "stats" over "tools" when it comes to amateur pitchers and minor league hurlers, not to mention preferring a little more age over a little more youth.  Silver has a lot invested in PECOTA, and that system has all of the old sabermetric biases built into it, such that, to my mind at least, Silver's conclusions about prospects often seem little more than cases of "Garbage in, garbage out."

Before the 2006 season, I jotted down the 2010 PECOTA projections for some Dodger prospects, expecting that come 2010 they would be quite hilarious.  They're hilarious already:  Martin (.255/.348/.387), Loney (.259/.333/.428), Kemp (.258/.310/.466), Billingsley (106.1 IP, 48 BB's, 90 K's, 4.09 ERA, as a "swingman").  Keep in mind that these 2010 projected stats are all BETTER than the players' projected stats for all years earlier than 2010. According to the 2006 PECOTA's, the players then in the Dodgers' system who were, are, supposed to be the best players in 2010 are Dioner Navarro (.286/.371/.448) and Delwyn Young (.273/.337/.498), two players scouts have never liked as much as Martin, Loney, Kemp, and Billingsley, and whom many scouts saw, and continue to see, as best suited to being mere bench players in the majors.

The Dodgers, under Logan White, follow a draft strategy that leads to the Dodgers' system being stocked with the kinds of players that PECOTA is automatically very skeptical of: high upside, toolsy players, usually out of high school and usually in need of a lot of polishing.  You think Kershaw is somehow unrepresentative of pitchers in the Dodgers system?  Oh, he is surely an unparalled talent, but he is practically the poster boy for the philosphy of the Dodgers' pitching development program:  missing bats is more important than throwing strikes for pitchers starting out their pro careers.  Command can be worked as one ascends the minor league ladder, and can continue to be honed in the majors. At Kershaw's age (19) in single A ball, Chad Bilingsley walked men at a rate worse than Kershaw (4.79 per 9 innings, to Kershaw's 4.62) Three years later, Billingsley walked only 3.92 men per 9 innings, in the majors.  For years now, I have noticed that the entire pitching staffs of all of the various Dodger minor league affiliates consistently lead or rank near the top of their leagues in BOTH strikeouts and walks. Dodger minor league pitching staffs are also usually the youngest in their leagues.  Logan White's philosophy is not just "different" than that of Nate Silver and other sabermetrics guys; it is opposite to it, and by design, not mistake. So why should we expect the products of White's draft efforts to nicely fit Silver's Procustean bed?

OF COURSE Silver is not high on Kershaw relative to other pitchers who more closely approximate his vision of the ideal pitching prospect, and if you are in agreement with Silver's preconceptions, you are likely to hold Kershaw in the same regard.  But what of those of us who are on Logan White's page, not Silver's? I want to know what people in the scouting world think, and Silver can preach to his choir all he likes.  As far as Kershaw versus Buchholz is concerned, this is what is relevent to me: (1) In writing Kershaw's profile for Kershaw when he made up his Midwest League Top 20 Propsect list for Baseball America, Jim Callis quoted a scout who said of Kershaw, "He was by far the highest ceiling minor league arm I saw all year. The second best was Clay Buchholz." Buchholz being #2 is no shame, but what sticks out to me are the words "by far."  Kershaw was not just a bit ahead of Buchholz. Kershaw was ahead "by far." It wasn't close at all. And (2) During the Dec. 4 chat at BA that accompanied the posting of the Dodgers' Top 10 Prospects list, BA writer Alan Matthews, who is leaving BA because he has been hired as a scout by the Colorado Rockies, was asked "How would you rank the following pitchers in terms of impact in the next five years: Kershaw, Buchholz, Chamberlain, Hughes, Gallardo, Bailey, Dice-K?" Matthews replied: "Kershaw, Bailey, Matsuzaka, Chamberlain, Hughes, Buchholz."  In response to another question, Matthews said that a number of scouts have given him Steve Carlton as a "comp" for Kershaw, although Matthews actually called Kershaw "Koufax" by mistake (a Freudian slip, perhaps).

So, this is where I am at on Kershaw relative to Buchholz. I have seen both pitchers work and I liked what I saw in Kershaw better, but I'm not a scout, so I put a lot of stock in what the people who are scouts think.  I care more about potential than polish, because it is where prospects end up, so to speak, and not what they do along the way that really matters.  Which is not to say that what they do along the way is irrelevent. It is just the small picture and not the big one.

This is like debating if Cindy Crawford's mole makes her prettier or not. No one knows who will be the better pitcher, but I'll take a guy who has command of 4 pitches over a guy who doesn't yet have command of 2 pitches.

for years about all this talent the Dodgers have. When is this talent going to translate into a winning playoff team? Now we are hearing all about this talent down in the minors again while Arizona and Colorado have clearly passed them by. What does it matter if a pitcher is a lefty or righty? Fenway Park is conducive to the righty Buchholz, while Dodger Stadium is neutral to righties and lefties. It also seems to me that lefties take longer to develop control and command. A negative for Kershaw, who is being pushed and could end up with a sore arm like those 2-3 other pitchers the Dodgers have in the minors. Plus, you got Jaimie McCourt and her husband running the show there. A real negative. It'll be a long, long time before Kershaw gets a shot at a World Series ring, while Buchholz already has one.

Russell Martin - .293/.374/.469 (started AS game)
James Loney - .331/.381/.538 (only played in 96 games)
Matt Kemp - .342/.373/.521 (only played in 98 games)
Chad Billingsley - 147 IP, 3.31 ERA (was the best pitcher for the Dodgers in the second half)

Like wily mo said, Grady Little was playing guys like Nomar Garciaparra, Luis Gonzalez and Juan Pierre over the kids who were actually producing.

That many or most aces had control no better than Kershaw's at the same age doesn't tell you anything about the odds of his control improving like theirs.

Rather, you would need the list of all guys Kershaw's age with similar K and BB rates.  How many of those guys completely flamed out because they either got hurt or never did improve their command?  

That's what BP thinks PECOTA has discovered: that Kershaw's combination of youth and wildness makes it far more likely that he will not realize his upside than most people think, and far less likely than Buchholz.

So the question is, who's the better prospect: the guy who has an 85% chance of being Oswalt or Halladay or the guy who has a, what, 50-60% chance (number pulled from butt) of being Carlton or Koufax but a 40-50% chance of being Brien Taylor or Arthur Rhodes?