Nate Silver on Clayton Kershaw - chat excerpt
I don't think this is subscriber info, so I'll post the whole thing instead of abridging. Originally tacked it into Prospect #37 diary, but then felt it had enough tranferrable value to hopefully spark some larger discussion, especially in regards to other prospects:
From the Dec 19 chat at BP:
David (Sonoma State University): Is Clayton Kershaw REALLY that good? Why aren't the Dodgers more willing to trade him considering that they have Scott Elbert?
Nate Silver: Clay did a bunch of work on the pitcher DTs this winter -- I mean, some really thorough, painstaking work -- and one thing he found is that the difficulty curve for minor league pitchers is much steeper that we'd previously believed. So to the extent that Kershaw is a top prospect, it's at this stage more a scouting thing than a numbers thing -- his high walk rates are almost as much of a minus as his high strikeout rates are a plus. He's still an excellent prospect, but he's leaps and bounds behind the Clay Buchholz class of pitchers.
I found this interesting for four reasons:
1) Back when we were debating Kershaw, there were a few in here that vehemently claimed his walks prevented them from placing him too high. FWIW, Silver/PECOTA agree, though I was really surprised to see him say that the walks almost COMPLETELY negated the high K rates, when predicting success; I'm pretty sure Artie was one of the guys leading that critique of Kershaw....
2)In his answer, Silver states flatly that Kershaw's distance from the majors (and walk rate) place him far behind Buchholz (for example) as a prospect. This doesn't surprise me in terms of risk/reward. but it DOES surprise me in terms of upside. Basically, that walk rate is a real problem, and until Kershaw fixes it, it affects not only his chances of reaches his "ceiling", but also the height of that ceiling in the first place.
3) This is not just applicable to Kershaw - this is a transferrable issue, as we have other prospects coming up in the community poll that this very much applies to - Adenhart jumps immediately to mind.
4) While I am mentioning Artie, one of the things I've noticed him saying a lot this "season" is that he's giving some older pitching prospects a bit of EXTRA credit, just due to the fact that they're closer and are maybe a little more projectable as _survivors_of the injury nexus. I'm wondering if this age things also plays into PECOTA/Davenport's predictions, in the sense that perhaps there's not much credit given for accomplishment at a young ARL IF the pitcher is really young.
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.
Do you guys buy it? Is Kershaw's ceiling really much lower Buchholz's - even after ignoring risk? Do his walks really hurt him that much?
And, who else coming up might this apply to? Adenhart, Lofgren, Elbert, ?????
0 recs |
110 comments
Comments
Without getting into any detail at all
by Roo on Dec 20, 2007 10:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well
by siddfynch on Dec 20, 2007 10:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
huh?
by McLovin on Dec 20, 2007 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Point taken
by siddfynch on Dec 20, 2007 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what the hell are you talking about?
by wily mo on Dec 20, 2007 10:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
See above
by siddfynch on Dec 20, 2007 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what the hell are you talking about?
by wily mo on Dec 20, 2007 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps you meant it humorously
Of course, that may have been heightened by being juxtaposed with McLovin's more diplomatic correction.
by siddfynch on Dec 20, 2007 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
by PujolsJunkie on Dec 20, 2007 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
er
by PujolsJunkie on Dec 20, 2007 10:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I dont have time to sit here
I have covered the greater East Texas area for approximately 10 years now.
That means that I have scene damn near everyone in anyones minor league system, since before they draft eligible.
I saw Bucholz numerous times at Angelina College (Lufkin) and I saw Kershaw numerous times while at Highland Park high school (Dallas).
Same for Austin Jackson.
by Roo on Dec 20, 2007 10:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Does that mean that
by ajohnst1 on Dec 20, 2007 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Im sure people here will agree Kershaw's is better.
No wait, Kershaw's curveball probably has the POTENTIAL to be a 150 out of 80. You have to take that over the 80/80 now any day of the week!
by alskor on Dec 20, 2007 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Im sorry, I got in a rush earlier
And I didnt mean to say everyone in the minor leagues, Ive actually seen very little minor league games outside of the Texas minor league teams (and those are minimal).
I meant that I have scene almost everyone that has been drafted out of east/northeast texas in the last 10 years.
That being said, Kershaw and Bucholz are not that far away from when I saw them both semi regularly.
Kershaw couldnt have improved his breaking ball much with Boston, he threw 95 at AC and that was his second best pitch.
by Roo on Dec 20, 2007 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Some more thoughts
- 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)
- 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).
- 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.
by siddfynch on Dec 20, 2007 10:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I would disagree with this statement
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.
by guru4u on Dec 20, 2007 10:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Honestly
by PujolsJunkie on Dec 20, 2007 10:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
My thoughts exactly
If Kershaw and Buchholz were on the same team pitching against the same teams every start this season, would Kershaw have the same numbers? Probably not.
But 4 years from now Kershaw is going to be a star.
by Roo on Dec 20, 2007 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
devil's advocate
by McLovin on Dec 20, 2007 11:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But I think one of the points here
It's not that he's just not ready to be a dominant prospect in AAA right now...it's that he's less likely to be in four years, too.
(It's too bad that Elbert was hurt was this year, because he could have been a nice comp for how these same issues play out a year into the future)
by siddfynch on Dec 20, 2007 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok, here's the thing.
elbert has never had a BB/9 lower than about 4.5 at any level. kershaw's was that high this year, but remember last year when he came in and had a 54/5 K/BB in rookie ball and nobody could shut up about his amazing poise and command? it's a low level and a small sample, but i think it does mean something.
kershaw's walk rate also trended down for most of this year.
http://www.minorleaguesplits.com/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?pl=477132&tm=GreMDW&bp=p
http://www.minorleaguesplits.com/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?pl=477132&tm=JacSL&bp=p
... i don't know why minorleaguesplits has him assigned to the GCL reds for most of the year, but that's a separate issue. anyway, to wit: he started out around 5, but had it under 4 for july and august (combined). then it spiked to over 6 in august, which i've seen attributed to first-full-season fatigue (+ the jump to AA).
i know that's a lot of hand-waving, but considering everything, i don't really think of kershaw as a pitcher with a serious where-it's-going problem the same way i think of, say, scott elbert or franklin morales. most scouts still seem to believe that he's on track to develop plus command at the end of the day. i don't want to post the full text, but BA's writeup of him on the dodgers list goes into detail about a specific, correctable flaw in his delivery that they think led to the walks this year.
by wily mo on Dec 20, 2007 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it's handwaving
Of course, it leads to the question - what about a guy with good stuff whose never needed to have such a correction?
by siddfynch on Dec 20, 2007 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I dont know if that's a lot of hand-waving
His walks are a serious problem right now any way you cut it, and there is nothing he can do to overcome that besides come out next year and cut the walks down.
That's far from a sure thing.
by alskor on Dec 20, 2007 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well switch Clay for Joba
this may not be news to you -- it's not news to me, either -- but our community prospect list has Joba behind Kershaw, so it'd seem to be news to a lot of people here.
Kershaw is the ultimate bauble -- a very high ceiling, but still a long way to go. so one can compare ceilings all you want, but Chamberlain and Buccholz have shown they can do it at the major league level.
by scooter on Dec 20, 2007 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing is...
Two words: Injury. Nexus.
by alskor on Dec 20, 2007 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pulling a Wily Mo
i do want to say I still have Kershaw in the top 5-6 pitching prospects off the top of my head.
He's still awesome, and the first thing I look at is K rate, so he's an eye popper.
Still, the only guys I dont favorably compare him to are the elite guys who are close to/in the majors... ie. Joba, Clay, Hughes,
I dont know about McGee... his arsenal is limited compared to the others. I probably have Kershaw over Homer even.
Here's an intersting discussion: why are Fautino and Kershaw ranked so far away from eachother? hype?
by alskor on Dec 20, 2007 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
one more...
by alskor on Dec 20, 2007 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And note
by siddfynch on Dec 20, 2007 11:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I looked up a few guys
Santana, Bedard, Peavy, and Webb were all in the mid-to-low 3's for the minors. Beckett never walked more than 2.30 BB/9 at any level of the minors.
The majority of the guys I looked up (including some I didn't mention in this post, like Schilling and Halladay) have significantly lower walk rates in the majors compared to the minors.
by patsfan on Dec 20, 2007 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
re:
Santana, Peavy and Webb pretty much have been great most of their time in the majors.
by McLovin on Dec 20, 2007 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
Smoltz
Maddux
Schmidt
Brown
Glavine
Oswalt
Pedro
Beckett
Schilling
Harang
Johnson
Leiter
Nomo
Saberhagen
Hudson
Clemens
Mussina
Halladay
Sheets
Harang (maybe - is he there yet)
Felix (not there yet, but let's pencil him in)
Lackey
Haren (almost there)
Webb
Carpenter
etc.
I can't recall the MiLB careers of all these guys, but I think Hudson, Leiter, Harang, and maybe Schmidt had spotty walk rates.
by siddfynch on Dec 20, 2007 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wood
Age 19, A+, 114 IP, 70 BB, 136 K
Age 20, AA, 152 IP, 131 BB, 186 K
The man walked 131 the season before he posted a 3.40 ERA in the Show. His career ERA+ is 117. Of the all the prospects in 1998, he ranked 13th in value despite missing a full season.
On another note, can anybody else believe Kerry Wood is 30?
by rwperu34 on Dec 20, 2007 11:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you love artie so much
by Dfarth on Dec 20, 2007 11:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm already taken
by siddfynch on Dec 20, 2007 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
re: He's 19!
by McLovin on Dec 20, 2007 11:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
to be clear
by wily mo on Dec 20, 2007 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have never wavered
My only point is, looking at the big picture, Kershaw has a really good shot to to be superstar caliber pitcher.
Knock him for his walks, despite the fact that his incredible rookie ball numbers (I know, I know, their rookie ball, but he was pounding the strike zone there) there are also downsides to to Bucholz.
Mainly him being 5'10" (honestly thats generous) is main concern.
by Roo on Dec 20, 2007 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait
Secondly, Buchholz put up some pretty impressive numbers, too, and also has a pretty good shot to be a superstar caliber pitcher.
In fact, Im 100% certain that Buchholz has a better shot than Kershaw right now of being a superstar caliber pitcher. I dont know who could claim differently. If you really had to bet $1,000 on it right now no one in their right mind would take Kershaw over Clay. If you want to say the walks is the reason, fine. If you want to say the attrition rates of young pitchers, fine. Either one is good, but there is no way the smart money goes on Kershaw.
That's the point here and that's why Clay, Joba and perhaps a couple others should have been above him.
by alskor on Dec 20, 2007 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
buch
http://thebaseballcube.com/players/B/Clay-Buchholz.shtml
by WakeboardJock on Dec 20, 2007 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Doc Gooden?
by GuyinNY on Dec 21, 2007 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Buchhlolz vs Kershaw
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.
by rwperu34 on Dec 20, 2007 12:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Good point
Heck, even if we were talking about an A ball pitcher without the questions Kershaw has(lets say we drop Kershaw's BB/9 to 2.5/3 - kind of resembles Phil Hughes...) I think you would still be crazy not to take Buchholz above that pitcher.
Another issue, fwiw, is the probability that cutting down on the walks migh mean the K rate goes down a little too. It probably his wildness has been a help, K wise, at that level. Often guys who have to take a little off(Mazzone-Braves style) in order to control it lose a little K rate.
by alskor on Dec 20, 2007 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
This also has application to a debate of Kershaw vs. similar-level prospect with slightly less stuff but much better command (would McGee qualify for this?), or any other comparison of GreatStuff + PoorCommand vs. GoodStuff+GoodCommand. Maybe the minor league careers of Homer Bailey vs. Matt Garza, say. (Don't kill me DOug, I'm just trying to think of an example of each).
by siddfynch on Dec 20, 2007 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Garza/Bailey
Those two circa 2008 vs Kershaw are very interesting. I had forgotten all about Bailey, even though he's listed right here under Cueto. Bailey is obviously more MLB ready than Kershaw and has similar stuff and a similar scouting profile. What it will come down to is if I really think Bailey is a higher injury risk, despite being older and closer. This is one good reason why I say things like "I assume so and so will be ranked here." Just sitting here right now, I think I'd go with Bailey ahead of Kershaw even though I had forgot all about him earlier. That will push Kershaw down another notch to #5 pitching prospect.
Now, here is the million (actually, ten million) dollar question. If you could have one or the other, right now, who would you choose, Kershaw or Garza? Garza is MLB ready, but has less scouting and less ceiling. His 2007 ARL numbers were not significantly, if at all, better than Kershaw. So, who do you take?
by rwperu34 on Dec 20, 2007 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
by McLovin on Dec 20, 2007 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree on Garza
I hope the Rays can hold onto him long enough for their young guys to develop.
by Roo on Dec 20, 2007 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As a Dodger fan
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.
by Thinkblue on Dec 20, 2007 6:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
deeper repertoire?
Clay has a plus fastball
plus curve (some say plus plus)
plus change (again some say plus plus)
Clayton has a plus fastball
plus curve
His fastball might become plus plus. But his control/command now is shaky.
So how does he have a deeper repertoire.
by pedrophile on Dec 20, 2007 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i think you need...
also, though you KNOW i'm not a Kershaw fan, the change-ups supposed to have a lot of potential as well.
by bleedjaxblue on Dec 20, 2007 7:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
You keep saying that, but you know its not true. You just don't want to get your hopes so high after the Jackson/Miller fiascoes.
by npurcell on Dec 20, 2007 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"fan" relatively speaking
i think he's really, really overrated for someone who's so far off and has shown so little. obviously, you don't need me to reiterate why i feel that way.
it's not going to stop me from being excited about him and his upside. but he's not the Justin Upton of pitchers, and i'd need to see more on the field before anointing him anything. and it's especially disturbing how early people proclaimed him great -- makes it harder to believe he is now, when he's actually had a little over a year on the field.
by bleedjaxblue on Dec 20, 2007 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree +1
Its just there are some guys who are close who look as great. I expect Kershaw to join their ranks in a year or two, but he still has some things to prove to me before I lump him in with the very best.
by alskor on Dec 20, 2007 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There are probably some good points
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
by vaclipper on Dec 20, 2007 9:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
sigh
Mostly limited to Kershaw and Bucholz, though - I had hoped to spark some discussion about 1) whether walks really negate Ks, and 2) how this applied to lesser prospects we'll be debating in a week or so. I think I should have separated my diary into 2 topics.
by siddfynch on Dec 20, 2007 9:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought your original post was great
Using statistical analysis to project pitching is one of the most difficult challenges facing stat heads. BP's original approach was to throw their hands up and claim TINSTAAPP. Davenport's translations for pitchers never held up well as many pitchers struggle their 1st or second time through. That Davenport had found an improvement seems intersting and possibly enlightening. Especially since other less mainstream sites like Baseball notebook and diamond futures seem to give a lot of importance to minor league walk rates and HR rates. (BN had Scott Baker as it's number 1 prospect one year, I believe).
Instead, we got another tastes great, no less filling type of discussion. I'm sad to say, that I'm very close to taking this site off my bookmarks list. If I didn't like John's work so much, I would have done so long ago.
by vaclipper on Dec 20, 2007 10:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Walks negating Ks...
I think its certainly a major concern in terms of plus vs. minus side of the equation when we're talking about a guy in A ball.
The primary concern to me is whether his K's are an output of his wildness. You have to wonder if the guy can really get out advanced hitters by pitching, or if he just has one really unhittable pitch... or is too wild but A ball hitters cant take advantage.
I always wonder whether we're seeing a Daniel Cabrera type when I look at an A ball guy who walks too many but has a nice K rate. Will the guy lose a lot off that k rate when he finally learns how to command his pitches... and learns how to pitch rather than throw?
by alskor on Dec 20, 2007 11:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this won't be the answer but might be interesting
by dew on Dec 20, 2007 11:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what the hell are you talking about?
if that's rude, i guess it was rude. but praising the original post and bemoaning the inhumanity of the commenters doesn't change the fact that the original post is kind of logically haywire and a certain amount of static in the resulting discussion is therefore to be expected. i probably could have phrased it in a more chill way, but i think it was fairly clear that the overall thrust of my point was a criticism of flawed reasoning, which really ought to be fair game on a discussion forum. honestly i'd have hoped that i had enough track record here at this point for people to be able to puzzle out that i'm actually one of the least dickish people on the site, but i guess not.
by wily mo on Dec 20, 2007 11:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
also
that might actually be the only real personal insult i can find on this whole thread. seriously - you say "nearly every poster" - besides my thing, which i've already covered, where are the terrible 10-year-olds? i just re-read the whole thread and i'm baffled as to what you're even referring to.
by wily mo on Dec 20, 2007 11:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW
I'm not sure I agree that the entire diary is predicated on a misread - the "ceiling" part was one small part of my post, and I put it in quotes originally specifically because I could not think of a suitable word for what I was trying to say...thesaurus failure, but hey. Upside, apex, aympstote, uterine canal, whatever you want to call it, Silver was saying that his XXXXX was maybe not as high as we all thought because of the walks.
I'll also freely admit that, although I have tremendously thick skin in my pro life, I get annoyed a little to easily at flames on this site. This thread here kind of summarizes how I feel, and why http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2007/5/15/215842/221
I'm with natsfan, i guess, on the topic in general.
also, i have no idea what tase means. not down with that lingo, i guess.
by siddfynch on Dec 21, 2007 1:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok
are you still saying you think silver was saying kershaw's X - where X is not risk but rather something to do with his overall, ideal, perfect-world potential - is somehow (lower than/not as high as) buchholz'sz because of walks? if so, can you please show me specifically which part of the silver quote is giving you that, and explain why?
by wily mo on Dec 21, 2007 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
important correction
by jpahk on Dec 21, 2007 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kershaw vs. Buchholz
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.
by CanuckDodger on Dec 21, 2007 6:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Gallardo
by CanuckDodger on Dec 21, 2007 7:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good stuff
It is interesting to think that bad control in one organization may be just a poorly developed skill, while bad control in another may be the byproduct of instructional focus.
by siddfynch on Dec 21, 2007 8:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Matthews
Where I am less on board are the Alan Matthews comments. I personally do not hold what is said in chats, even by experts, very highly. A chat host thinks about the questions for maybe 30-45 seconds then starts typing. I'm not going to let something from that flaky format trump all the stats and articles I've come across. People on this site soak alot of time into their top 50 lists, and despite this, when people challenge them for explanations, they often realize even they suddenly don't like some of the placements on their lists. The point being, coming up with a list based on research is hard enough - coming up with one off the top of your head in 45 seconds is dubious.
If Matthews published an article on BA that he presumably put extensive thought into and shared his reasons, I'd be happy to reconsider my position on Clay vs others. Until then, a chat answer isn't moving my needle.
by McLovin on Dec 21, 2007 8:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Matthews
Also, let me note that I never said that anybody who ranks Buchholz ahead of Kershaw on a prospect list is out of line. For me, the two are definitely in the same "class." Buchholz is not some soft-tosser. He has great stuff, and he has certainly proven himself at higher levels than Kershaw, though I balance that with the point that Buchholz was still pitching for Angelina Junior College at the age that Kershaw was when Kershaw was in the Double A Southern League. What I objected to in Nate Silver's comments is the implication that Kershaw is somehow a good distance from Buchholz and Buchholz' "class," and the idea that Kerhsaw's walk rate was somehow really damning, when I think power arms Kershaw's age, with pitches that are thrown hard and move a lot, are almost bound to walk a lot of batters in the course of putting up big strikeout numbers.
by CanuckDodger on Dec 21, 2007 9:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
re: nut
It's not a matter of me thinking Matthew's is a nut. I don't agree with Nate Silver alot of the time, but I don't think he's a nut either. The important thing is to know their reasons for thinking why they do. Nate does provide reasons even if some of them point to black box metrics. I can then make a judgment how much weight I give to his reasons in my own personal ledger.
Matthews could see something he doesn't like with Buchholz. That's fine. We all have different takes. But without explanation at this point it comes across only as opinion - that's not enough for me. Doesn't mean I think he's a nut or not good at what he does - but you've got to share your reasons if your going to take a stance that's considerably against the grain and want people to buy into it.
by McLovin on Dec 21, 2007 10:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
There's something to be said for when a player is ready to produce in the majors, particularly at a high level the way Bucholz is. But, Kershaw's potential is just jaw-dropping, and honestly, it's what makes me think of him as the best prospect in baseball.
by GuyinNY on Dec 21, 2007 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Very true
Since it's pitchers we are talking about, I would be more likely to go the Bucholz route. Switch the argument to position players, and I'll take the higher upside play every single time.
by guru4u on Dec 21, 2007 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Misses the point.
That's why he's ahead. No one is arguing that close to the majors >>> potential. When you have two studs close to the majors is a big difference.
Clay isnt exactly a scrub. He's ultra high ceiling AND close to the majors. If you want to argue Kershaw has a higher ceiling, fine, but no way is his ceiling so much higher than Clay's that he is the better prospect. Its practically impossible, even if he were flawless, and he isnt. Walks galore.
by alskor on Dec 21, 2007 10:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like we disagree then!
Why is this such a touchy subject that everyone seems to be on edge about?
by guru4u on Dec 21, 2007 11:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And by the way Alskor....
You might have missed the point too - I did say at the end of my message that if given the choice today, I'd take Bucholz over Kershaw because he is closer to the bigs.
Settle down and go have a cookie dude.
by guru4u on Dec 21, 2007 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think youre reading some sort of
I still think youre underrating Buchholz upside though. Take another look at him. If we wanted to rank pitching prospects on upside alone where would he fall(interesting discussion, right?):
off the top of my head(and you absolutely cant hold me to this:
Kershaw
Joba
?
Clay
How far does Clay fall? And if you cant put like twenty names between Joba and Clay I dont see how you can have Kershaw higher than him as a prospect. Im saying if we account for the gap in upside I dont think it makes up for the MLB readiness issue...
by alskor on Dec 21, 2007 11:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
I would agree - Clay has a high upside too. Kershaw's is just higher.
And again, if you read the last line of my original post, I say that although Kershaw's upside is higher, I would take Bucholz because of the "certainty" he has. With pitching prospects, because the replacement value is a huge gap from average to poor, I think you have to take the safe play 9 times out of 10.
But the gap between the two is a lot smaller than some evidentally think.
by guru4u on Dec 22, 2007 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Matthews
As I said earlier, I agree with Nate, but for a different reason. He doesn't like Kershaw because of the walks, I don't like him because of the potential for injury and he'll be starting his MLB career two seasons behind.
FWIW, I took a look back at the 1998 top pitching prospects and every single one of them had issues with command in A ball or at age 19 except one, Halladay, and he didn't K anywhere near a man an inning. I went a step furthur and took a look at the K/9 leaders for A-ball in 1997 and found that of the players with a similar age adjusted statistical profile to Kershaw (none could match him), the only one who didn't make it was Lindsay Gulin. NOte that he walked more and Kd less despite being a year older. Brian Fuentes put up almost identical numbers, but he was two years older. The most similar pitcher was John Patterson. I believe he's the perfect illustration as to why Kershaw is a big risk.
by rwperu34 on Dec 21, 2007 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hmm
i've communicated with nate silver and he's a pretty reasonable guy. my impression is that he's trying to make PECOTA the most accurate projection system it can be. that's a very different goal from trying to promote certain types of thinking or types of players. if you found some systematic reason it was misevaluating dodgers prospects, and you pointed it out to him, i'm pretty certain he'd fix it. last year i suggested in a chat that he add draft slot (and/or bonus $$) as a similarity variable for prospects, thinking that it would help weed out some of the weirder projections (e.g. mitch einertson 2005). lo and behold, he's done exactly that this year, and PECOTA is better off because of it.
related to this--i think it's important to distinguish "what nate silver thinks about a prospect" from "what PECOTA/DTs say about a prospect." i guess if you believe that silver and the other guys tailor the inputs to match their own preconceived biases, you will not be convinced that these two are, in fact, different. but i think they're different. what silver said in the chat was basically "according to new research into the DTs, walks are a bigger problem for low-minors pitching prospects than we thought previously. this fact will cause stats-based projections of clayton kershaw to be way behind those of somebody like clay buchholz."
this isn't at all the same thing as saying kershaw isn't a good prospect. he even explicitly says that this is just about stats, and the scouts still love him. it also doesn't mean that silver doesn't like kershaw. i don't know whether he does or not. but i'd be willing to bet that if he doesn't like him, it's because PECOTA doesn't--and not the other way around.
by jpahk on Dec 21, 2007 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tools
I suspect a similar situation will occur with Kershaw this year. It would be difficult to have Kershaw rated as less than the fifth best pitching prospect heading into 2008, but I believe PECOTA will have him ranked much lower than that, and Bailey even furthur down. This is because Bailey and Kershaw will have comparables that throw 5+ MPH softer.
by rwperu34 on Dec 22, 2007 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's Not How Statheading Works
You can't tweak or twist a system like PECOTA to match an existing bias. That's just not the way this sort of analysis works. You have an enormous pile of data and you try to find patterns. You run with whatever you find.
Now, it is true that you are likelier to find evidence for an idea you already have than an idea you've never had. However, what seems to have happened here is much simpler.
-- There are huge challenges in constructing minor-league translations (level to level including MLB). And that's because players who are promoted or demoted mid-season are likely to have performed uncharacteristically (hot / lucky, cold / unlucky) before the level change.
-- Therefore, guys like Clay Davenport are continually improving their translation systems.
-- Apparently, he's just done so, and that would mean that every minor league number in their PECOTA database was changed instantly.
-- When they re-ran the existing system of correlations and projection factors, they just as instantly discovered that high BB rates were more of a negative for low-minors or young pitchers than previously thought.
That's a world removed from Nate Silver looking to change PECOTA to fit his biases.
Time will tell if the new DT's improve PECOTA's accuracy for prospects.
See my post at the end of the thread for a key issue here.
by Eric Van on Dec 21, 2007 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Eric
by McLovin on Dec 21, 2007 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's Buried on Their Site
One thing you want to do is get the translated EqA at each level (MLB from the main EqA page, not this one, where the MLB numbers are out of date) and combine them by weighting by PA.
by Eric Van on Dec 21, 2007 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ugh!
by HumboltThunderbolt on Dec 21, 2007 11:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
By That Criterion...
And I am surprised that nobody in this thread (unless I missed it) has even brought up the fact that Kershaw is a lefty, as if in the world of baseball that didn't make Kershaw an inherently superior piece of humanity compared to a mere right-hander.
by CanuckDodger on Dec 21, 2007 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We've been hearing....
by HumboltThunderbolt on Dec 21, 2007 12:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Exactamundo
Do you expect more of Billingsley? I think Kemp has a better ceiling than that. BUT I also think youre misinterpreting how PECOTA works. Do you subscribe to BP? or was that from a blurp in an article some place. B/c you definitely shouldnt be taking a guy's PECOTA for four years down the road from their rookie season and run with it. Those are just for fun, more or less. If you view a full PECOTA card you can see the big picture. There are reasons PECOTA comes up with those numbers.
by alskor on Dec 21, 2007 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
PECOTA
by Thinkblue on Dec 21, 2007 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
B/c
by alskor on Dec 21, 2007 10:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Look at last year
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.
by Thinkblue on Dec 21, 2007 2:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Selection Bias is the Key Issue
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?
by Eric Van on Dec 21, 2007 4:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Bingo
No way do I have access to the kind of info that would entail....hence the poor man's approach above) of taking the "top-down" approach and retrospectively seeing whether any of the current stalwarts had even passed thru such an eye of a needle. And I must say, quite a few did have some 3.5 - 5.0 walk rates at low levels. But I recognize that does not speak to Kershaw's odds.
by siddfynch on Dec 21, 2007 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, this thread is way old...
My concerns with Kershaw are similar to my concerns with Delmon Young. I think they both have high ceilings, but their performance trends are not what you want to see in a top prospect. No one can argue that. And in order for them to reach their potential, they will need to reverse those trends.
My evaluation methods are built in part to find next big prospects, and in part to uncover next big suspects. And I'm far less forgiving with pitchers than hitters.
Last year I had Kershaw ranked as one of my top 5-10 minor league pitchers (a domination rating of over 1.5 plus his scouting reports couldn't be ignored). Even against my better judgment of avoiding teenage pitchers, that ranking made me go and get him out of rookie ball. The same method saw his value dip this year, mainly because his control was terrible, and so I traded him off. My concern about his control is compounded by his age.
I'll readily admit that my methods will cause me to miss some stars. And I'm more than open to being convinced about certain guys (like people on this site convinced me about Price, and even tho I am still worried about his velocity, I traded for him), but I'm prospecting from a fantasy perspective. I won't catch all the stars, but if I can increase my ratio of prospects to suspects, then I'll be ahead of the game. If I catch guys like King Felix, Delmon, Hamels, Garza, Gallardo, Pence and others, then I'm ok missing out on guys like Billz or Wells.
That said, do I think Kershaw has a higher ceiling than Clay? Yeah, I can't deny that. Kershaw could be a Kazmir-type, he could K 11 per 9. He's got the stuff to really dominate in terms of controlling baserunners and striking out people.
I love Clay, he's my #1 pitching prospect, because he's got the combination of great stuff, deep repetroire (4 plus pitches, when a low-to-mid 90s moving FB is your 4th best pitch, you're something special), in his 20s, and some of the best high level pitching stats that we've seen in a couple of years. I could see him getting 200ks a season. His ceiling may not be as high, but he's doing it now, in the majors.
I'd give away a little ceiling for the considerable drop in risk that I get going from Kershaw to Clay. So would I trade Kershaw for Clay? In a second.
by beastball on Dec 21, 2007 11:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah...
In so far as my preference for slightly older pitchers, it's because of a couple of things, and I'll be the first to admit it's based off of anecdotal experience after doing this for 15 years or so, BUT...
It's a combination of two things. The first is the main knock on pitching prospects which is their susceptibility to injury, and so I prefer to see a prospect who is close to fully physically mature before they take on a heavy pitching workload (the last I'd read, the shoulder is the last to mature and that happens in the early 20s.) So this is why I tend to avoid teenagers, especially ones in full season throwing alot of pitches (as a combination of either alot of innings and reasonable walks, or alot of walks and reasonable innings)
The second is that pitchers seem to development is bursts, unlike hitters who seem to have a smoother development path. So when I see a guy who has good stuff and seems to put it together, I grab them even if they are a bit old (like when I grabbed Rich Hill), so this makes me somewhat discount age v comp when it comes to pitchers. Within reason, I don't care. If they have the stuff, and show they know what to do with it, then that's good enough for me.
And if you combine those two, then that's why I tend to favor slightly older pitching prospects, like De Los Santos.
Again, as I said, this isn't a rule driven by hard data, it's anecdotal stuff. And while it does make me occasionally miss on guys like Wood, it also lets me avoid having to drop as many guys because they end up like Wood.
by beastball on Dec 21, 2007 11:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 










