Why ARL is important for pitchers
by limozeen on Jun 16, 2010 3:14 PM EDT
Email
PrintI see a lot of posts about how age relative to league is not important for pitchers. I disagree.
Pitching prospects are different from hitting prospects, and I'd be the last person to argue with that. And because pitchers are different, pitcher ARL is important for a different reason than hitter ARL.
A .300/.370/.550 performance from a 19-year-old in AA is impressive for two primary reasons: 1) The list of hitters who have done similarly is exclusive and filled with awesome major leaguers, and 2) it typically means that a hitter is entering onto an advanced development track at an early stage, which means that they have lots of years of solid production before their peak years, and that their peak years should be great. Just look at Miguel Cabrera. He has already compiled 6.5 years before his age 27 season (this year). Averaging 33 homers and a .940 OPS even before peaking is the start of a Hall of Fame career.
Hitters have fairly linear development tracks. For the most part, you know what a .900 OPS by a teenager in AA means. And for the most part, it means that the player in question is a blue-chip prospect.
Pitchers often have non-linear development tracks. They also can have anomalously good seasons, even at young ages. A 2.00 ERA over a season doesn't carry the same weight as a 1.000 OPS, because a lot more players (even 19-year-olds in the upper minors) have lucked into the former than the latter.
Still, ARL is important for pitchers. Here's why:
1) Really young pitchers tend to be promoted to the high minors for some combination of the same two reasons: Their stuff or their control is really good, and they need to face advanced hitters to develop.
2) Having a combination of good stuff and good control is something that pretty much every pitcher needs to succeed.
3) The younger a pitcher has those things at an advanced level, the better. Almost every pitching prospect goes through some adversity, and the more chances a pitcher gets, the better his chances of eventually succeeding.
Young pitchers can change. They can fill out and gain velocity. They can have arm surgery, miss two full years, and still be of prospect age. They can add a pitch, change arm angle, transition to the bullpen, become a starter again, get traded, find success with a new pitching coach, and win a Cy Young award. We've even seen one pitcher who was extremely successful at a young age become a starting big league outfielder. Perhaps most importantly, teams give young pitchers the benefit of the doubt and they simply get chances that older pitchers don't.
I'm not arguing ARL is not all-important. But I'd argue it's just as important for pitchers as for hitters, albeit in a different way. The reason that Jordan Lyles is valuable is because he's a lottery ticket with many chances to pay out.
Obviously, at some point, a pitcher has to do enough things well to succeed in the bigs. I'm not arguing that an 18-year-old in AA who throws 85 MPH fastballs is automatically a better prospect than a flamethrowing 23-year-old in A ball. I do think that declaring ARL unimportant for pitchers is downright false. It's a very important thing to consider.
17 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hmmm....
I think it has to be a case-by-case situation, of course…
Two hitters with similar scouting profiles, similar track record, similar statistical success at the same level, about 99% of the time, the younger one is more valuable.
I’d say that can also be true for pitchers, but for me, the difference is not that great and sometimes I prefer the older pitcher. For instance, when Anibal Sanchez and Justin Verlander were in HiA in 2005, and both were doing really well. I actually valued Verlander more because he was closer to being out of the injury nexus for pitchers. While both were great prospects, I liked Verlander more because Sanchez was too young.
You’re completely right about projection. If a teenager with a good frame is hitting low-90s, then in my opinion, there is a greater chance he gains some as he finishes growing vs someone in their 20s.
But again, it’s a double-edged sword with young pitchers, as they’re in the injury nexus until early 20s(?)…
I posted something regarding Brackman in another thread. The description of stuff for this guy is really good. His performance has been good lately. And I’m less concerned about his age. For a hitter, being 24 in HiA is definitely a major ding. For a pitcher, it’s less so for me.
In the end, I think ARL is still less important to me than raw age, scouting profile, track record, and trends. When I prospect for pitchers, I’m more concerned about those things than what league they’re pitching in at the time. Of course, that rule is flexible as there are extremes, but generally, that’s my initial approach.
Poster formerly known as artie
shockingly, I disagree
I could respond to lots of things here, but I’ll just respond to your main three points.
1) Really young pitchers tend to be promoted to the high minors for some combination of the same two reasons: Their stuff or their control is really good, and they need to face advanced hitters to develop.
Not sure why you are limiting this to the “high minors”. If ARL matters, then it should matter at every age and at every level, from a teenager in short-season ball to a 20 year old Rick Porcello in the major leagues.
In any case, teams promote players for lots of reasons. Sometimes it’s for the reasons you state. Sometimes it’s because the organizations themselves are very aggressive with promotions. Sometimes it’s because the players are more skilled than the other players in the league. And sometimes it’s just because teams think their players can handle a promotion mentally. And I’m sure I’m leaving things out here, like a player getting into bad habits in order to find success against a certain level of competition. Lots of reasons. If I had to use a more holistic approach, I’d say that players typically get promoted when their organizations believe that they’ll learn more from playing against a particular level of competition than the one that they’re currently playing at. Things like “good stuff” or “good control” are too specific.
2) Having a combination of good stuff and good control is something that pretty much every pitcher needs to succeed.
I’m blown away by this one. Even setting aside the subjective concept of “success”, we know that there are plenty of major league players who have had good careers with very little of one and lots of the other. If we reduce the quality of competition to that found in the minor leagues (especially below AAA), then the threshold is even lower.
3) The younger a pitcher has those things at an advanced level, the better. Almost every pitching prospect goes through some adversity, and the more chances a pitcher gets, the better his chances of eventually succeeding.
Again . . .not really. Assume Pitchers A and B are both 20 years old. Pitcher A gets promoted to AA at age 20, sucks two years in a row. Pitcher B spends ages 20 and 21 in A ball pitching pretty well, gets promoted to AA. They’re both 22 and in AA ball. Who would YOU bet on to succeed this year, the guy who has spent two years getting wrecked against the same competition he’s about to face or the guy who has spent two years pitching pretty well, just at lower levels?
It’s a hypothetical situation, but I think it makes my point clear – inferior performance is never an acceptable substitute for superior performance. If one person walks into a wall three times and another person walks into the same wall two times, you’d probably be inclined to guess that the first person is less likely to figure out that they should avoid the wall on their next go-around. So it goes with minor league pitchers.
The only reason I focused on teenagers in the high minors is because of the pitchers who are attracting the “ARL doesn’t matter” argument fit that profile (Lyles and Bumgarner, primarily). It does matter at every level.
As for the “combination of good stuff and good control,” I didn’t mean to exclude the possibility that a pitcher has a lot of one and very little of the other. Pitchers who are prospects tend to get promoted for having a combo of these two things that will play at higher levels.
Finally, I’m not arguing that your situation in point #3 is invalid. If a pitcher is promoted too soon and sucks, that’s bad development, and it certainly hurts a prospect in my eyes. I’d much rather leave that 20-year-old in A and A+ for two years than promote young guys to AA and have them flame out before making the necessary adjustments.
My argument is simply that being faster along the development curve earlier is a good thing if the pitcher is succeeding at a young age. A guy like Bumgarner could lose his mechanics, have two arm operations, change organizations a couple times, and still resurface as a MLB starter in his mid 20s. You simply can’t say that about, say, Brayan Villareal.
ARL is part of the puzzle. I’m not saying that sorting a league by age will always yield the best prospects. I’m not saying that teams should be in the business of promoting pitchers simply so they’ll be young for their league. I’m not saying that given two prospects of the same age, the one at the higher level will always be the better prospect. I’m not saying that ARL for pitchers is the same as for hitters. I’m simply saying that being more advanced earlier is a good thing and is a often marker of future success.
I'll respond to your comments on point 3
In the situation that you outlined, a 20 year old starter (Bumgarner or whomever) might make it through all of those things . . .but when he emerges, he’s probably going to be a MUCH different player than he was when you liked him in the first place. It’s like George Washington’s axe . . .if the handle has been replaced three times and the head replaced twice, then yeah, it’s technically still George Washington’s axe . . .and yet it’s totally different.
Being advanced earlier is certainly not a BAD thing . . .but it really doesn’t tell us much at all. Pitching development is utterly, utterly bizarre. The more we learn, the more we realize that we really don’t know much at all. There’s data that suggests that pitchers can pick up velocity much later than we typically imagine they are capable of, and they often lose rather than gain stuff in the years when we suspect they’re most capable of making advancements. Add to that the sudden and unexpected development of new pitches, injuries of all sorts, environmental factors . . .pitching development isn’t just non-linear, it’s basically best described at this point by a bunch of arcs drawn haphazardly across a sheet of paper, criss-crossing each other constantly.
Of course, ARL for pitchers can also be a problem.
Take a guy like Martin Perez. Everyone goes nuts because of how advanced he was at a young age. Problem is, at such a young age he’s more of an injury risk than an older prospect simply because of how far he is from the injury nexus (age 24 typically, basically guys who get an injury before that time are a much higher risk of having recurring injury issues than those who pass the nexus without problems).
ARL obviously matters somewhat for pitchers… no one is saying its completely unimportant.
The point is its nowhere near as important as it is in evaluating position players. You cant assume a lineal development pattern for pitchers. Their stuff doesn’t often continue to get better the way a position player will continue to get better. When pitchers do get significantly better it tends to be in a spurt – as by adding a new pitch or figuring something out.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
I agree with what you’ve said, but I think this means that understanding ARL is just as important for pitchers as it is for hitters. For hitters, you pretty much know what certain stats at certain ages mean. For pitchers, you have to dig deeper to understand why an organization promoted or didn’t promote a player, why a pitcher is having success despite being young or old for the league, etc.
I think people make the mistake of assuming that because looking at ARL is not the end of the story for pitcher like it is for hitters, it’s unimportant. For me, it’s actually more important, because ARL for pitchers is the beginning of a process of analysis that ultimately ends with understanding pitching prospects on an arm-by-arm basis. Since pitchers are unique and their development is eccentric, the questions raised by ARL are incredibly useful to understanding pitchers and their development.
ARL = Useless
Case A
22 yo pitcher in A from University tears up A ball hitters.
- Throws 4 different pitches for strikes
- Commands the fastball
- Poise and ability to handle game situations and in-game adjustments
- Right handed with below average velocity, below average stuff, reasonable command
- Physically mature (filled out)
- Solid mechanics
Scouts – will be very pessimistic stating he will have problems as he moves up the levels. His stuff is tapped out and might have the ability to make the bullpen if his stuff improves in short bursts. Other than that he will be a 5 starter at best or possibly long man.
Case B
19 yo pitcher in A from HS struggles in A ball.
- has good velocity (90-92) on the FB, and has improving curve and change
- good movement on all pitches, curve at times has very sharp movement
- can lose consistency on pitches
- struggles with poise and ability to adjust
- Lanky with body projected to fill out, doesn’t throw max effort
- mechanics sound but a little sloppy
Scouts – pitcher shows solid MLB velocity and very good chance of improving with better mechanics and when filling out especially since he doesn’t throw max effort. Secondary pitches show flashes of plus and experience will improve. Also if more velocity then more armspeed which means secondary pitches can get even better.
Case C
28 yo pitcher in AA excels in AA ball.
- has excellent velocity (96-98) on the FB as a reliever but less as a starter, and has a wipeout slider that is inconsistent.
- Excellent movement on FB, slider is unhittable at times but hung too often
- Originally a starter
- Fully matured
- mechanics sound but max effort and long term risk of injury
Scouts – pitcher shows ability to develop as a very good starter but mechanics and consistency would mean a couple years at least to develop, will his arm last that long? As a reliever projects as a dominant setup or very good closer.
As you can see very different players, very different stuff, ages, levels, development paths.
Not once in the scout write was there anything about age. Physical size, maturity, experience, mechanics, competition of the level, experience (yes twice), game decisions & adjustments, projected size, projected role, projected mechanics and added (or lost) velocity
==> All of these things go into the rating. Age on it’s own has no relevance. Experience? yes. Ability for the body to fill out, yes. Mechanics (due to lack of skill/experience)? yes. etc. Birth certificate? No.
btw – the last was very loosely based on Ogando
Ogando
not disagreeing with your post, but that’s a pretty special and unusual case.
Freude schöner Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium, Freude!
the truly special part of the case
is what happened behind the scenes. We do frequently see players switch from position players to pitchers, have similar ages, and usually become relievers.
You just showed that age is not useless at all. Swap the ages of your B and C cases and you have completely different prospects. You’d never be asking yourself if you should keep C as a starter if he were 19.
Similarly, age is the crucial component to understanding why A is not a great prospect. A similar prospect who is younger would have more of a chance to mature physically.
I am not arguing that age, by itself, is the deciding factor in a pitching prospect’s status. But in conjunction with other factors, it is a crucial component of understanding a prospect.
sorry, disagree
swapping ages wouldn’t matter. Swapping experience would.
And younger pitchers do not always have more room for physical maturity. It’s just not true. It’s about experience, physical maturity, etc. They do matter. Age not so much.
Swapping ages would definitely matter! Especially in this extreme a case. A team doesn’t want a 28-year-old to go through a lengthy development process, which would waste their peak physical years in the minors, just to become a 31-year-old rookie starter. Make that guy 19, even with the same experience, and he’s likely considered one of the best SP prospects in the game.
It matters some, but a lot less
If I go to any minor league, and sort by age, I’ll still see a fair number of the better pitching prospects there in the youngest players. So there is certainly some correlation. One can of course argue that age is really only a proxy for experience, and that if you know stuff, physical projection, mechanics, and experience, you really don’t need to consider age. But this is all equally true of hitters.
In general I view ARL as a simple and useful tool, but not something that is used much for in depth analysis. It’s great as a quick way to screen for interesting guys in a league who you might have overlooked. I view this as similar to running stock screens for companies with good price to book, price to sales, debt to equity, or P/E ratios. But any serious investor is going to go on from there to look at the actual fundamentals of a business, and look in more depth at actual financial statements, etc. At which point, those simple ratios are less meaningful. Likewise, once you have looked at a pitcher in more depth, you aren’t worried anymore about ARL much. It’s more a quick and dirty way to look at guys you don’t know much about yet.
Looking at performance with regard to level is more useful for hitters in part because performance is a better predictor for hitters. For pitchers, performance below AA has very little predictive value, regardless of age. For hitters, the numbers can have a bit more predictive value, especially if you are considering things like walk rates, strikeout rates, extra base hits relative to strikeouts, etc.
I think it’s partly the low predictive value of stats that makes it really essential to know the scouting on pitching prospects, especially the raw stuff. In the long run, arm strength just ends up being so important for pitchers — everything else can be learned. This sort of thing is just much less true for hitters. Guys with raw tools, great strength, bat speed, etc, who still can’t hit at an age appropriate level don’t seem to suddenly figure it out as often as the power arms who learn mechanics, develop command, develop secondary pitches, etc.
There's been a lot of research on this.
Some individual pitchers buck the trend, but pitchers as a whole universally get worse as they get older, not better. The peak generally happens between 22-25, and then velocity declines. A very few get by through a radical transformation of their pitch types and the amount of movement they put on them.
ARL for pitchers has two key functions: 1) a guy with otherworldly stuff who’s in AA at the age of 19 or 20 and who’s erratic with his command has more time to tweak things and straighten himself out than a guy with the same stuff who’s 23-24. 2) the younger guy is more likely to improve his feel for his secondary offerings (and, in some cases, add entirely new pitches).
I have been guilty of saying “ARL is meaningless for pitchers” in the past. It’s a bit of an overstatement, and only really true in the precise context where I was using it. Where ARL IS meaningless is when you look at a guy’s numbers, look at his ARL, and assume he’s got some kind of huge upside because he’s young and can already compete at an advanced level. This doesn’t work unless the guy has major league quality stuff.
So yes, ARL matters (a little bit) in the refinement areas of pitching, but it doesn’t serve as a proxy for upside like it does for hitters.
The classic...
argument here centered around Deolis Guerra. Many people in the community accused non-fans like myself and others of being total idiots, because obviously a 17-year-old would gain velocity and projecting him as if it was a foregone conclusion. It doesn’t work like that. There’s no guarantee that a young pitcher will add velocity (many lose it), and as much as we talk about projectable frames, there is no way to predict which ones will.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Minor League Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
