Young Pitcher Symposium: Rich Harden
Most Similar Pitchers to Rich Harden (by Sim Score)
- Jake Peavy (978)
- Stan Williams (978)
- Cal Koonce (978)
- Jim Maloney (977)
- Roger Clemens (976)
- Melido Perez (974)
- Brett Myers (974)
- Harry Howell (973)
- Jerome Williams (973)
- Gil Meche (971)
Floyd Youmans
Dennis Martinez
Jaret Wright
Don Robinson
Ramon Martinez
Dave Moorhead
Ray Culp
Tom Gordon
It's ironic that three of the most similar pitchers to Harden are themselves current young pitchers. Whether that's a good sign or a bad sign or irrelevant, I don't know.
I came up with the "other comparables" by a combination of 2004 PECOTA, and looking up comparables to some of Harden's comparables (it makes sense if you think about it). When the 2005 PECOTAs are released, we will have more information to look at. I thought about delaying the Young Pitcher Symposium until then, but reader interest in this topic is quite high and I didn't want to put it off. We'll revisit the issue later this season.
This list looks good. . .for the most part these are hard-throwing right-handers. The presence of Clemens will certainly get hearts beating quickly among Oakland fans, but Jim Maloney and Stan Williams were damn good too. There are also some early burnouts and injury guys, as you'd expect.
Harden's comp list is a bit more impressive than Beckett's, if harder to interpret long-term due to the presence of three current other youngsters. Beckett does have better command, and after thinking about it for some time I think I'd rather have him right now than Harden. But it is close.
Tomorrow we'll hit Jake Peavy. I have decided to continue this discussion into next week, but I don't want people to get bored with the topic, so we'll summarize next week, then revisit the topic later this spring.
What say you, readers? Harden or Beckett?
0 recs |
103
comments
Comments
hmmmm
Simply put, the FLA system scares me. They do a horrific job protecting the young arms that go through there. I think Beckett has better stuff but he is in a bad pitching system that does not protect arms well.
So given that, I'd go with Harden...acknowledging that Beckett is, IMO, a better pitcher but also a greater risk due to the abusive team he pitches for...
by jayho on Feb 23, 2005 3:28 PM EST 0 recs
I'll take Beckett
by Ienpw on Feb 23, 2005 3:30 PM EST 0 recs
If Beckett was in the OAK system
Simply put, the FLA system scares me. They do a horrific job protecting the young arms that go through there. I think Beckett has better stuff but he is in a bad pitching system that does not protect arms well.
So given that, I'd go with Harden...acknowledging that Beckett is, IMO, a better pitcher but also a greater risk due to the abusive team he pitches for...
by jayho on Feb 23, 2005 3:31 PM EST 0 recs
I'll take Beckett
by Ienpw on Feb 23, 2005 3:31 PM EST 0 recs
I'd probably take Harden
But also because Harden is 2 years younger then Beckett.
by Zonis on Feb 23, 2005 3:32 PM EST 0 recs
Each his own
by kannc6 on Feb 23, 2005 3:44 PM EST 0 recs
Hmmm...
by danielj on Feb 23, 2005 3:44 PM EST 0 recs
Good point about the K rate.
1. Randy Johnson
2. Kerry Wood
3. Pedro Martinez
4. Nolan Ryan
5. Sandy Koufax
6. Hideo Nomo
7. Sam McDowell
8. Curt Schilling
9. Dan Plesac
10. Lee Smith
11. Roger Clemens
12. Eric Plunk
13. Sid Fernandez
14. J.R. Richard
15. David Cone
16. Tom Gordon
17. Jesse Orosco
18. Chan Ho Park
19. Matt Clement
20. John Smoltz
Just about all of them have pitched in the last 10-15 years. It does make what Koufax did that more impressive though.
by Ienpw on
Feb 23, 2005 3:51 PM EST
up
0 recs
J.R.!!!
by sabernar on
Feb 23, 2005 4:12 PM EST
up
0 recs
Steve Treder wrote an excellent article on this
He's writing about a database that compares strikeouts (and walks) to norms for the timeperiod and produces a number similar to era+ or ops+.
He concludes that pitchers strike out more batters because batters don't care as much about striking out anymore and will take a big cut with two strikes, etc.
Top 10 by season
- Dazzy Vance 1915-1935 216
- Rube Waddell 1897-1910 190
- Randy Johnson 1988-2004 182
- Amos Rusie 1889-1901 179
- Nolan Ryan 1966-1993 178
- Toad Ramsey 1885-1890 174
- Pedro Martinez 1992-2004 171
- Sandy Koufax 1955-1966 169
9T. Lefty Grove 1925-1941 163
Top 10 Career
- Dazzy Vance 1924 290
- Rube Waddell 1902 284
- Dazzy Vance 1925 279
- Bobby Mathews 1873 278
- Dazzy Vance 1928 242
- Lefty Grove 1926 241
- Cy Seymour 1898 239
- Rube Waddell 1900 238
- Pedro Martinez 1999 233
- Dazzy Vance 1923 228
by devo on
Feb 23, 2005 5:25 PM EST
up
0 recs
K rate
by natsfan2005 on
Feb 23, 2005 3:58 PM EST
up
0 recs
I'll take your word for it
by natsfan2005 on
Feb 23, 2005 4:07 PM EST
up
0 recs
sims
by John Sickels on Feb 23, 2005 3:57 PM EST 0 recs
Scores
Thanks
by AaronMullen on
Feb 23, 2005 4:12 PM EST
up
0 recs
Sim scores
by danielj on Feb 23, 2005 3:59 PM EST 0 recs
Harden
Harden is also 2 years younger, which while it increases injury risk, means its more likely he's still got room to grow. Just as Beckett's BB/9 have come down since he was 21 and 22, so will Harden's in all likelyhood. Maybe not to the same degree, but somewhat.
The two years, and especially the difference in health status is really what it comes down for me.
by bibigon on Feb 23, 2005 4:00 PM EST 0 recs
Harden
by ohad on Feb 23, 2005 4:01 PM EST 0 recs
Beckett
by AaronMullen on Feb 23, 2005 4:13 PM EST 0 recs
Harden
The main problem with Harden is the walks. But when looking at his splits, he is improving in that aspect. Before the All Star break last year, Harden had 48 walks in 91 innings. After the All Star break he had 33 walks in 98 innings, which was actually better than Beckett (32 walks in 80 innings). Harden also lowered his BAA by 25 points in the second half of last year. This is the same kind of improvement Jake Peavy made in the 2nd half of 2003 to prime himself for his breakout 2004 campaign.
It seems that while Beckett has more upside, he has not showed the type of improvement that had Harden did last year. Harden has gotten better while Beckett has not - except for that one postseason.
by count sutton on Feb 23, 2005 4:24 PM EST 0 recs
Beckett in a landslide
by david cameron on Feb 23, 2005 4:29 PM EST 0 recs
Why?
I had much the same reaction myself, except in the other direction. (That this wasn't really close, Harden is a pretty easy pick ahead of Beckett, largely because Beckett is so overrated.)
by bibigon on
Feb 23, 2005 4:34 PM EST
up
0 recs
Obviously
by CatsBack2Back on
Feb 23, 2005 5:00 PM EST
up
0 recs
Proven
by Ienpw on
Feb 23, 2005 4:39 PM EST
up
0 recs
When i first read that
by ohad on
Feb 23, 2005 4:45 PM EST
up
0 recs
Beckett
Beckett has stronger control and a better K rate. I like Beckett's pure stuff better as well.
by stubbyc on Feb 23, 2005 5:01 PM EST 0 recs
Beckett
by irwin on Feb 23, 2005 5:21 PM EST 0 recs
Re: Harden
Moving on to more rational discussion...
Harden's home/road splits from 2004:
Home: 95 IP, 75 H, 6 HR, 37 BB, 86 K, 3.02 ERA
Road: 94 IP, 96 H, 10 HR, 44 BB, 81 K, 4.96 ERA
The sample is small enough where it might just be noise, but we can't overlook the fact that his road ERA would have made him a below average pitcher. He clearly benefited from pitching in Networks Associate Colliseum last year.
Then, there's his abnormal home run rate. Harden's groundball/flyball ratio was 1.21, basically even with the league average of 1.17. He was a slight groundball pitcher, but nothing drastic. However, his HR/9 rate was 0.75, significantly better than the 1.2 HR/9 league average. So, Harden somehow managed to give up an average number of fly balls, but keep them in the park. Those of you familiar with the DIPS theory know that it is generally accepted that this isn't a practical skill, and as studies have shown, its likely that Harden will give up more home runs than he did last year if he keeps putting balls in the air at the same rate.
This makes a bigger difference than you'd think. If you adjust Harden's HR/9 rate to 1.2 instead of the 0.75 that he posted last year, he'd have given up 25 home runs, 9 more than the 16 he actually gave up. Add 9 homeruns to his defense independant pitching stats formula, and you get an ERA around 4.6, not 3.9.
Harden's performance last year was influenced by several factors which he likely had very little control over and are probably not going to be in his favor to the same degree for the rest of his career.
Switching over to the scouting side of things, his command is also still a pretty clear problem. There aren't many pitchers who are going to succeed while walking nearly 4 batters per 9 innings. Harden's never shown the ability to throw his slider for strikes consistently, and his changeup is barely passable as a major league pitch. The lack of quality secondary pitches is a problem, and not one that can be dismissed with "he's young".
Back to John's comparison with Beckett, I think Josh has the edge over Rich in nearly every important category.
Velocity: Slight edge Harden
Movement: Edge Beckett
Command: Big edge Beckett
Control: Big edge Beckett
Second Pitch: Big edge Beckett
Third Pitch: Edge Beckett
Harden's fastball is slightly faster and he hasn't had recurring blister problems. Everything else, Beckett has the lead. Makes it a pretty easy call for me.
by david cameron on Feb 23, 2005 5:41 PM EST 0 recs
Recurring blisters
by chunkylover22 on
Feb 23, 2005 6:09 PM EST
up
0 recs
Good post, dave
But I think it's also worth noting that his Home/Road splits are pretty anomalous, too, and a gap like that probably won't be repeated. The Coliseum has played as a good pitcher's park for most of it's history, but it played as a hitter's park in 2004 and 2002, so relative to the league, I don't know that it's fair to assume that Oakland is a pitcher's paradise, anymore.
Of course, that doesn't answe the question of whether or not he was unusually lucky at home or unusually unlucky on the road, but I'm not sure I'd rely on those 1-year splits to tell us much.
by danielj on
Feb 23, 2005 6:24 PM EST
up
0 recs
Wait a sec...
How I see this is simple:
Harden is about .4 behind Beckett in FIP, is two years younger, and has been much healthier.
Not to trivialize the difference in 0.40 R/9, but the other two factors are simply much much more significant.
The fact that Harden's HR rate was likely somewhat flukish does mitigate this somewhat, so with that in mind, it drops from being a huge Harden edge to probably only a small one, but Beckett needs to show he can pitch a whole year before we rate him ahead of a guy who's almost as effective and has no serious negatives against him.
And no, I'm not an A's fan. I'm just a guy who thinks actually being healthy enough to play is a pretty big deal.
by bibigon on
Feb 23, 2005 6:27 PM EST
up
0 recs
Beckett
by Flynn Blake on
Feb 23, 2005 6:55 PM EST
up
0 recs
Beckett
Yes, many 20-22 year olds in MLB blow out their arms. However, how many of them pitch for the A's? It's not a law of nature that young pitchers have to get hurt. It's a law of Dusty Baker.
You cannot reasonably argue, even with pitchers, that it is a virtue for a player to be older in terms of their long term outlook. It just can't be done. It can temper expectations somewhat, but it's still an advantage, and a large one, to be young.
by bibigon on
Feb 23, 2005 7:01 PM EST
up
0 recs
Age
----
If we're talking about two pitchers, 24 and 27, I would agree with you. They're pretty much mature.
If we're talking about two pitchers, 20 and 25, I disagree with you depending on how they are used. Pitching is not like most other baseball skills; it's hugely dependent on one part of the body, and if that body is abused at a young age, that guy is toast. Your positing that age is an advantage is doubtless true for position players. But it is a proven detriment for a pitcher to be in a MLB rotation, getting 30+ starts, before the age of 23. This used to be a lot worse; I haven't tracked it in recent years. But if we're comparing two debuting pitchers with full MLB workloads and all skills equal, I'll take the 23 year old over the 20 year old every time.
by Flynn Blake on
Feb 23, 2005 7:08 PM EST
up
0 recs
BB/9
At age 22, Beckett's BB/9 was 3.7.
At age 22, Harden's BB/9 was 3.8. In the AL.
by rmv130 on
Feb 23, 2005 6:33 PM EST
up
0 recs
good comps david
the burden of proof is upon harden himself.
by Bobo2 on Feb 23, 2005 5:46 PM EST 0 recs
Harden & Beckett
Beckett is the better pitcher today, but at this rate, I believe Harden will pass him in productivity. I have not done all the research that David has done and since I know this is close, I am open to opposing answers. I am not an A's fan, so I also have no personal interest in who ends up better (unless one of them signs with the Dodgers).
Basically, does Harden's second half translate to future success or was it a mirage?
Also, Beckett's home/away-
Home: ERA 3.45, 9.29 K/9, .213 BAA
Road: ERA 4.27, 8.03 K/9, .265 BAA
I am not discounting what was said about Harden, but Beckett certainly benefits pitching at Pro Player Stadium. Beckett has better tools and everyone has seen how can put it together and dominate as he did in the postseason. I just don't trust him because he has never done it for a whole season. So, in the end, while I think it is very close, I would still take Harden.
by count sutton on
Feb 23, 2005 6:06 PM EST
up
0 recs
Interesting debate
One more point I'd like to make, from a fan's perspective; Harden is, by all accounts, an extremely cool, nice guy, while I have read quite a few things that indicate Beckett is a prick. All other things being somewhat equal, I'd rather have the guy that I really want to root for on my team.
by jmoney on Feb 23, 2005 6:20 PM EST 0 recs
Beckett's splits
I'm not sure its realistic to ask Beckett to show consistent improvement and hold his 2003 standard as the baseline from where he should go up from. His '03 season was awesome; his era was 32 percent above average. If you want an A's-centric comparison, Tim Hudson's career ERA is 38 percent above average. So, in '03, Beckett pitched like one of the best pitchers in baseball. To show consistent improvement, he'd have had to pitch at hall of fame levels.
Pitcher's develop differently. Maybe Harden's second half improvement is for real and he'll keep improving. We don't know, and with his command problems, I wouldn't bet money on it. But as of today, it's fairly clear that Josh Beckett is the better major league pitcher.
by david cameron on Feb 23, 2005 6:25 PM EST 0 recs
short-term
by danielj on
Feb 23, 2005 6:30 PM EST
up
0 recs
Harden
Also, I remember reading a quote from Mulder to the extent of--"Harden has more talent than all three of us combined (referring to the big three)."
by jwolfie70 on Feb 23, 2005 6:28 PM EST 0 recs
Age
I would not say the same for pitchers, at least before the age of 23. Anyone younger than that who's in a full MLB rotation tends to blow out within a few seasons. Look it up. Harden's tossing 189 2/3 innings at the age of 20-21 is a real red flag to me.
by Flynn Blake on
Feb 23, 2005 7:01 PM EST
up
0 recs
Re: BB/9
Harden, on the other hand, walked 4.1 batters per 9 in 334 minor league innings. Then he walked 4.8 per 9 in 2003 in the majors and managed to cut it all the way down to 3.8 last year.
Command and control, right now, aren't even close. It's Beckett by a mile, and Harden has no professional track record of consistently throwing strikes. If John had asked "would you rather have an age 22 Rich Harden or age 22 Josh Beckett", well, that's a different question. But today, Josh Beckett is a significantly better pitcher than he was two years ago. Comparing Harden to the 2002 Josh Beckett doesn't really do anything for this conversation.
by david cameron on Feb 23, 2005 6:40 PM EST 0 recs
Well...
I'd choose Beckett in both the long and short term.
by danielj on
Feb 23, 2005 6:48 PM EST
up
0 recs
Re: BB/9
Yeah, that'd be stupid. Because 2002 Josh Beckett was the same age as 2004 Rich Harden.
So if we're only allowed to compare 2004 Rich Harden to 2004 Josh Beckett, it ISN'T Beckett by a mile. It's Beckett, and his 3 trips to the DL, by a nose. And that's being generous.
by rmv130 on
Feb 23, 2005 7:41 PM EST
up
0 recs
Harden overrated? Hardly
(http://www.futilityinfielder.com/dips04.html).
the assertion that Harden got lucky with homeruns is absurd. especially because there has never been any proven correlation between GB/FB ratio and homeruns allowed. it's all over the map every year. the stats suggest that instead of allowing 16 homeruns like he did, he actually pitched like a pitcher who only gave up 15 homers. the conclusion here is that there was nothing out of the ordinary about Harden's home run rate, any way you slice it. you simply just can't add 9 homeruns to his stat totals because you feel like it. the data doesn't support that conclusion, which is completely unscientific in every way. if you think you need a new biased estimator for Harden's peripherals, that's fine. but at least know what you're talking about statistically before you do so.
also, the home/road thing doesn't hold much weight, or at least less weight than you think, because Harden actually was a little bit unlucky on the road this year. His 9 inning ratios of 9.16H, 4.19BB, and .95HR for road peripherals translates into a 4.55 ERA (based on the .53H + .36BB + 1.01HR - 2.77 expected ERA calculation) as opposed to the 4.96 he actually put up.
his dERA was 3.74, while his BABIP was .289. there certainly isn't anything out of the ordinary with his BABIP (although it's a bit high). basically, his ERA should have been a quarter of a run BETTER, but he was actually hurt by both luck, and, believe it or not, his defense behind him.
Harden's control is something he needs to address. I don't think anybody disputes that. He made very good strides in the second half last year, lowering his BB rate from 4.71 to 3.03. that is something that simply can't be ignored, especially when it happens at the age 22 season.
And his slider is already a plus major league pitch. from the scouting side, Harden has projected as one of the top pitchers in baseball for a while now. Stop pretending that you're a real scout. You're simply making yourself look even dumber.
To call Harden overrated, or to suggest that he doesn't project well is a completely bogus, and, let's face it, just plain stupid argument.
If you're going to try to use stats to prove your point, at least use the right stats. Don't just cherry pick the ones you want, and then completely misrepresent others.
by AwfulWaffle on Feb 23, 2005 6:58 PM EST 0 recs
um ok?
quote: "basically, his ERA should have been a quarter of a run BETTER, but he was actually hurt by both luck, and, believe it or not, his defense behind him."
that doesnt sound scientific at all. dont discredit someone's point based on being unscientific and turn around and do the same thing.
ps. who are you to say "dont try to be a scout"? what, are you a professional scout? then what are you doing here? being that i doubt you actually are a scout, dont pretend you actually know what YOU"RE talking about either. you're opinion is just as valid/invalid as his, so dont be so self-righteous about it.
by michigan moxie on
Feb 23, 2005 7:12 PM EST
up
0 recs
Statistics and science
From statistics such as BB/9, HR/9, and K/9 you can come up with a more accurate predictor of future ERA than by looking at past ERA. Given Harden's numbers, you would expect a pitcher to have an ERA a quarter run lower. The reference to "luck" is just saying that the deviation from the performance one would expect is due mainly to random chance.
It's similar to watching someone flip a coin 10 times, and end up with 7 heads and 3 tails. You can say that heads won, but it was luck. This isn't being unscientific at all, and in fact the conclusion would be well supported by comparing the results to a larger sample size. According to recent statistical tools that have become available, if Harden pitched those same innings and produced the same results 10238102942398483 times, his ERA would be nearly 1/4 run lower.
I do agree that the tone of this post was lame, but he's right about the statistics. Especially since DIPS includes HRs as defence independent, i.e. one of the factors that IS under the pitchers control.
by MrIncognito on
Feb 25, 2005 4:18 PM EST
up
0 recs
Beckett
all that aside, i think beckett WILL figure it out, learn how to tune the expectations and baserunners and whatever else out and just pitch. overall, beckett is better than harden. beckett to me can be a baseball legend. harden is more of "just" an allstar. but all this could change. its still really early for both of them.
by michigan moxie on Feb 23, 2005 7:07 PM EST 0 recs
Harden V. Beckett
After removing sallary considerations from teh equation... I can see Florida trading for Harden, I cannot see Oakland trading for Beckett, straight up.
by sorenbjw on Feb 23, 2005 7:10 PM EST 0 recs
good point, but im confused
by michigan moxie on
Feb 23, 2005 7:15 PM EST
up
0 recs
Why not?
by Flynn Blake on
Feb 23, 2005 7:17 PM EST
up
0 recs
H V. B
Given the expected durability of Harden and his age, coupled with the benefit of coming through a system that focuses (admittedly more prior to Rick Petersons departure) more on long term health of their pitchers. I would trade Beckett for Harden, not likely the other way around. So, long term, I'd rather have Harden.
For the record, right now, for one game, I would start Beckett. If we are simply trying to decide who is better.
by sorenbjw on Feb 23, 2005 7:25 PM EST 0 recs
Okay, that's cool
by Flynn Blake on
Feb 23, 2005 7:39 PM EST
up
0 recs
Doh
by Flynn Blake on
Feb 23, 2005 7:56 PM EST
up
0 recs
Harden v. Beckett
Josh Beckett, age 22.
108 innings, 7.8 H/9IP, 3.8 BB/9IP, 1.08 HR/9IP, 9.5 k/9ip
Harden, age 22.
190 innings, 8.1 H/9IP. 3.8BB/9IP, .75 HR/9IP, 7.9 k/9ip
so Harden was clearly better in both innings pitched and homeruns allowed, while Beckett had a better K rate, and the two were roughly even in hits and walks allowed.
Beckett sort of broke through in his age 23 season, but he didn't pitch many innings, and then he regressed last year to the point where his VORP (28.3) was well below Harden's (41.3).
Beckett is quickly gaining the reputation as that of an injured pitcher (if he hasn't already). If you can only count on the guy for at best, 150 innings per year, that's asking for trouble. I don't know how you can quantify the health/potential factor, but Beckett clearly hasn't met his. And as an added bonus, his K rate is decreasing year by year (of course, his BB rate is, too).
to suggest that the two are not even close is just plain asinine.
by AwfulWaffle on Feb 23, 2005 7:38 PM EST 0 recs
More fun with numbers
had a GB/FB ratio of 1.33. His HR 9/IP ratio was a paltry .57
what does this mean? Well, as Lord Helmet once said, "absolutely nothing," since the GB/FB rate has little to do with the expected number of homeruns allowed.
for the record, Beckett was at .92 last year, while his GB/FB ratio was right at league average.
seriously, the GB/FB stat is about as relevant as batting average.
by AwfulWaffle on Feb 23, 2005 7:48 PM EST 0 recs
actually awfulwaffle
wasnt it you who said:
"If you're going to try to use stats to prove your point, at least use the right stats. Don't just cherry pick the ones you want, and then completely misrepresent others."
basically thats what youre doing. for you to say gb/fb ratio is useless is absurd. not only to pitchers with higher gb/fb ratios usually give up less homers (which always is a good thing), a pitcher who knows how to keep it in the infield is, at the very least, a smart pitcher.
i like how you somehow vaguely connect beckett's gb/fb ratios with the statement "gb/fb is as relevant as batting average". good job pulling stats to help your argument and ignoring others.
by the way, i still would rather have a guy how can hit 300 than a guy who his 220. wouldnt you? then obviously batting average tells you SOMETHING.
by michigan moxie on Feb 23, 2005 7:55 PM EST 0 recs
um, no
that's simply not true. the correlation between those GB/FB and homers is very weak, and it has a very high mean squared error. people simply make those kinds of inferences because the logic set is actually runs counter to normal human thought processes. you just can't draw too many conclusions on that one stat alone. in fact, i'd be hardpressed to draw any. it's very misleading, much like batting average.
"by the way, i still would rather have a guy how can hit 300 than a guy who his 220. wouldnt you? then obviously batting average tells you SOMETHING."
congratulations, captain obvious. I'd rather have a guy who gets on base 40 percent of the time than a guy who gets on base 30 percent of the time. Wouldn't you? And please stop using strawman and non-sequiturs to rebut my arguments.
by AwfulWaffle on
Feb 23, 2005 8:07 PM EST
up
0 recs
ok
second, i would like to see the stats/proof that disprove that higher gb/fb ratios lead to generally lower HR rates, and vice versa. until you can, or until you reveal yourself to be bill james, i suggest ridding yourself of that self-righteous attitude. it overshadows any argument you make. you dont need to throw insults around just because someone disagrees with you. i tend not to give as much credibility to those who do that.
of course, if you are not concerned with getting your point across with me, then ignore my requests. good day.
by michigan moxie on
Feb 23, 2005 8:28 PM EST
up
0 recs
gentlemen!!
by John Sickels on
Feb 23, 2005 8:33 PM EST
up
0 recs
good catch john
Of course, resorting to adhoms often make one's proposed "facts" look rather baseless, if not tasteless.
But by all means, its good to know that the "big brothers" are watching. :-)
by Bobo2 on
Feb 23, 2005 9:02 PM EST
up
0 recs
gb/fb and lower hr rates
When looking at the gb/fb rates compared to hr/9 over the last 10 mlb seasons for every pitcher with more than 90ip in a season the r-squared value was 0.1976
When looking at the gb/fb rates compared to hr/9 over the last 10 mlb seasons for every pitcher with more than 140ip in a season the r-squared value was 0.1859
The trend line did tend to show that pitchers who give up less FBs generally tend to give up less hrs. It is weak though. STDEV is .7 with the mean of 1.05 hr/9 at the 140ip min
by chri5 on
Feb 24, 2005 9:53 PM EST
up
0 recs
Beckett
I tend to agree with ya, David. The onus of proof is upon harden himself. I wouldnt bet my money on it, either. I'd hope that Harden can convince me otherwise with a strong season.
by Bobo2 on Feb 23, 2005 7:56 PM EST 0 recs
No...
The issue is that:
- Harden appears to be more likely to actually pitch at all.
- Harden is younger and thus has more upside.
I view this as being analagous to a debate about J.D. Drew vs. Carlos Beltran. Less extreme obviously, as while Beckett's injury history is troubling, it's not as bad as Drew's. That said, none of Drew's injuries are career threatening either. He's had a bunch of fluke injuries, a bunch of nonsense injuries. Nothing huge, similar to Beckett that way.
Drew, when healthy is pretty clearly the better player than Beltran.
The argument for Beltran is the same as the argument for Harden. Beltran is a better player simply because its more likely that he'll be around, and he's almost as good as Drew when he does play.
by bibigon on
Feb 23, 2005 9:37 PM EST
up
0 recs
Ironic
-- bibigon thinks Beckett is "injury prone." I don't disagree, but I think blisters can be overcome, and it's not a shoulder or an elbow. And the fact that it's kept his innings below 160 up to age 25 is actually a great sign for long term durability.
-- He also likes the fact that Harden is younger. Well, 189.7 innings at age 22 and another 200 to 200 this year at 23 isn't a huge danger indicator, but it's a heck of a lot more wear and tear on a young arm than what Beckett has gone through -- he hasn't exceeded 160 yet, and now he's fully mature.
I'm not rooting for anyone to get injured, but I'd say the chances of either pitcher to have a significant injury in the next few seasons is somewhat higher for Harden than Beckett.
It's fascinating, isn't it? We all have the same evidence and it's a pure 180. It'll be interesting to see what does happen.
by Flynn Blake on
Feb 23, 2005 11:11 PM EST
up
0 recs
Typo
by Flynn Blake on
Feb 23, 2005 11:11 PM EST
up
0 recs
injuries
Beckett has had blister problems with his finger but his shoulder and elbow has not sustained any injuries up to this point.
Harden, on the other hand, has already had a 'freak' shoulder injury last year.
Nobody can predict injuries. Blisters are completely


