Can prospects be rushed?

by dejackso on Jul 30, 2007 7:35 PM EDT Comment 24 comments

A further musing from the article Well, that was pointless

I'm going to keep the initial post short and hope that discussion in the comments below will allow for more illumination. However, is the old axiom about rushing prospects true? Why do people believe it to be true? Is it truly statistically significant or is it a case of people latching onto ballplayers who failed that were bound to fail anyway.

The basic crux of this entry is whether a prospect can be "ruined" from being rushed up to the majors and then shelled. Thus, we should ignore any injuries sustained from young players coming up to early (pitchers that come up to early and hurt their arm arguments can be ignored...because it's fairly obvious that overworking young pitchers is bad).

Instead, let's focus on the supposed mental damage that a bad outing or outings can have on the development of a pitcher. This is something that separates Baseball and Football Prospectus writers...in that the former tend to mention prospects as being "rushed" and damaged whereas the latter rarely mentioned that a rushed prospect can be permanetly damaged. The FP thinking is that most players that could be damaged mentally would have been damaged long before reaching that far and that the players who are permantely damaged after being "rushed" would have been damaged eventually anyway. Thoughts?

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Two things

Rushing a prospect can lead fans to think a player stinks when he actually doesn't. For instance, Nunez came to the majors too early and pitched poorly. I'm sure some fans jumped to the conclusion that he sucked. Similarly, I think Davies was rushed to the majors too early. And some fans are assuming he sucks because he hasn't done well in the majors yet.
I think rushing a prospect can hurt his development. I think horrible early experiences in the majors can hurt their confidence an even cause them to pitch differently. Most pitchers have a good fastball and then secondary pitches. If they are rushed, they may rely on that pitch and avoid other pitches which aren't as good yet, thus hindering the development of those pitches. Also, rushed pitchers are probably going to be more easily hittable and this leads many of them to avoid the strike zone and try to "nibble".

And that's just pitchers...

by NYRoyal on Jul 30, 2007 7:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Two things - replied

1. Rushing a prospect can lead fans to think a player stinks when he actually doesn't. For instance, Nunez came to the majors too early and pitched poorly. I'm sure some fans jumped to the conclusion that he sucked. Similarly, I think Davies was rushed to the majors too early. And some fans are assuming he sucks because he hasn't done well in the majors yet.

Yeah, but I hope (and I think I'm right) that this has little effect on the actual game. Fans think everyone sucks at some point...look at NYY and AROD. It doesn't matter much.

2. I think rushing a prospect can hurt his development. I think horrible early experiences in the majors can hurt their confidence an even cause them to pitch differently.

This seems to be the main argument on the subject; however, it's an argument without any non-anecdotal data to back it up (Note: I'm not saying that I have any data either, but I think that strengthens my question anyway). I would think that confidence shouldn't be hard to get and keep once one makes it to the MLB level. I'd imagine that most of the people who are shaky never make it past AA.

2 cont. Most pitchers have a good fastball and then secondary pitches. If they are rushed, they may rely on that pitch and avoid other pitches which aren't as good yet, thus hindering the development of those pitches. Also, rushed pitchers are probably going to be more easily hittable and this leads many of them to avoid the strike zone and try to "nibble".

This is where the pitching coach comes in and also the logical part of my argument. Here are my assumptions broken down into parts...feel free to critique the appropriate parts. Note: we are also assuming that there is some level of success as a pitcher moves up. Obviously, pitchers develop at different speeds and I am not suggesting that we move everyone up to the MLB level...instead, I am suggesting that quick movement does not necessarily mean a likely death.

Part 1) The MLB level is where the greatest talent is located.

Part 2) There is a pitching coach at the MLB level who has a job.

Part 3) The pitching coaches job is to help train and perfect the pitchers

Part 4) The pitching coach at the MLB level is the best pitching coach in the org

Part 5) Working with the best pitching coach will give superior results to working with a lesser pitching coach.

If these assumptions are true, then we would expect the pitching coach to work with the pitcher to develop the pitcher's secondary pitches over time. If the pitcher gets shelled at the MLB level, then we can send him back down to allow for more experience to be gained. A true MLB-caliber pitcher should be no worse for the wear from some bad time. Of course, this would mean that the majority of previous Royals pitchers weren't rushed, but instead...they were players that weren't going to make it with a decade of time.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 30, 2007 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Data and coaches

You are right that I only have anecdotal evidence. Some SABR member should do a study on guys pushed up to the majors too soon. But it is pretty hard to define "too soon".

Yes, the major league pitching coach would be the best coach in the system. But does that benefit outweigh the harm of having a pitcher face hitters he is not yet capable of effectively pitching against? I don't think so.

If the pitcher gets shelled at the MLB level, then we can send him back down to allow for more experience to be gained. A true MLB-caliber pitcher should be no worse for the wear from some bad time.

Yes, they can go back down. And a bad, brief stint in the majors shouldn't ruin a pitcher. But extended time in the majors where a pitcher gets shelled can hurt them. If it is a good pitcher, I don't think that would ruin him. But I think it can slow a pitcher's development. That might have happened with Nunez. He may have developed faster and better if he hadn't taken it in the shorts in 2005 when he wasn't yet ready.

by NYRoyal on Jul 30, 2007 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting article on the subject.

http://mvn.com/thepitch/2007/05/02/rushing-prospects-learn-at-aaa-or-on-the-job/

This is an interesting question, but I think I'd answer it the other way. Again assuming that the player is physically developed (around 23 is the accepted age, right?), why would it hurt to face someone that you aren't capable of effectively pitching against? Perhaps the experience would work for the benefit in that players who were destroyed would know firsthand that they had to work on supplementary pitches? Personally, I think that the pitcher/hitter dynamic works both ways and that more times dueling that hitter would allow the pitcher to learn new things also. In addition, I think a pitcher who couldn't effectively pitch against a number of players aren't the ones that would be in a position to be rushed in a good org.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 30, 2007 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My thoughts

Again assuming that the player is physically developed (around 23 is the accepted age, right?), why would it hurt to face someone that you aren't capable of effectively pitching against? Perhaps the experience would work for the benefit in that players who were destroyed would know firsthand that they had to work on supplementary pitches?

If you aren't yet good enough to face major league hitters, I think it is going to change how you pitch. I think you're going to be afraid to use secondary pitches which aren't as good as your primary pitch. I think if you are getting hammered when you throw strikes, you're going to be less likely to throw strikes.

If you want young pitchers to work on their second, third and fourth pitches, then pushing them to the majors works against that. If you want pitchers to attack the strike zone and throw strikes, then I think rushing them to the majors is also detrimental

by NYRoyal on Jul 30, 2007 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think my point was more...

about the permanent damage part of the CW. I think letting someone come up and try it out (a la letting someone start instead of Elarton last week) isn't going to hurt them in the long run unless they weren't ever going to be good anyway. I also think the experience of letting a near ready player to come up and get a start or two might be beneficial in the long run.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 30, 2007 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes they can be rushed

in the minors is were they learn how pitch not throw. In the majors the get little chance to miss their spots. In the minors they can miss their spots and it might not get pounded every time. Where as in the major very few mistakes are missed. Also if the repeatedly miss inside in the majors they may lose all confidence of ever throwing inside which weakens them b/c all hitters now know to focus on the outside, b/c pitchers rarely throw down the middle. So again rushing is bad for most pitchers. Also I don't agree that if they are rushed they are bound to fail. Once they lose their confidence then they are bound to fail but rushed prospects never get the chance to establish their confidence at every level so they are but in a bad situation to begin with.

by TXroyal on Jul 30, 2007 7:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This is my point.

I don't buy the confidence argument for the reasons above. A player who loses confidence was probably going to lose that confidence five years later anyway.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 30, 2007 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not sure this debate can be won/lost...

but if we broaden the conversation to consider non-baseball players, the answer seems obvious. to suggest that anyone's career/life has one and only one possible outcome is absurd and i'm not sure why baseball players should be any different. with "rushed" prospects, we're talking about 20-22 year old kids. they're still developing in every sense of the word. their bodies are changing, they're learning new things and they're influenced by mentors and outside factors far more than more mature individuals.

for all the good that sabermetrics have done for the game of baseball, their need to obliterate human factors from their analysis is almost endearing in its willful naivete.

by Billex Gordler on Jul 30, 2007 8:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm...

"for all the good that sabermetrics have done for the game of baseball, their need to obliterate human factors from their analysis is almost endearing in its willful naivete."

I think that's going a bit far, but I agree with the spirit behind it. I am a firm believer in the power of mathematics and science to answer any question if we know all the variables. However, I am not a believer (and I like to use the usually religious term "believer" when talking about science...because science is not without its flaws) in any kind of unified theory of anything. I believe in complexity and that although we could potentially use statistics on human factors (anthropologists like myself as well as sociologists and psychologists do it all the time with credibility and accuracy), it will never be an easy thing to do.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 30, 2007 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i was being a tad disingenous...

the truth is that i read every piece of sabermetric analysis that i can get my hands on. however, i'm constantly amazed at how disciplined the statistical analysis community is when it comes to their orthodoxy. scientific group think is a dangerous deal, especially in small but powerful groups, and quite a few of the 'conclusions' of that community defy my own empirical observations (see, e.g.: BABIP) (here i mean 'empirical' as in what one sees, not what one measures...). i understand that for people who deal with data, unmeasurable stuff is messy and so it makes their job easier to simply ignore the unmeasurables. in many cases that's the right thing to do, but in the case of player development, i think it's wrong and therefore misleading.

by Billex Gordler on Jul 30, 2007 9:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I totally agree.

Especially about the scientific group think part...

See: Eugenics movement in the U.S. of the 1920s

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 30, 2007 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

fortunately...

the stakes are slightly lower for SABR than when they measured the skull size of every incoming ivy league freshman.

by Billex Gordler on Jul 30, 2007 9:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Cepahlic index!

It means the world!

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 30, 2007 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have 1 question

since the pitching coach's in the majors are supposed to be the best in the system why do teams send struggling pitchers back to the minors to work on their mechanics? A example is Kei Igawa.

by TXroyal on Jul 31, 2007 9:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Good point

by NYRoyal on Jul 31, 2007 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My thinking...

I think it has a lot to do with that "confidence" misperception that we were discussing above. Baseball people place too much emphasis on regaining confidence and I'm not sure that it is as valuable as regaining technique, mechanics, and new pitches.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 31, 2007 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you think they

should stay in the majors if they are struggling and try to work it out with the pitching coach or do you think that they will never succeed. I personally think that there is some truth to players confidence. I also see your take on the issue. I am not trying to argue or come off as my way is better but I just wonder what you would do.

by TXroyal on Jul 31, 2007 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Definitely no offense taken...

feel free to argue your point...that's what I was hoping for, I wanted to see what other people though.

That's kind of a double edged question, I think. It really depends on the situation and the age of the pitcher. As a general rule, I'm for keeping them in the majors if they are struggling (assuming that the team isn't in a playoff hunt...the whole exercise becomes a bit academic when a team is good), but I'm not against sending them back down.

However, my reasons for sending a pitcher back down are different than the usual confidence building. In my opinion, if a player is struggling you send him down not to rebuild his confidence, but you send him down to bring up another close to MLB-ready player to give them a chance to work with the best pitching coach. I don't think sending people up and down between AAA and MLB has a negative effect.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 31, 2007 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't even think

about sending down to bring up another player that is close or is ready for the big time. You make points worth thinking about.

by TXroyal on Jul 31, 2007 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Its not surprising...

the Royals haven't really been in a position to do this for a while. A good mark of how much this team has improved is that we have some near MLB-ready guys waiting for a shot in AAA and AA.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 31, 2007 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd assume it's so you avoid piling up losses

At the major league level.

If a player goes down to AAA, and he's terrible, it doesn't really hurt the parent club.

If he's terrible at the major league level, then he could potentially hit/pitch your club out of a pennant race. It could actually end up hurting the bottom line, a bit, too.

by marbotty on Jul 31, 2007 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I already accounted for that above...

we're talking about teams that are trying to improve, but that aren't in the pennant race...a la Royals

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 31, 2007 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

there's a reason...

they say that pitching/hitting is an art form. it's because the act itself is not science. insofar as there is a platonic ideal (most closely approximated in, say, ted williams and greg maddux), the ideal method to pitch and/or hit doesn't actually exist and never will. it's humans with unique swings/motions all trying to achieve similar results in different ways. because of this, the 'best' hitting/pitching coach for one player may be the worst hitting/pitching coach for another, and vice versa. it's only true that a ML pitching/hitting particular coach gets the best results with the most players, but he doesn't get the best results with ALL players.

one other thing about sending a player down to work stuff out. part of the reason it's done is because there's far less pressure to win in the minor leagues than in the majors (here i'm talking both internal, i.e., the games matter less, and external, i.e., the actual players faced are worse and provide lower resistance to success) and therefore pitchers can experiment with slightly different mechanics and can work on mental aspects of the game--they can focus on process and not results. with the microanalysis that goes on for ML players, working on process seems like an impossible task, whereas that's pretty much AAA's reason for existence.

by Billex Gordler on Jul 31, 2007 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs