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?