It was a point brought up in the comments yesterday, but that wasn't the first time. It seems like people believe the Nats can't develop starting pitching. My off the cuff thoughts are yes they have had problems with it, though I'm not sure how that relates to other teams. And that a good part of the reason why is how they draft. The "go big or go home" draft strategy of picking risks to get value IF they get right has been the culprit lately. Be it Giolito and Fedde facing injury or Seth Romero and his head. But that's just my off the cuff take.
It's kind of hard to measure this because "develop starting pitching" isn't an easy thing to gauge. Sure you draft someone, bring him up in the minors, and he starts multiple years for your team is a success point. But what if you draft someone, bring him up in the minors, and then trade him away where he finds success as a starter? Or if you trade for someone in the minors and he becomes a multi-year starter for you? And what if there's a trade inbetween, who gets credti? And how long after leaving your team is it about your team? 2 years? 5? What about starters you trade for and get better for you? Does that matter?
We gotta set some limits so For now I'm going to say you get credit for a pitcher developing if he pitched A ball and AA ball for you OR he pitched a rough season worth of AA ball. So this cuts out maybe an almost ready prospect you sit in AA for a half a year before moving him up. I'd also give credit to the last team to have these qualifications so if you got him to AA but he pitched one more AA years for someone else, that's their guy. I also set the limit off your team at 2 years. If he's been gone for 3 years and hasn't been an impactful starter that's not on you. This is all imperfect and we can talk about it.
Now we're going to look at the Rizzo time frame and I set it at 2011 because (1) he took over fully in 2009 and (2) it takes a couple years to get guys going. How many pitchers have pitched at least two full seasons of baseball?*
There have been quite a lot - 185 pitchers to be exact. But I realize this includes a lot of old guys - Hey Roy Halladay you don't count here - so I then set the limit to guys who are pitching one of their first 8 seasons in here. That isn't perfect because you are getting guys who may have season 8 in 2011 but it'll whittle out some we don't care about and we're down to 149. We can probably put an age limit on it too. Like most pitchers would start by 25? so 33... let's say 34 to be conservative. 147 that didn't do much.
OK well evenly distributed that would be like 5 a team. Who here was developed by the Nats? I'm pretty good with memory stuff so I think I can get them all. First off there's Jordan Zimmerman, with 5 such years. Nationals born and bred.Then there's Roark and Strasburg with 4. Roark, you know was a trade get. I thought he was a A ball guy but he was a AA when the Nats got him. Still he pitched a season-plus in AA for the Nats, so under my rules up there he goes to the Nats. Strasburg was of course a drafted and developed talent.
Now these all happened a while ago, ZNN debuted in 2009, Stras in 2010, Roark in 2013 but I'm going down the list from most of these years to least. Older guys have more time to hit this criteria so this end should skew older debuts. Let's keep going.
I don't see any Nats with 3 such years. How about 2? OK I see Nick Pivetta's name... he did reach AA with the Nats so they would get him but 29 starts in AA... that's enough to give the Phillies credit under my rules. So no Nick.
Robbie Ray! OK here's a classic tough case. He did reach AA with the Nats. He was traded and pitched in the majors the next year but was bad. Was dealt again and was good. So he both reached the majors and pitched well in the majors within the 2 year limit. he also spent very little time in the minors outside of the Nats. This looks like the Nats get Robbie Ray. 2014 first appearance.
And hey there's Tommy Milone! A middling pitcher to be sure but a usable starter for a couple of seasons. No doubt about it - a guy they Nats drafted and brought up to be a starter. 2011 first appearance.
So the Nats have developed 5 starters in this time frame which works out to be completely average. While you can debate whether Milone was good enough to want to take credit for - the other four were at least good if not very good. I'm not going to argue with the fact they developed starters. But of course it's not a steady drip. The debuts weren't 2009 2011 2013 2015, and 2017. They were 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014. There's a distinct older skew here. If they are average now, the Nats had been really good at developing starters, but since have fallen off.
Now this leads to another point. Perhaps the Nats didn't develop starters because they didn't need them at the time. ZNN, Stras, Gio, Roark, Fister, Max... they literally forced Roark out in 2015. That's going to force some skewing to be sure.
But Fister was gone by 2016 and ZNN left then too. The Nats have needed pitchers. There's been space since. How many guys have had at least one full year in the past 3 seasons? How many of those have been Nats?
Cut down to 22 starts (to account for rest of 2018) I'm going to get a handful more guys in here. And let's make it through 4th season since we're looking for guys the Nats have developed for this new time of need. There have been 88 pitchers with at least one full year here. We would expect 3 Nats. Ray's in here - but just barely (get's his 3rd and 4th seasons in 16-17) that's not what we're looking for. With one year we see both Reynaldo Lopez and Lucas Giolito**. They were both Nats developed. Both debuted in 2016. And... that's it. So a little under expectation but not much.
So this quick stroll through the pitchers in the league would seem to suggest the Nats are not bad at developing starting pitchers. Average over the course of the time frame we are looking at. Maybe a little skewed toward the past but still mostly able to develop full-time major league talent for 2018. Given that the latest three who have become full-time starters (Ray, Lopez, and Giolito) were all dealt I'd say the problem recently is less development and more identifications of the ones to keep and the ones to let go. Maybe a problem identifying who are the real injury risks and who are minor ones.
Of course there's a lot of hemming and hawing up there so have at the methods of this.
*And what's a "full season" I mean literally it would be 32/33 starts but I set the limit at 25. See! There's a lot of lines that have to be drawn for this analysis. And what if they aren't GOOD seasons? You should get more credit for the good, right? And what's development and what's just drafting? Lots of questions!
**How are they doing? Lopez has had an EXCELLENT September. 1 ER in 3 starts, 22K and 4 BB. Best he's pitched all year, balancing out his terrible July to give his year proper representation in the final stats. Which is to say he's been perfectly fine as a blah 3 or good 4. Giolito's gone the other way, with a terrible September so far. Knocked out early by Detroit and knocked around by Baltimore. Walks, which plagued him, aren't too bad but strikeouts almost gone with it. His numbers now 5.77 capture his year, too which is a roller coaster with a few mild highs and a lot of real low lows. He's a guy that starts as a 5th starter in 2019. For both guys 2019 is going to be where their careers are set likely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I think Giolito's status has been devalued severely since he's put up 232 innings of below replacement level pitching. He is only getting as much leash now because he's on a crappy team, there's no way the Nats could compete allowing him to have a sub-replacement year of starts. He hasn't been any better than A. J. Cole, really, who could still turn into something useful someplace else after being dumped. The option system and 40-man limit can mess with a club quickly when there are injuries. There are always those talented, injured guys who get more opportunity to pitch someplace else, even though the Nats would certainly sign them if they could like Stammen. Development can be interrupted fairly easily by injuries and opportunity cost. I would imagine there will be somebody out of the last few drafts that will be useful, but they can't let them throw 15 inconsistent starts to find that out yet.
"I'd say the problem recently is less development and more identifications of the ones to keep and the ones to let go."
I think this is the key point. They clearly liked AJ Cole a lot, and it was clearly a mistake to hold on to him. 2015 Rizzo probably thought Cole would be a consistent back-end rotation guy by now and he's not that. I don't know if Cole and Robbie Ray had similar value at the time of the Fister trade, but to the extent there was a choice between those two, the Nats chose wrong. They've also put a lot of eggs in the Fedde basket. I think Fedde has a chance to be a decent back-end guy (his MiLB stats are good, and his MLB appearances have been plagued by high BABIPs). Still, he's a double risk (will he be good? will he be healthy?). If Fedde busts along with Cole, they will have made two major bets that came out wrong.
@Anon That certainly could be the case re: Cole vs. Ray. That being said, it could be that Rizzo liked Ray better (or liked them roughly equally), but the Tigers insisted on Ray and wouldn't do the deal for Cole+.
When Doug Fister finally decides to retire from playing baseball I hope the Nationals hire him as a pitching coach and/or minor league pitching development coach. The guy is a very SMART pitcher and had an enormously positive impact on the whole Nats staff while he was here.
I find the Fister for Ray/Lombo/Krol trade to be fasnicating. Fister generated only 1.6 fWWAR (though 4.5 bWAR!) during his Nats tenure, while Ray has generated about 10 fWAR (about 9 bWAR) during his DBacks tenure (and negative WAR for the Sox). The general consensus at trade time was that the Nats got a steal. The general consensus was roughly the opposite for the Eaton trade.
It just goes to show how trades are hard to evaluate real-time when at least one side is trading a prospect, because prospects are much harder to project than veterans. And it also shows that you don't often find out the true 'winner' of the trade (as deemed by on-the-field performance rather than projected performance) until many years later.
Harper, thanks for doing this. It adds some interesting perspective with some actual data instead of my "sense" of how things are going (usually that sense is triggered during a down year like this, but that doesn't mean my sense is accurate long-term, as you have shown here).
Going forward, the Nats need to bolster their rotation, but it seems so risky to sign a high-priced FA. So many fall apart quickly, often due to the mileage already on their arms. Look what happened to SF--they signed Samardzija and he's been a real miss for them. They signed Cueto and he was great but now he's out with TJ surgery. They traded their 3b for Matt Moore, and he was a bust. I was hoping the Nats had someone good in the pipeline because at least if they are young, you might get a few good years before the inevitable injury bug overtakes most of them.
I had also hoped that Nats could trade for someone younger who is pretty good (Chris Archer, etc.). Oh well, maybe Tanner bounces back and Stras stays healthy and Max is still Max. Then you have a good foundation and need one really good pitcher (still want a real #2 to take pressure off of Stras).
Again, thanks to Harper for doing the research!
Well, when you get the winning run to third with one out in the bottom of the 11th and can't get him home, you deserve to lose. Loby with another timely AB, only this time for the enemy.
blovy8 - I have to take issue with the Giolito / Cole comparison. Giolito was a top rated prospect who has thrown a dozen games better than Cole's second best game (and like 6 games better than Cole's best game) in his career. Yes, opportunity matters but Cole has had opportunity and he's shown nothing. The Yankees need a starter to thorw in there occasionally, he's done ok in relief, and they still don't let him start. Giolito has opportunity and he's flashed something. Problem is it remains flashes. But given his pedigree and the fact those flashes exist you'd be silly not to stick him at the end of a rotation. Even a true contender would probably give him 2+ months to start 2019 imo
Anon / GCX - yeah it's hard to tell specifically in any deal that the Nats got that wrong. Any deal can be more about what they demand they what you will give. However I think the trend, especially if you include Pivetta, shows a pattern. Then again with so few players it doesn't take much to make it look like something.
GCX - yeah trade evaluation is a moving target that doesnt end until everyone's retired. And if you get it wrong you never hear the end of it. "Worst trades" lists far out number "Smart trades that might have got a team more playoff wins"
Johnny C- FA signings are risky but I'll give the Nats credit in figuring out who exactly is reliable in terms of those. Gio, Max. Fister was pretty much healthy during his tenure. E Jax is a pretty healthy guy. Stras has been stable since signing his contract. Now why they don't apply the same "health first" rule to draft prospects I don't know.
I don't think you can assume because a player leaves you and gets better or worse that the inverse would not have occured if you kept him. Whether it's a guy like Treinen who was probably under just too much pressure until he was traded and didn't have as many expectations or a Kintzler who left under a cloud after Rizzo lost his mind and has since struggled. Even Murphy was super hot when he got to the cubs and has since cooled significantly - doesn't mean he's not the awesome hitter that terrorized pitchers for the last several years.
Your 2018 NL Cy Young award winner: Jacob deGrom
It's going to be depressing when the Cards lose 2 out of 3 to the Brewers & Cubs next week and the second Wildcard, either them or the Rockies finishes with 87, 88, 89 wins. So many chances for them this year, starting in April when Martinez & Rizzo decided A.J. Cole was worthy of starting 2 games, to the swoon in June and July to end the first half, not scoring any runs for Max/bullpen blows the Max lead, the Central trip to St. Louis & Chicago, etc. One thing I don't want to blame is injuries. EVERY TEAM deals with injuries, it's just some teams have less of them then others do. The Indians best relief pitcher (Andrew Miller) has basically been out 4 months with a variety of injuries but that hasn't stopped them (granted the division helps). Astros were without Carlos Correa for 2 months, and had a stretch in August where Correa, Jose Altuve and George Springer were all out (along with Lance McCullers), but they are making the playoffs. Judge was out 2 months for the Yankees, and Tanaka (one of the best if not best SP for the Yanks) is still 1 bad pitch away from not pitching again until 2020. Sean Manaea who had the first no hitter of the year for the A's and who had a great first 2 months is out until at least September 2019, but more than likely 2020 with a shoulder injury, Kris Bryant was out a month for the Cubs, Michael Wacha & Adam Wainwright have both missed an extended period of time for the Cards, Corey Seager has been out since late April for the Dodgers, Acuna missed a couple weeks for the Braves, etc. Those are all important players that have all spent time on the DL this year, but all teams have been able to overcome that as all will likely be in the playoffs. Granted, as I said in some cases it helps to play in a terrible division like the Indians, or have resources to go out and acquire talent to fix those holes like the Yankees & Dodgers, but as I've said here in the past next man up mentality! Be happy you are starting, and earn more playing time even after the player you replaced is back from the DL.
Well 2018 is officially over, so now we can look forward to 2019. I have a couple "interesting" trade proposals for the winter, 1 of which I don't think is going to be received well on here but I think at least it benefits both teams. But anyways, anyone who thinks this teams window is closed is a fool! I actually don't think the Phillies are going to be any good next year, so the division should come down to Braves vs. Nats again (maybe the Mets) and with a few trades/good FA signings (I'm looking at you bullpen & catcher!) this team could very well be on top of the East mountain in 2019 and hopefully beyond the Division Series!
Nice write up, Harp! We're all spoiled by your efforts.
I think the Nats FO noticed the lackluster results of pitcher development and recently decided to address it via the draft. I don't have the exact number in front of me but I'm almost certain about 90% of their top 10 picks have been pitchers the past two drafts. Obviously we can't really grade their development for quite a few years.
With the recent success of International FAs from a positional standpoint, it seems to me that the FO strategy is developing American SPs and fielding International rockstars like Robles and Soto.
Really some great work here Harper.
Meanwhile, the Brewers have won all three games that Gio has started, with him getting two W's. I'm happy for him and Treinen and hope to see the A's and Brewers in the WS.
Lastly, as much as I think Max is the all around best and most consistent pitcher in baseball, after watching deGrom last night I think the only way Max gets the CY award is by winning his last two starts in dominating fashion and throwing a no-no.
@Froggy
I was thinking another CY would be what it took to cement Max as a HoF lock, but I think 300Ks will do it, so I'm looking for that at this point. There pretty much isn't anything deGrom could do to blow it now, as Max needed to make a very strong case in the last couple starts and just didn't. There used to be mixed messages from the advanced stats, but now they pretty much all favor deGrom (FanGraphs' SIERA still just barely likes Max more because it really likes strikeouts). deGrom has actually been more consistent, but the Mets are even worse at helping him out than the Nats are at helping Max.
This whole “naming important players that have missed time for each contender” method is incredibly silly. This is simple. It’s a stat. Look at who has lost the most projected value in injuries. Nats are at the top. End of story. They’ve gotten hit worse than others. Yeah everybody has injuries. So? Some injuries accumulate so much they decimate your season and some are scattered and isolated when they happen. Two things can be true: (1) the Nats lost more player value to injury than other contenders; AND (2) the Nats did not have enough SP and BP and C depth, which was Rizzo’s fault.
Post a Comment