Prospect Profile: Dyla... (08/30)
15 comments have been left for this article. BP Comment Quick Links
|
|
|
|
|
|
The First-ever Baseball Prospectus Futures Guide - now just $6.86 at Amazon ( bbp.cx/fg ) |
|
|
August 30, 2012 On the BeatNew Cup of Joe a WinnerJoe Girardi understands the numbers. That humongous binder that sits beside the manager in the Yankees' dugout isn't a collection of the great volume of copy turned out by the scribes that cover the Bronx Bombers on a daily basis. Girardi studies the statistics and is as prepared as any manager. That is part of the reason why the Yankees have kept on winning since Girardi replaced Joe Torre, owner of four World Series rings, four years ago. It helps that one other number works in Girardi's favor—the Yankees' payroll is annually among the highest in the game. Yet, Girardi also knows that winning goes beyond numbers and high-priced players, especially as the season heads into the final month. "I don't think you can put a number on the value of experience," Girardi said. "When you have guys who have been playing for a long time, guys who are battle-tested in pressure situations, it does make a difference when you're in a pennant race and in October. I don't think anyone would deny that." Thus, Girardi is not concerned that the Yankees have had what was a once a 10-game lead in the American League East on July 18 reduced to 3 1/2 games over the Orioles. The Yankees are 22-21 since then, but Girardi knows the numbers are still in his favor. The Baseball Prospectus Playoff Odds Report gave the Yankees a 95.1 percent chance of winning the division and a 99.3 chance of making the postseason going into Wednesday's games. What gives Girardi greater comfort is that he has a roster filled with players who have been here before, from Derek Jeter to Robinson Cano to CC Sabathia.
|
Resident Fantasy Genius: Avoiding the Late-S...
Surprise Me!
Pirates infielder Josh Harrison: "It's easy to write him off as nothing more than a bench guy because he's small and doesn't have any plate discipline. But there's something there. I really think if he works at it and keeps developing that he could be an everyday player."
There's something there. What is the something? The pretty girlfriend thing? If Josh Harrison turns out to be a useful everyday player, this scout gets to feel like a big shot. If Harrison doesn't, no one remembers, including the scout himself. There's "something there" with almost every major leaguer. That's the point.
Braves right-hander Kris Medlen: "This guy has a Cy Young in his future"
Almost certainly not.
Angels first baseman Albert Pujols: "He needs to have a big September. I know he's turned it around after a bad start, but the Angels paid huge money for him and he's got to earn it and get them into the postseason. If the Angels don't get to the postseason, then the season has to be considered a failure, and Albert has to take some of the blame."
That's what you call some expert analysis right there.
Blue Jays center fielder Colby Rasmus: "Getting away from Tony La Russa was supposed to solve all his problems. Well, it seems to me, Colby Rasmus' problem is Colby Rasmus. He has the talent, but he doesn't know how to unlock it."
More great analysis, the kind only a seasoned expert can "unlock".
Tigers right-hander Justin Verlander: "I'll qualify it by saying it would be darned near impossible to repeat what he did last year, but he hasn't looked the same this year. He hasn't been as sharp, and his pitches haven't been as crisp."
Verlander has been almost exactly the same pitcher this season. He's saying this about a pitcher coming off of a season for the ages, a guy whose ERA has risen from 2.40 to 2.80, and whose rate stats are just about the same as last year. No one can keep this up forever, and once Verlander inevitably falters I'll bet this scout will feel as though he was really onto something earlier than anyone else. This is nonsense.
Let's try to prevent MLB from becoming the NFL, where post facto rationalizations and non-specific, cold reading-like faux expertise go unquestioned.
I'm sorry, and I'm sure I'll be dismissed as a curmudgeon, but someone has to say it. If you're one of those people who is thinking of responding "Oh, I don't know, I like the scout's views. They bring a new angle to the game that statistical analysis doesn't..." go ahead, but first go back and read a few weeks worth of scout's views with a critical eye.
I agree that the Verlander comment is a little too panicky.
While he's not QUITE at the same level he was last year, he's still on the (extremely) short list for Cy Young candidates. If he were getting a little more run support and were, say, 14-5 or 15-4 instead of 12-7, no one would be saying a word.
I remember watching one of his outings against Cleveland earlier in the year where in his last inning (I believe it was the 7th), he struck out the side on 10 pitches, where his second to last pitch was a 102 MPH fastball.
Yeah, I think he's gonna be OK.
While everything you're saying is true, NYYanks826, that isn't really my point. My point is that the scout can never be wrong. Verlander will not throw 101 mph forever, and like every pitcher in baseball history who has run teh table of pitching statistics and is in his dominant prime, he will inevitably fall on comparatively hard times.
This is how psychics bilk people out of money, basically.
My two cents, since I really WANT to like the scout's views section: it might be more helpful and fun to see a variety of scout views on a few players, rather than one per. That way you could see some context for whether one scout is an outlier or if they all say the same thing. Probably too much work, but I like John's contextual writing and want to like the scouts views, but do find them often mystifying and vague.
I would agree with some of this. I wish the scouts would be identified. I know it won't happen, but its hard to take them seriously. Especially with they refer to Kris Medlen as a future Cy Young winner.
On the other hand the Cueto comment was useful, the type of comment a scout would pick up on and I would not.
So the idea is that almost every other pitcher tips his pitches in a perceptible way, and in a way that batters can pick up on in time to make the necessary adjustment? I seriously doubt that's true.
If it is true though, that scout may be better utilized by training the major league hitters how to look for this sort of thing, except for when they're facing Cueto, of course, and the scout can then take the day off.
While the comments can be interesting (or can be generic scout speak), when I read the columns, I find it more important to know who is being talked about.
Where to start?
To be honest, the regular moaning about the scouts' comments is getting a little tedious. If people don't like them, they really are not compelled to read them, especially if you don't believe that scouting adds any value to statistical analysis.
Also, you aren't going to get major league scouts to do a back and forth discussion on the merits of a player, knowing that it could end up in print. It's totally unrealistic, as are the pointless complaints that come up every so often that the scouts are anonymous.
Obviously, most of the comments are not desperately deep, and some of them say very little at all when you boil them down, but they tell you what some baseball professionals think of various players. I find that interesting, especially when someone is willing to step out of the consensus on a player. Will Medlen win a Cy Young - probably not, but it's at least interesting to me that an intelligent observer who is being paid by a big league team thinks he might. Similarly with Harrison. On the Cueto comment, I think it's very unlikely that all major league pitchers avoid tipping any of their pitches at all in any way. Do you really think that?
I'll tell you what I believe. I believe that it's an over-complication, like a lot of the stuff so-called baseball scouting experts say. Many pitchers may or may not technically tip their pitchers, but I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of them do it in a way that is not perceptible enough to do anything about it. It's happening, typically, as the pitcher is in his delivery, and there really isn't much time to do anything about it at that point, given the time constraints a batter is dealing with.
When we talk about a pitcher that is REALLY tipping his pitches, what we probably mean is that he is tipping his pitches so badly that hitters are able to do something about it. This type of pitcher will get completely pummeled in the Majors and will thus be shipped out in short order, so yeah, I do believe that almost no one is tipping his pitches in any meaningful way. It's something that scouts are saying to make themselves sound smart, and it doesn't amount to much. I believe that Cueto is doing well because he has a lot of ability, and he's doing a great job of executing his pitches.
If it were true that tipping your pitches in some minor way made that much of a difference, wouldn't we see fewer effective two-pitch pitchers? After all, when a guy has two pitches, say a big lefty with a fastball and a slider, wouldn't a lot of the guesswork be gone, especially if batters know that that pitcher starts with a fastball 2/3 of the time? Yes, it helps to know what pitch is coming if you can avail yourself of that information, but it doesn't help as much as just about everyone seems to think it does. The reason it doesn't is that hitting is difficult.
Great hitting or pitching happens when tremendous ability and focused execution intersect. Guys hit homers not so much because they've been given a day off, or because it's their birthday or because some big guys is batting behind them in the order. It's because they are doing a good job of executing this thing that they already know how to do but have a hard time doing consistently. As to why they get hot and do it well for a while and then cold for a while and back and forth, well, I'd imagine that there are a lot of variables involved, few of which are easy to grasp or explain the way these scouts pretend that they can, and on top of it you'll notice that they often hedge by doing most of the "explaining" after the fact.
I'm not saying people shouldn't read the scouts' views, and I'm not saying that you aren't supposed to get some personal enjoyment out of them. I just want to point out that we shouldn't stop reading them with the critical eye that they deserve, just because, after years of being ridiculed for using more empirical approaches to gain insights into the game, we feel pressure to give credence to old school scouting. When a bunch of pointless comments by scouts appear in Baseball Prospectus, whether I choose to read them or not, I feel that the pendulum has probably swung a bit to far in the other direction.