PDA

View Full Version : There's no such thing as a pitching prospect


kermittheefrog
05-10-2002, 12:37 AM
We're collecting the wrong kind of prospect. You can clearly expect much less out of a top pitching prospect than you can from a top batting prospect.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020509covert.shtml

Vsahajpal
05-10-2002, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
We're collecting the wrong kind of prospect. You can clearly expect much less out of a top pitching prospect than you can from a top batting prospect.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020509covert.shtml

Too many variables associated with that argument. I don't think it is fair to grade a guy like Josh Beckett low because other high schoolers nowhere near his class were drafted in the top 10 during that 8-year period, and flopped.

kermittheefrog
05-10-2002, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal


Too many variables associated with that argument. I don't think it is fair to grade a guy like Josh Beckett low because other high schoolers nowhere near his class were drafted in the top 10 during that 8-year period, and flopped.


It gives you good reason to be suspect of all pitching prospects especially high schoolers. What really struck me is the fact that high schoolers in the top top and bottom 50 of the 100 don't really fare differently.

Vsahajpal
05-10-2002, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog



It gives you good reason to be suspect of all pitching prospects especially high schoolers. What really struck me is the fact that high schoolers in the top top and bottom 50 of the 100 don't really fare differently.


I wouldn't say all pitching prospects.

kermittheefrog
05-10-2002, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal



I wouldn't say all pitching prospects.

Why not? Who would be immune so to speak?

Vsahajpal
05-10-2002, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Why not? Who would be immune so to speak?

Beckett for one, Prior's another; I have a hard time agreeing with that article since it doesn't really differentiate as it said it would. I mean, Prior and Beckett are "can't-miss prospects;" the title of the article would lead you to believe that the article would be regarding solely "can't miss prospects." But in fact, they take into account the top 10's from 8 different years, and to me there's a substantial difference between say Josh Beckett and Matt White, both top 10 prospects at different times.

kermittheefrog
05-10-2002, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal


Beckett for one, Prior's another; I have a hard time agreeing with that article since it doesn't really differentiate as it said it would. I mean, Prior and Beckett are "can't-miss prospects;" the title of the article would lead you to believe that the article would be regarding solely "can't miss prospects." But in fact, they take into account the top 10's from 8 different years, and to me there's a substantial difference between say Josh Beckett and Matt White, both top 10 prospects at different times.

My guess is "can't miss" guys are so rare that there isn't enough sample size to be able to take a lot from researching them. I'd say injury risk involved with any pitcher keeps at least Beckett from being immune. Beckett has had should problems in the past. I've read in BA that he's had some problems, albiet minor ones that could follow him his entire career. Prior is a little older and has had a good health history so I could buy him being special before I could buy the same about Beckett.