2012 Jesus Montero Performance Thread

[flymick24]

Why is pitching being discussed in a Jesus Montero thread?

[BennyTheJetRodriguez]

Well said. The bolded is the crux of what is being said here, and it is just being glossed over like it hasn't been said, despite it being repeated multiple times.

You'll notice that we still don't have any names of the pitching group, whose catastrophic injuries are so much easier to predict, who will experience such an injury next season.

In the context of a Montero trade discussion, there is a world of difference between saying "young pitchers in general carry a higher risk of catastrophic injury", and "Michael Pineda is going to suffer a catastrophic injury".

If it was so easy to predict, as False1 said, that deal would never have even been discussed, much less agreed to and executed.

Predict : to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason

Perhaps estimate would have been a better word, but we really are talking about semantics here. If you told me that its easier to predict that smokers will get lung cancer than non smokers I wouldn't disagree with you. Not all smokers get lung cancer and some non smokers do. Predicting which smokers will get lung cancer is obviously an in exact science, but my claim isn't that every pitching injury is 100% predictable.

If you name 10 hitters, I'll name 10 pitchers, but I really don't see a)why anyone disagrees with the idea that pitching injuries, in addition to being way more common, have multiple warning signs and are thus easier to predict (in general) than hitting injuries, which have almost no warning signs. Or b)how the results of a random sample will disprove my common sense theory.

[Blazer]

Joba, Phil Hughes, Pineda, ManBam, Campos, Wang, Nova, Betances, Brackman, Kennedy

[False1]

Predict : to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason

Perhaps estimate would have been a better word, but we really are talking about semantics here. If you told me that its easier to predict that smokers will get lung cancer than non smokers I wouldn't disagree with you. Not all smokers get lung cancer and some non smokers do. Predicting which smokers will get lung cancer is obviously an in exact science, but my claim isn't that every pitching injury is 100% predictable.

If you name 10 hitters, I'll name 10 pitchers, but I really don't see a)why anyone disagrees with the idea that pitching injuries, in addition to being way more common, have multiple warning signs and are thus easier to predict (in general) than hitting injuries, which have almost no warning signs. Or b)how the results of a random sample will disprove my common sense theory.

Which smokers are going to get cancer and when? I'm not trying to nitpick, but again you're talking about probabilities, which no one will disagree with you.

Again, it's not really a prediction to say that young pitchers get hurt more often. That's a fact. If organizations could predict which ones (which is ultimately what matters) you wouldn't see them on rosters and getting fat contracts.

[Blazer]

How many young pitchers get 4+ year deals when they become arbitration eligible?

[awy]

it's simple expected value.

risk is directly translated into ev. if you trade between things wtih different risk, of course their values will be adjusted according to the risk. pitchers in general having higher risk means they'll have lower expected return. although, there is also the premium placed on high quality starting pitching and that balances things out, at least perceptually.

the switching between predicting any partiuclar apple will be bad and the expected badness of any apple is a frame switch, not a world switch, so to speak. the underlying risks are the same.

[Donnybaseball72]

How many young pitchers get 4+ year deals when they become arbitration eligible?

Clay Buchholz, James Shields and John Johnson did.

[awy]

matt m00re too.

a couple years ago the phrase "there is no such thing as a pitching prospect" was popular. then it wasn't, with the advent of the rays.

this doesn't mean there wasn't some truth that made the phrase true, it means the rays either got lucky or had really researched their pitching development program to reduce the risk.

there has been too much bandwagoning on pitchers by all teams, when only some of them possess scouting/developmental skills to make it work.

[BennyTheJetRodriguez]

Which smokers are going to get cancer and when? I'm not trying to nitpick, but again you're talking about probabilities, which no one will disagree with you.

Again, it's not really a prediction to say that young pitchers get hurt more often. That's a fact. If organizations could predict which ones (which is ultimately what matters) you wouldn't see them on rosters and getting fat contracts.

I covered all this in my last post, no need for us to go in circles. Is a prediction only a prediction when it's 100% correct? Because that seems to be what you are indicating. The increased probability that everyone agrees with PLUS all of the warning signs and potential red flags make accurate predictions more likely, wouldn't it?

[RenoHightower]

I covered all this in my last post, no need for us to go in circles. Is a prediction only a prediction when it's 100% correct? Because that seems to be what you are indicating. The increased probability that everyone agrees with PLUS all of the warning signs and potential red flags make accurate predictions more likely, wouldn't it?

So you're saying that no one should ever trade a position player for a pitcher, because pitchers are more likely to get hurt?

[snapple]

So you're saying that no one should ever trade a position player for a pitcher, because pitchers are more likely to get hurt?

Reno, it's not worth it.

[awy]

it just means teh risk is higher and you have to properly account for that risk, taking into your ability to assess and manage that risk.

[BennyTheJetRodriguez]

it just means teh risk is higher and you have to properly account for that risk, taking into your ability to assess and manage that risk.

This is all I'm saying. Crazy hyperbole around here.

[False1]

This is all I'm saying. Crazy hyperbole around here.

But following that same logic... Most positional prospects bust. Should the M's have used that same logic and predicted that Montero would bust? That's what seems to be the rub with your use of "prediction" in the context of the discussion.

I think the general injury risk delta between Pineda and Montero was addressed by including Campos and Noesi.

[RenoHightower]

it just means teh risk is higher and you have to properly account for that risk, taking into your ability to assess and manage that risk.

Which the Yankees did by acquiring a player who had already succeeded at the MLB-level in exchange for one who hadn't. Pineda then proceeded to get hurt. It sucks, but there's nothing really to be done about it.

[awy]

risk period for young pitchers extend well into and past their first year. i'd have thought. ive already typed pineda's particular flags several times. let me just say it was a reasonable gamble that i thought they shouldn't have taken at the time. close call though, mostly because of campos. without campos that deal looked pretty shaky.

[awy]

But following that same logic... Most positional prospects bust. Should the M's have used that same logic and predicted that Montero would bust? That's what seems to be the rub with your use of "prediction" in the context of the discussion.

I think the general injury risk delta between Pineda and Montero was addressed by including Campos and Noesi.

positional players do bust, but not at the same rate. it is also a more predictable kind of busting. when a pitcher has an injury, it is such an unknown and sometimes a total loss.

positional players with years of prospect track record do not fare nearly as badly. the development period itself can be long though.

[RenoHightower]

risk period for young pitchers extend well into and past their first year. i'd have thought. ive already typed pineda's particular flags several times. let me just say it was a reasonable gamble that i thought they shouldn't have taken at the time. close call though, mostly because of campos. without campos that deal looked pretty shaky.

What flags? That he throws a slider? An elbow strain in 2009 that had nothing to do with his shoulder injury?

Also, the point wasn't that pitching a year in the majors erases the possibility that he'll get hurt; it's that he's already proven to be talented enough to succeed at that level. Montero hadn't (and still hasn't), which more or less equalized the risk.

[awy]

the problems were not only injury but also performance as he has to develop a 3rd pitch.

but on the injury side, heavy slider usage, previous injury (talking in risk terms, just because one part broke does not mean other parts had no risk), and general young pitcher-ness.

[RenoHightower]

the problems were not only injury but also performance as he has to develop a 3rd pitch.

He needs to improve his change, but he was one of the best strikeout pitchers in all of baseball in 2011. He doesn't have far to go to be a very successful player, at least in terms of performance.

but on the injury side, heavy slider usage, previous injury (talking in risk terms, just because one part broke does not mean other parts had no risk), and general young pitcher-ness.

So no young pitchers and no sliders and no one who has ever been hurt, even if it was his first notable injury and, in the interim, he had two completely healthy seasons?

[awy]

first part of your post is ok, second part is ummm. not really sure what i said that you are disputing. i kind of just said one successful ml season for a pitcher doesn't make him suddenly risk proof. the window is a bit longer.

[Jace]

first part of your post is ok, second part is ummm. not really sure what i said that you are disputing. i kind of just said one successful ml season for a pitcher doesn't make him suddenly risk proof. the window is a bit longer.

Montero had no successful seasons, he had a successful month. Pineda has higher injury potential but was more valuable performance-wise (and a less likely performance bust) because he had a borderline historically good year for someone his age

Equating the risk definitely makes sense, but not just for injuries. You have to factor in injuries (Montero advantage) and performance (Pineda advantage)

[awy]

yes, montero had a single month of owning in the ml. but elite hitting prospects generally do well at the top level, especially someone with a long track record of hitting success in all levels of the minors. (though there are people who say his triple a stats were underwhelming. the lack of progression could have been a unique marker people were not picking up on.)

[tranquility]

Wow ... I add the first post to this thread in two months and the thread takes off in an unanticipated direction.

Let's hope Michael Pineda and Jesus Montero see better seasons.

[Philip Hughes Fan]

Honest question, is there any actual evidence that sliders result in more injuries?