"Coddle Thy Pitchers": Pitching Development

[Bourgeois Zee]

I think we can all agree that Reds' starters have traditionally been underwhelming. From the Big Red Machine to Klu's heyday to the Lost Decade, the dearth of starting pitching has cost the franchise multiple world championships. In fact, you could argue the Reds have been among the worst in the game at developing starting pitching pretty much since The Whip roamed the diamond.

During the Dunn/ Junior/ Casey decade, many posters on this site, in reaction to that inability leaned on the princeton quote, "Coddle thy pitchers. Challenge thy hitters." M2 continues to insist it's the best (and only) way to consistently develop good starters from the minor leagues.

Is it?

The following starters have ranked among the top 30 at least once since 2012. I looked at the minor league system that "developed" them and how many innings they threw at each level. (For those who were split between systems, I either ignored the player or chose the team who had the biggest hand in making him what he was during his career.) Development is categorized as:

Extremely aggressive: Consistently pushing pitchers before seasons are up, skipping levels, early entrance to the parent ballclub
Aggressive: Typically, somewhere around 100 IP at each level before moving up.
Mixed: Some instances of aggressive movement. Some examples of conservative development.
Conservative: Full seasons for each level

I skipped the Reds (who had three guys) and teams that had only one player developed in the top 30 (LA, for example). Feel free to add to the research, as this was done quickly. I might well have missed some guys.

Tampa Bay Rays
Homegrown starters:
Blake Snell
David Price
Matt Moore
Alex Cobb
James Shields
Jeremy Hellickson
Scott Kazmir

Philosophy: Aggressive promotion especially higher up the ladder

Comments: Price, Kazmir, and Snell pitched less than 100 innings at each minor league stop before becoming major leaguers. (Price and Kazmir in particular were "rushed" with little issue beyond the typical young pitcher struggles.) Matt Moore and Alex Cobb threw less than 75 innings in AAA and moved one level per year prior to that. Jeremy Hellickson split one season between A+ and AA, but was held back at the higher levels. James Shields also split seasons between A+ and AA, AA and AAA, and AAA and the majors.


Detroit Tigers
Homegrown starters:
Justin Verlander
Rick Porcello

Philosophy: Extremely aggressive
Verlander pitched a total of 118 innings in the minor leagues and none above AA. Rick Porcello went from A+ to the majors.


Washington Nationals
Homegrown starters:
Stephen Strasburg
Jordan Zimmermann
Marco Estrada

Philosophy: Extremely aggressive

Comments: All three starters were pushed forward multiple times in a season or skipped leagues entirely.


Arizona Diamondbacks
Homegrown starters:
Max Scherzer
Robbie Ray
Chase Anderson

Philosophy: Aggressive

Comments: Anderson never threw more than 104 IP in any league on his way to the majors. Scherzer threw less than that-- 73 IP in AA topped him out. Ray's development was a bit more conservative, though he did throw only 60 IP in AA before moving up to AAA.


New York Mets
Homegrown starters:
Jacob DeGrom
Michael Fulmer
Collin McHugh
Noah Syndergaard
Matt Harvey

Philosophy: Mixed

Comments: DeGrom pitched less than 100 innings at every level, twice moving multiple levels in the middle of the season. Fulmer skipped AAA almost entirely (13 IP). McHugh's development was much more conservative, as he spent full seasons across each level. Syndergaard spent half a season in A+ and half a season in AA before spending a full year in the PCL. Ditto Harvey.


Houston Astros
Homegrown starters:
Dallas Kuechel
Lance McCullers

Philosophy: Mixed

Comments: Kuechel skipped A ball, moving straight from A- to A+, then threw around 300+ IP in the upper minors, but McCullers threw a total of 40 IP in AA and AAA combined (!).


St. Louis Cardinals
Homegrown starters:
Carlos Martinez
Adam Wainwright
Lance Lynn

Philosophy: Mixed

Comments: Wainwright spent a full season at each level. Lynn threw 40 (ish) IP below AA, then threw around 360 IP in AA and AAA. Martinez, otoh, threw less than 83 innings at any of the three upper levels.


Kansas City Royals
Homegrown starters:
Zack Greinke
Danny Duffy

Philosophy: Extremely aggressive

Comments: Greinke moved quickly up the ladder with less than 100 IP any any level (then, after a full season in the majors, got sent back down). Duffy had 42 IP in AAA and 55 in AA before moving into the KC rotation.


Chicago White Sox
Homegrown starters:
Chris Sale
Jose Quintana
Matt Buehrle

Philosophy: Extremely aggressive

Comments: Sale pitched 10 innings in the minors. Total. Quintana didn't go to AAA at all and only had a cup of coffee in AA (less than 50 IP). Buehrle spent less time in the minors than did Sale.


Philadelphia Phillies
Homegrown starters:
Cole Hamels
Carlos Carrasco

Philosophy: Mixed

Comments: Carrasco spent full seasons at each level, but Hamels threw barely any innings above A ball.


________

[WrongVerb]

Is this confirmation bias? How many washed out due to aggressive promotion?

[Kc61]

The best development technique is to draft and acquire top, top pitching talent.

[lollipopcurve]

One adage you hear often is "the players will tell you when they're ready." In other words, if they're overmatching a level consistently, move them up. There are, of course, human factors involved, but provided the player has shown the emotional maturity to handle the change, I don't see a problem with it. Basic tenet of competition.

It is as KC61 says -- talent carries the day.

[M2]

The key number you're looking for is the debut age. Ideally you want to keep them out of MLB starting gigs until age 23.5 - partially because very few are good prior to that age. Yet it also means you rode less of a whip hand on them through the minors and take more time to teach them what they need to succeed. I'll use Blake Snell as an examples since he's the 1st guy BZ listed.

Snell got drafted out of HS and pitched in the GCL at age 18. Next year he stepped up to the Appy League at age 19. Then he spent a full season in the MWL (A ball) at age 20. Went back to the MWL at age 21, pitched well and got called up to A+ ball to finish the season. At that point he had spent four years in pro ball and moved a rung up the ladder each year. They brought along his inning load slowly (because that's how most organizations do it these days), but the key thing is it was a methodical promotion schedule.

At age 22, he started in A+, got promoted to AA and then they gave him another promotion to AAA. It was a big year for him and he burst onto top 100 lists, taking BA's #12 slot. At age 23, he started in AAA, pitched well and got his callup to a regular MLB gig at age 23.5 (almost exactly). From there he pitched a bit lucky. This season he's struggled and is back in AAA where I assume he's working on some stuff (where his K rate is outstanding).

So they moved him a little quick once he caught fire at age 22, but overall the Rays didn't pump him out into the majors at a notably young age. What we can't know, because they didn't do it, is what might have been gained by giving him a full season in AA in 2015 and more time in AAA in 2016 having him refine his control (BB rate is his major issue). Clearly they've got him in AAA trying to learn something he didn't pick up in his first pass through that level. It's a tacit admission he should have spent more time in the oven.

He's healthy, which is good, but they burned a year of service time on him before he was truly ready. We actually have enough hindsight to recognize they should have spent a little more development time to turn him into more of a finished product. No great sins were committed with Blake Snell, but the Rays also don't have the pitcher they want. Maybe he never clears that final hurdle, but he's right now a poster boy for, no matter how easy he's making it look, there's important things to refine at every level.

[WrongVerb]

The key number you're looking for is the debut age. Ideally you want to keep them out of MLB starting gigs until age 23.5 - partially because very few are good prior to that age. Yet it also means you rode less of a whip hand on them through the minors and take more time to teach them what they need to succeed. I'll use Blake Snell as an examples since he's the 1st guy BZ listed.

Snell got drafted out of HS and pitched in the GCL at age 18. Next year he stepped up to the Appy League at age 19. Then he spent a full season in the MWL (A ball) at age 20. Went back to the MWL at age 21, pitched well and got called up to A+ ball to finish the season. At that point he had spent four years in pro ball and moved a rung up the ladder each year. They brought along his inning load slowly (because that's how most organizations do it these days), but the key thing is it was a methodical promotion schedule.

At age 22, he started in A+, got promoted to AA and then they gave him another promotion to AAA. It was a big year for him and he burst onto top 100 lists, taking BA's #12 slot. At age 23, he started in AAA, pitched well and got his callup to a regular MLB gig at age 23.5 (almost exactly). From there he pitched a bit lucky. This season he's struggled and is back in AAA where I assume he's working on some stuff (where his K rate is outstanding).

So they moved him a little quick once he caught fire at age 22, but overall the Rays didn't pump him out into the majors at a notably young age. What we can't know, because they didn't do it, is what might have been gained by giving him a full season in AA in 2015 and more time in AAA in 2016 having him refine his control (BB rate is his major issue). Clearly they've got him in AAA trying to learn something he didn't pick up in his first pass through that level. It's a tacit admission he should have spent more time in the oven.

He's healthy, which is good, but they burned a year of service time on him before he was truly ready. We actually have enough hindsight to recognize they should have spent a little more development time to turn him into more of a finished product. No great sins were committed with Blake Snell, but the Rays also don't have the pitcher they want. Maybe he never clears that final hurdle, but he's right now a poster boy for, no matter how easy he's making it look, there's important things to refine at every level.

This is why I've been one to preach patience with these young pitchers. I won't criticize the team for their decisions, thought, because they're acting on way more information than I am. But I do think we should see if they learned lessons from RS, CR, and AG when dealing with the next batch of expected front-line pitchers like VG, TM, and LC. It'll be telling, for instance, if see Mahle before September 2018.

[Bourgeois Zee]

Is this confirmation bias? How many washed out due to aggressive promotion?

I don't think so. Pitchers wash out. A lot. And since conservative development, system guys, and flotsam would all look pretty much the same, it'd be awfully easy to argue that aggressiveness would prove more effective. As system guys hardly ever develop into anything more than AAAA guys and flotsam has less chance than that to do anything more than pitch in AAA, if that. (That would be confirmation bias, IMO.)

You could perhaps control for promotion schedules by focusing only on high draft picks. But that ignores a ton of guys who do well as lower round picks.

[Bourgeois Zee]

No great sins were committed with Blake Snell, but the Rays also don't have the pitcher they want. Maybe he never clears that final hurdle, but he's right now a poster boy for, no matter how easy he's making it look, there's important things to refine at every level.

Or pitchers have to learn how to pitch at the major league level.

Were your supposition correct, there would be a huge discrepancy between those who debut before age 24 and those who debut afterwards in terms of how well they pitch their rookie seasons. (As those who are 24 are more "ready.")

There isn't.

[M2]

One adage you hear often is "the players will tell you when they're ready." In other words, if they're overmatching a level consistently, move them up. There are, of course, human factors involved, but provided the player has shown the emotional maturity to handle the change, I don't see a problem with it. Basic tenet of competition.

I'm going to channel princeton on this because that line of thinking is exactly what "coddle thy pitchers" opposes. What you have there isn't a philosophy or a development plan. It's the abdication of anything like that. Why even go through the pretense of having a minor league director if all you're going to do is promote kids whenever they're doing well? You could pull any Tom, Dick or Harry off the street to make that call. "I like the cut of his jib!"

That's just "challenge them until they fail or succeed." It's certainly not based on the notion that you maybe should be teaching them or having a much more specific approach to when they should be moved up. Que sera sera. That's the Reds way, always has been. Yet we keep claiming not to like how the organization continually gets its pitching prospects snared in various bear traps.

"Coddle thy pitchers" puts forth the notion that you don't fall in love with every new kid pitcher like some dewy-eyed schoolgirl. Be an adult and do a deeper assessment of whether they're actually ready. Understand that minor league jumps accrue and advance the major league start time for these kids. Be realistic about whether what you're seeing today indicates that kid is going to be ready at a younger age (usually it doesn't). Recognize and resist the impatience built into the process. Rather than rush to market, attempt to put out a better product.

princeton would have said that in far fewer words. I'm guessing something like "So your process is you don't have a process." I'm trying to remember whether that's a direct quote or not.

[M2]

Or pitchers have to learn how to pitch at the major league level.

Were your supposition correct, there would be a huge discrepancy between those who debut before age 24 and those who debut afterwards in terms of how well they pitch their rookie seasons. (As those who are 24 are more "ready.")

There isn't.

A) They have to be prepared to learn at the major league level. If all you're learning is that you can't really hack it there, that's not much of a lesson. Cody Reed seems to have learned little other than PTSD.

B) The huge discrepancy is how many SPs in any given season pitch well prior to age 24. Currently 3 of 46 ERA qualifiers with an ERA+ of 100 or better are under age 24. Last year it was 6 of 48 (and they were all 23). So what's the rush? Especially if you're a smaller market team, why are you burning service time on not-ready-for-primetime seasons?

C) What you should be paying attention to is the number of SPs ages 20-23 who struggle mightily. These are technically the top pitching prospects in the game and they fall like wheat before a thresher. Again, back in the early days of this forum (and others prior to it), people went in and tallied the numbers. They were mortifying. So imagine if there were some way to better prepare your top pitching talents.

[Bourgeois Zee]

What you should be paying attention to is the number of SPs ages 20-23 who struggle mightily. These are technically the top pitching prospects in the game and they fall like wheat before a thresher. Again, back in the early days of this forum (and others prior to it), people went in and tallied the numbers. They were mortifying. So imagine if there were some way to better prepare your top pitching talents.

This year, three qualified starters are younger than 23-- Lance McCullers, Luis Severino, and Antonio Senzatela. All three have fWAR over 1.0. Two of them are among the top pitchers in the game this season. If you drop that to 20 total IP, there are a total of nine starters under 23. Five of them have very good numbers. 69 of 156 starters over 23 have been above average so far this season (ie, a 4.20 FIP).

Last year, 37 starters under 23 pitched 20 innings or more as a starter. 5 had a FIP of 3.00 or lower. 15 of them had a FIP under 4.00. 17 were above average (4.20 or less). 85 of the 210 pitchers over the age of 23 had a FIP lower than 4.20.

In 2015, 13 of 29 were above average. 113 of 216 24 and older were.

In 2014, 18 of 27 were. 128 of 199 of those 24 or older were.

In 2013, 18 of 31. 111 of 204 older than 23 were above average.

In 2012, 16 of 31. 109 of 202 of those older than 23 earned FIPs of 4.20 or lower.

If you average all those together, older starters are about 52% likely to earn a FIP 4.20 or better.

Younger starters are at 53%.

Again, I just don't see the difference.

[kaldaniels]

On a related note I'm tired of hearing about "Reithing" a guy every time an aggressive promotion is made.

Most pitching prospects aren't going to pan out anyway, so how do you even know if one was Reithed?

How do we even know Reith was Reithed?

[M2]

In 2013, 18 of 31. 111 of 204 older than 23 were above average.

I think you've picked too small a sample size to glean meaningful information, but let's pick this season - because everyone's had time to get established and it was your highest % for the under 24 crowd.

Pitcher - career ERA+, current status

Henderson Alvarez - 105, injured 2+ seasons
Trevor Bauer - 95, #3/4 starter
Madison Bumgarner - 123, ace
Tony Cingrani - 102, bullpen/injured
Gerritt Cole - 117, #2 starter
Patrick Corbin - 98, #5 starter
Jared Cosart - 99, fringe SP
Randall Delgado - 99, bullpen
Nathan Eovaldi - 94, injured
Robbie Erlin - 78, injured
Jose Fernandez - 151, deceased
Kevin Gausmann - 99, #4 starter (entered the season a #3, pitching like a #5)
Sonny Gray - 111, struggling to regain ace form
Brad Hand - 95, bullpen
Erik Johnson - 77, ???
Jordan Lyles - 80, bullpen
Matt Magill - 58, minors
Brandon Maurer - 78, bullpen
Jenrry Mejia - 99, banned for PEDs
Shelby Miller - 106, #3/4 starter/UCL injury
Brett Oberholtzer - 91, bullpen
Jake Odorizzi - 105, #3 starter
Martin Perez - 101, #4 starter
Jonathan Pettibone - 85, indy ball
Erasmo Ramirez - 94, swingman
Danny Salazar - 111, trying to regain form after injury
Tyler Skaggs - 85, frequently injured
Burch Smith - 53, retired
Julio Teheran - 111, Jeckyl & Hyde (#2 starter or #4 stater dependent on the year)
Jacob Turner - 78, swingman
Yordano Ventura - 106, deceased
Michael Wacha - 104, #3 starter
Allen Webster - 67, minors
Zack Wheeler - 101, #3/4 starter after two years lost to injury
Alex Wood - 117, #3 starter/injured for parts of last two season

All right, so let's unpack that (and if you want to consider a given pitcher a #2 or #4 instead of a #3, that's fine).

First thing to note is this was the cream of the crop in 2013. These were the hottest pitching prospects in the land. A pile of them were 1st rounders. From that we've got two aces - MadBum and Jose Fernandez, and Fernandez had a UCL. After that we've got Gerritt Cole, who's solid though not the ace the Pirates hoped when they took him 1/1. There's Sonny Gray and Danny Salazar who have been very good, but currently are well off that form. Kevin Gausman, Shelby Miller and Julio Teheran have been inconsistent, though Teheran has had two very good seasons when his HR issues don't don't get too bad. Jake Odorizzi is solid enough, though HR issues. Michael Wacha does acceptable work. Martin Perez battled injury and he's been meh when healthy. Yordano Ventura was frustrating before his untimely demise. I'd put Trevor Bauer in the same category. Alex Wood has sometimes been very good, sometimes not, sometimes injured - he's strange. Everyone else has disappointed, failed or been majorly injured.

Of the 35 guys I listed, that means 14 have delivered well enough that you could claim some measure of success. I'd argue most of that group has fallen short of expectations and been marred at times by injury and inconsistency. For instance, I don't think you can build a staff around guys like Gray, Gausman, Miller and Wood. Too much unreliability. You have to cross your fingers and hope for the best.

That is, overall, a pretty poor return from the head of the class. The number of reliably good pitchers here is sparse. Only MadBum and Cole have managed 3+ seasons with 100+ IP and an ERA+ above 100. Also, using your method of accounting, guys like Erlin, Oberholtzer and Pettibone were showing up as successes (which they indisputably are not).

[M2]

On a related note I'm tired of hearing about "Reithing" a guy every time an aggressive promotion is made.

Most pitching prospects aren't going to pan out anyway, so how do you even know if one was Reithed?

How do we even know Reith was Reithed?

We know from the terrified and hopeless look on his face as we watched him melt down in front of our eyes. I remember during the game threads we were posting that somebody needed to rush out there and give him a hug. These terms have origins.

And we just saw Cody Reed get Reithed. The term has new-found relevance.

[kaldaniels]

By all means not disagreeing with that list of yours M2...but using that as a control, how would it compare to guys not rushed?