19 Responses to “Last 5 Years, Most Pitcher Seasons With WAR >0 And Age 25 Or Younger”

1. Neil L. Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 10:37 am

   I'm surprised Tampa Bay isn't higher on the list. I would have thought they were the leader in developing young pitching talent.

   Steve, was there any minimum put on number of innings the player pitched in the season with a positive WAR? My thinking being that the list might be a little more informative if a few low-inning pitching seasons were filtered out.

   Also surprising that there is a distinct lack of post-season success among the top 11 teams over the last five years. But maybe the best is still to come for the young pitching staffs.

   Nice,intriguing list.

2. jiffy Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 11:08 am

   Agreed on the low innings threshhold, though 0 WAR is probably just too low of a cutoff to find anyone productive. The whole idea of 0 WAR is that it would be about equal to any scrub called up from the minors, right? Looking at the Cubs, who I'm most familiar with, there's probably only 5 decent ML guys on that list of 13 (Cashner, Coleman-maybe, Marshall, Marmol, Wells).

3. Bill Petti Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 11:10 am

   Very cool. Of course, there are a few non-farm system guys (Perez of the Mets, etc).

   The next step would be to see total WAR and WAR per pitcher for each time. That really tells you about "hatching" quality arms versus just filling spots on a bad team.

4. Steve Lombardi Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 11:17 am

   I did use a low IP cutoff. I think it was 30 IP. I did that because I didn't want to slight guys in the pen. Agreed, the list would look different if I used 80 IP or something like that.

5. Doug B Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 11:27 am

   I think you should have used WAR > 1.0 , that means they have to "earn their way onto the list". Then you can ignore the innings cutoff.

   My Brewers have developed such future stars as Zach Braddock, Zach Jackson, Jeremy Jeffress and Mike McClendon?

   Also - it does not appear you used any innings cutoff. Jeremy Jeffress only pitched 10 innings in his career comming into 2011 and he's on your list.

6. mike Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 11:45 am

   Nationals should be WAR >0 And Age 25 Or Younger And Tommy John Surgery < 1 . There would be no one left on their line...

7. Larry R. Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 11:56 am

   Boy...the Mets farm system was a pitching factory in the '60s. There's only so much you can blame on Bernie Madoff.

8. Nathan Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 12:03 pm

   I'm surprised the Cardinals have so few, but then again, LaRussa doesn't trust the young ones.

9. RichardKC Says:
   June 21st, 2011 at 1:05 pm

   Nice list, but Kyle Davies can't handle major league hitters.

   Other than that, though, 9 of the other Royals players have pitched in their bullpen this year, plus Duffy is currently in the rotation, although his spot may be in danger when Kyle Davies returns from his minor league rehab stint.

10. Anon Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Nice list however the Giants are near the bottom and their list includes Cain, Lincecum, Sanchez, Bumgarner and Brian Wilson. Didn't go through every other team but that quintet has to trump every other team on the list in terms of overall quality, doesn't it?

11. Whiz Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    @5, I agree with Doug, a higher WAR cutoff is cleaner (and more appropriate to the question).

    With WAR > 1 the top of the list is OAK 10, TBR 9, TOR 9, BAL 8, WAS 8, ATL 7, LAA 7, ARI 6, DET 6. SDP drops off completely (only 3).

    With WAR > 2 we get OAK 9, TBR 6, TOR 6, BAL 5, BOS 4, DET 4, SEA 4. (SDP is down to only 1.)

    With WAR > 3 there's BOS 4, DET 4, OAK 4, TBR 4, LAD 3, SFG 3.

    With WAR >4 we have TBR 4, OAK 3, LAD 3, SFG 3.

    So if you require real quality, the usual suspects do come to the top.

12. Gonzo Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    Any 'positive' list that includes David Herndon and Kyle Kendrick is severely flawed.

13. Bip Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    @11

    I expected to see the Dodgers and Giants higher on the initial list, and when I saw where they were, I figured I was more entranced by quality over quantity. Your list basically proves it.

14. Evan Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    Seeing as Chris Perez appears with the Cardinals first, did the Indians really "hatch" him?

15. Neil L. Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    @11
    Whiz, nice filtering. Increasing the WAR does bring Tampa Bay to the top which is what one would expect.

    Part of me loves seeing big-market teams like the Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox and Mets toward the bottom of the list.

    After all, why develop from within when you can just go out and buy a starting rotation?

16. Whiz Says:
    June 21st, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    @14, good question, Evan. Perez really did come up in the Cardinals organization. He actually appears on both the Indians and Cardinals lists since he had positive WAR for both, but the Indians didn't groom him.

17. Jim Says:
    June 22nd, 2011 at 8:32 am

    @15, Neil L.

    "Part of me loves seeing big-market teams like the Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox and Mets toward the bottom of the list."

    ?

    When filtered for WAR > 3.0, the Red Sox are at the *top* of the list.

    It stands to reason that a big market team would have fewer pitchers meeting the low WAR > 0 cutoff, simply because that's not a huge contribution. Contenders aren't going to bring up or give significant innings to a young pitcher who is simply going to be replacement level or slightly above.

    "After all, why develop from within when you can just go out and buy a starting rotation?"

    You're usually a better poster than that. The Red Sox developed Lester and Buchholz, and were able to get Beckett because they had Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez in the high minors.

    The Phillies developed Cole Hamels. They got Roy Halladay because Kyle Drabek and Michael Taylor were top prospects. They originally traded Carlos Carrasco for Cliff Lee - if they hadn't made that move in '09, they probably wouldn't have been able to convince him to sign this past offseason for less than New York and Texas were offering. And say what you will about the package the Astros got for Oswalt, but it's the package the Astros took.

    Big market team bashing is so 1999.

18. Neil L. Says:
    June 22nd, 2011 at 10:16 am

    @17

    "After all, why develop from within when you can just go out and buy a starting rotation?"
    "You're usually a better poster than that. "

    Jim, I deserve that rebuke ..... seriously. It was sloppy at best and lazy at worst.

19. Jim Says:
    June 23rd, 2011 at 8:25 am

    No worries man, it happens to all of us. Your posts are insightful and interesting about 99% of the time, so you're allowed the occasional clunker.