Bloops: Can He Throw a Pitch First?
Posted by Raphy on June 4, 2010
The Stephen Strasburg hype has easily surpassed ridiculous proportions. The fact that his every minor league pitch was an event was one thing. Then there were the daily updates regarding speculation about his major league debut (Clearly, the moment he takes the mound it will bring world peace and cure cancer.) Now the town of Strasburg, Virginia wants to change its name to Stephen Strasburg for a week. Wow. Can he throw a pitch first?
June 4th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Oy vey! Now we can remember why David Clyde laid the egg he did.
Let's hope Strasburg has more Feller-like success
June 4th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Stephen Strasburg hype surpassed ridiculous the second he was drafted. I don't know what you would call the hype anymore. I hope he has a great career though, although he is probably going to fail due to pressure. I am more excited about the return of Chad Cordero than I am this guys ML Debut
June 4th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
This goes beyond David Clyde hype, It's more like the advance billing Hideki Irabu got.
Irabu finished out his career with a 34-35 record and a 5.09 ERA
June 4th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I for one am waiting for Strasburg's debut, less to see him, but more so because the Strasburg watch will thankfully and finally be over. It's been a year coming. After his first start, he'll simply be another MLB pitcher who will be judged on what he does on the field. My guess is he'll be very good, but at least the hype over his arrival will be done. Uhhh, then we can begin the Byrce Harper watch. That one will take a few years.
June 4th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
I watched Strasburg pitch live for the first time yesterday on Versus, and he defintely passes the eye test- he has good size, a sparkling fastball, and has good command of his off-speed pitches. There is no reason why he cant step in a good pitchers park and produce for the Nats. I believe the bigger question will be with their presumptive #1 pick this year- Bryce Harper. Odds are one of the two will flounder along the way, but I am glad to see the NL East rapidly improving with young talent.
June 4th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Considering that the all-time best pitcher in Washington major league baseball history was nicknamed "The Big Train", maybe the Strasburg Railroad in Lancaster, PA, ought to get involved, too.
June 4th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
I remember a player, can't remember who, saying that they should name one of Chicago's bridges after Mark Prior...well he's done and done before he got started.
June 4th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Does anyone remember Ben McDonald, Baltimore's sure-fire can't miss future HoF'er, first pick of the 1989 draft? As I recall, part of his signing agreement required the O's to call him up to the majors before that season's end. (Sounds like a Scott Boras clause to me...) He turned out to be an okay pitcher in the majors -- 78-70 in 9 seasons -- but far short of the Orioles' and their fans' expectations. He never won more than 14 games in a season, nor finished higher than 9th in ERA, nor ever received a single Cy Young vote.
I wasn't following the MLB draft back in 1973, but I think that the hype and hoopla surrounding Ben in 1989 might be a closer analogy to Strasburg than David Clyde.
June 4th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Tomepp-
You make me think of a REALLY interesting question...
Was McDonald a bad pick?
Now, I don't know anything about the 89 draft, but I'd venture to guess several players far better than him came out. And probably some so late in the draft as to dwarf his relative-to-pick value.
But, let's think of it a different way. How many other #1 picks never made the majors? How many 1st rounders never did? McDonald was likely not the best pick of the '89 draft or even the '89 first round. But getting an "okay pitcher" in the draft is nothing to bat an eye at, given how many super-not-okay pitchers come out. So, how do we evaluate these guys? Does draft position even matter?
June 5th, 2010 at 7:00 am
"I wasn't following the MLB draft back in 1973, but I think that the hype and hoopla surrounding Ben in 1989 might be a closer analogy to Strasburg than David Clyde."
It's an excellent analogy, Tornepp. I vividly remember the hype on McDonald as well. Good call.
June 5th, 2010 at 9:28 am
BSK, draft position definitely matters, but obviously there are lots of 1st round picks who have done nothing and low-round picks who have bloomed. McDonald got slowed by injuries, which seems to be the culprit for almost any pitcher who doesn't live up to expectations. B-R added WAR to its draft pages, so that at least gives a starting point for assessing career value. Frank Thomas appears to be the best player from the '89 draft (though it doesn't look like you can sort more than one round at a time, am I missing something?). McDonald, however, is in the running for best pitcher taken in that draft, probably behind Scott Erickson.
June 5th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Looking through the 1989 draft, I found the following players who, with near-20/20 hindsight, would have made better number one selections than Ben McDonald:
Jeff Bagwell, BOS 4th round, 110th overall pick, 79.9 WAR
Frank Thomas, CWS 1st - 7th – 75.9
Jim Thome, CLE 13th – 333rd – 66.8
Trevor Hoffman, CIN 11th – 290th – 31.1 (drafted as SS)
Jeff Kent, CLE 20th – 523rd – 59.4
John Olerud, TOR 3rd – 79th – 56.8
Brian Giles, CLE 17th – 437th – 42.7
(There were about a half dozen more who may have been only marginally better based on WAR.)
Jason Giambi was also drafted in 1989 (43rd round, 1118th pick overall) by the Milwaukee Brewers. But he had already announced his intention to attend Long Beach State College (which accounts for his low ranking) and was re-drafted in 1992 by Oakland (2nd round, 58th pick), so I’m not including him on the list above.
The Indians drafted particularly well that year, having drafted three players on the above list with outstanding careers (Thome, Kent, and Giles). Two of the three started their major league careers with the Tribe, and even Kent spent part of one year in Cleveland, so they got some value from their selections.
Looking at the overall number one selections over the years, 14 of the 45 number ones have been pitchers (31%). Of them, only Brien Taylor (1991) never made the majors. I can remember following the amateur draft beginning in the mid-1980’s. Of the nine previous pitchers drafted #1 during that span (Andy Benes, Ben McDonald, Brien Taylor, Paul Wilson, Kris Benson, Matt Anderson, Bryan Bullington, Luke Hochevar, and David Price), I can only remember McDonald getting the kind of hype that has been accompanying Stephen Strasburg. Others got their share of praise as is typical for a number one pick, but I can only remember McDonald being hailed as a “can’t miss” Hall of Famer with “once in a generation” stuff, who was ready for the major leagues right out of the draft. Of course, I remember the careers of Floyd Bannister, Mike Moore, and Tim Belcher as well, but I wasn’t really following the draft yet in the years they were drafted.
Looking at the group of number-one-selected pitchers, none of them are Hall of Fame material (yet – the verdict is still out for the last three, though only Price looks promising thus far), and only about half of the ones whose careers are finished had decent major league careers (Bannister, Moore, Belcher, Benes, and McDonald); so history is not on Strasburg’s side. As a group, they have a 853-885 (.491) win-loss percentage with 34 saves, and a combined ERA of 4.26 (100 weighted ERA+); only average performance, and not a very good return considering the investment in them.
For Washington’s sake, I hope the Nats get more “bang for the buck” than the Yankees (Taylor), Tigers (Anderson), Rangers (Clyde), Mets (Wilson), and Pirates (Benson) got, and hopefully even more than the Orioles (McDonald), Astros (Bannister), Twins (Belcher), Padres (Benes), and Mariners (Moore) as well.
June 5th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Brien Taylor was a sure HOFer.
sob...
June 5th, 2010 at 11:53 am
One more thing BSK: My original point was not whether Ben McDonald was a bad pick, but rather that the hyperbola surrounding Stephen Strasburg reminded me of that accompanying McDonald in 1989, which he ultimately did not live up to.
It's not that McDonald was a bad pick, it's that the hype ws unwarranted. As Raphy states in the post's title, "Can he throw a pitch first?" Let's hold off on the hyperbola until he shows us that he is capable of quality pitching at the major league level.
June 5th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
This thread has got me to wondering whether teams have fared better when selecting a pitcher with the first overall pick, or a non-pitcher (i.e. a hitter). I compiled the stats of all the first overall picks from 1965 to 2009 for comparison. On average, it seems teams have done better going with a hitter.
The 30 hitters selected (counting Danny Goodwin only once, even though he was the #1 selection in both 1971 and 1975) have combined for 600.6 WAR in 34,250 games played in 328 seasons, and have an .809 OPS. That averages 20.0 WAR, 1142 GP in 11 seasons, and a 116 OPS+.
The 14 pitchers, on the other hand, have 133.7 WAR in 2723 games in 106 seasons, and have a combined ERA of 4.26. That averages 10.3 WAR, 209 GP in 8 seasons, and a 100 ERA+.
You can’t compare the games played figures, since most of the pitchers were predominantly starting pitchers and would only play every fourth or fifth game, at best. The number of seasons averaged, however, is a fair comparison and it shows that on average the hitters have had three more seasons in the majors than the pitchers.
I’m not so sure you can fairly compare WAR for pitchers and hitters, especially when it comes to relief pitchers and closers (though only one pitcher – Matt Anderson – has spent significant time in the bullpen). Still, the WAR figures give the sense that you’ll get more total value in terms of team wins by going with a hitter.
I do feel that the OPS+ figure can fairly be compared to the ERA+ figure, since each is normalized to league averages, and each is a reasonable “quick measure” of a player’s performance. Here you can again see an advantage going to the hitters, 116 to 100. That is, on average when the #1 drafted player was a hitter, he tended to be an above average hitter, but when the #1 drafted player was a pitcher, he tended to be only an average pitcher.
You can also see that by looking at the list of players. As mentioned in a previous comment, there are no Hall of Famers among the established pitchers – none even had a near-HoF career. Looking at the list of batters that have been the #1 overall pick, we find likely future Hall of Famers like A-Rod, Junior Griffey, and Chipper Jones. We also see guys with exceptional careers like Darryl Strawberry, Harold Baines, B.J. Surhoff, and Rick Monday, not to mention up-and-comers like Adrian Gonzalez and Joe Mauer.
I realized that the numbers were a bit stilted, since they included recent guys whose careers are only just beginning. This could especially affect the pitcher’s numbers, as the top pick has been a pitcher in three of the last four years, and there have been fewer pitchers overall. To correct for this, I re-examined the numbers looking only at the retired players on each list. For pitchers, that included everyone up through Matt Anderson (drafted 1997) except Kris Benson (drafted 1996), who is still pitching for Arizona. For the hitters, everyone up to Phil Nevin (drafted 1992) was considered retired except for Chipper Jones (drafted 1990, still playing for Atlanta), while everyone from Alex Rodriguez (drafted 1993) on is considered still active except Darren Erstad (drafted 1995). The three “questionable” calls were Griffey (I assume he’s serious about his retirement announcement and included him in that group), Erstad (as best I can tell, no one has signed him as a free agent, and he’s not playing in the minors anywhere, thus retired), and Pat Burrell (who was signed by the Giants after being cut by Toronto and called up last night, thus active).
Considering only the retired players makes the comparison a bit closer, but it still favors the hitters. The 20 retired hitters have combined for 348.6 WAR in 25,638 games played in 256 seasons, and have a .775 OPS. That averages 17.4 WAR, 1282 GP in 13 seasons, and a 110 OPS+. The nine retired pitchers have 122.5 WAR in 2400 games in 85 seasons, and have a combined ERA of 4.22. That averages 13.6 WAR, 267 GP in 9 seasons, and a 100 ERA+.
While these numbers make it closer, there’s still a clear edge for the hitters. It’s amazing what happens when you remove A-Rod’s and Chipper’s numbers – it would have been even closer a few days ago, when we would not be counting Junior’s numbers in the retired bunch either.
June 5th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
My question really was trying to get at this: Does a pick failing to live up to expectations make it a bad pick? If Strasburg settles in and has, say, Mark Mulder's career... would that be a bad thing? If someone told you before the draft that you have this guy GUARANTEED to have Mark Mulder's career, wouldn't you HAVE to take him first, given that other guys may never even play in the big show? Now, obviously, that's a ridiculous scenario, because we don't know anything. But, really, are we better off evaluating picks absolutely or relatively? If Ben McDonald was chosen in round 10, what would our feelings be about him? Expectations are such a weighty issue...
June 6th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Andy Benes and Tim Belcher, two overall first picks of the 1980s, ranked first and second in the number of losses for the 1990s. I don't think this meant that they were bad pitchers; I think it meant that they were workhorses for mainly poor teams.
June 6th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Wow, I'm shocked about Belcher. I didn't remember him pitching through the '90s. They certainly were not bad pitchers at all.
June 7th, 2010 at 7:14 am
I agree, Benes, Belcher, Bannister, and Moore were all good pitchers, but few fans would even even pause before saying "no" if asked whether any of those four deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Here are their career summaries:
Benes 14 seasons, 155-139, 387 GS, 2505.1 IP, (33 GS, 216 IP per 162 TmG) 3.97 ERA (104 ERA+), 1 AS
Belcher 14 seasons, 146-140, 373 GS, 2442.2 IP, (33 GS, 217 IP per 162 TmG) 4.16 ERA (102 ERA+)
Bannister 15 seasons, 134-143, 363 GS, 2388.0 IP, (31 GS, 205 IP per 162 TmG) 4.06 ERA (102 ERA+), 1 AS
Moore 14 seasons, 161-176, 440 GS, 2831.2 IP, (34 GS, 216 IP per 162 TmG) 4.39 ERA (95 ERA+), 1 AS
(AS = # times named to All-Star team)
None of them finished higher than 3rd in Cy Young or Rookie of the Year voting, nor higher than 20th in MVP voting in any season. None received Cy Young votes in more than two different seasons, nor MVP votes in more than one season.
All four of them were workhorse pitchers, as attested to by the number of total innings pitched and their 162 game GS and IP averages, but none of them were great pitchers, even in their prime years.
Were they valuable to their teams? Absolutely. Were they "studs"? No. Were they Hall of Famers? Definitely not. Were they among the best 5 players in the draft their years? Probably not.