I have a question for WM about the delivery. It seems high effort and the whole falling off the mound left… or without balance as I see it - possibly leading to the control issues?
WM is this something that has been worked on or can be without diminishing the pitch movement?
I have an observation that leads to a question that hopefully some of you can try to answer.
This article, and virtually every article about prospects, discusses the age of the player, with the disclaimer they are either young or old for their level.
I realize most of us want this information and appreciate the inclusion of it in the article. However, my question is, How much does it matter to GM’s?”
We just saw the Pirates pay a pricely sum for Horowitz, even though he is “old” for his experience level.
I can certainly understand how age is a big factor in making long-term FA offers, but I’m wondering if years of control is much more important than age when making trades?
Remember Jose Bautista. There are many more players who at older ages get quality coaching or opportunities that allow for development. Heck look at Rich Hill.
Age is simply the time left to find it which is why the more time and contractual control left = > value.
Years of control matters a great deal if you are talking about a star player, but not so much for a contender trying to complete their final pieces of a puzzle. Age of the player matters more to a team that is in the development and rebuild stage.
Short answer is I think it depends on the team. Brett baty fell on draft day because he was old for a hs senior by some months whereas he probably would’ve been drafted higher if he was young
I’d guess it matters in this sense: Horwitz, to use a guy you mentioned, was seen as a finished product, and I’d imagine the Pirates might not have been able to trade him for that package if he was 23, all other things remaining static. Keith Law, for example, said because he’s 27 what you see is what you get. I’d imagine some of the valuation models build in the idea of a prime, and discounts older players. Likewise, it seems younger players (18-20) are riskier, and viewed as having lower floors. So you kinda end up with this optimal age, maybe 21-25, where you have an ample amount of projectability, but the floor is seen as high enough.
I don’t buy the “finished product” statement by Law. Every player is either getting better or getting worse. I’m sure Pirates like where Horowitz finished the year, and expect more from him going forward.
But I do agree with your floor/projectability take. It makes sense because a 21 year old hasn’t fully matured physically.
I’ve been puzzled at some of what Law has been writing lately. For example: he didn’t like the Astros return for Tucker, which I thought was very generous for one year of a player. He seems to have a bit of a slant now.
I'd say a 27 year old drafted out of college is different than a 27 year old drafted out of high school. At that point, the high school kid would have 8-9 years of potential development in organized ball, vs. 3-5 years for the college kid (and everyone missed the 2020 season, so I wouldn't count that year). If they haven't realized potential by this point, the high school kid likely never will (and the college kid is iffy, too).
Used to be the college kid wasn't getting the same development opps as the pro ball kid, but that's been changing lately (more sophisticated college programs, summer wood-bat leagues, etc.), so they're coming out of top programs with AA or even AAA level equivalency.
Short version is, I think in the industry it mattered more for hitters than pitchers. Couldn’t tell you why, but I know it’s certainly a factor in the draft.
This is my guy here. Used to be a fella that posted on a site I frequented years past. Bucs fan in Vermont. Or something of the like. He most certainly is an intriguing name
I like his high school stats of 49 innings(about 147 outs) and 133 strike outs. The video makes it look like he has wiffle ball movement. An interesting project for pitching coaches and a fun guy to follow his progress through the organization.
I have a question for WM about the delivery. It seems high effort and the whole falling off the mound left… or without balance as I see it - possibly leading to the control issues?
WM is this something that has been worked on or can be without diminishing the pitch movement?
I have an observation that leads to a question that hopefully some of you can try to answer.
This article, and virtually every article about prospects, discusses the age of the player, with the disclaimer they are either young or old for their level.
I realize most of us want this information and appreciate the inclusion of it in the article. However, my question is, How much does it matter to GM’s?”
We just saw the Pirates pay a pricely sum for Horowitz, even though he is “old” for his experience level.
I can certainly understand how age is a big factor in making long-term FA offers, but I’m wondering if years of control is much more important than age when making trades?
What say you?
Remember Jose Bautista. There are many more players who at older ages get quality coaching or opportunities that allow for development. Heck look at Rich Hill.
Age is simply the time left to find it which is why the more time and contractual control left = > value.
Years of control matters a great deal if you are talking about a star player, but not so much for a contender trying to complete their final pieces of a puzzle. Age of the player matters more to a team that is in the development and rebuild stage.
Makes sense. If true, I guess Pirates are still rebuilding.
Short answer is I think it depends on the team. Brett baty fell on draft day because he was old for a hs senior by some months whereas he probably would’ve been drafted higher if he was young
I’d guess it matters in this sense: Horwitz, to use a guy you mentioned, was seen as a finished product, and I’d imagine the Pirates might not have been able to trade him for that package if he was 23, all other things remaining static. Keith Law, for example, said because he’s 27 what you see is what you get. I’d imagine some of the valuation models build in the idea of a prime, and discounts older players. Likewise, it seems younger players (18-20) are riskier, and viewed as having lower floors. So you kinda end up with this optimal age, maybe 21-25, where you have an ample amount of projectability, but the floor is seen as high enough.
I don’t buy the “finished product” statement by Law. Every player is either getting better or getting worse. I’m sure Pirates like where Horowitz finished the year, and expect more from him going forward.
But I do agree with your floor/projectability take. It makes sense because a 21 year old hasn’t fully matured physically.
I’ve been puzzled at some of what Law has been writing lately. For example: he didn’t like the Astros return for Tucker, which I thought was very generous for one year of a player. He seems to have a bit of a slant now.
But I agree that I haven’t really agreed with Law’s takes on some of the deals.
It’s one year of a guy who is third in WAR among outfielders since 2021. It’s a fair deal.
I'd say a 27 year old drafted out of college is different than a 27 year old drafted out of high school. At that point, the high school kid would have 8-9 years of potential development in organized ball, vs. 3-5 years for the college kid (and everyone missed the 2020 season, so I wouldn't count that year). If they haven't realized potential by this point, the high school kid likely never will (and the college kid is iffy, too).
Used to be the college kid wasn't getting the same development opps as the pro ball kid, but that's been changing lately (more sophisticated college programs, summer wood-bat leagues, etc.), so they're coming out of top programs with AA or even AAA level equivalency.
Short version is, I think in the industry it mattered more for hitters than pitchers. Couldn’t tell you why, but I know it’s certainly a factor in the draft.
This is my guy here. Used to be a fella that posted on a site I frequented years past. Bucs fan in Vermont. Or something of the like. He most certainly is an intriguing name
More interesting names to fill the spots of guys weve sent away. Keep on churning buccos
What was Kellington's injury? TJ?
Better the elbow than shoulder
Yes
I like his high school stats of 49 innings(about 147 outs) and 133 strike outs. The video makes it look like he has wiffle ball movement. An interesting project for pitching coaches and a fun guy to follow his progress through the organization.