I put down my "marker" in the Shout Box while James Paxton was just throwing his first few pitches Thursday afternoon, so that I would be "on the record" no matter how he pitched.
It turned out he was not dominant, though not horrible: 5.0 IP, 5 H, 3 ER, 4 BB, 3 K, 95 pitches.
And that's pretty much in line with my premise as was working on this article: I don't think that Paxton has solved the issues that resulted in a mediocre AAA season, despite his impressive results in his first two MLB games.
As it happens, I had also said the same thing in a comment, in which I stated that I would group Paxton with Brandon Maurer in the "not-ready-for-prime-time" category, and would consider either bullpen or more minor-league work as options.
In fact, I think the pitcher most ready to join Taijuan Walker in an MLB starting role is ... the man who seems to have been written out of the conversation: Mr. Daniel Hultzen.
***
Of course, this means taking on my 'net mentor and the Godfather of this site, Jeff/Doc/jemanji.
He does a five-part series that annoints Paxton for Next-Unit-hood, and, of course, Unit-hood is next to godliness.
So I better bring something to the table here.
So I bring a table to the table.
But first things first.
***
OK ... I promised a table:
What we got here is "pitching efficiency" data that is, for whatever reason, not easy to find and compile. Maybe it is easy to find somewhere I don't know about, but I had to do a lot of it with a calculator.
Anyway, if I understand Doc's argument, it would be this (please correct if I'm framing it wrong):
Of course, he's taking aim at my bread and butter, which is evaluating how well players will do in the majors by evaluating what they do in the minors. But that's OK. I want to know if I'm off base. But I'm not sure I am.
I have a different Paxton narrative:
***
So let's go to the table of data, and see what it sayeth. By the way, the table is not updated to include Paxton's third, lukewarm, performance.
First, it evident that Paxton's strong outings did not come about because MLB hitters were "not going deep in the count" the way that AAA hitters do.
In fact, Paxton threw more pitches per batter than he did at Tacoma, and was well over the MLB average of 3.82 pitches/batter.
Second, it is evident that Paxton's first two outings appeared efficient because fully 85% of his batted balls were converted into outs ... a .147 BABIP. That's not just below the major-league average, it's preposterously below what even the most unhittable pitchers get.
Continued ...
Bad Paxton held the Tiggers to 3 runs the other night, and put all of his flaws on full display. We've got the Bad Paxton report still to do, and before filing it, it's got to Grok your own report like a gelatinous cube.
This is another thing -- like Hultzen's imminent arrival -- not to forget about. The *fact* that James Paxton is a work in progress.
No promises about /cosigning this one, though :- )
He has looked like one of the most unhittable pitchers I've seen. I'm not saying he'll sustain that low a BABIP just that a low one does seem both reasonable and understandable. To me watching him pitch it is easy to envision postseason shutouts a slew of 1 hitters and shutouts with a couple no hitters/PG as well. More than I see in Walker or saw in Felix. It's in every pitch that's over the plate with the plane, velocity and movement.
That he's still a work in progress is kind of double edged. It also suggests we haven't seen the best of him. If he sustains 50+% GB 30-% FB and brings his Ks into the 8-12/9 IP is there a comp for that? I can't think of one.
Thanks for sharing all this and doing the work. I'm still digesting the batters faced as it's not a familiar stat that I've looked at with pitchers before. You're right to say all these things and I'm not saying you're wrong about any of it. Just furthering the conversation.
I'm going to side with Spec on this one.
While I think the world of Doc as an analyst, I'm not buying into the "you walk more BECAUSE it's the minors" logic.
My simplistic rule of thumb for pitchers is -- pitchers get better because they IMPROVE something. They fix errors - they add pitches - they learn control.
Randy Johnson through 462 minor league innings. His final BB/9 rate in the minors was 6.5.
In 1991, at age 27, and already 600 innings into his MLB career, his BB rate was 6.8.
In 1992, at age 28, it was 6.2.
Coming to the Majors had *ZERO* positive impact on Randy Johnson's control issues for FIVE (5) full seasons. (Okay, 3 full seasons and two large partials).
IMO, the reason why some kids have control issues in the minors, but *immediately* solve them in the Majors is associated with the actual minor league scouts and coaches reaching a conclusion that a kid "has gotten it", and promoting him when they *SEE* the fix in action - but before it can materialize in the stats.
Sometimes, the scouts are right.
Sometimes, they aren't.
Mind you, Unit managed to survive the Majors and managed to be a league average pitcher despite walking more than 6 guys per 9. That's mind boggling, but still illustrative of how long the "get it" process can take.
IMO, the problem here is that much depends on the ROOT of the issue. If a kid is walking 6 a game because of a mechanical flaw -- then yes, I think it very possible for coaches and scouts to know (and be right) when said player has resolved the issue - and can likely move ahead - even if his minor league stats have not caught up to that new reality.
But, if a kid's control issues are NOT mechanical -- the issue is one of "consistency". Game one, he's lock down. Next game, he's all over the place. You (and he) may not know where the ball is going from inning to inning, much less game to game. And this, I believe, is one of the biggest "void" areas in terms of both scouting and stats analysis. We have no really good stats that measure (or even attempt to measure), "consistency".
What are the probabilities of Paxton dominating in any given game? I don't know. I do know that despite fantastic stuff, Nolan Ryan was really only an average pitcher for the bulk of his career. His final ERA+ of 112 ranks 273rd all time -- tied with such notables as Kelvim Escobar and lagging significantly behind guys like Mark Buerhle (118) or Carlos Zambrano (120).
Mind you - all that said - Paxton doesn't have anywhere near the issues of Unit or Ryan (who also walked 6 a game in the minors and a similar number initially in the majors).
*MY* concern in regards to Paxton is this. His walk rate dropped by 1 per 9 innings from AA to AAA. But, his HITS/9 jumped from 8.1 to 9.8 - and his ERA by more than a run. His aggregate minors line for 2013 says - he got it over the plate a LOT more consistently - and the AAA hitters smacked him around as a result. His K/9 dropped from 9.3 to 8.1.
At this moment, SABR dudes have all kinds of great tools for judging pitching data that never existed before. How much break - average velocity - individul pitch type run values. But these data are grouped in two ways. One is by individual game. The other is total aggregate. What is missing is that view of the RATIO of "good K-Pax" to "bad K-Pax".
Jeff Weaver had good days. He didn't suck ALL the time. He just didn't have enough good days to offset his bad days, (and his bad days were VERY bad).
Is he a 50% bet each start? Or, is it more like, he'll put together 3 good starts - followed by two months of struggling?
Mind you, a 50/50 Paxton is likely more valuable than a Joe Saunders. Saunders is "good Saunders" more often - but "good Saunders" doesn't come close to "good Paxton". And there's the rub. The aggregate doesn't tell the whole story. Nor does the individual game data tell the whole story.
Could Paxton put it together and pull a Fister? Sure. It's possible. Fister got hit at a high rate in AAA (11.2 H/9 in 106 innings in 2009), and improved from day one when moving into the Majors. But, I would think his 0.9 BB/9 rate and 11.2 H/9 rate might call into question the notion of there being some innate AAA working-counts MOJO going on.
For me, with Paxton, the question is not whether he has solved the control issues - the question is - if MLB hitters are having such a hard time hitting him, how come the AAA hitters hit him so easily? If you have an answer to THAT question - (and some data to suggest that whatever that problem has been addressed), then by all means, give Paxton a go. As for me? I'm going to stick with the premise that MLB hitters are slightly better than minor leaguers, and unless a pitcher improves something, he's not likely to get better results just "because" he moved from AAA to the Majors.
Spec, In 2013 Spring Training, Paxton's FB was 88-90, if I remember correctly. He was sent to the minor league camp quickly, deemed not ready for prime time. Now he is throwing much harder, 93-95, reaching 97. What has caused his FB velocity to increase? Or, conversely, what caused the velocity decrease in ST? And is the latest hard-throwing version the sustainable one? Thanks for your input.
The "visual" is not wrong. He's got great stuff. So does Brandon Maurer for that matter.
No one has the ability to pitch exactly the same way every time, but some guys seems to be able to bring their "stuff" much more consistently (Verlander, for example).
Other guys seem to have a harder time keeping it all in balance. That's not uncommon at all, but this particular category is guys who, when they do have it in balance, look like giant-killers.
So we're always ready to annoit them to greatness.
I certainly was with Paxton at the end of his AA season. He put together a string of dominant starts (usually with Zunino catching), and I was very, very close to ranking him ahead of Walker.
[As it happened, Paxton did not pitch better with Zunino behind the plate in 2013.]
But inability to hold it together consistently in AAA is a pretty big red flag and shouldn't be dismissed.
Yes, RJ eventually found consistency despite continuing high pitch counts, but during his glory days he struck out one of every three batters. Even when he was blowing away AA, Paxton wasn't doing anything like that.
I'd forgotten that, terry.
Paxton's always thrown hard, and that's why he was a first-round pick originally.
My recollection, perhaps faulty, is that the issue resolved itself and his problems with consistency in AAA were not due to variations in velocity.
I don't recall any reports from Mike Curto or others that Paxton's velo was down or up-and-down during the regular season.
There that I eluded to but didn't flesh out. A couple more that I hadn't noticed.
Paxton's k/9 in MiLB were all in the 8+ - 12+ range. He's in the show seemingly improved somehow (or just lucky good sample) and his k/9 is 5+. Is he pitching differently now?
Randy was much wilder than Paxton. Led the league in WP in 92/93 and that with Dan Wilson snagging many would be WP. How many passed balls were charged to Wilson? My recollection is there had to have been years he had 20 or 30 WP because he was all over the place at times. He only maxed at 18 in 92, had 16 in 93 another 18 year, 14 etc...11 years of double digit WP anyway and I don't think he was charged with all he could have been. Wilson never was charged with more than 8 PB (95) but had one (1) in 261 innings in Cincinnati before coming here.
I know if an out is made on the play no WP is called. As well when there's less than 2 outs on a 3rd strike with a runner on 1st it's considered an out to dissuade forcing double plays by the catcher dropping the ball on purpose. That leads back to the first rule since an out is recorded. I'm not trying to stretch things just trying to figure out how Randy could have had so few because my memory doesn't match that. Maybe I watched a higher percentage of his wild days, I don't know.
The point is Randy was fully effectively wild while Paxton has shown more control than that, not that his control has been great. Randy's mechanics took years to evolve and that was considered the cause of his wildness, how close do you think Paxton's are?
(insert obligatory SSS disclaimer here) I remember reading concerned reports throughout the summer on Paxton's inconsistent outings: low IPs and high ERAs. But when I looked at the recaps, I'd see a lot of ground balls and infield hits. K-Pax was getting fewer Ks with fewer walks, but without a major league fielding infield, and perhaps a major league groundskeeping team, too many of these grounders were finding holes. My feeling about Paxton throughout the mid and late summer was that he was doing just fine. The inconsistency seemed more a matter of bad luck and minor league fielding than anything else.
I really like both these guys and think both will be accomplished starters very soon. But I think both will need more consistency. If the Ms could get Lee or Tanaka and let Erasmo and Walker start things off next year, it might not be the worst thing for any one of them. And a Tacoma rotation of Maurer, Hultzen, Paxton, Elias, and AFernandez (4 lefties?!!!) would be fun to watch, as they try to dominate. If Hultzen gets through his current issues and pitches as well in the AFL as it looks like he can, he'd be an easy June call-up, once Walker has settled in. Then Erasmo could then be an even more proven starter for a trade chip. But lots of permutations and lots of possibilities.
I don't think, though, that next year the Ms are going to take any chances with the rotation, or any unnecessary losses. If Hultzen is absolute nails in the AFL and has no further shoulder discomfort, then I could see the Ms going with Felix, 'Kuma, Erasmo, and Walker and Hultzen, with Paxton and Maurer in Tacoma. But until Paxton reels off dominant starts with fewer wasted pitches, I just don't see him starting the year in the rotation. When he gets there, he's going to be good; but unless tomorrow's start is a 90-pitch, 7-inning job, I just don't see them taking the chance with him (or with Maurer) without more Tacoma time..
This kid Yordany Ventura, and Jose Fernandez of the Marlins and Chris Archer in Tampa and then our young guns -- it's a new golden age beginning on the mound it seems. Add Strasburg and Cole and ....(Insert your favorite). What a country!
And I came away very impressed. He had attitude through his start that I hadn't seen before. Checking against the basest 2 stats on the chart he had 3.80 pitches/batter, 3.57 batters/inning today. Compared to 3.78 P/B and 4.56 B/I from the chart. Pitches per batter basically identical to season average but 1 less batter pet inning. 7 less batters faced. At that rate 7 batters would be 25 pitches (+95 today=120) so it basically means he's probably an inning shorter on the day or more if he's letting an extra guy an inning on. 13.57 pitches per inning today is very good.
I may have to start calling him mower.
Sandy,
Johnson DID show control improvement in his early years in the bigs. You've missed something.
'89/161 innings = 5.4 BB/9 (and he had a 4.8/9 rate in the last 131 innings, after the trade to Seattle. BTW, his one full-season AAA rate was 5.7 a big improvement on this 8.2 AA rate. He was improving even then., from AA to AAA and from AAA to the bigs)
'90/220 innings = 4.9 BB/9
So by '90, he had dropped his BB rate considerably. Would he have done better with more AAA seasoning?
'91/201 innings = 6.8 BB/9
'92/210 innings = 6.2 BB/9
In '91 his BB rate increased then decreased a bit in '92, but not back to the '89-'90 level. But other forces were at play. His pitching changed then: In '89'-'90 he struck out 7.1/9 and 7.9/9. But in '91 it jumped to 10.2, a 29% increase. He was learning to be a different, more overpowering pitcher in '91. In '92, his K rate inched up and his BB rate inched down. Then in '93 his K rate jumped to 10.9 and his BB rate dropped, dramatically, to 3.5.
'93 was the year it all came together for him. '91 and '92 were the years he was becoming the Big Unit, rather than just a powerful pitcher. It makes sense that his BB rate would rise, short-term, as his K rate exploded....and then once he learned to harness his power, his BB rate dropped....and remained at that low level for the rest of his career.
For the 5 season's following '93 his BB rate was always between 2.7 and 3.8, even while his K rate was reaching 12. This was his first plateau.
Beginning in '99, his BB rate dropped into the 2's while his K rate remained in the 12's....even getting into the 13's. A second plateau.
In the 4 season's after he hit 40, Johnson's BB rate was 1.6, 1.9, 2.6, 2.1 and his K rate had dropped to 8-11. A final level.
But, to reiterate, Johnson's BB rate was not static, nor as high as you say, when he was a youngster. He showed continual improvement.....minus the one season's jump when he went from a powerful pitcher to an overpowering pitcher, when his K rate increased dramatically and his hit rate and homer rate declined.
I think you've got Johnson wrong.
If Johnson is your Paxton comparison, then he's MLB ready right now.
moe
From the National Institute of Health website:
*******
Clin J Sport Med. 2008 May;18(3):255-8. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e318170ae86.
Outcomes of isolated glenoid labral injuries in professional baseball pitchers.
Cerynik DL, Ewald TJ, Sastry A, Amin NH, Liao JG, Tom JA.
Source
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hahnemann University Hospital/Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19102, USA. douglas.cerynik@drexelmed.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Major League Baseball (MLB) pitchers who return to competition after labral surgery show a decline in their pitching performance.
DESIGN:
Retrospective cohort.
SETTING:
Tertiary institution.
PATIENTS:
MLB starting or relief pitchers with isolated glenoid labral injuries.
INTERVENTIONS:
Open or arthroscopic surgical repair of isolated glenoid labral injuries.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS:
Individual statistics were reviewed for 42 MLB pitchers who underwent surgical repair of isolated glenoid labral injuries of their throwing shoulder between 1998 and 2003. Pertinent statistical data, including earned run average (ERA), innings pitched (IP), and walks plus hits per inning pitched (WHIP), were obtained for all players and compared before and after surgery. These statistics were evaluated for an association with demographic factors, pitching role, and rehabilitation time.
RESULTS:
A total of 42 MLB pitchers (26 starters, 16 relievers) were included in the study with an average age of 27.5 years for starters and 29.9 years for relievers at injury time. There were 30 right-handed pitchers and 12 left-handed pitchers. In all, 69% of pitchers returned postoperatively to MLB for at least one season; 29% pitched for three seasons or more. For both relievers and starters, there was no statistically significant postoperative change in ERA or WHIP at 1 and 3 years. Starters had significantly decreased IP at 1 year, but not at 3 years. Relievers had no significant change in IP at 1 year postoperatively, but IP were significantly decreased at 3 years. Relievers missed less time after surgery than did starters (11.4 vs. 18.4 months).
CONCLUSIONS:
Most pitchers who were able to return to competition after surgery showed insignificant changes in ERA and WHIP and significant decreases in IP. Age, MLB experience, and pitching role as a reliever were the most significant factors related to a successful return after surgery.
PMID: 18469567 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
*********
So, like Pineda, it might be a year before he's back in action, but it has a good chance of being a setback, but not career-ending. The key info:
"For both relievers and starters, there was no statistically significant postoperative change in ERA or WHIP at 1 and 3 years. Starters had significantly decreased IP at 1 year, but not at 3 years."
Also, an interesting article about the state of the art:http://www.shoulderelbowsports.com/news-and-events/press-releases/jake-p...
There's also a really interesting article by Jay Jaffe on Baseball Prospectus - article 16634 - but you may need to be a member to read it. It has much more data and names names.
and maybe little in the long-term either, if surgery is required. Based on the study, almost a third never recover to the MLB level. Maybe we should only think of him coming back as a loogy, and be pleasantly surprised if he has a full recovery as a starter. This is very disappointing for where we drafted him, and our need for talent, but we all know the risks.