Let's be real about Newcomb

striker42 said:
That list of guys over the last 20 years, while interesting, had too many conditions. Limiting it to guys who made their MLB debuts at age 24 or older eliminates a ton of very relevant pitchers. I don't think it's fair at all to eliminate guys who made their debuts at 22 or 23 from consideration as comps. Different players mature at different rates or start from different places in development.

Lets go back to Gio Gonzalez. He debuted in his age 23 year but didn't pitch a full season in the majors until age 25. In the year Gonzalez turned 24, he pitched 98 innings for the A's with a 5.11 BB/9 to go along with a 9.94 K/9 and a 1.28 HR/9. Newk's numbers are slightly better at this point.

But, because Gonzalez pitched 34 innings the year before he doesn't appear on that list. BTW, Gonzalez hasn't had a BB/9 higher than 3.54 since 2011.
Click to expand...

I'll confess, Gonzalez is a slightly better statistical comp for Newcomb than I originally thought. Better minor league walk rate than Newcomb (4.1/9 as opposed to 4.8/9), slightly worse strikeout rate, slightly worse homer rate. Gonzalez was always younger at his minor league stops than Newcomb, and spent at least a few of those years pitching in the notoriously hitter-friendly PCL, but there are definitely similarities there, so it's not an awful comparison.

Still, it's worth remembering that Gonzalez has put up about 25 WAR in his career. He's been a multiple All Star and he could have won (an undeserved) Cy Young in 2012. Pitchers with his minor league profile don't usually become 1/4 as productive as he has been. If Newcomb puts up Gio Gonzalez's career we should all pop champagne and do The Carlton.
 
Looking at Fangraph's list of Top 30 pitchers in 2016 by WAR, not a single one had a walk rate above 4 per nine innings. Only 6 of the 30 had a walk rate above 3. And only 1 with a walk rate over 3.5.
 
Enscheff said:
Harang is a very interesting comp. He is by far the best case scenario for Newk in these lists. He didn't become a good pitcher until his age 27 season, at which point he was a TOR guy for 3 seasons (age 27-29).

However, while he wasn't awesome until he was 27, he dramatically reduced his BB/9 after his first season from 5+ down to under 3.

If Newk doesn't make a similar improvement (reduce it by ~1.5) by the middle of next year, it should be abundantly clear he isn't a SP.
Click to expand...

If Newcomb doesn't get his BB rate down to the mid 3's by next year, he obviously isn't a SP? Goodness, dude.
 
Enscheff said:
That 25% figure comes from the results of every query I ran after every objection posed by people in this thread.

No matter how the data was sliced, about 25% of guys Newk's age with equally poor command go on to be successful MLB pitchers, split almost equally between being a SP or a high leverage BP arm.

I'm not sure how anyone can logically conclude otherwise. You obviously don't have to allow data to influence your opinion though.
Click to expand...

This is an example of where your analysis of the data is lacking. The data is good and useful. The analysis of it is very important. Running a query in which Newcomb is the best of the bunch, taking the % of the guys listed who became successful and equating that with Newcomb's likelihood is not good analysis.

I'm not saying the likelihood for Newcomb is good, I don't think there are good odds that Newcomb becomes legit. But if you run a query with literally any parameters, my guess is that a fairly similar % become successful. In other words, pitchers don't become very successful often, no matter what. Newcomb's BB rate is a clear strike against him, but his K rate, HR rate, and FIP are strikes in his favor. Ultimately, it probably evens out and makes him just as likely as any other guy with similar talent to make it.

BB rate will be a big factor in his success moving forward. But it isn't the only factor, and there is no arbitrary line that he has to hit. It needs to improve for him to be successful, of course. How much? That is impossible to say, and it certainly doesn't have to happen immediately. There can be gradual improvement, and he can still be worthy of a rotation spot during that period of time.
 
All this negative talk on Newk, remember Randy Johnson had a walk rate from 4.8 to 7.9 walk rate first 6 full years in the majors. Sometimes one just has to be patient and hope they find their way.
 
smootness said:
This is an example of where your analysis of the data is lacking. The data is good and useful. The analysis of it is very important. Running a query in which Newcomb is the best of the bunch, taking the % of the guys listed who became successful and equating that with Newcomb's likelihood is not good analysis.

I'm not saying the likelihood for Newcomb is good, I don't think there are good odds that Newcomb becomes legit. But if you run a query with literally any parameters, my guess is that a fairly similar % become successful. In other words, pitchers don't become very successful often, no matter what. Newcomb's BB rate is a clear strike against him, but his K rate, HR rate, and FIP are strikes in his favor. Ultimately, it probably evens out and makes him just as likely as any other guy with similar talent to make it.

BB rate will be a big factor in his success moving forward. But it isn't the only factor, and there is no arbitrary line that he has to hit. It needs to improve for him to be successful, of course. How much? That is impossible to say, and it certainly doesn't have to happen immediately. There can be gradual improvement, and he can still be worthy of a rotation spot during that period of time.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sorry to say it, but your guess isn't as good as my knowledge of data analysis. The fact you don't like the results is completely inconsequential.

The question was "how likely is a 24 year old that walks 5 per 9 to improve?".

I answered that question. The answer is "about 25%".
 
depley said:
All this negative talk on Newk, remember Randy Johnson had a walk rate from 4.8 to 7.9 walk rate first 6 full years in the majors. Sometimes one just has to be patient and hope they find their way.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence of one HOF guy is not an analysis, and should never be used to formulate a plan.
 
smootness said:
This is an example of where your analysis of the data is lacking. The data is good and useful. The analysis of it is very important. Running a query in which Newcomb is the best of the bunch, taking the % of the guys listed who became successful and equating that with Newcomb's likelihood is not good analysis.

I'm not saying the likelihood for Newcomb is good, I don't think there are good odds that Newcomb becomes legit. But if you run a query with literally any parameters, my guess is that a fairly similar % become successful. In other words, pitchers don't become very successful often, no matter what. Newcomb's BB rate is a clear strike against him, but his K rate, HR rate, and FIP are strikes in his favor. Ultimately, it probably evens out and makes him just as likely as any other guy with similar talent to make it.

BB rate will be a big factor in his success moving forward. But it isn't the only factor, and there is no arbitrary line that he has to hit. It needs to improve for him to be successful, of course. How much? That is impossible to say, and it certainly doesn't have to happen immediately. There can be gradual improvement, and he can still be worthy of a rotation spot during that period of time.
Click to expand...

There is a subset of pitching prospects where the odds of success exceed 50%. And that would be those in the Top 10 of Top 100 lists. In general you are right that most subsets of pitchers, however you slice it, the odds of success are not going to be great. But I wanted to point out an important exception.

With respect to Newcomb, the analysis is useful if it tells us the odds of success are 40% rather than 20% or 10%.
 
I dont' see it as unreasonable to say that if Newcomb doesn't improve his walk rate next year the odds are against him being a successful major leaguer.
 
thethe said:
I dont' see it as unreasonable to say that if Newcomb doesn't improve his walk rate next year the odds are against him being a successful major leaguer.
Click to expand...

The analytical question is what are the odds he improves it enough to succeed as a major league pitcher. The answer seems to be about 25%. Maybe a little higher maybe a little lower depending on what variables you look at. But that's basically the answer.
 
nsacpi said:
Looking at Fangraph's list of Top 30 pitchers in 2016 by WAR, not a single one had a walk rate above 4 per nine innings. Only 6 of the 30 had a walk rate above 3. And only 1 with a walk rate over 3.5.
Click to expand...

Over the last 3 seasons combined, there have been 106 qualified SPs in MLB.

0 of those 106 qualified SPs (0.0%) have had a BB/9 over 5.
2 of those 106 qualified SPs (1.9%) have had a BB/9 rate of 4 or higher, Liriano and Koehler. Liriano posted the highest total WAR over that span with 4.9.
13 of those 106 qualified SPs (12.2%) have had a BB/9 over 3.5. Lance McCullers posted the highest WAR total over that span with 7.6.

Over the same time period, there have been 174 qualified BP arms.

4 of those 174 (5.4%) have had a BB/9 rate of 5 or higher. Barraclough has been the best, posting 2.5 WAR.
38 of those 174 (21.8%) have had a BB/9 rate of 4 or higher, Betances being the best at 6.6 WAR.
68 of those 174 (39.1%) have had a BB/9 rate of 3.5 or higher, Betances still being the best.

Considering how rare it is for pitchers as old as Newk to improve his BB/9 significantly, and how rare it is for SPs to even stick in the rotation with a BB/9 over 4, it is logical to conclude that if Newk doesn't get his BB/9 between 3.5 and 4 by the middle of next year he won't be a SP. Even a BB/9 rate over 3.5 will make it very hard for him to enjoy sustained success as a SP.

A 4+ BB/9 rate can play in the BP, but it can not play in the rotation.
 
Enscheff said:
Well, I'm sorry to say it, but your guess isn't as good as my knowledge of data analysis. The fact you don't like the results is completely inconsequential.

The question was "how likely is a 24 year old that walks 5 per 9 to improve?".

I answered that question. The answer is "about 25%".
Click to expand...

And that is very, very basic analysis. That's all I'm saying.
 
smootness said:
And that is very, very basic analysis. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

LOL, then how else would you suggest to analyze the likelihood a 24 year old MLB pitcher that walks 5+ per 9 is to improve his control other than by looking at all the MLB players who did the same thing over the last 20 years?

We are all eagerly awaiting the results of your much more complex analysis.

If you can't provide an alternative hypothesis and supporting data, then all you are doing is posting useless contrarian comments.
 
Enscheff said:
LOL, then how else would you suggest to analyze the likelihood a 24 year old MLB pitcher that walks 5+ per 9 is to improve his control other than by looking at all the MLB players who did the same thing over the last 20 years?

We are all eagerly awaiting the results of your much more complex analysis.

If you can't provide an alternative hypothesis and supporting data, then all you are doing is posting useless contrarian comments.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying there is a clear number that can be produced that is better. I am saying that the there are more options than either, 'It's 25% because my very basic analysis produced roughly 25% successful players,' or, 'I know nothing.'

25% is not a terrible number given the basic analysis. But we can also look at the numbers and say that among the guys in the group that produces that basic figure, Newcomb seems to profile better than most. So if he profiles better than most in the group that produced 25%, we can then say his actual odds are probably better than 25%.

Are his actual odds precisely 35%? I have no idea. All I'm saying is that your analysis is not a pinpoint production of his odds. You don't have to produce hard data to have a worthwhile opinion or to add something to the discussion. Sometimes the data just can't tell the entire story, but you can still use it to produce a better answer.

You are very smart and have a very good handle on the data. But there really are times when being a slave to the data can hurt, especially when the data and analysis you're using is so basic.
 
The data show how rare it is for 24 year-olds with poor command to improve their command.

The data show how rare it is for SPs to remain in a rotation unless they get their BB/9 in the ~3.5 range.

So you're argument is "Newcomb is special compared to all the players on these lists". What makes him special other than being a Brave? What makes him more likely to improve his command than all the other 24 year-olds with bad command who pitched before him in the last 20 years? What makes him more likely to succeed with an elevated BB/9 rate than all the other pitchers of the last 3 years?

Just because you "think" he is different?

Do you really think he has such a unique talent he is somehow different than the other 106 qualified MLB SPs over the last 3 years? Is his athleticism so special he will somehow be more likely to improve his command than the other 24 year-old MLB pitchers over the last 20 years with bad command?

Newcomb is not special, no matter how much of a fan you are. He is just as likely to improve/succeed as the MLB players that came before him.
 
For those wondering why the back and forth happens on these forums, it is because of pointless contrarian posts like Smoot's. They contribute nothing to the discussion and are nothing but argumentative.
 
Enscheff said:
LOL, then how else would you suggest to analyze the likelihood a 24 year old MLB pitcher that walks 5+ per 9 is to improve his control other than by looking at all the MLB players who did the same thing over the last 20 years?

We are all eagerly awaiting the results of your much more complex analysis.

If you can't provide an alternative hypothesis and supporting data, then all you are doing is posting useless contrarian comments.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your analysis. I might be interested in comparing it to the universe of all pitchers of that age and level of service time to see how much better the odds are for pitchers who don't have ****ty control.

I'm guessing it's not much more than 25%. The average pitcher coming up gets lit up rather than walking the world. Getting lit up is also an indicator that the player isn't going to make it.

Newcomb doesn't get lit up (8.3 H/9, .9 HR/9). He needs to throw strikes with his fastball. But the chances of that happening, at least to me, are better than Aaron Blair or Matt Wisler becoming effective.
 
Enscheff said:
For those wondering why the back and forth happens on these forums, it is because of pointless contrarian posts like Smoot's. They contribute nothing to the discussion and are nothing but argumentative.
Click to expand...

You blaming smoot for the back and forth... thanks the laugh
 
GovClintonTyree said:
I appreciate your analysis. I might be interested in comparing it to the universe of all pitchers of that age and level of service time to see how much better the odds are for pitchers who don't have ****ty control.

I'm guessing it's not much more than 25%. The average pitcher coming up gets lit up rather than walking the world. Getting lit up is also an indicator that the player isn't going to make it.

Newcomb doesn't get lit up (8.3 H/9, .9 HR/9). He needs to throw strikes with his fastball. But the chances of that happening, at least to me, are better than Aaron Blair or Matt Wisler becoming effective.
Click to expand...

This is a very good point. There should have been a control group of the success rates of all pitchers regardless of control. In fact, I did a query just like that earlier in this thread. All the pitchers returned had markedly better walk rates than Newk.

That's why I switched from career WAR to career BB/9. That question could be directly answered.

If we know SPs don't succeed above the 3.5-4 area, all we need to determine how likely Newk is to get his walk rate into that zone.

History has shown us 24 year old with poor control improve to that range about 25% of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top