Prospect Alert
Fantasy Baseball Sleepers

The Keys to Evaluating Pitching Prospects

As some of the old-timers to this site might recall, this same article was posted at the beginning of last year. However, due to the addition of some new guests to the site, and the importance of understanding the basics of prospect evaluation, I feel that this needs to be posted once again. The examples listed were based on the 2002 season, so feel free to look up the stats from the 2003 campaign.

When evaluating a minor league pitcher, it is important to look at skills more than statistics. A pitcher’s skills breakdown can often predict future performance more accurately than statistics. For this reason, it is crucial to have sources available that will provide evaluators with an accurate depiction of the player’s skills.

Generally speaking, it is tougher to evaluate a pitching prospect than a positional prospect. A few reasons exist behind this theory, with one of the leading beliefs being that pitcher evaluation is predominantly skills-oriented as opposed to statistical analysis. This is quite different than evaluating a hitting prospect, and is more difficult. For that reason, it is important to break down each pitcher into certain categories. Not every category has special significance, but some do.

Here are a few types of pitchers that are important to watch:

Hard-throwers

This may seem obvious, but pitchers that pack a lot of heat on their pitchers are most likely to see a rise in statistics as they are promoted through the minor leagues. This can be measured somewhat in statistics to be outlined later in this article, but is best determined via scouting reports. Generally speaking, any pitcher who throws above 95-MPH is worth watching. Oftentimes, the hard-throwing prospects will have minimal control, leading to poor statistics initially. However, any hard-throwing pitcher should be watched, as they often don’t develop until later in their ascent to the big leagues.

Control Pitchers

Unlike the hard-throwers, control pitchers often start their careers successfully and then digress. Oftentimes, low-minor hitters are unpolished and struggle against these types of pitchers. As finesse pitchers reach the upper minors, particularly Class AA, they begin to struggle and break down. There are successful control pitchers in the major leagues, the most notable being Greg Maddux. They are tough to predict, however, and should be regarded skeptically until they prove that they can post solid statistics on the big league level.

For example, take the case of Mario Ramos, a minor league finesse pitcher with the Oakland A’s. Ramos was considered one of the better pitching prospects in baseball heading into last season, and had been quite productive the past few seasons.

A former Rice University star, Ramos posted solid statistics throughout his minor league ascent:

2000

Class A+ Modesto – 2.90 ERA, 134 K/50 BB in 152 innings pitched
Class AA Midland – 1.32 ERA, 19 K/6 BB in 27 innings pitched

2001

Class AA Midland – 3.07 ERA, 68 K/28 BB in 93 innings pitched
Class AAA Sacramento – 3.14 ERA, 82 K/27 BB in 80 innings pitched

Everything looked solid his first few seasons in the minors. The ratios were all solid, and he was having no trouble recording outs. However, these numbers were deceiving, and showed no warning signs of future failure.

In 2002, Ramos faltered. A move to the Rangers might have effected his total numbers slightly, but the change was clearly a result of his control being unable to fool polished hitters. His final stat line appears as follows:

2002

Class AAA Oklahoma – 7.40 ERA, 75 K/53 BB in 121 innings pitched

As is evident, Ramos’ ERA and walk ratio saw a dramatic increase, while his strikeout total decreased. Ramos is one of the best examples of why to avoid control pitchers, as they fail at a much higher rate than other pitchers.

Young pitchers

This might seem obvious, but is important to keep an eye on young pitchers in the higher levels of the minors. For easy reference, here are the general ages at which a player should reach each minor league level:

Class AAA: 23 years old
Class AA: 22 years old
Class A/A+: 21 years old
Class A-: 20 years old
Rookie-level: 19 years old

Take, for example, the case of Corwin Malone. Malone was a young 21-year-old in Class AA Birmingham last season, and posted a disappointing season:

Class AA Birmingham – 4.71 ERA, 89 K/89 BB in 124 innings pitched

Obviously, the numbers aren’t overly impressive. However, Malone is still considered to be a solid prospect, despite the tendency of many prognosticators to discount his future based on past performance. This is not a wise choice, as the scouting reports suggest otherwise.

Malone is a young southpaw, sporting a mid-90’s fastball, and a solid curve and slider. Sloppy with his control, Malone can also be considered to be part of the hard-throwing portion of this article. A former reliever, Malone has been successful in the past and projects as a solid starter in the big leagues. Going by simply the past season’s statistics, as many amateur talent evaluators do, would falsely indicate that Malone is not a solid prospect.

Former college pitchers

Former college pitchers often contradict the general rules for the age at which a prospect should reach each minor league level. Therefore, it is important to note which pitching prospects have recently been drafted out of college, as these players will often be slightly behind schedule.

It is easy to discount a former college pitcher’s prospect status based on the fact that he is behind other prospects of similar age in terms of level of play, but that would be a mistake. A college pitcher is more polished than his peers, and needs less time at each minor league level that he plays on. While a pitcher directly out of college may be behind a former high school draftee initially, the college player could very easily pass the high school product quite soon.

Pay attention to those prospects that have been recently drafted from college, and cut them some slack in terms of their age and current level of play.

The A’s, for example, have recently promoted a drafting strategy of selecting primarily college pitchers, and it has worked quite well. Oakland GM Billy Beane is quite advanced in statistical analysis of prospects, and his support for college pitchers speaks volumes of their potential value to fantasy players.

There is a way to evaluate pitching prospects based on past performance, and should definitely be used to support skills analysis of pitching prospects. There are a few components to this method, and each are important.

The crucial pitching statistical categories:

K/IP

Often overlooked, it is important for a prospect to strike out a large number of batters in proportion to total innings pitched. Specifically, a solid strikeout rate entails chalking up more than 85 batters per 100 innings pitched.

While an exact guide is tough to compute due to situational differences, here are some general rules to follow when evaluating the K/IP statistic (per 100 innings pitched):

< 65 Ks - Poor
66-75 Ks – Below-average
76-85 Ks – Adequate
86-95 Ks – Above-average
> 96 Ks – Excellent

Again, such a calculation is subjective, but it is always nice to have a general guideline to follow.

Usually, K/IP provides a prospect evaluator with an accurate tool to measure a pitcher’s ability to dominate the opposition. Generally speaking, players who excel in this category are the hard-throwers. A control pitcher with a high strikeout ratio is often indicative of future failure, as this will propel him to success early in his minor league career but will fail when exposed to upper-level hitting. Therefore, it is wise to consult scouting reports in conjunction with K/IP ratios to ensure that this statistic is accurate.

Using the Ramos example, here are his numbers for each year:

2000 – 85.5 K/100 IP
2001 – 86.7 K/100 IP
2002 – 62.0 K/100 IP

Ramos is a prime example of the importance of the K/IP ratio. As previously stated, control pitchers with high K/IP ratios in the low minors often fail in the upper levels, as they are no longer able to dominate opposing hitters. It is absolutely crucial to consider these ratios in context to each prospect’s physical skills.

K/BB

This may seem a bit repetitive using strikeouts in two consecutive ratios, but is an important step in the evaluation of a pitching prospect.

While the K/IP ratio was a measure of a pitcher’s ability to dominate his opposition, the K/BB ratio is important in measuring a pitcher’s control. Unlike the K/IP ratio, control pitchers whom excel in this area in the lower minors will generally continue to post above-average control numbers as they advance through the minors. This holds true for all pitching prospects, and is the primary reason that this statistic is effective. While no single statistic is fool-proof, the K/BB ratio is one of the most accurate in terms of consistency from one level to the next.

To provide a standardized guideline for the ratios that a certain prospect’s K/BB ratio should be at would be inaccurate, and therefore is not advisable to post. However, the general rule of thumb is that a pitcher should strike out at least twice as many batters as he walks.

Once again, the Ramos example is revisited.

2000 – 2.73 K/BB
2001 – 2.73 K/BB
2002 – 1.42 K/BB

Clearly, a loss of control was one of Ramos’ main problems last season. Fluctuations as large as this example are not common, and Ramos posted approximately half the number of strikeouts per walk than in past seasons.

And, no, the above ratios do not contain a typo. The K/BB ratio was the same for Ramos in 2000 and 2001, further demonstrating the general consistency of this statistic.

WHIP

A statistic commonly used by fantasy baseball general managers, WHIP provides a general calculation for baserunners allowed per inning. While this statistic is useful, it is somewhat overused and can be misleading in certain cases. A few poor outings can cause an overblown WHIP, and the reverse also holds true. However, these cases are rare, and generally don’t have a major impact on prospect evaluation. Basically, as long as K/BB and K/IP are also considered, using WHIP as a prospect evaluation tool is a very good idea.

To calculate WHIP, simply perform the following calculation:

WHIP = (Hits Allowed + Walks Allowed) / Total Innings Pitched

If desired, substituting total baserunners allowed for Hits and Walks Allowed provides a more accurate WHIP calculation. This would account for runners allowed via intentional walks, hit-by-pitch, and other relatively rare occurrences. This is a tad more accurate, but usually does not make a very big difference in the final WHIP.

Taking a look at Ramos, here’s a look at his WHIP numbers for the past three seasons:

2000 – 1.19 WHIP
2001 – 1.15 WHIP
2002 – 1.77 WHIP

As evident in the WHIP calculations, Ramos’ first two seasons remain quite consistent, while his 2002 campaign is poor.

ERA

While team defense often plays a large role in influencing a pitcher’s ERA, it remains a useful statistic and is quite easy to use. The benefits to this statistic are self-evident, and doesn’t require an in-depth explanation. As long as ERA is one of the lesser-considered statistics when evaluating a prospect, it will provide a fairly accurate gauge of a pitcher’s ability to strand runners when in trouble. While it is also indicative of a pitcher’s ability to prevent hitters from reach base, this problem has already been solved by using the WHIP calculation.

That said, here are Ramos’ ERA figures for each of his previous three seasons (also previously stated in this article):

2000

Class A+ Modesto – 2.90 ERA
Class AA Midland – 1.32 ERA

2001

Class AA Midland – 3.07 ERA
Class AAA Sacramento – 3.14 ERA

2002

Class AAA Oklahoma – 7.40 ERA

Those numbers indicate the troubles that ERA causes. Park and league factors, along with the aforementioned defensive tendencies, play a large factor in final ERA figures. These numbers are often inaccurate measures of a pitcher’s performance. For example, all other ratios were fairly consistent in 2000 and 2001, while the ERA varied by more than one point in those two seasons.

While it is possible to convert an ERA to a general standard based on the factors that cause these inaccuracies, it is often a waste of time. ERA is a valuable tool, but should be evaluated cautiously.

Stick with the K/BB, K/IP, and WHIP calculations to ensure accurate prospect evaluation. When used in conjunction with scouting reports, these statistics are the most accurate measure of a player’s future success.

Time for a bit of a challenge...Fantasy Info Central has a few writers participating in a Sporting News Draft & Trade League. We have a few spots left, and I'd like to get a few readers into the mix. There is a relatively small entrance fee, but there is payback to the top two finishers. It'll be competetive and fun, and you can join. If you'd like more information, please contact rmadden44@yahoo.com, and you'll get all the details.

Check back when the season starts for the next installment.

---