Projecting Julio Urias
Happy Julio Urias Day to you and yours!
As you’ve probably heard by now, 19-year-old phenom Julio Urias will make his major-league debut against the Mets. Yesterday, lead prospect analyst Eric Longenhagen provided an excellent breakdown of Urias from a scouting perspective. Go read that if you haven’t already. Today, I look at Urias through a more statistical lens. Urias looks like an elite prospect from that angle, too.
Over the winter, I unveiled KATOH’s top-100 prospect list. The top five players were all hitters, but Urias checked in at #6 with 12 WAR over his next six seasons. He was the cream of the crop among pitching prospects.
It’s easy to see why. Urias recorded an excellent 2.59 FIP and 28% strikeout rate in 13 Double-A starts last year, and was similarly dominant in 2014 while pitching at the High-A level. Most impressively, Urias has managed to outdo himself this year. Across eight Triple-A appearances, he owns a dazzling 1.10 ERA and 2.89 FIP. He’s struck out 30% of opposing hitters. Incorporating his 2016 numbers bumps his KATOH forecast up to 13.8 WAR.
Urias’ stats are great, but it’s his age that really sets him apart. Despite three-plus years of minor-league dominance, Urias doesn’t turn 20 until August. His combination of age and performance — particularly in the strikeouts department — is pretty much unprecedented. No prospect in recent memory has posted such a huge gap between his strikeout and walk rates at so young an age. Not only is he the youngest pitcher in both of these samples, but he also performed substantially better than the few players who are one year older than him. Pitchers who are this good this young just don’t come around. This is what drives Urias’ KATOH forecast.
To put some faces to Urias’ statistical profile, let’s go ahead and generate some statistical comps for the teenage lefty. I calculated a weighted Mahalanobis Distance between Urias’ Double-A and Triple-A numbers since the start of 2015 and every season at those levels since 1991 in which a pitcher faced at least 350 batters. In the table below, you’ll find the 10 most similar seasons, ranked from most to least similar. The WAR totals refer to each player’s first six seasons in the major leagues.
| Rank | Name | Proj. WAR | Actual WAR |
| 1 | Jerome Williams | 10.5 | 3.7 |
| 2 | Matt Riley | 10.2 | 0.5 |
| 3 | Edwin Jackson | 10.3 | 14.8 |
| 4 | Salomon Torres | 11.1 | 0.9 |
| 5 | Jeff Suppan | 12.9 | 13.2 |
| 6 | Pedro Martinez | 8.8 | 48.4 |
| 7 | Phil Hughes | 14.3 | 16.6 |
| 8 | Bud Smith | 9.2 | 1.3 |
| 9 | Roger Salkeld | 11.1 | 0.8 |
| 10 | Hayden Penn | 9.5 | 0.0 |
If Urias has one flaw, it’s his height. At just 5-foot-11, he’s substantially smaller than your typical pitching prospect. As Eric noted in his piece, “Urias is physically mature, stocky and devoid of much physical projection.” Conventional wisdom (as well as common sense) holds that taller pitching prospects are better bets. My KATOH research doesn’t disprove this theory, but it does suggest that the importance of a pitcher’s build might be overstated by some. Given two pitchers with identical stat lines, the tall pitcher is more likely to succeed in the big leagues, but not by a wide margin. Height isn’t nearly as predictive as performance.
Despite his extreme youth, there’s little question that Urias is just about ready for the majors. Teenage pitchers in the big leagues are a rarity in this era, but all indications are that Urias is up for the challenge. Scouts say he’ll be really good. The data say he’ll be really good. Julio Urias has a good shot at being really good! Tonight we get to see him scratch the surface of his immense potential.
Chris works in economic development by day, but spends most of his nights thinking about baseball. He writes for Pinstripe Pundits, FanGraphs and The Hardball Times. He's also on the twitter machine: @_chris_mitchell None of the views expressed in his articles reflect those of his daytime employer.
I can’t wait to tune in tonight for the debut of the next Jerome Williams!
This is tangential to the subject. It is awesome (depressing) that there are two former Orioles on this list and between them they totaled 0.5 WAR.
Those comps are kinda ugly. Interesting to see them after the discussion in the other thread about why Urias is projected as a mid rotation vs. Ace/top of the rotation.
I’d put a lot more faith in the KATOH forecast, which is based on rigorous statistical analysts, than the comps, which are based on the outcomes of a few players. This is true of all players, but is especially true in Urias’ case since he’s so unique. Jerome Williams looked kind of like Urias, but wasn’t quite as young.
“Urias’ stats are great, but it’s his age that really sets him apart. Despite three-plus years of minor-league dominance, Urias doesn’t turn 20 until August. His combination of age and performance — particularly in the strikeouts department — is pretty much unprecedented.”
But yesterday, people told me there were “plenty of pitchers” who have done with Urias did in the Minor Leagues. /s
I will also add that calling a kid physically mature at 19 because he’s stocky and may not grow anymore seems inaccurate. He has the potential to grow and develop under MLB training programs. I don’t understand why being shorter means you have less chance to grow – I have never seen much statistical proof of this. Urias will, and can, improve on his conditioning and his endurance. Also, I don’t understand why his height inhibits pitch development.
Urias is 19 years old. He has plenty of room to grow – he has grown as a pitcher each of the past three years in the minor leagues, and there’s no reason to believe he has peaked as a player at 19. Given MLB resources, training programs, and coaching – as well as accessibility to all the video and analytics – I don’t see why he would stop developing as a pitcher. Just because he is wise beyond his years in terms of understanding pitching does not mean he will stop developing in that area as well; if anything, it speaks volumes for his ability to learn and adjust on the fly, as well as a unique ability to understand the art of pitching at a young age.
All those that want to bet on the height and stuff of Gio and Glasnow are more than welcome too, but it’s hard to argue with the absolute dominance of a teenage kid in the games toughest environment to pitch.
Where does anyone say that he has peaked at 19 years old?
And MLB is the toughest environment to pitch, which Urias has not even pitched in yet, let alone shown “absolute dominance” of.
He’s projected for a 3 WAR right now, over 200 innings – that’s based on fangraphs projections. He was also projected to be a 2/3 starter yesterday in the fangraphs article. A 3 WAR pitcher is already a 2/3, so it is fair to assume that the article yesterday believed that there was no room for growth or development and that Urias had already peaked as a pitcher for the most part. It also stated there wasn’t much room for growth because of his height and etc etc.
I think you are assuming a lot of things here. For instance, that you can just extrapolate a 13 inning projection to 200 innings and expect it to stay the same and then call it a day.
And room for growth because of his height etc. etc, where did you see anything that said he can’t develop as a pitcher because of that. I saw it mentioned that he wont likely have much room for growth, from a purely physical standpoint.
Well the projections are over 200 innings, not 13. If you have an issue with the projections for Urias, take it up with the projection systems, and fangraphs, not me.
I have been on record stating that proving he can do it for 200 innings is key to his development, but that’s the case for every 19 year old pitcher in the history of baseball.
I’m not assuming anything either; I’m extrapolating the projection systems here at fangraphs, and then comparing it to his projection as an arm from the new lead scout at fangraphs. They don’t match up. If he’s a 3 WAR caliber pitcher already, and he’s 19 years old, there’s no reason to think he won’t continue to grow as he has done the past three years.
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa736324&position=P
Here ya go, ros, 13 innings.
Where do you see anything projecting him for 3 war right now (as in an actual 2016 projection).
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/dodgers-calling-up-elite-prospect-julio-urias/
“Steamer’s already sold on Urias, projecting him for a 3.43 ERA/3.58 FIP over the rest of the season, which would work out to put him on a pace for +3 WAR if he were to pitch a full season’s worth of innings. Whether the teenager can live up to those lofty projections and the hype that surrounds him is something we’re all about to find out.”
As I said, assuming a full seasons work load Steamer already views him as a 3 WAR pitcher.
Please stop saying they are “Fangraphs projections.” Steamer projections are not produced by FanGraphs, they merely appear on FanGraphs among other places. Furthermore, ~3 WAR absolutely does not make someone a #2 starter, as that’s #3 starter territory. Even if we assume that ~3 WAR over 200 innings is a fair projection for Urias right now, he would need to experience the further improvement you keep talking about just to reach #2 status.
For the record, are you a Dodgers fan or just an overzealous Urias dynasty league owner? I can’t figure out why you are so incredibly butthurt over Eric Longenhagen’s statement, especially when the reasoning for that statement has been explained to you over and over and over again.
How is that #3 starter territory. There were 30 pitchers last year with a WAR better than 3. The same can be said for 2014. You have to go back to 2013 to find 35ish pitchers with a WAR of 3 or better. I think we have a different definition of #1/#2/#3 starters. If you are a top 30 starter in baseball, you are a #2.
The 3 WAR comment was quoted in a fangraphs article.
I’m not butt hurt – I’m having a baseball discussion for why I don’t agree with the projection. I don’t take this personally, I never have – it’s a way to pass time at the office. What’s funny is whenever I feel strongly about a position here I get accused of being a fan of such and such. I was a White Sox fan, then a Cub hater, then a Dodgers fan. Pretty soon I will have all teams covered.
You have a very different personal definition of “#1/#2/#3 starters” than the one that is a general consensus within baseball, which helps explains why you are having such enormous difficulty understanding and accepting what people keep telling you. Being a “top 30 starter in baseball” absolutely does not automatically make you “a #2.” Read this: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-explained-the-20-80-scouting-scale/ A ~3 WAR starting pitcher is considered to be a #3 starter, not a #2. To be a #2, you need to be producing 4 or 5 WAR. To be a #1, you need to be producing 6+. And even that has to be a consistent level, not something merely achieved once in an outlier season.
And dude, go back and take a look at your posts. You are incredibly butthurt about this.
Yes, so you have to be Clayton Kershaw over the past 4 years to be a #1. Got it. There is only one #1 in baseball based on that scale, and he might be the best pitcher of all-time. Seems a bit flawed to me.
The general consensus in baseball certainly doesn’t believe that a #1 is a pitcher who generates 6+ WAR consistently, every year.
I’m pretty sure someone like David Price would be considered an ace by everyone – he’s been a 6 WAR pitcher twice in his career. Jake Arrieta? One time. Chris Sale? One time. I guess neither of them are aces either. Wow, the lists of aces in baseball seems to be a list of one. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but apparently that’s the “general consensus” within baseball that only Clayton Kershaw is an ace.
It’s funny to me that you don’t see how flawed that evaluation and standard is.
Yes, twice in that four year span you referenced, which means that he is a #1 starter. Max Scherzer has been a 6 WAR starter in two out of the last three seasons. He is a #1 starter. Jake Arrieta had 12.3 WAR over the last two seasons. He is a #1 starter. Corey Kluber had 12.8 WAR over the last two seasons. He is a #1 starter. Chris Sale had 11.4 WAR over the last two seasons, which is probably close enough. Felix Hernandez was a #1 starter during that 2009-2014 stretch, although he is not anymore. Justin Verlander was a #1 starter from 2009 through 2013, although he is not anymore.
The reason you have to require achieving that level more than once is because otherwise you would be saying that Phil Hughes in 2014 was a #1 starter when no one believes that to be true. It has to be an established level of performance, meaning either an average or at least similar seasons within a small time frame. Similarly, Dallas Keuchel’s best two years peg him as a #2.
But the relationship of WAR to #1/2/3 status is inconsistent in that article, or at least as applied to the real world. As the article explains:
“Most scouts agree there are only ever 8-12 pitchers that could be called #1s or aces at any given time, but then there’s like 20 #2s and like 75 #3s.”
And if over the last three years, a 3 WAR places a pitcher in the top 30 players in the league, then equating a 3 WAR season projection with a #3 starter appears questionable. At the very least, a 3 WAR projects as a low #2, top #3. I’m fine with that being the case, but that accordingly has to be adjusted in the gross number of #1 and #2 pitchers that exist.
Basically, 3 WAR is a #3 starter in prospect projection, but a top-30 pitcher in actual performance.
There is no fixed number of #1 starters, #2 starters, or #3 starters as those labels are determined by performance and not quantity. A ~3 WAR pitcher is considered to be a #3 starter regardless of how many players fit that standard.
Also, the average ERA in the PCL is higher than the average ERA in the National League. There are only two teams in the PCL (Nashville and Tacoma) with lower team ERA’s than the average ERA in the NL (3.98).
That’s a terrible way to try to find the hardest pitching environment…you completely ignore the quality of players that are present in each league
Huh? How is that a terrible way? The toughest place to prevent runs in baseball is in the PCL. It doesn’t mean that it has the best players, it means it’s the toughest place to prevent runs. It’s why the PCL ERA is consistently higher than the MLB ERA. It’s for the same reason it’s tougher to pitch in Colorado than San Diego – it has nothing to do with the quality of player, it has everything to do with the stadiums and the run scoring environment.
It’s terrible because it doesn’t account for the quality of the hitters, or pitchers that are present in those leagues.
Do you think that the average current MLB pitcher would perform worse if he was to instead be sent to the PCL?
That has nothing to do with the run scoring environment. So are you arguing that to development of the hitters in the PCL is ahead of the development of the pitchers?
Thor had a worse ERA in his first 150 innings in the PCL than he has had in his first 150 innings in the MLB.
Thor started to throw harder and developed a different slider.
Has it occurred to you that more runs are scored in the PCL than in MLB in large part because… the pitchers are worse?
So the pitchers are worse and the batters are better? Is that the argument being made? On a consistent basis, the pitchers are further behind in their development than the hitters? Can you show any proof of that?
There are more runs scored because the ball parks are bandboxes and many of them exist in high elevation.
That would be like arguing that the pitchers are worse in Colorado than they are anywhere else in MLB.
true
False. That is *a* reason, not *the* reason.
I mean, listen to yourself. You are saying it is harder to pitch in the PCL than in the MLB. That argument can be dismissed as absurd on its face. Your n=1 of Syndergaard doesn’t cut it.
There are two big factors that influence the run environment:
-park
-batter ability
We know how batter ability compares. It doesn’t compare.
It’s irrelevant.
If I showed you a Little League park where teams score 6 runs a game, would you argue that it is harder to pitch there than in the MLB?
We can assume, if you’d like, that AAA hitters and pitchers are equally advanced, and that, therefore, in a neutral park, there would be 4 runs a game. So, if we see 5 runs scored a game, that means it favors hitters. Fine.
However, there are still two unknowns in the equation:
-pitcher skill
-hitter skill
We know that both are equal, but we don’t know one, so we can’t find the other. Both might be so low that and average MLB player would dominate the opposition. Urias, therefore, may be just an average MLB pitcher right now, but he dominates the lowly AAA hitters because MLB is so much better than AAA.
In other news, Julio Urias’s mom goes by the handle “Rational Fan” on FG
You’re more sore about this topic than I am about the DNC!
I just enjoy seeing the little red negatives by my name; get’s me going during my long work days.
Man, if little red things get you going, you should try the +s on the other side. Greenies, I call ’em.
Rational, you’re a Sox fan, so I’m assuming you’re a fellow Chicagoan. I’m a Cubs fan, raised in the northern suburbs, lived on the North Side for several years. But I’m also 40, worked enough odd jobs to be around all sorts of people. After reading enough of your posts and living in the same general area, I think I have a better read on you now than I did at first, but you’ve commented on the negatives a few times and people disagreeing with you. I think your tone comes off as combative even if you don’t intend it that way. If I’m reading you right, you’re more of a city guy, a little rough around the edges, but still generally know your shit, and you’re just discussing, but we’re reading a tone that your not intending. Am I on the right path here? I think part of communication is the words, but part of it is understanding the other person, and you don’t get that in an internet comment section. Like for instance, my boss is really loud and is quick to react, but once you get to know him he’s a really good guy, you just need to see past the initial bullshit.
I don’t mean to sound combative, and I respect the opinions of those who don’t agree with me; that’s the only way you learn in life. I present my opinion with conviction and belief, because that’s the only way I know how.
My tone isn’t intended to be negative in the least bit, but it is difficult to express that via text.
I have played and studied baseball for 80% of my life; love the game, love discussing it, respect the analytic community and love learning more and more about it, but when I disagree with something I have no issues expressing that.
I don’t care about the negative responses or the disagreements; I appreciate them as I like to get the viewpoint of those who disagree with me. Occasionally my opinion can be changed, but in this case I feel pretty strongly about my side. I’m definitely one to comment more frequently when I disagree than when I agree; it’s boring to say “I agree.” There’s no fun in that. I do find it funny that people think I’m butthurt about a baseball argument, when in reality I am enjoying the discussion but maybe my tone isn’t presented in the manner I am writing.
thought so… upvoted 😉
I look forward to many more discussions… even if I’m just reading them.
I have seen the story of Rational Fan play out in the comments so many times that I am about to become his official biographer.
The guy can’t decide if he’s being purposely inflammatory because it’s fun or if he actually gives a shit about any of this and wants to learn.
I’ve seen it too, and I’ve given him a hard time a couple of times, but I do think he’s more sincere than johnforthegiants. I think sometimes he may get a bit pedantic and nitpicks what seems like a minor detail… but whatever. I do like enjoy coming to the comments section and seeing what’s there… much more enjoyable than what you normally find on the interweb. And I totally admit that I have my asshole moments.
“I just enjoy seeing the little red negatives by my name.” Yet, curiously, there is precisely one upvote for each of RF’s comments. I wonder who that could be…
Why don’t you go ahead and try to upvote your own post and let me know how that goes. Good luck in your escapade.
Just did. Thanks for the suggestion, I now know why you do it.
Chris said in the article that of two pitchers with an equal stat line, the taller one projects better. This is a statistical model we’re talking about, so that’s not scouting bias. No one is saying that his size if going to kill him, that he’d be an ace but for his size, but it does matter, demonstrably.
“Given two pitchers with identical stat lines, the tall pitcher is more likely to succeed in the big leagues, but not by a wide margin. Height isn’t nearly as predictive as performance.”
That is hardly a glowing endorsement for height being a major factor in a pitchers ceiling and development.
major, minor, whatever, who cares, none of us are saying anything with any specific data behind it. You guys have spent as much time arguing what a #1 as whether Urias is one.
Height matters. Some. Not a deal breaker. Not a non-factor. Okay. Let’s move on.
The big question for fantasy is, how many games will he start this year? Based on the Dodgers’ reluctance to promote rookies and statements that is the only start, then back to the bullpen… I think there needs to be a reality check. Unless he’s the closer, if he ain’t starting, he won’t be helping fantasy teams very much, nor for that matter, the actual Dodgers this year.
Actual rookie pitchers will be called up this year who will help their fantasy & actual teams win. I don’t think Julio Urias is one of those guys.