Could Rick Porcello be the next Bonderman? A look at the Tigers' health risks
Now, if we could just stop this from happening to the next (Jeremy) Bonderman... who may very well be Rick Porcello.
Baseball Prospectus recently posted Will Carroll's Team Health Report for the Tigers. And while much of that is proprietary information behind a firewall, I do want to talk a bit about it.
Upon first reading a quote like that, your gut reaction is probably to dispute it. After all, who could predict Bonderman would require a rib removed among other repairs during thoracic outlet surgery almost two years ago? From 2004-2007, he averaged 190 innings per season. And why should we spend a lot of time worrying about Porcello, who threw his slider just 5 percent of the time and curve ball about 8 percent. Both pitches were said to be limited by the Tigers specifically to cut Porcello's risk possibility.
Here (from the freely available portion) is what Carroll writes about Porcello, in a category titled "The Big Risk":
He's barely old enough to drink. Yes, it's kind of cliche to say that about a talented young pitcher, but it might remind us why pitchers like Porcello are such huge risks.
*snip*
For all the things I disagree with Dr. Mike Marshall on, the one I agree with wholeheartedly is the idea of making sure that the "anatomical age" is known as much as the chronological age. Until Porcello is physically mature, he simply can't take on the kind of pitching load that someone who is mature can. Now, I'll acknowledge that Porcello might be physically mature. The Tigers might know this, but most teams don't.
At age 20 and in the majors, Porcello threw 170-2/3 innings -- 45 more than he did as a 19-year-old who largely overmatched his Advanced-A opposition. And for those reasons, Porcello ranked among the Tigers' biggest risks, along with a few other players recovering from injuries whose names you can probably predict.
But what does this mean for the Tigers in 2010? If you want to stick with the Bonderman comparison, he threw 162 innings at the same age. Of course, Bonderman remained healthy at age 21, throwing 184 innings, and didn't hit his first major injury until age 24.
That led Carroll to write:
What if you did everything right and still couldn't stop something bad from happening? That's the issue with Bonderman and with every young pitcher. The Tigers knew every risk, used everything they had in their arsenal to keep Bonderman healthy, but he still ended up like this. Is that inevitable?
No one knows, Carroll concluded. Thus, Porcello is an injury risk. He's not an injury guarantee, so don't read that into what Carroll, Tom Verducci, I or anyone else writes. Basically, it's like setting insurance rates. If you smoke or spend time around smokers, you're more likely to have health problems. Will you have a specific problem? It's near impossible to say. Will you probably experience some problem? Probably. Will you definitely? No.
Porcello's career thus far aligns him in the riskiest of categories: the young pitcher who threw a lot of innings. How will it turn out?
Nobody knows.
Like anything else in life, it's hard to predict something exactly. You can predict within a range of outcomes. And right now, that range of outcomes tends toward an injury of some sort.
On the other hand, slightly older players portraying less risk are Max Scherzer and (predictably) Justin Verlander. The latter is no surprise. He has clean mechanics and consistently puts up near-or-above 200-innings a season since maturing. Scherzer is a surprise due to his mechanics but has prior results on his side as much as anything, Carroll writes.
Since we don't know the forces (of his mechanics), we have to rely on the results. Those have always been good.
At this point, the big difference between Scherzer and Porcello is age. Scherzer is 25 and he's been healthy. The Diamondbacks may have viewed him as an injury risk, but he's been fine so far and he's past the age of greatest risk.
But again, there's no certainty.
Like the rest of the results in the sport, health is a random result operating inside a more predictable parameter.
0 recs |
25 comments
|
Comments
to beat a dead horse: injuries are pretty unpredictable.
pitching innings is pitching innings so it doesn’t really matter if they come at the major league level or minor league level (or even college level). Nolan Ryan threw 180+ innings when he was 19 and I’d say he wound up being pretty durable. Roger Clemens threw 170+ innings at the age of 21 – he was ok. Bonderman is a bigger guy with what seems to be a lot less range of motion than a skinnier kid like Porcello – and injuries have everything to do with mechanics and the physical build of the person. Sure, he could be worked into the ground, but if he has the mechanics and proper training he’ll be alright.
And while we’re asking hypothetical doom and gloom questions, I might as well remind everyone that Scherzer was often compared to Brandon Webb in Arizona. Well, Webb must not have gotten the “at 25 you’re past the age of greatest risk” memo because he had Tommy John at the age of 30.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
Twitter
not Tommy John
shoulder surgery, but point stands.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
Twitter
and Nathan might need Tommy John at 36
but are all these examples the exception or the rule? That’s the part I think you’re confusing.
The point was, there are different levels of injury risk. Nothing guarantees an injury or guarantees no risk of an injury. But you can group similar pitchers together under levels of risk. Porcello is in a group of higher risk pitchers than Scherzer, despite the the fact Porcello has nicer mechanics than Scherzer.
As for Nathan, he projected to be pretty solid health even after his surgery, but that didn’t mean he couldn’t have a catastrophic injury like he did.
It’s interesting stuff.
by Kurt Mensching on Mar 10, 2010 9:04 PM EST up reply actions
and Nathan might need Tommy John at 36
but are all these examples the exception or the rule? That’s the part I think you’re confusing.
I’m not confusing anything, actually. We could go back and forth all day with pitchers who survived a heavy work load at 19-21 years old, and who didn’t (& pitchers who broke down later in their careers, and those who didn’t).
Some bodies break down earlier than others regardless of workloads . Bad mechanics help break down bodies quicker than pitchers with good mechanics (often leading to injuries). And some bodies are made of steel whether they have good mechanics or not.
The problem with these quotes from Carroll — he concedes the Tigers did everything they could with Bonderman and he STILL got injured (insinuating that it wasn’t the work load’s fault for his injuries). And he says Porcello MIGHT be physically mature, which if he is, this is all moot. Humans can mature early, but they can also continue to mature physically up until they are 25. Was Verlander’s body fully mature at 23 when he threw 180+ innings? Porcello’s body at 20 could hypothetically be more mature than JV’s was at 23.
The comparison to Bonderman is easy because, I get it, they both pitched a lot of innings as Tigers at the young age of 19-20, and Bonderman got hurt down the road, but truth be told, they’re two completely different body types with different mechanics.
Wieters forbid that Porcello gets hurt (or anyone on the Tigers), but I think the best way to project injuries (and honestly, what a sick job) is mechanics and body types (and even then it’s with a big grain of salt). Scherzer has had shoulder problems already (as opisgod astutely pointed out) with his herky jerky mechanics —so, I’m sorrry, I don’t see how Bonderman’s injury and a relatively heavy workload (about 50 innings more than what Verlander pitched at that age) makes Porcello a higher risk.
But yes, it’s interesting — and extremely dubious.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
Twitter
Careful now.
For every Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens, there have been many Mike Norrises, Kerry Woods and, dare I say, Mark Fidryches.
by frisbeepilot on Mar 10, 2010 8:13 PM EST up reply actions
There will only be one
Mark Fidrych. RIP Bird.
Check out Detroit4Lyfe
by handsomerob1 on Mar 11, 2010 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
Beyond the initial "SHHHHHHHH!" reaction
I think people realize that that’s always a possibility with young pitchers, and especially power pitchers. It happens too often to not consider it; I mean, Bonderman on the Tigers, Liriano on the Twins, stuff can certainly happen to human beings torquing their arms in an unnatural manner over and over again.
But, as Packey just beat me to saying, there are plenty of power pitchers who go on to make a career of bringing the heat, and do so without ever succumbing. We can all hope Porcello fits into the latter category, and does so as a Tigers for years to come.
Official BYB Juju Consultant...now accepting rally creature applications!
by ahtrap on Mar 10, 2010 7:21 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
“slightly older players portraying less risk are Max Scherzer”
I quote from fangraphs:
“To recap his extensive injury history since 2006: shoulder and biceps tendinitis in ‘06, shoulder inflammation in 2008, shoulder fatigue and tightness in 2009.”
Whatever he injures, it always happens to involve his shoulder. Not exactly what i would call healthy or a lower risk. Bonderman has almost the exact same mechanics by the way. Letting it be known.
But Bonderman's mechanics . . .
. . .almost certianly had nothing to do with this injury—he was born with a too-narrow thoracic outlet
This
I think Carroll may be assuming that the injury comes from pitching rather than existing health problems. Which it may well- I don’t know. But it doesn’t seem like it does to me, if that means anything (probably doesn’t).
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Mar 11, 2010 1:40 AM EST up reply actions
Carroll likes to assume lots of things,
And usually he ends up wrong. For example, his recent post on Wang, it made absolutely no sense and he really sounded like an ignorant child who just learned a new word and decided to write about it.
In the case of Bonderman, I have no clue what really caused his injuries but his mechanics quite possibly made the TOS condition worse. Porcello isn’t perfect either, but at least he is more like the John Smoltz type than the Mark Prior type.
I actually did some research . . .
on the problem Bonderman had. It’s a congenital defect, but often not symptomatic. One of the things that can make it symptomatic is a job involving repeatedly raising your arms above your shoulders. So, you can’t say that Bonderman’s problems were unrelated to pitching—but it doesn’t sound like they were particularly related to his mechanics. Darn few pitchers have mechanics that don’t involve raising your arms above your shoulders . . .
Unless you do it wrong, nothing above the elbow should be going above the shoulders.
Bonderman’s mechanics do, unfortunately, and that’s why I think they helped to worsen his TOS. That’s not without mentioning the other problems I feel such mechanics also cause.
High risk, High reward
Here’s a better question:
Could Rick Porcello be the next Greg Maddux?
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/m/greg-maddux.shtml
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/P/Rick-Porcello.shtml
NO.
BAD LINUXIT.
Nobody can be compared to Maddux. Like, ever. Disregard any scout you hear call someone a “young Greg Maddux”. Maddux is one of the most unique pitchers in the recorded history of the game. His intelligence and remarkable command are not only legendary, but I don’t really know if they’ll ever be surpassed.
Porcello is good, but his skills- even his physical upside- is not quite that good. His upside is Roy Halladay (which is not a bad thing- Doc may be a HOFer).
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Mar 11, 2010 1:44 AM EST up reply actions
Funny you would mention that.
Halladay is basically Maddux with a harder fastball and a horrible team to back him up.
You mean Mike, right?
Because nobody that I’ve ever seen could be compared favorably to Greg. He didn’t have the best stuff ever, but only stuff does not a pitcher make. Like demon said, the intelligence (not saying Halladay or any other pitchers are stupid – although the verdict came back on Rocker that he isn’t overly bright) is where Maddux separates himself from everyone else. No pitcher understood the game better, and along with pinpoint accuracy, he will go down as the best pitcher (not thrower) ever.
by 77bestrookieclassever on Mar 11, 2010 6:26 AM EST up reply actions
If Halladay was Maddux with a harder fastball
He’d win all his starts. He’s had 4 seasons with a sub-2 ERA. That’s it.
Seriously- everyone is underestimating Maddux. From 1992-1996, he never had an ERA higher than 2.70. In 1994, it was 1.56. The guy pitched in the Steroid era- and his highest ERA up to 2003 was 3.96- at 37 years old. He put up ERA’s of 4.20ish from the age of 37 until he retired at 42. Greg Maddux is, quite possibly, the greatest pitcher of all time. There is zero point zero chance Rick Porcello turns into that, and if he does, I’ll eat his jock.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Mar 11, 2010 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
If Porcello turns into half
of Maddux, I think we’ll all be pretty happy.
Check out Detroit4Lyfe
by handsomerob1 on Mar 11, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
Zero chance? I think you are seriously under-estimating Porcello.
If anyone in the majors right now has a chance to be in Maddux’s shadow, it’s Porcello. I’ve never seen a 20 year old with as much poise and maturity as him. He is a student of the game, much like Maddux was. Porcello is also a ground ball machine, much like Maddux was. “Porcello is one of only two pitchers, the other being Greg Maddux, in the past 10 years to win five straight starts without exceeding 95 pitches in any of them.”
http://blog.mlive.com/cutoffman/2009/06/freep_rick_porcello_keeping_pi.html
Maddux is the best.
He is the benchmark for Porcello. It certainly isn’t Bonderman. I don’t think it’s Halladay either because he was 25 years old during his breakout season.
Not underestimating Porcello
Maddux is just in a league of his own
by 77bestrookieclassever on Mar 12, 2010 7:09 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, zero
Absolutely none. We’ll never see a pitcher like Maddux again.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Mar 12, 2010 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
Agree, and more importantly
his feel for batters is legendary. There have been quotes from catchers (Maddux called his own games) saying that he just understood what batters were feeling and, being able to read them, was able to use his pinpoint location and offspeed pitches to leave them looking like Brandon on a good curveball.
VP of Membership, Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by JoelZumayaKegStand on Mar 11, 2010 8:18 AM EST up reply actions

by 



















