Any exceptions to this rule or is this doomed to end poorly?
 

In my fictional W.P. Kinsella league I drafted this guy who was considered a mediocre prospect but with a great fastball and great stuff. I figured at least he might be able to dominate minor league hitters and help our farm clubs to have better records. Never expected he would make it to the bigs though.
And he did a pretty good much of the time as he moved up through the system, in spite of not faring that well in terms of BABIP against.

(Note: I use a 1-10 rating system in this league.)

Then, suddenly, he develops a fourth pitch. And the potential for that pitch then rises to above average to go along with his exceptional fastball and his solid sinker (and crappy changeup.) And he develops better control and his potential control rises considerably. And his fastball just gets better. And his velocity, which was top notch to begin with, heads towards the unhittable range. And his stuff rating starts to hit the roof.
And now he is named the #3 prospect in the league. And our head scout, who has a great reputation, sees him as having a ceiling of staff ace. And the OSA loves him too and actually thinks his control potential is even better than our guy thinks.

But.
But that movement rating. That is not good! And doesn't look to be getting any better. And from everything I've read around here, guys with movement ratings this low get shelled in the majors.
Still, I haven't been playing OOTP long enough to have ever seen a guy quite like this.

What do you all think? Lost cause or could this guy be an exception to the rule? Ever seen anyone with these kind of ratings succeed as a major leaguer?

Woof. I would issue your infielders hockey masks. :p

I'd be shopping him left and right to let someone else find out.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Yeah, that's what I figured.
And I was already thinking that the smart thing would be to trade him now for something of value while his stock is so high.
I just haven't totally convinced myself yet to do the smart thing because I am so interested in seeing how this plays out and the best way to do that is to keep him close. Darn me and my fascination with outliers.

There's no hard and fast rule that says he's gonna fail just because of low movement. Best way to find out is to call him up and see what happens...

Well, that is probably what I will end up doing.
Even though I know the chances are it will in fact end very poorly. But it could be fun to find out anyway.

2/10?

i'll make a rule @ 2 for sure... that's well beyond any rational line you should draw. excluding TCR, which would be a second dose from i read, this guy is never going to be good in the mlb over the long-term.

1969 may help with a lower HR league. he won't be as terrible as he would be in 2018. i still highly doubt he'll fare well. check out league leaders and such... do you ever see a player with such a horrendous movement rating? (full year)

if there are and they are few and far between, the logic still holds. even the sun shines on a.... ... .. every once in a while.

Well, he might have had a better chance the season past when the statistical modifiers, due to an error on my part, were actually set to match MLB 1968. This season, although the calendar says 1969 statistical modifiers actually line up with MLB 1986. So definitely the HR more of a factor.
I guess my irrational hope was that he would have such high K rates and, if his control develops as is now projected, low enough walk rates that he just gives up a lot of solo HR's, that he wouldn't be total crap. And might occasionally, at least, be brilliant. Now, if that very low Movement rating means that pretty much every time a batter makes contact against him something bad is likely to happen, not just an increase in HR's, well, then it seems like it probably wouldn't be a risk worth taking.
For what it is worth, and I realize it's worth pretty much nothing, he was quite good with the major league team in spring training and was piling up the K's. Not so great so far at AAA this season. Though, interestingly, not giving up HR's. In his longest minor league stints at one level he has actually been pretty stingy in terms of giving up HR's, while walks have been more of an issue. Still, yes, I realize the majors is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

I don't think his stats match the current movement rating. I'd say your scout is off on his assessment of this guys movement.

I've had that thought as well.
I haven't been able to totally convince myself of this yet as he has a great reputation and thus far hasn't generally led me down the wrong path and the OSA agrees in terms of movement.
Still, I have to hope perhaps his movement isn't quite as bad as the scouts say and more like just a bit worse than average.

In support of that argument, he has now given up 3 HR's in 58 IP in AAA thus far in the current (1969) season. Which is the same HR/9 IP as his 1968 AA stint of 117 IP: 0.5. His career HR/9 is 0.7. Now, that doesn't mean he can carry that over to the majors. But it isn't terribly concerning a stat. In fact, he gave up nearly as many HR's in his one college season as he has now in 3+ seasons of pro ball.

I guess time will tell.

Keep feeding back when he debuts. I am really curious.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Will do.

he's 21 in AAA, he's very likely close to accurate.

while doing "well" is sort of important and tells you about their progression, you can't compare stats from the minor leagues with MLB.

even if they have the same exact # of games, LTM/LTs and everything. players are infinitely more volatile as far as their makeup (individual ratings) and distribution of telent (overall league) is concerend in the minors. on top of significantly more volatile year-to year for a plethora of reasons as far as league average to baseline variances.

e.g. power isn't displayed until AA/AAA and even then if near ~50 you are monster power hitter. the quantity isn't the same as the mlb unles pure luck. the playres that are "power hitters" now may be middling guys in MLB because they can't go any further than current developemnt -- at ceiling for them, but not really that good.

similar application to a pitcher too... developement is so varied and uneven... nothign similar to what they will be in the majors, even when looking at the same exact person 10 years apart... (different ratings = different person, really -- totally different league and outcomes)

why woudl that throw a wrench in the comparison? well, the distribution is wholey different. the players are wholey different in numerous ways... how it all adds up is completely different etc etc etc...

you can meaningfully compare 1955 AA stats to 1960 AA stats for a player but you cannot compare AA to MLB in a very meaningful way as far as bb/9 or hr/9. (assuming you keep things the same settings-wise).

i'm not saying Zero chance.. i'm saying that the reasoning used is zero chance to be relevant outside of luck. i'm saying if he is successful in spite of low movement, it's not indicated by his mil stats in anyway.

it'll be because his stuff is so high, or because there aren'y many XBH in yourleague etc... directly causal relationship that would reduce the need for movement rating.

a AAA or lower could have a .1hr/9 and still be horrendous in MLB environment for any number of reasons not mentioned above and mentioned above, because it's simply not correlative let alone causal in nature.

i would get rid of the guy …. HRs galore I like the stuff where as the control not bad as I be hoping my offense is hitting on all cylinders to put up runs to protect against that

Yes, I get it. I really do. I think, in fact, that I've indicated this several times in this thread. (You know, that minor league stats are not very translatable to major league level, etc.) Just not in quite so many words as you. :)
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you taking the time to share this feedback, and as always I respect your experience and thoughtfulness.
And I'm nearly 100% convinced that when he does have a major league career, if he does, it probably won't turn out that well. Though he might have his moments where he looks amazing, racking up the strikeouts. I just imagine those will be the exceptions surrounding by lots and lots of failure.
But. It's a game. I kind of want to play it out and see. Just in case he's some kind of freak of nature, some 1 in a million. At least just for a little while anyway. And then again, who knows, maybe the other theory floated here is correct too and the scouts have, thus far, under-estimated his movement. (Again, I doubt it. But I can't really know for sure yet.)

Well, the latest development report indicates that Lyerly's potential movement rating just got bumped up a notch.
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean anything but it is the first sign of movement in that rating. And maybe it is an indication that when fully developed his movement won't be quite as bad as first thought.
Maybe?

Let's see if he "lives up to that potential" in the next couple of "years."

Well, yes, it is just a potential boost, and not a big one. No reason at this point to assume that he won't get stuck at 2 out of 10 for this rating. (Or drop to an even more disastrous lower rating.) Still, point is, it is also the first flicker of a sign that his true movement rating might be higher than has been reported by scouts thus far. And, at his age, development is far from complete.
Still a reach. But I like that things keep trending in the right direction, at least.

you asked and didn't like the answer. it's as much for anyone else reading as you. if i said something twice it's because i don't really look over an entire thread. typically it's due to same question being asked the second time or the response about something said that may or may not be right (me or others or op).

if he is successful it's more like the lotto. i.e. anyone can have a good game... a little more luck and you can have a good year... even more luck and you string a few good seasons together. howewever, they cannot escape their severe lack of talent, if given enough opportunities.

extremely rare, but inevitably can and does happen - a crap player in a good player's clothing. that's your only hope here. pure luck of results stringing together of a subpar talent. there's no mechanism for 1/million player superceding their ratings (beyond reason). when it happens it's simply the RNG (even 'luck' is a misnomer. it entails preference or some unwritten or unheard factgor/power involved. universal favorites don't exist).

Sorry, NoOne, didn't mean to give you that impression. I liked the answer just fine. It was also the answer I expected. And most likely the correct answer.
It just seemed that you might think that I was not acknowledging the difference between minor league and major league talent level and how statistics achieved in the minors are likely not all that translatable to the major league environment and the ratings, assuming a level of accuracy in that regard, certainly take precedence. It may have been missed and may have been a bit too vague, but I did indicate my understanding of this several times.
I'm always happy to have you chime in with your thoughts here as you clearly have a good deal of experience with the game and a strong analytical mind. I wasn't in any way looking for you to give me the answer I wanted.
However, I suspect you over-state a bit when you say that my only hope here is pure luck. The player is still fairly young and scouting, at least with the settings I use and my head scout being very good but not perfect, isn't an exact science. Chances are very low, I agree.
And the fun will be in seeing how it all plays out. :D