What makes a good minor league system?

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by princeton

if you can't predict, you can't understand. it's the scientific method. observation, hypothesis, test. It leads to understanding of parts of the universe.

You ask questions, which is great. But good scientists form a hypothesis even if they know that their knowledge is limited, because it is ALWAYS limited. You don't form a hypothesis, and you really never test. the value of this is very limited.

I never really test? Is that so? On what basis? I've made lots of predictions on this site before, heck in this thread. Todd Coffey will improve his ERA markedly in 2008, largely on the strength of a decreased hit rate and home run rate relative to 2007. There's my hypothesis, clearly stated. I've been doing that ever since I joined the board.

When it comes to minor leagues, what do you want me to test? Simply guessing which players will pan out and which won't is not terribly helpful. There are simply too many variables in play. I have my own theories and ideas about what should work and what won't. However, the entire point of this thread is to get input from other people in terms of what they think works and also try and get insight on to what the Reds' working philosophies are.

I can talk about the Braves' focus on work ethic and character, the Red Sox' individualized development planning, and the As' focus on continuity of philosophy and approach throughout the system. Those are all things I think good organizations should do. I have no idea what the Reds value or what they're doing internally. That's why I'm asking.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by princeton

if you can't predict, you can't understand. it's the scientific method. observation, hypothesis, test. It leads to understanding of parts of the universe.

You ask questions, which is great. But good scientists form a hypothesis even if they know that their knowledge is limited, because it is ALWAYS limited. You don't form a hypothesis, and you really never test. the value of this is very limited.

Yet your 'scientific' method is nothing based on science. Its based on 'the reds can't develop talent and haven't over the last 20 years so they will continue to do so'. What you fail to see is that the coaches are different, the players are different and the ingredients are all different.

Your scientific method is based around trying to grow trees that were picked out by 'Joe' in a red shirt and he fed them 'A' and watered them with 'B' and gave them 'C' amount of sunlight.

You now assume that because 'Bill' is trying to grow trees as well while wearing the same red shirt that he is also going to feed them 'A', water them with 'B' and give them the 'C' amount of sunlight.

However 'Bill' in his red shirt is actually going to feed them 'X', water them with 'Y' and give them 'Z' amount of sunlight.

None of this even goes along with the fact that he is picking trees from a different group of trees entirely.

Just because both guys in red shirts are trying to grow trees doesn't mean they are going to go about it the same way and it surely doesn't mean the results are going to be the same simply because they both wear red shirts and want to grow a tree.

[princeton]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Todd Coffey will improve his ERA markedly in 2008, largely on the strength of a decreased hit rate and home run rate relative to 2007. There's my hypothesis, clearly stated.

good. I think that's a safe bet. If he doesn't, he won't be a Red (hopefully).

bigger prediction: the Olive Garden is out of baseball before he turns 31.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Yet your 'scientific' method is nothing based on science. Its based on 'the reds can't develop talent and haven't over the last 20 years so they will continue to do so'. What you fail to see is that the coaches are different, the players are different and the ingredients are all different.

Your scientific method is based around trying to grow trees that were picked out by 'Joe' in a red shirt and he fed them 'A' and watered them with 'B' and gave them 'C' amount of sunlight.

You now assume that because 'Bill' is trying to grow trees as well while wearing the same red shirt that he is also going to feed them 'A', water them with 'B' and give them the 'C' amount of sunlight.

However 'Bill' in his red shirt is actually going to feed them 'X', water them with 'Y' and give them 'Z' amount of sunlight.

None of this even goes along with the fact that he is picking trees from a different group of trees entirely.

Just because both guys in red shirts are trying to grow trees doesn't mean they are going to go about it the same way and it surely doesn't mean the results are going to be the same simply because they both wear red shirts and want to grow a tree.

Except that the growers, in this case Krivsky's advisers are the same guys that have advised hi in some of the worst trades and FA signings in recent Red's history. 2006? Well we all know that story. a cavalcade of crap followed 3 very good acquisitions. The draft was kind of poo pooey. better later than earlier adjusted for what was available.

So can we agree that whoever is making the picks in Krivskyland isn't doing a great job?

Next would be development. DanO's odd contribution was the tandem starter and take the first pitch. Tandem starter might have been a benefit as it at least pointed out that reduced pitch counts on youngsters might be a good thing. It was poor execution, but the overall result was fewer injuries. Now has Kriv followed this formula? to a point. He has over-promoted guys while declaring he doesn't over promote. Bruce kicked the door down. Bailey didn't because it's different for pitchers. He never should have thrown a single pitch in a Reds uni last year. If you don't dominate AAA at that age, you pitch there till you do. Cueto was dominating AA, and was a late season promotion to AAA. He should start at AAA and stay there unless he goes all Gallardi on the league.

Take the firs pitch while the intent was there is another example of a flawed approach. It won't teach patience if the other team KNOWS you are taking every freaking time. I don't know that you can teach patience, but you can teach pitch recognition and you can teach a player what to expect in certain counts and situations. Are the Reds doing this? Votto is a vote yes, Juan Francisco is a vote no, and the real answer is probably somewhere in the middle. How they teach it is probably the most important thing.

I won't even cover defense. Juan Castro can't become a coach fast enough IMO.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

Poor choice, but also poor budgeting.



Bailey was an excellent choice. Weaver was not chosen by the Reds, just as he was passed over by the rest of the top half of the first round in 04, because he wanted well over slot and a major league deal. It was an organizational preference, shared by many other teams, to avoid players with those demands. So, it's not a matter of Bailey vs Weaver -- it's a matter of policy that has more to do with budgets and roster management than it does with player evaluation. Again, it's a mistake to say Bailey was a bad pick.

Stubbs Instead of Lincecum
Looks bad now. But I wouldn't close the case yet. Long road ahead for both players.

I've said this so many times, but I'm going to again. If your MO is to compare the Reds' choice to every other player taken after that choice, you'll wind up unhappy almost always. Because the odds are hugely, greatly in favor of at least one of the other 29 teams finding a player who has a better career than the player the Reds selected.

My take is that starting in 04 the team has done much better in the draft. Much remains to be seen, but it's hard to argue that the system doesn't appear very healthy when compared to others.

I agree, of course Kearns over Dunn has turned out to be a dumb choice given hindsight.
Good thing there was a 2nd round.

[dougdirt]

When Bailey was called up he had a 1.08 WHIP and a 2.31 ERA.... While I guess that isn't blowing the door off the hinges, its hardly something to sneeze at and say he 'wasn't showing he was ready'.

As for Cueto, he was promoted to AAA for 3 starts, then sent back down to AA to help push for the playoffs, which in the end failed. I don't think there is any doubt that he starts in AAA, but if it comes June and he has a sub 2.50 ERA and a sub 1.10 WHIP I don't think he is going to be down much longer and he probably shouldn't be if there are any concerns with the rotation.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

When Bailey was called up he had a 1.08 WHIP and a 2.31 ERA.... While I guess that isn't blowing the door off the hinges, its hardly something to sneeze at and say he 'wasn't showing he was ready'.

As for Cueto, he was promoted to AAA for 3 starts, then sent back down to AA to help push for the playoffs, which in the end failed. I don't think there is any doubt that he starts in AAA, but if it comes June and he has a sub 2.50 ERA and a sub 1.10 WHIP I don't think he is going to be down much longer and he probably shouldn't be if there are any concerns with the rotation.

Cueto aside for a moment...

Those are nice numbers for Bailey. Let's look deeper. In April he had a paltry 5.48 K/9. That jumped to 9.2 in May, so either it's small sample, or he made an adjustment. His BB/9 for both months was 3.80 and 3.68. So he didn't gain a ton of control in May. His BABIP was ridiculously low in April, .175. Is that a sustainable level of performance? I don't know.

I don't have a real problem with how Cueto was handled, but I think he should have been left at AA all year after his promotion. Since his demotion was a playoff push, I'm sure that was relayed to him. He likely knows he's important to the Reds, and he built his innings without injury. The same cannot be said for Bailey.

But doug, both these guys are very young.and the success rate for pitcher under 22 flat sucks. Why let them burn service time developing, and likely hurting the Reds in the process only to develop them for another club and likely not reaping the benefits?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by TRF

Cueto aside for a moment...

Those are nice numbers for Bailey. Let's look deeper. In April he had a paltry 5.48 K/9. That jumped to 9.2 in May, so either it's small sample, or he made an adjustment. His BB/9 for both months was 3.80 and 3.68. So he didn't gain a ton of control in May. His BABIP was ridiculously low in April, .175. Is that a sustainable level of performance? I don't know.

I don't think his April numbers were sustainable in terms of BABIP and I don't think he was quite ready either for the call up. I do think that he learned more in his first 6 starts in the big leagues than he likely would have learned by spending the rest of the season in AAA though. That might just be my opinion, but he had 9 starts worth of time started on his arbitration and I am not overly concerned with 9 starts worth of time considering thats roughly 25% of a season for a pitcher. It showed him that he can't just rely on his fastball all the time and that his other offering are going to have to be good as well, something that may have taken him much longer to learn in the minor leagues were his fastball got him out of almost any jam he wanted.

I don't have a real problem with how Cueto was handled, but I think he should have been left at AA all year after his promotion. Since his demotion was a playoff push, I'm sure that was relayed to him. He likely knows he's important to the Reds, and he built his innings without injury. The same cannot be said for Bailey.

I dont think Bailey hurt himself in anyway that has to do with innings. In fact, he hurt himself slipping on a mound in a bullpen session prior to a game.

But doug, both these guys are very young.and the success rate for pitcher under 22 flat sucks. Why let them burn service time developing, and likely hurting the Reds in the process only to develop them for another club and likely not reaping the benefits?

The success rate of pitchers under 22 flat sucks? Between 2000 and 2006 there were 51 pitchers, 22 or younger with <75ip post an ERA under 4.50. The number of pitchers that qualified? 70. Lets not act like the success rate is something like 5%, because it clearly isn't. While ERA isn't exactly the best thing to look at here, it was a quick and easy way to assess the situation.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by princeton

good. I think that's a safe bet. If he doesn't, he won't be a Red (hopefully).

bigger prediction: the Olive Garden is out of baseball before he turns 31.

I am assuming that you are calling Coffey the "Olive Garden", I don't know why but I digress...

If that's the case I disagree with the latter, unless you are basing it on something unforeseen like injury or unless you see something in his mechanics that might cause an injury which I don't see but am no expert in. However he's proven to be one of if not the hardest worker on the team and he has the talent. And I believe he's also a lot stronger in his mental approach to the game than he is given credit for.

Talent, Hard Work and Determination = a long career IMO.

[TRF]

doug, in 2007 only 2 pitchers under 22 that came up and started at least 8 games could have been considered dominant. 2 out of 20. Gallardo and King Felix. And I'm stretching it with Felix.

2006 was indeed a better crop, with Kazmir being the best of the bunch. Florida had some interesting YOUNG arms in '06. Those young arms from '06 got their collective butts handed to them in '07 though.

On to '05 once again only 3 guys looked like they might be dominators: Kazmir, King Felix and Zack Duke who gets worse every year.

2004 was a banner year. No pitcher under 22 was worth half a crap, Willis ang Greinke being the best with ERA's around 4. Willis is in a 3 year decline and Greinke was converted to the pen because he was so bad. He may be back in KC's rotation plans now though.

2003 was a fantastic year for young pitchers though. Big Z, Peavy, Willis had his best year, Harden was looking like an AL version of Mark Prior, and he was, Oliver Perez had a fat ERA but very interesting peripherals. Willis was beginning a workload that would decrease his effectiveness over the next 4 years, Harden is always injured, Z is a horse, but he's a BB machine now and has a 10 cent head. Peavy is without a doubt the best of the bunch.

2002 was another really good year with Harden, Beckett, Prior, Oliver Perez, Peavy, Carlos Hernandez and Sabathia. Perez was up and down with his career until settling in with the Mets. Harden, Beckett and Prior would battle injuries for years. Beckett had/has blister problems, so I can't really blame youth on that. dude has funky skin. After 2002, Hernandez pitched in a total of 9 games.

2001 had 3 pitchers of note and the rest was kinda drecky. Sabbathia, Garland and Buehrle.

Finally we get to 2000 and 2 starters, one dominating and one leading to what could be a HOF career. Rick Ankiel and Barry Zito. How's Ankiel doing as a pitcher?

It's easy to say X number of pitchers had a sub 4.50 ERA. How many of them had sustained success? 5? Certainly less than 10. Kazmir is hands down the best pitcher in the last 8 years to make his debut at an age younger than 22. Ankiel melted down. Willis is in a serious decline. Harden is oft injured. The Florida rotation of 2006 imploded in 2007, piling up injury after injury.

It isn't that a player cannot be successful at a young age. It's that sustained success is unlikely. Injury is often the result of a young man with a young mind placed on a major league mound. The list of dramatic FAILURES is more depressing than anything else. Ankiel looked like a STUD. Carlos Hernandez looked like he could anchor a rotation. Who know what will happen with Florida's young pitchers.

So why, if the washout rate is so high for pitchers 22 and younger should the Reds take a chance with the best prospects they have had on the mound since Tom Freaking Browning?

[princeton]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Yet your 'scientific' method is nothing based on science. Its based on 'the reds can't develop talent and haven't over the last 20 years so they will continue to do so'. What you fail to see is that the coaches are different, the players are different and the ingredients are all different.

you just don't understand the hypothesis, which is really quite simple: the Reds will continue to have severe developmental problems, particularly with pitchers and with guys that couldn't hit well when very young, until they hire a top developer with a great track record.

your fixation on this is getting a little weird. Let it go for now, sit back and watch. I'll be the first to be thrilled if it's wrong and if the Cycle of Stupid is finally broken.

[princeton]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

I am assuming that you are calling Coffey the "Olive Garden", I don't know why but I digress...

If that's the case I disagree with the latter, unless you are basing it on something unforeseen like injury or unless you see something in his mechanics that might cause an injury which I don't see but am no expert in. However he's proven to be one of if not the hardest worker on the team and he has the talent. And I believe he's also a lot stronger in his mental approach to the game than he is given credit for.

Talent, Hard Work and Determination = a long career IMO.

I hope so, because I like his story. But overweight RHPers, like short RHPers, don't tend to hang around very long.

He lost a lot of weight as a teen to get himself this far. Hopefully he'll extend his career in the same way.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by princeton

you just don't understand the hypothesis, which is really quite simple: the Reds will continue to have severe developmental problems, particularly with pitchers and with guys that couldn't hit well when very young, until they hire a top developer with a great track record.

your fixation on this is getting a little weird. Let it go for now, sit back and watch. I'll be the first to be thrilled if it's wrong and if the Cycle of Stupid is finally broken.

When you stop making dumb comments about Yugo factories, then maybe I will let it go.

[princeton]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

When you stop making dumb comments about Yugo factories, then maybe I will let it go.

listen to yourself. What you're doing isn't healthy. put me on ignore and give me a heads up about it so I won't respond to your posts.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by princeton

listen to yourself. What you're doing isn't healthy. put me on ignore and give me a heads up about it so I won't respond to your posts.

The fact that I think your hypothesis is a bad one makes me unhealthy? Or is it the fact that I respond to something I disagree with that makes me unhealthy?