Bryce Harper update
by FusilliJerry88 on Mar 8, 2010 12:16 AM EST
Email
PrintI just saw a Bryce Harper update over at mlbtraderumors.com, and thought I'd share the article here for anyone who does'nt visit their site often....
Through 16 games with the Coyotes, the 17-year-old Harper is hitting .356/.451/.712 with four homers and 11 doubles in 71 plate appearances.
----- pretty impressive so far...
Then, Keith Law gives a report after scouting him...He basically said that hes already working on improving any flaws in his bat, and that hes got softer hands behind the plate than he originally thought; coupled with his impressive arm, a position change may not happen, and that the only person he would take over Harper in this years draft is HS pitcher Jameson Taillon...
"Harper brings two plus-plus tools to the table -- huge raw power and an outstanding arm behind the plate. He has ridiculous leverage in his swing, even after mechanical changes made by CSN coach Tim Chambers, who has done a good job of quieting Harper's swing down and lessening some bad habits. He's not jumping as early as he used to, although he still gets his front side open a little too early and ends up hitting off his front foot, although his hand and wrist strength make that irrelevant from a power perspective. Behind the plate, he's good enough that few runners are going to try to steal on him at this level, and he's been clocked in the low 90s off the mound. On Thursday, he also received very well, with softer hands than he's shown me in the past and good agility behind the dish."
He also spoke to several people in the game, including one who had concerns about Harper's swing, "particularly the way he can drag his hands through the zone, and whether or not [he] could hit when facing above-average fastballs."
--- I found this interesting, because I watched Harper in the H.S East-West all star game, and he seemed to me to be overmatched against good pitching. I'm worried he has everyone hyped up too much, because he took advantage of, and raked poor pitching; I think this puts a little truth in my first impression.
Buster Olney also touched on Harper in his blog today; he compared Harper to Florida QB Tim Tebow. Basically he also has his doubts whether, or not Harper can handle professional pitchers. He had this to say...
"On one hand you have those who praise Tebow's athleticism and leadership, but on the other hand you have those who doubt his ability to succeed as a pro because of poor throwing mechanics. Harper draws the same kind of responses, there are those that love his natural talent and those that doubt his ability to handle professional pitchers."
Basically I have'nt reached an opinion on Harper yet, but the fact that he got off to a pretty good start starts to put alot of pressure on teams like Washington, and Pittsburgh. I'll continue to follow Harper more before I reach a final opinion on him. I'm high on Ranaudo if he can bounce back from his recent injury, and raise his K/9...I also would'nt mind taking Taillon, but I think he will be hard to sign. Three months, and counting; I hope the Pirates are doing their homework!!!
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
75 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think once he gets used to hitting against pro pitchers he will be just fine
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"Its a Great Day to be a Mountaineer where ever you may be" Tony Caridi
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan
I don't give a rat's ass
about Olney’s Tim Tebow comparison.
Tim Tebow has gone through his developmental stage in his particular sport and, although he may have to change positions, he will have at least some sort of an NFL career because of his toughness and the short area lateral quickness he showed in drills at the NFL Scouting Combine. There is no shame in moving from QB to another position in the NFL-it happens every year to marquee names.
Bryce Harper is a 17 y/o baseball player who could still be in HS. He has HUGE potential. Whether it will be realized remains to be seen over the next SEVERAL years. I’m sure the Pirates are doing their homework and will take the best player at #2 overall in the draft.
What I really care about is that the Pirates follow another solid draft strategy to gather as much amateur talent as possible; hopefully this year will give them a chance to add a bunch of position players on top of the crop of hurlers they’ve already brought in.
"There is no human problem which could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise."
Gore Vidal
While no prospect is without flaws, Harper’s performance has been very impressive for a 17 year old facing players 2-3 years older than him. If he keeps this up, Washington won’t be able to pass on him.
I think the big question won’t be the bonus amount, but whether Boras will be able to negotiate a major league contract with the Nats. He’d really like to get Harper to the majors by the time he’s 20 or so, which would give him the opportunity to have 2 big free agent paydays.
Draft philosophy question
In the wake of the Sanchez pick last summer, I’ve been thinking more than I ever have before about the draft and draft philosophy, and the question I keep coming up against is whether it’s actually worthwhile to take high-upside, high-risk, big-bonus players with first- (or even second-) round draft pick. Everybody wants to draft a star, but what’s the argument that drafting for potential is the best strategy? You only get one shot at the first-rounders (usually), so it seems to me that there’s an argument to be made that you want to balance polish very, very heavily against upside. I’d like to hear other opinions about that, but I think that’s how I would look at my first round picks if it were up to me.
In the ‘10 draft, for example, a guy I really like is Deck McGuire from Georgia Tech. He supposedly doesn’t have the upside of Taillon or Ranaudo, and he arguably has lower upside than a few of the other high school arms in the draft. Obviously, he has lower upside than Harper. On the other hand, he’s by far the most polished of any of the top-tier players in the draft. (Arguably, Colon is more polished, but he hasn’t looked very good so far this year [SSS, I know].) He can throw four pitches, and they’re all average-to-plus, so he’s almost a lock to start in the majors. And he’s got #2 or maybe fringe-#1 potential, so it’s not like he’s garbage.
If I were a GM, what I would want to do is have my stat guys develop some sort of model for balancing upside and risk in the draft. I have no idea how to do that myself, exactly, but I would guess that the chance of Bryce Harper being a consistent 6-WAR player is not better than the chance of McGuire being a consistent 4-WAR player, and the chance that McGuire is an average starter is probably far greater than that of Harper being an average starter. What you’d have to do is systematically go through all of the potentialities and their corresponding probabilities in order to determine which is the better bet. Like I said, I don’t feel confident in doing that, but it at least seems very reasonable to me that you don’t want to just draft on potential, especially when you have a choice between 5 or 6 guys who all have a lot of potential.
I guess the point, besides just to generate discussion, is that I’m not really excited about the possibility of drafting Harper. If we could draft him as a flyer in the fifth round or something I’d be very happy, but if someone like McGuire is still on the board, I don’t feel great about forgoing him in favor of the riskier, more expensive player.
McGuire is a pitcher, though, and there’s a lot of inherent risk in every one. Maybe this is influenced by following the Pirates for a long time, but I disagree with the idea of the “safe” pitcher.
Christian Colon might be a better example. He could project to be a Yunel Escobar-type solid but not outstanding shortstop (with maybe less bat and more glove). On the other hand, Harper could be Justin Upton with more power, but a lower likelihood of getting to that.
If a pitcher is the most talented available player then that’s one thing, but picking a pitcher just because of perceived safety isn’t right.
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 8, 2010 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
Also, most JUCO is better competition that high school leagues. If Harper performs well this year, that would raise his floor compared to the high school player finishing his senior year (especially anywhere besides parts of Texas and California with the strongest HS competition).
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 8, 2010 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
Not just a JUCO league.
A wood-bat JUCO league. That gives you a much higher confidence interval about the player.
Those toy metal things are awful. I can’t believe the NCAA D1 teams don’t have the finances to actually use real bats.
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 8, 2010 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
Ah...
The NCAA, my old nemsis. To keep all my previous spats with it out of this, they’re about as far off-topic as we can get, I would bet the NCAA’s finances that they have the money to spring for wood bats, but won’t because they won’t see a direct benefit through an increase in revenue, so it’ll be a long time till they do. That burden would likely be passed to the schools if the change ever is made, and alot of schools don’t have the money for that
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Actually, you’re spot on here. Many of the schools wouldn’t be able to afford it (even some schools around here such as Duquesne cut baseball entirely for next year). The funding would have to come from the NCAA as a whole, and that wouldn’t be a moneymaker.
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 8, 2010 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
What most people don’t realize is that very few (we’re talking like 20 here) D1 programs nationwide make money on athletics, the rest lose money. (Cal-Berkley is actually borderline riots on the matter).
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
What makes you say that?
Are you talking about just D1 baseball or D1 sports in general? I’m not saying that you’re wrong but I have a hard time believing ONLY “20” universities and colleges nationwide come out in the black when viewing the amount of money put into the athletics at the school versus the amount of revenue brought in to said school.
I would think (again I don’t have any actual facts or numbers, so take it with a grain of salt) but dozens upon dozens of schools, especially “BCS” conference schools bring in untold amounts of money through their football and basketball programs.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Mar 8, 2010 6:38 PM EST up reply actions
D1 Athletics Departments
I’m a Sports Management major, and it was a stat that was thrown around time and again in my Business of Collegiate Athletics class last semester. After a quick google search, the only link I could find is this:
This article talks about the Cal-Berkley situation specifically, but does mention that “90-plus percent of D1 athletics programs do not turn an annual profit”. Most people think that because of football revenues there’s no way they can’t, but alot of programs are subsidized directly by taxpayer funds.
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Ah...
Link didn’t work. I’ll do it the old fashioned way
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/30/ucsports
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Sorry I didn't plan this better
This article gives the example I quoted.
In 2006 only 19 Division I FBS schools had greater revenues than expenses in their athletics departments.
http://www.doubleazone.com/2008/07/athletics_departments_face_fin.php
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Wow
That blows my mind.
Here’s some info that is somewhat contradictory, and I wanted your opinion. It’s from 2005
I’m gonna look specifically at WVU (cause that’s school/team). A few observations.
1) 11.3 mil in expenses. Where the hell is that money being spent? Quick estimate on scholarships. (shooting high purposefully) 70 scholarships x 25,000 = 1.75 mil. How do jersey’s, equipment, coaching salaries, and travel cost (to 6 away games)= nearly 10 million dollars. Maybe I’m missing something. For that matter, how does OSU spend 25.7 mil.
2) Net football contribution (for WVU) = 5.9 mil. Total athletic revenue = 35.9 mil. What else is pulling in 30 million. Certainly not our basketball program in 2005.
Any thoughts, insight? Is this site just bogus/misinformed?
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Mar 10, 2010 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
Site is probably legit
Most Big 10 schools and ND (and beginning to become the SEC) are almost considered exceptions to the rule because of their ludicrous TV deals. The Big Ten is running the Big Ten Network, and the SEC just received 2.25 billion over 10 years from ESPN to cover all sports CBS does not pick up (CBS has first right of refusal for football and basketball games). The info here looks legit, but keep a couple things in mind:
1) Looking at this example specifically, Oregon is basically funded by Nike, since Phil Knight, Nike’s CEO, ran track there.
2) This is just football revenue and expenditures. This is pretty much the end of alot of schools revenues, and sometimes even these are run in the red.
3) It’s pretty easy to “skew” athletics department financials. Now, I’m in no way accusing anyone of fraud, but stadium renovations and such could be categorized under different areas of university budgets, alleviating expenses even though the AD is probably paying for it
4) Looking at WVU specifically in relation to number 3, this could be alot of different things. That number may not include TV revenue (the primary source of funding for D1) donations, expenses being put off until next year, etc
5) OSU is interesting, because the 85 football scholarships are probably listed elsewhere. I would call those “recruiting” expenses, but I also like to say that USC has the 2nd highest player payroll in LA behind the Lakers.
It’s incredible the size of business that is D1 Athletics. Let me do some digging in past readings and I’ll see if I can find some better examples
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
I would rank McGuire...
ahead of Ranaudo right now for what it’s worth. Anyway you seem to be making the argument that the more advanced college pitcher with less ceiling is the “safer” pick and in fact it is the exact opposite. There have been several studies that show that the pitchers are the riskiest pick and most likely to flame out, by a large margin. College pitchers are riskier than HS pitchers. The safest picks are college position players, particularly IF corners. This is why I would expect NH to follow a similar strategy this year. However, everyday more scouting reports are saying that the college position players in this draft are even weaker than last year so I wouldn’t be surprised to see the 1st round pick come out of HS. I just don’t think that we will take a pitcher with the 1st pick but I have been wrong before.
I wouldn't have Ranaudo on my board at all...
…until there’s more info available on what’s happening with his elbow.
To Slick1 and Adam Reynolds
It’s not a matter of “generic pitcher” vs. “generic position player,” though. Obviously, all else being equal, the position player is the safer bet. But that’s not the question. The question in general is whether it makes sense to sacrifice some upside for safety, and the practical question is whether it makes sense to draft McGuire rather than Harper based on that principle. McGuire’s not a generic pitcher. There’s risk to him, but he has an impressively “clean” motion and about as little injury risk as is possible for a pitcher, besides being relatively close to the show (i.e., less prep time in which a major injury could occur). Harper, on the other hand, is 17. Despite an impressive performance in JUCO, he’s got a really long way to go and a lot of growing/adjusting to do before he gets to the majors. You could definitely argue that he’s “safer” than McGuire, but not on the basis of generalities about the differences between position players and pitchers.
“As little injury risk as possible for a pitcher” isn’t as impressive as you seem to think. The idea that pitchers are high-risk is a generality because throwing a baseball at high speed is an unnatural motion that makes small tears in micro fibers in one’s arm every time it is done.
Also, as I’ve been reminded, there is plenty of debate as to what makes a clean motion. There’s argument over whether Stephen Strasburg has the finest mechanics in years or if he is Mark Prior waiting to happen. Unless the pitcher is a knuckleballer or coming well under 90, it’s going to be tough.
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 8, 2010 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
I understand why pitchers are generally risky, but that doesn’t mean you can judge the individual on a generic basis. Like I said, it’s possible that McGuire is riskier than Harper, but generalities don’t strike me as a good argument for the position. Seventeen-year-olds are generally very risky also. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t want to give a 17-year-old a million dollars. But Harper isn’t just another 17-year-old, and McGuire isn’t just another pitcher, so you have to look beyond the generalities to assess risk.
Well, I was making the case against McGuire as low-risk, not necessarily a comparison between Harper and him. Pitcher risk is a generality, but that doesn’t make it any less true. They’re either risky or very risky (like Tanner Scheppers) as they build workload. You hate to generalize, but the only pitchers safe from arm maladies are Tim Wakefield or Mark Buehrle types. And since most soft-tossers fail due to lack of stuff, they aren’t worth a Round 1 pick.
Again with Harper, his situation of mashing in wood-bat Juco is different than a skinny center fielder at 18 who is all tools and projection, with a lot of questions about the bat, and who played against weaker competition in Florida HS. (That’s my portrait of Andrew McCutchen in 2005).
Position players are harder to generalize. But pitching is a strange profession.
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 8, 2010 7:21 PM EST up reply actions
I would say that mashing in wood-bat JuCo is almost entirely separate from the issue of risk as far as Harper is concerned. The risk is that he’s only 17. Mashing or not, you need a ton of projection to see him as a major leaguer. The risk for McGuire seems less to me, despite him being a pitcher. Reasonable minds can disagree about that.
If you think that Harper is not only the most talented but also the least-risky player of the upper-echelon in the draft, he’s an easy pick. How about this, though: what if Tony Sanchez, Chase D’Arnaud, and Pedro Alvarez were all also available. Knowing all you know now about all of them, is Harper’s upside more valuable than Sanchez or D’Arnaud or Alvarez’s relative “safety?”
Yes, although the Alvarez comparison is interesting for whether you’d rather have Pedro’s roughly age 23-29 years or Harper’s 20-25 years.
We are getting ahead of ourselves on Harper here. There’s no escaping that he’s the best player in the 2011 draft, but there’s also no escaping that he will not fall past the Nats barring significant unforeseen events between now and June
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 9, 2010 5:16 AM EST up reply actions
I’m geussing you meant the 2010 draft…Harper is eligable for this years draft which is 2010. I agree that I don’t see anyway the Nationals don’t take Harper, so all the debate is kind’ve a moot point.
I just think it would create a very interesting scenario if Washington did not take Harper. The ball would then be in Pittsburghs court to take Harper; which I personally don’t think Huntington would. I’m not saying that he should’nt I just don’t think he would…I think he will stay far away from high risk/high reward players in the 1st round. He knows it’s unpopular with the fans, but does’nt care. I expect him to follow suit of last year, and take a college position player (Colon), and put him on the fast track to the big leagues. Then, spend big on a couple high risk/high reward/hard signable high school players in the lower rounds….
by FusilliJerry88 on Mar 9, 2010 11:45 PM EST up reply actions
That's not an entirely accurate portrait of Cutch.
Coming out of high school, he had good contact ability and good plate discipline, so he wasn’t just a wish and a prayer with the bat. The open question was how much power he’d develop.
I get your point...
but no one ever draft’s a pitcher in the 1st round expecting them to flame out but they do. Again, I do understand your point but unless the pitcher your looking at is a sure top of the rotation starter in the eyes of your talent evaluators (Strasburg, David Price, etc.) you do the smart thing and play the percentages by drafting the best position player available IMO. Upside obbviously is a factor when you are drafting in the top 5 so you have to seriously consider a Harper or Taillon if they are available to you. I personally would draft Taillon at this point if none of the bats separate themselves. Taking a position player is smart as the past has shown but if the position players available aren’t that interesting you should take the best player available…and upside is a major part of that equation. For the record, if Harper were available I would take him. What he is doing at his age with wooden bats is pretty incredible so far. There are reports that he is improving behind the plate as well.
Now, this is interesting, because we leave the position player v. pitcher thing out of it. You’re saying that Taillon is a better pick than McGuire because of upside. That gets at the heart of my question, because Taillon is a huge risk. He has #1 upside, no doubt, but McGuire has #2 upside, so what makes that marginal increase in upside worth the tremendously greater risk? I don’t think I agree at all. I would definitely go for the much less risk and slightly less upside.
"what makes that marginal increase in upside worth the tremendously greater risk?"
Supply and demand. The number of guys with any chance of being that truly elite-level talent is very low. They’re scarcer than hen’s teeth.
Taking a bunch of guys who project as good ML regulars but not superstars will get you over .500, but it won’t make you into a playoff team. To be a champ, you need at least a few transcendent talents.
But there has to be some kind of accounting where you balance upside and risk, right? I absolutely understand the value of upside. That’s not at issue for me. The question is how to balance that value against risk. You’d rather have $16MM than whatever you make at your job, but given the choice between your salary and a lottery ticket, you’d take the salary. I’d say the difference between Taillon and McGuire is like the difference between a lottery ticket and a promising interviewing for a very well-paying job. Even if you disagree with my really awesome simile, I think the underlying premise is sound.
I would have to assume...
that our management team has some sort of decision making matrix where they have weighted the different risks/rewards. At this point it comes down to a simple cost-benefit analysis. This is a decision making tool commonly used in business today and I have no doubt the Pirates have a version of this tool in place…not only with the draft but with all decisions.
Yes and no.
Do they try to hedge by taking at least a few high-upside guys and a few safe bets in each draft? Of course. Do they necessarily quantify it down to the level of saying that one guy has a 10% chance of being a bust vs. another having a 12% chance of the same? Probably not. That level of perfect abstraction is difficult to achieve – if they thought that any of these guys were going to be busts, they wouldn’t draft them. To say nothing of being able to actually measure bust potential that accurately in the pre-draft period…
you crazy americans
and your asking questions and answering it yourself.
_
by BlindSquirrel on Mar 10, 2010 7:52 PM EST up reply actions
What Vlad said...
combined with the fact that history shows that McGuire is every much a risk, if not more so, than Taillon. Also, if I were investing in a player I would rather get my hands on a pitcher out of HS before a college coach has an opportunity to destroy his arm. Especially a powerhouse that will most likely go deep in the College World Series.
In what sense does history show us that McGuire is as much a risk as Taillon? History includes neither Taillon nor McGuire.
The studies...
I was talking about the show that college pitchers have the highest flame out rate and the lowest impact in the majors of all draft picks. College position players are the best followed by HS position players with HS pitching prospects being 3rd best. History shows that drafting a college pitcher in the 1st round usually gives you the worst return on investment. There are so many can’t miss pitchers that come through that at some point it makes sense to rely on the statistics.
To take it a little further...
to give you an idea of my draft philosophy, in last year’s draft I would have selected Miller, Matzek, Turner or Zach Wheeler ahead of Crow, Gibson, White or Scheppers. I think any one of the HS pitchers has a much higher upside than the college pitchers mentioned…except maybe Scheppers but the mysterious shoulder injury cannot be ignored (thanks to his coach abusing him at Fresno St.). History shows that any of the HS pitchers I mentioned have a better chance of succeeding in the majors as the college pitchers mentioned. At this time last year McGuire does not stand out very far ahead of any of the college pitchers I mentioned. In fact I think he and Gibson profile to be very similar. IMO, the sooner you get a young arm into your system the sooner you can develop them the “Pirate Way” which hopefully means you can protect their arm better and reduce the chance for injury. So far they have a pretty good track record in that area.
I would like to read whatever study you’re referring to, but I don’t understand how a general study of average return when drafting a certain type of player should tell us anything about the risk of selecting specific players. I don’t understand why you’d say that all of Miller, Matzek, Turner, and Wheeler have a better chance of succeeding than all of Crow, Gibson, White, and Scheppers.
The argument that getting them into our system at younger ages so that we can personally oversee their development is very compelling, though. That makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, it goes both ways – i.e., that logic applies to McGuire just as much as to Taillon. If McGuire has “clean” mechanics and low injury risk right now, getting him into our system and protecting/developing him at 21 is not inherently worse than getting Taillon into the system and protecting/developing him at 18.
Ah, but injury risk is part of the calculation.
If you draft an 18-year-old, you can manage and escalate his workload in whatever way you want. If you draft a 21-year-old, though, you’re trusting in his college coach to have been a responsible steward of his arm, which may not have been the case. And it’s not always obvious up front which college arms are injury risks. Look at Lincoln. He was healthy as a horse, right up until the moment he needed TJ, at which point all kinds of college workload stories started coming out.
Sure, but injury risk from overwork or whatever is a known part of the equation. It’s not like your going to get surprised by McGuire’s frailty after you draft him. We already know his level of risk beforehand. Being 21 and having pitched in college at ages 19-21 doesn’t make him inherently more risky than an 18 year old who will pitch in our system for ages 19-21. The fact that some “safe” college arms end up getting injured doesn’t mean anything; risky high school arms get injured too. The fact that college workload stories came out after the Lincoln injury reeks of confirmation bias. If they were true, they were true when the Pirates drafted him, and if they’d done their due diligence that would have been considered as part of the risk of drafting him.
It's not a known part of the equation...
…it’s a guessed part of the equation. Scouts can’t pop open a guy’s elbow and take a look.
You seem to be operating under the impression that college arms are “safe”. This is just not the case.
I’m afraid you are misunderstanding me, Vlad. I’m not under the impression that college pitchers are “safe.” I do believe that the injury risk is greater with some than with others and that you can accurately (though imprecisely) gauge that risk. I do not believe that accurate assessments of risk prevent against future injuries – just that accurate assessments of risk are possible.
What I am specifically talking about in the post directly above is that we know exactly how much McGuire has been worked, so there’s no mystery about possible overwork leading to injury. Overwork can lead to injury, sure, but we know about the (over)work so it’s a known factor in our calculations of risk. The reason this is germane to the topic at hand is that there’s no reason to suggest that having a pitcher pitch for the Pirates organization in his age 19-21 years alleviates injury risk more than having a pitcher pitch in college at those ages if we already know the results of the college pitcher’s age 19-21 seasons.
We know how much he's been worked IN GAMES.
But we don’t know about his out-of-game usage patterns, which can be just as damaging.
If the scouting director isn’t finding out about this he’s not doing his job.
But I think it’s beside the point, anyway. If that’s not knowable for a college pitcher, it’s probably even more unknowable for a high school one. Unless it’s worse to overwork your arm at 20 than at 17, I don’t see what difference it makes. The point is that you know what you know about an 18-year-old and you know what you know about a 21-year-old. There’s nothing inherently riskier about the 21-year-old not having been in the organization for the last 3 years. If the 18-year-old is more risky, you’re not making him less risky by drafting him.
It's not just a question of risk.
It’s a matter of being able to indoctrinate the 18-year-old into your organization’s developmental philosophy, versus the 21-year-old getting three years’ worth of coaching from some totally random other person, and potentially spending three years learning how to do things the wrong way, which will then have to be un-learned before he can make actual progress.
And I’d like to know exactly how a scouting director is supposed to know whether a pitcher’s been worked excessively on his off-days. He’s not allowed to go to the college’s workouts, the pitcher’s coach doesn’t think he’s overworking the pitcher (or he wouldn’t be doing it in the first place), and the pitcher certainly isn’t going to say anything that’d damage his draft standing.
I agree that indoctrination is valuable, which is why I found the suggestion intriguing when Slick1 brought it up. If you’re not talking about decreased risk then I think we’re on the same page here.
As for finding out a player’s workout routine, what I’d do is have my scouts talk to the coach and the player separately about it, and then get confirmation from at least two other sources (off the top of my head, I’d guess that freshman pitchers or pitchers with very little draft profile would be okay guys to ask, though I’d probably want one of my confirmations to come from a non-player; the trainer might be another good guy to ask). The information you get from those guys is probably a good basis on which to make a judgment about workload. I wouldn’t ask about workload specifically, nor would I use the word “overwork” or anything that suggests that concept. I’d just ask thorough questions about the workout routine.
The indoctrination that Vlad is talking about
is a decrease in risk. If you take two pitchers with equally strong/weak arms, put one into your system where you control all of his workouts and his training schedule, and take the other and put him with some random college coach who may or may not know what he’s doing with pitchers…the one in your system if far less risky than the other pitcher because A. you have complete control of his arm, when he throws, and what his workouts are, and B. i would hope that the faith you have in your developmental staff means that you know how to develop the correct throwing techniques, motions, etc. whereas a college coach might make a change that needs to be unlearned because its causing more strain on the arm than the way you would have had it taught.
by smokedpretzels on Mar 9, 2010 6:52 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, to be clear: I am not talking about two 18-year-olds, one of which will go into college and one of which will go into the Pirates organization. I am talking about the difference between a high-school senior and a college junior. If the college junior has developed poor mechanics, obviously he is very risky. If he has developed clean mechanics and good stuff, there is no inherent risk involved in his having gone to college. I hope I am making myself clear.
With that distinction then I agree, in fact I might say the high-school senior would then be more risky because he then has to learn the mechanics that you wish to teach, and changing your arm motion can mess with control and velocity…
by smokedpretzels on Mar 9, 2010 7:08 PM EST up reply actions
at number 2
You better be looking for a impact player with lots of upside, you can’t be safe at number 2 .
But my question is why is that what everybody thinks? Is there some reason to think that upside is more important than safety in the first round? Obviously, you should balance the two, but it seems like people put a lot more emphasis on upside. I’m just wondering why.
you can buy safe
You can buy safe in free agency , you need to draft upside because you can’t afford impact players in free agency
So you wouldn’t worry about risk at all if you were drafting? You’d draft by upside alone? If not, how would you balance the two?
1rd top 10 picks
I mean when picking early in the first round., after that your just trying to pick players who have a chance to make it and throw in some toolsie guys now and then.
by wishiewashie on Mar 9, 2010 10:35 AM EST up reply actions
IIRC, Charlie posted something
that was similar to what you are asking some months ago. Basically, he discussed why and how the Phillies could end up with so much talent when their draft strategy seemed to be “make a good 1st round pick and who cares about the other 49.” Were they smart or were they lucky? At least that’s the way I remember it.
It's a good day to be a Pirate
what I would want to do is have my stat guys develop some sort of model for balancing upside and risk in the draft.
It seems this is exactly what Dan Fox has done for the Pirates. Huntington alluded to it on Rocco’s show when talking about how Tony Sanchez was the #3 on their board. He said he was not the highest upside guy, but when they factored everything into it, including the risk factors, etc. that Sanchez came out as #3 on the board.
Thanks, Mark. That was a very interesting interview in general. Do you know if Huntington does a lot of in-depth interviews like this? I’d be interested to hear more.
There’s at least one other one in Rocco’s podcasts on the wpgb site
I’ve got another one he did that they mislabeled on that site and eventually took down, but I have it saved to the computer. I’ll post that up for you as well.
My favorite part
Is how he describes the conditions under which the decision to nontender Capps would be seen by himself as a miscalculation.
by MarkInDallas on Mar 8, 2010 10:14 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, that was pretty fascinating, as was his vague description of how the negotiations in the Clement trade went. My favorite part of any of those interviews was his assertion that Dan Fox had done a study of catcher defense and determined that in one area alone the defensive impact of catchers was much greater than expected. I have no idea what he could be talking about, but that’s pretty interesting.
Sounds like
He was talking about the ability of the catcher to frame the pitch. Beyond The Box Score looked at this issue and came up with a surprisingly strong number which would coincide with what Huntington talked about right after that in the discussion. I was initially skeptical of the BTB article, but now that Huntington seems to indicate that they have come to the same conclusion on their first look at the issue, I’m really intrigued to see what further study uncovers.
biggest worry with harper
Boras negotiating a major league contract for him. If there’s even a remote chance of that, I hope he goes at #1 to the Nats.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Bucs take a riskier pick like Taillion this time round.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
