Article written by

Baseball writer... sort of.

26 comments
Roger
Roger

I don't think you'll find a bigger defender of the scouts over stats viewpoint around here than me. I also tend to really value civility in my debates, so perhaps this is a good time to check out of this line.

Rory Paap
Rory Paap

Scouting and statistical analysis are both incredibly important. Let's leave it at that and move on. And let us all have tact in our discussions --Agreed?

Roger
Roger

The newest BA has a really interesting look at how to go from a great group of prospects to a contending major league team (obviously inspired by KC). I'd recommend everybody reading the whole thing (and possibly even listening to the podcast that goes with it), but the single biggest takeaway for me was: the window is really really short for contending** (the great Expos system unfortunately reached its peak during the strike shortened season of '94, and as they essentially lost their ownership before that labor issue was resolved their window was closed before they ever took the field again) and you need to go all in and do everything to take advantage of it when it's really open. To me that means that worrying about controlling Brandon Belt in 2017 really shouldn't be a controlling factor right now, especially as a) there are other ways to accomplish that when they get to the arb buy out negotiation years; and b) you're a long way from knowing whether you want to have Belt controlled in 2017 at this point. So I'm in favor of getting him into the lineup if Bochy thinks he helps the team win, as he seems to think. **(there's of course a corollary lesson in there -- you need to have waves after waves of talent coming up to replenish and extend that window).

Adam C
Adam C

I read the BA article as well and I think the author cherry picked the teams to strengthen his argument. The Royals great run from 1976-1985 (6 division titles, 3 2nd place finishes, 2 AL pennants, 1 World Series title) and the Indians great run from 1994-2001 (6 division titles, 2 2nd place finishes, 2 AL pennants) were munch longer runs than the teams the author wrote about.

Roger
Roger

They did talk about the Indians '94-2001 run on the podcast. But really you have to remember that they were starting from the perspective of what to do with a great group of prospects, not how did a great team get assembled. Those Indians teams essentially had two great prospects (Manny and Belle) and a very good one (Thome). But very little else. Most of the rest of that group of players were acquired from elsewhere through FA or trades using major league talent, not prospects (albeit, smart trading to go with prospect development was one of their key points). Sabathia they talked about as far as the great Cleveland system a decade later. As for the Royals, I'm going to assume they didn't talk about them because BA didn't exist back then and there's no reliable source left to go to to see how their minor league system was really regarded circa 1974 (not to mention that player movement was not the same in the 70s, despite the early existence of FA). I can tell you that George Brett was NOT a hugely regarded prospect (in fact, when he came up the common joke was that his brother Ken, a pitcher, was the better hitter of the two). And really, a whole lot of the core of those Royals teams (Darrel Porter, John Mayberry, Amos Otis, Hal McRae), were also acquired from elsewhere using major league talent, so I don't see why they would be a useful example for that study.

Roger
Roger

But the whole point of the article was how to proceed with a great group of standout prospects. That's the starting point. Brian Giles and Richie Sexson were pretty good major league players, but they weren't considered particularly great prospects, and Nagy and Ogea certainly weren't. Also, you should do some fact checking on all those players: Lofton was drafted and developed by the Astros and traded to the Indians after he'd made the majors. Baerga made his debut with the Indians, but he was developed by San Diego and came to Cleveland in the Joe Carter trade. And heck some of the KC players you mentioned were actually traded FOR EACH OTHER! As for the later wave of development, it's important to note that that was the articles #1 lesson learned: one wave isn't enough, you need multiple waves of prospects. Honestly, it's a weird critique for a couple reasons, the biggest being that the article isn't really pushing any hard and fast conclusions about how to manage the process. So I don't know what points you think they were making disingenously.

Adam C
Adam C

No matter how many great prospects a team they will always have other players brought in by trade or free agency. The 1990s Indians had more than just Manny, Belle and Thome. They also developed Kenny Lofton, Carlos Barega, Charles Nagy, Chad Ogea, and Julian Tavares. They also had Brian Giles and Richie Sexton coming up as well. And the Royals core was mostly players they developed not players they brought from other teams. Georege Brett, Willie Wilson, Frank White, Willie Aikens, Al Cowens, Dennis Leonard, Paul Splittorff, Doug Bird, Al Fitzmorris, John Wathan all cmae up through the Royla's minor league system. If you look at the 1976 Royals the team was mostly homegrown. Then as this first group got old the Royals re-tooled. Later they developed Brett Saberhagen, Steve Balboni, Danny Jackson, Mark Gubicza, etc. The article cherry picked teams to make thier argument stronger. The 1976-85 Royals and the 1994-2001 Indians are tow teams that clearly contradict the article's points.

BilliamFloyd
BilliamFloyd

Nice piece, Rory. I admit to feeling somewhat torn about this decision; while I can appreciate the "every game counts" argument, I'd be more apt to coincide w/ this sentiment if Belt were more of a proven commodity, ie- more sevice time in the minors. On the flip-side, I can't wait to see this kid play on a consistent basis at the ML-level--there's really nothing better from a micro standpoint than watching a prospect blossom before your very eyes. Maybe it's just the perfectionist in me, but it certainly seems like by waiting until the appropriate time the G's could've eliminated nearly ALL the downside-- experience/impact, potential confidence issues, financial repercussions, resulting moving pieces, etc. vs opposed to winning whatever number of hypothetical games in 2 months which more than likely wouldn't have surpassed one win. All that being said, the decision has been made and it's time to simply enjoy the ride. No sense moaning about misgivings anymore, the season starts tomorrow and Belt is officially part of the "defending champs" equation. Go G's!!!

Adam C
Adam C

The Brandon Belt era has begun! Now we Giants' fanboys can start the never ending Will Clark comparisons! I expect Belt to homer of off Kershaw in his fist AB no less. :-) And we need to come up with a cool nickname for Belt as well.

Rory Paap
Rory Paap

That's confirmation bias. There's zero doubt that was their modus operandi in the past. This does, however, indicate a willingness to evolve and change for the better. That's a very good thing in a league with a lot of smart people, many whom have far more financial flexibility -- not that I'm complaining at $120 million. Curious: did you project Huff to be a down-ballot MVP candidate?

NickC25
NickC25

1) No not confirmation bias. The Giants aren't afraid to play young players if they are GOOD(see Sandoval, belt, and Posey, all playing regularly when they get called up(I'm assuming the Giants will play belt regularly) while they don't give shots to below average players(see Frandsen, Lewis, Bowker, ortmeier, etc..) 2)As for Huff, I didn't think he would be THAT good, but I definitely thought 09' was an outlier and he'd be around a .820 OPS(near his career averages) and his defense wasn't as bad as advertised. It's the stat guy groupthink that see an ugly year from Huff like 09' and automatically assume he is a terrible baseball player, while I like to use scouting techniques as well as stats to formulate my opinion

giantsrainman
giantsrainman

+1

Chris Quick
Chris Quick

You're free to comment, but be nice when doing so. The guidelines for posting on this site are very lax, so play nice, OK? Insulting other people on this site is less than appealing.

NickC25
NickC25

He said they'd have a chance for the playoffs and got roasted for it, despite what grade he gave Sabean. Mar-jello, Jponry FAIL.

Roger
Roger

As I recall, GRM's view on the 2010 team was that they had improved but hadn't improved quite enough, and he gave Sabes a D grade for his winter upgrades. A pretty reasonable view at the time which, wonderfully enough, turned out to be not quite right thank the heavens.

NickC25
NickC25

Careful with comments here GRM, Marcello and Jponry will come call you a troll and tell you how wrong you were about the 2010 Giants(LOL)

NickC25
NickC25

So the Giants decide to go with the young player. "But Sabez and Bochy hate rookie young guys!"- Mythical fallacies created by MCC

hitnrun
hitnrun

Great news, I agree that the Giants need to field their best team, and it is good to hear that Sabean/Bochy may now have a different opinion of not always giving the nod to veterans over rookies. I hate to see Rowand get a spot over Ishikawa, however, as Rowand is definitely not part of fielding your best team.

giantsrainman
giantsrainman

With Cody Ross on the DL Rowand has to make the team as the lone CF backup. Ishikawa was never an option instead of Rowand.

Roger
Roger

Yeah, with Belt on the team, there's just no rationale for keeping Ishikawa. There's no role for him to fill at that point.

NickC25
NickC25

Good point, a lot of people actually think Schierholtz can play CF, and I'm not convinced of that

NickC25
NickC25

Ramirez had 4 seasons of minor league baseball and an OPS of .783. How in the world did he go to the best offensive shortstop in baseball from that? But remember, scouts were still very high on his upside. Now he's a perennial .900 OPS hitter.

marcello
marcello

Good to know that one guy disproves the entire system.

NickC25
NickC25

Actually it's quite more than just Ramirez, Mar-jello. And Roger, his MLE's might have been good but nowhere near a .900 OPS. How did he get there? maybe the scouts arent so dumb after all?

Roger
Roger

I doubt his MLEs were terrible, though. MLEs do consider age relative to league as part of the equation right? Hanley was always young for his leagues AND he played in the most extreme pitchers leagues in the minors. I'd guess that a .730 OPS for a 19 year old in the Sally, .753 OPS for a 20 year old in the FSL, and even his .720 as a 21 year old in the EL all had decent MLEs, though I can't seem to dig up what any of them were.

NickC25
NickC25

MLE means nothing. You need to use the stats as well as scouting techniques to project players from the Minors to the big leagues. Case in point: Hanley Ramirez