emunney

Brewers hitters have forced Rockies pitchers to throw 150 pitches through 6 innings.

I was just about to praise his 32 pitches through 3, and Helton goes yard.

Anybody else feel like a man who hits like Lyle should lead the league in doubles AND triples? Not complaining, but it makes me wonder about his liklihood of manning the OF. Lyle Slow-verbay.

Bruce, point taken on Grieve's defense, it seems to have declined, but I haven't watched him enough over the course of his career to say how much. If you have, I'll defer happily. As far as Santana, he's the real deal and doesn't belong in the same sentence as Cook and Chacon. EDIT: Unless the sentence begins, "The following pitchers have the capacity to shut down the Brewers:..."

Well, Pods got a day off, and I can't with good conscience say that Ginter is better in RF than Grieve. We've always known he's a poor fielder, but there's a sizable gap between what he is and what you're making him out to be. He's no Griffey, but he's no Echevarria either from what I've seen. If we could put Clark's glove on him we would, but saying he's without value is not only harsh (which is fine), it's inaccurate (which isn't).

Bruce, does Grieve's worthlessness stem from his good OBP or his moderate SLG%?

Quite encouraged to see Billy Hall at 3b over Ginter. I'm hoping it points to an organizational consideration of him as a longer term answer at the hot corner. He is younger and cheaper than Helms, if not better.

Yaz, if I said what Cheney said HERE I would get reprimanded. How is it appropriate conduct for the Senate floor? I understand his frustration, but he's the vice-president of the United States, and it isn't unfair of us to expect conduct commensurate with that post.

Well, Thunnis, I for one am interested in both your and his informed opinions.

Sandiegokid, being a fan needn't imply a perceived invincibility of the object. The guy is voicing his concerns, and isn't being particularly critical of Rogers at all. He's basing his criticisms on historical precedence, and while that may not be the best way to predict success, it's no worse than you (and many of us, including me) leaning on the successes of the Brewers scouting department. Now, I don't need your name or home phone number. Just tell me how your "calling out" of this guy adds to the discourse in the same way that Rogers8Fan's criticism does. What credentials would be acceptable to you, what prerequisites necessary for simple research? Not that I think Rogers8Fan has anything to cower from in the first place. I highly doubt he's scared to be recognized for identifying the negatives in selecting a high school pitcher from Maine with the fifth pick. EDIT: Also, since your post struck a particular minor chord with me, when you get the chance, and before you get in another argument, do a Google search on "ad hominem" and "fallacy".

Seemed like a good time for Bill Hall.

Sheets merits mention in early Cy Young discussions with or without adequate run support.

Alright, I took the top 55 pitchers on the Not Yet Eligible list. www.baseball-reference.co...itor.shtml HS: 14 College: 24 JC: 10 Int'l FA: 7 Advantage: College. But if we separate the pitchers into starters and relievers... HS Starters: 12 HS Relievers: 2 College Starters: 13 College Relievers: 11 JC Starters: 3 JC Relievers: 7 Int'l FA Starters: 3 Int'l FA Relievers: 4 Interesting, no? Apparently you're about just as likely to score a top starter out of HS as out of college, but, failing that, if you select a college pitcher you're more likely to at least end up with a reliever. It's not the largest sample, but it's still a meaningful one. It certainly doesn't do anything to take away from the all-or-nothing reputation of a HS pick, but even with difficulties in projecting high schoolers, HS pitchers accounted for almost as many high quality starters as college pitchers did. And now the names: HS Starters: Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, David Cone, Dwight Gooden, David Wells, Bret Saberhagen, Pat Hentgen, Al Leiter, Roy Halladay, Steve Avery and Derek Lowe. HS Relievers: Robb Nen and Rod Beck. College Starters: Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Mike Mussina, Kevin Brown, Orel Hershiser, Mark Langston, Chuck Finley, Jamie Moyer, Jack McDowell, Charles Nagy, Kevin Appier, Denny Neagle and Barry Zito. College Relievers: John Franco, Trevor Hoffman, Rick Aguilera, Doug Jones, Jeff Montgomery, Roberto Hernandez, Troy Percival, Jesse Orosco, Dan Plesac, Gregg Olsen and Paul Assenmacher. JC Starters: Curt Schilling, Andy Pettitte and Darryl Kile. JC Relievers: John Wetteland, Billy Wagner, Mike Stanton, Jeff Shaw, Mike Jackson, Jeff Nelson and Eric Gagne. (note: Pettitte and Gagne were signed as FAs despite attending JC in the U.S.) Int'l FA Starters: Pedro Martinez, Ramon Martinez and Bartolo Colon. Int'l FA Relievers: Mariano Rivera, Jose Mesa, Ugueth Urbina and Armando Benitez. (further note: I classified Smoltz and Lowe as starters because, despite their successes in closing, they're more valuable as starters, and Smoltz essentially pitched a career as a starter before making the switch.)

Thanks, filthy. I'll do pitching based on the same criteria later tonight. I've decided the mix of good and great modern players is pretty much what I'm looking for, and that since ultimately what makes a player valuable is the extent to which he produces in the big leagues, my criteria leaves the door open for players who produce at a decent level for a long time as well as those who kill for just a few years. It's not a terrible sample to take, to begin with, anyway. We'll see how it works out.

Salome's first hitless game.

Did you even read my post, Reed? I used the players who have produced the most but are not yet eligible for the all-star game. Guys who, like them or not, had long, established careers and won major awards. While I lament my system's imperfections, last year's All-star teams is a far less helpful sample. Think of all the one-time All-stars. My list had a number of undoubtably great players on it, and all from the last 20 years. I'll elaborate, since I still have all the names sorted, sadly: HS: Wade Boggs, Cal Ripken, Jr., Alex Rodriguez, Rickey Henderson, Ken Griffey, Jr., Manny Ramirez, Derek Jeter, Chipper Jones, Jose Canseco, Gary Sheffield, Fred McGriff, Tim Raines and Paul O'Neill. College: Barry Bonds, Tony Gwynn, Frank Thomas, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Jeff Bagwell, Todd Helton, Albert Belle, Barry Larkin, Nomar Garciaparra, Craig Biggio, Jim Thome, Jason Giambi, Mo Vaughn, Will Clark, Dante Bichette, Kenny Lofton, Luis Gonzalez, Matt Williams and John Olerud. JC: Mike Piazza and Albert Pujols. Int'l/FA: Roberto Alomar, Sammy Sosa, Ivan Rodriguez, Larry Walker, Bernie Williams, Edgar Martinez, Juan Gonzalez, Andres Galarraga, Vlad Guerrero, Benito Santiago, Ichiro, Carlos Delgado, Tony Fernandez and Omar Vizquel. Uncertain: Willie McGee And as to your "Who cares?" Well, there's a prominent school of thought that says if Neugebauer wasn't rushed, he wouldn't have been so often injured. Fast tracking worked like a charm for Eldred as well. And it's important whether these players went to high school or college because, if most great players in today's game actually went to college, the myth of the high ceiling high schooler is nothing more than that: myth. There are always exceptions to the rule. This is why our scouting department needs to be able to identify what we have. If we have a guy with great baseball skills struggling through injuries, we'd have to make the call on whether to keep him or not when his 6 years run out, but there will always be such calls. What we're looking for are trends and tendencies that can't be predicted by giving three past or present examples. ALL THAT SAID, might I suggest running a similar analysis of 3 time all-stars in the past 25 years? Or even 2 time all-stars? We could start a poll, and each person who finds a three time (or greater) all-star could post the player's name and where he was acquired from, and then vote for the appropriate category. I'm interested to have some hard data, but I'd like to spread the work around and just find a few guys at a time.

I must finally admit to implanting H0FFY's brain with a microchip. Down with dissent! LONG LIVE THE INSIDERS!

There's more talent in HS, but it's harder to identify.

After three years, though, you should have a much better idea of who you want to keep around, and who you'll lose. Losing some guys you want to keep is the price you pay for having a great farm system, and generally if they're really worth having, you'll be able to mitigate your loss by trading them before you lose them. The 6 year FA thing shouldn't be a concern for the guys who are going to make it, either. What I'm banking on is the ability of our system to accurately evaluate the talent not only in amateur ranks, but also within our system. We have to keep the right guys, and if we do that, who we lose won't matter. So, yeah, I agree Rule 5 and 6 year FAs are a concern, but they don't overwhelm the possible benefits of babying these guys in my opinion.

Greg, I totally agree with your point about young pitchers. I was against bringing up Neugebauer at such a young age, and I was even against bringing up Sheets. They need to stay in the minors until they're ready to be... well... valuable. And not only that, but they probably shouldn't ever throw 100 pitches in a game until their bodies are through developing, maybe at 24 or so for most, later for many. I don't have a problem with keeping Mike Jones (or Rogers for that matter) in the minors, babying him all the while, until he's ready to be an actual major league starter, where he'll be able to go at least 6 innings every start and pitch the Brewers to some wins. We don't need to use the big league club to develop starters, and it seems the current regime recognizes that with its younger pitchers, though the proof will be in how they handle their prospects in the next 2-3 years. My argument is that there is nothing forcing the Brewers to, for instance, push Mike Jones past high A. Were our high school pitchers to simply pitch one year each in Helena, Beloit, High Desert, Huntsville, and Indy, they'd arrive about the time you want them to. Add another year in Arizona and they'd get there when I think they're ready. If such a system could just be implemented, I think we'd get a much more consistent idea of how guys progress, how prospects look in relation to previous players, and, as a bonus, we'd have their pre-arby years closer to the 23-26 that we're hoping for. It seems to me that a team like the Brewers (read: a team with anti-money) HAS to operate this way to make the most of their assets, though it would probably over time hurt their ability to sign high school pitchers.

Alright, I've decided to use baseballreference.com's HOF monitor, and I'll use the players who are not yet eligible for HOF consideration for the analyses. Hope this works out. Just to keep things nice and even, I'll take the top 50 pitchers and the top 50 hitters. You can find them at www.baseball-reference.co...itor.shtml First thing I'll do is divide them up into where they were drafted from. For simplicity, I've grouped all college players together, regardless of how long they stayed. Perhaps later I'll break this down further. Batters: HS: 13 JC: 2 College: 20 Int'l/FA: 14 Uncertain: Willie McGee. Anyone know? Well, not only did college players far outnumber HS players, international players did as well, though nominally. The College guys are highlighted by a Barry Bonds and Tony Gwynn, and then a slew of slugging 1b including Frank Thomas, Mark McGwire, Palmeiro, Bagwell, Helton, Thome, Giambi, and Mo Vaughn. The two JC players are Pujols and Piazza. I have no problem being wrong, but I'm not sure we've gotten to the bottom of this yet. A lot of the names, as I went through, didn't strike me as a the caliber of player I was thinking of (Dante Bichette, Paul O'Neill, Tony Fernandez, etc.) when I set out. Perhaps I could set some more accurate standards for what defines a great player, or just come to some sort of internal mind-consensus. Preliminarily, though, my suppositions were terrible, and I'm glad I've set myself straight (somewhat). I don't want to go through the pitchers, as I'm tired of scouring the web, so I'll do that later, once I've come up with better criteria for research. Maybe we could set up a HS vs. College thread where we could compile vast amounts of research on the topic rather than arguing aimlessly. Maybe not.

I'm not sure when people will figure out that dropping names is a really ugly and inconclusive way to approach an argument. Only marginally more valid will be my forthcoming tactic: citing statistics I believe to be accurate but which I may be too lazy to look up. Actually, I'll pose my theory first, then post it, then look it up, and if anybody happens to know it to be true or false, post your eminent knowledge in the meantime. It seems to me that most truly great big league careers start at a very young age. This does not mean that guys won't slip through the cracks in high school and go to college and go on to have excellent careers, but I think that most great players break in about the time they'd be graduating from college, if not before. This doesn't preclude them from attending college, of course, but I think it's more reasonable to expect a HS player to reach the majors in 4 years than a 3 year college guy to make it in 1, or a 2 year college guy to make it in 2, etc. Now, I'm not saying that this is always the case, that every HS player is better than every player who plays ball between HS and the minor leagues, but I think that a tendency exists, and this tendency is the reason for drafting the cream of the HS crop with high draft choices. I mean, you can point out Paul Molitor, but there's nothing in that name that proves that he's not more of an exception than he is the norm. And of course if all you mention is Molitor and Yount, hey, it looks pretty even, and maybe college comes out ahead. But when we widen the frame a little, I think we'll find that people draft HS players for very legitimate reasons, and in the case of HS pitchers, the extra 20% failure rate is probably not offset by enough additional success to warrant taking them, but the allure is, and I would suggest that more great pitchers come straight out of HS than college, despite the difference in failure rate. Alright, off to my research.

Where would a healthy Mike Jones have gone in this draft? Mike Jones of now, not Mike Jones fresh out of high school.

Danzig, you're misremembering Newsome as McKenzie. Also, it was the 1995 draft, Chmura was not picked, but Jervey was. Excellent recall by you overall though, and I too remember the national media's jeers. That draft won them a Super Bowl. So in a way, your example shows not only how unpredictable the draft is even after it has occurred, but also how impactful it can be, and how enough hits can offset any number of misses in the same draft (Jay Barker, anyone? How about Charles Simmons?). Maybe it also bears mention that the next year, the Packers took John Michels in the 1st, everyone said it was a terrible pick, and it was a terrible pick. Which was of course offset longterm by getting Marco Rivera in the 6th and Flanagan in the 3rd.

It's almost as if there's internal competition on this site to see who can be the most helpful. Cheers, fellas, for another job well done.