DRAFT IN PROGRESS THREAD ... What's past is preamble

[auyushu]

The Braves recent track record at developing pitchers has been abysmal.

They've been much better with hitters.

Unless you're planning on getting 3 hall of famers again, I'm not sure I'd call riding Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz a "proven philosophy"

While you've been going crazy overkill and snarky in this thread, this is straight up true. We rode those three (one a trade and another a FA signing) along with another HOF in Chipper for our run. Once two of the big three pitchers were gone we've had very little success overall.

There is nothing "proven" about the philosophy at all, and to act like there it has been is crazy. The Braves haven't developed good major league pitchers at a higher rate than other teams particularly, acting like we are the end all of scouting and philosophy is silly. I think the FO has done far more positive than negative during this rebuild so far, but they haven't proven crap.

 

[DirkPiggler]

The Braves recent track record at developing pitchers has been abysmal.

They've been much better with hitters.

Unless you're planning on getting 3 hall of famers again, I'm not sure I'd call riding Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz a "proven philosophy"

Pitching was the scarce asset back then. It was the steroid era for God's sakes. Today hitting is much more difficult to find than pitching.

Look at how many teams are upset with their offense. There aren't enough bats to go around. The SSS (Snyder, Schuerholz, Shanks) philosophy of signing a bunch of pitchers and then trading some for offense isn't going to work out the way they think it will. You still need to sign a bunch of pitchers due to the flame out rate, but the focus needs to be on hitters first until the market changes. Hopefully I'm wrong and they're right, but it just feels like we're using a 1990's philosophy in a 2010's market.

Another tired cliché that is being misapplied as it fits the current Braves is "you don't draft for need." It's true to a point - we don't need to be drafting catchers, corner infielders, and outfielders with the idea of those guys contributing in the next two years. But when you look at it from a macro instead of micro perspective, we have a need for hitting at all levels of our system. The only two relative "sure things" in the system are a pair of middle infielders in the upper minors. Pretty much every other position is an immediate need for the farm system. Don't draft for need by picking Terdo 2.0 because you need a bench bat for the stretch run. Draft for need to fix the overall lack of offense from low A through AAA.

 

[DirkPiggler]

There is nothing "proven" about the philosophy at all, and to act like there it has been is crazy. The Braves haven't developed good major league pitchers at a higher rate than other teams particularly, acting like we are the end all of scouting and philosophy is silly. I think the FO has done far more positive than negative during this rebuild so far, but they haven't proven crap.

I don't think the philosophy assumes that the Braves develop pitchers better than anyone else. It is more of the idea of the more crap you throw against the wall, the more that will stick. They're playing a numbers game. Unfortunately, as I said in my last reply, they're doing this at a time when A) hitting is the more scarce asset and B) our system is so devoid of offense that we need to be adding in hitters at a much higher rate.

 

[nsacpi]

Actually we've developed a lot of good pitchers in recent years. Hanson, Medlen, Minor, Beachy, Teheran. But we've had terrible luck with those guys getting their careers cut short by injuries. Jurrjens wasn't developed by us, but he's another one who's career got derailed by injuries. We've also developed some good relievers: Kimbrel, Venters, Shae Simmons. Though our luck with injuries has been bad there too. Pitching attrition due to injuries is always high but our luck with pitching injuries (and I do think it is mainly bad luck) has been worse than the norm.

For balance and accuracy, it should also be pointed out that we have done very well developing hitters as well. McCann, Escobar, Prado, Heyward, Freeman, Simmons, Gattis and some lesser guys like Drury, Ahmed and La Stella.

I think our record at developing both pitching and hitting has been good. So neither a "proven record" of doing better with pitching, but also not a record of being awful at developing pitchers.

 

[auyushu]

I think our record at developing both pitching and hitting has been good. So neither a "proven record" of doing better with pitching, but also not a record of being awful at developing pitchers.

That was basically what I was saying, we aren't really any better than anyone else. You mentioned 5 starting pitchers we produced over the course of a decade, most good teams at developing talent have done that. And producing McCann, Escobar, Prado, Heyward, Freeman, Simmons, Gattis over the course of a decade and a half isn't some impressive feat either. I'm not saying we suck, but it's definitely not a history that blows anyone away or should make me want to "trust the scouts" as if they are infallible.

Particularly when I agree with Dirk Piggler about the 90s philosophy in a different decade thing. Young controlled pitching still has a good bit of value, but pitching in general is not a scarcity right now, hitting is.

 

[nsacpi]

That was basically what I was saying, we aren't really any better than anyone else. You mentioned 5 starting pitchers we produced over the course of a decade, most good teams at developing talent have done that. And producing McCann, Escobar, Prado, Heyward, Freeman, Simmons, Gattis over the course of a decade and a half isn't some impressive feat either. I'm not saying we suck, but it's definitely not a history that blows anyone away or should make me want to "trust the scouts" as if they are infallible.

Particularly when I agree with Dirk Piggler about the 90s philosophy in a different decade thing. Young controlled pitching still has a good bit of value, but pitching in general is not a scarcity right now, hitting is.

I wouldn't argue our record has been great. But I think if you take into account where we have been drafting during most of the 2000-2015 period, it is a good record. And there is no evidence that we are significantly better at developing pitchers or hitters.

 

[auyushu]

I wouldn't argue our record has been great. But I think if you take into account where we have been drafting during most of the 2000-2015 period, it is a good record. And there is no evidence that we are significantly better at developing pitchers or hitters.

Yep, I'd put us in the middle of the pack. We've done a decent job of developing talent given where we've been drafting, but there are a number of teams over the past decade or so that have done a better job, including those drafting in the same ranges as us.

 

[KB21]

LOL at the idea that hitting is more scarce than pitching is. Never has been and never will be.

 

[nsacpi]

LOL at the idea that hitting is more scarce than pitching is. Never has been and never will be.

It is all relative. I don't think there is any doubt that there have been periods where pitching has been more difficult to come by (especially periods after expansion). But not now. Look at the comments that Hart and Coppolella made after the Olivera trade about how they had to get "creative" because "bats are hard to find."

 

[yeezus]

Don't pitchers get more $ per WAR? Not that that definitively proves anything at all, but it's something that matters at least a little bit.

 

[nsacpi]

Don't pitchers get more $ per WAR? Not that that definitively proves anything at all, but it's something that matters at least a little bit.

Generally yes on the FA market.

It is a bit of a puzzle. Dare I say a market imperfection?

 

[yeezus]

Generally yes on the FA market.

It is a bit of a puzzle. Dare I say a market imperfection?

I guess my point is this: If there's a huge surplus of pitching on the market and a dearth of hitting, why would pitchers be more valuable? kind of flies in the face of supply and demand if we're to believe there's a ton of pitching and little hitting.

 

[auyushu]

I guess my point is this: If there's a huge surplus of pitching on the market and a dearth of hitting, why would pitchers be more valuable? kind of flies in the face of supply and demand if we're to believe there's a ton of pitching and little hitting.

It's really more of the middle range pitchers making that the case though, not the top end. The top end sluggers are making about the same amount as the top end pitchers. And that balance will change dramatically once several top end hitters touch FA here in the next few years. Harper and Machado will likely have contracts that destroy what Price and Grienke just got this past offseason.

Regardless of all that we're more or less talking about prospects and trade markets. High end bat prospects really aren't getting moved very often if at all, while top 50 pitching prospects still are moving fairly regularly in trades. That points to their true value as few teams really have the money to go after big time free agents (including us), but everyone wants young controlled players.

 

[nsacpi]

I guess my point is this: If there's a huge surplus of pitching on the market and a dearth of hitting, why would pitchers be more valuable? kind of flies in the face of supply and demand if we're to believe there's a ton of pitching and little hitting.

Its a good question. This past off-season I was surprised by how the market for starting pitching held up in spite of a large number of FA pitchers at all price points.

 

[Enscheff]

Regardless of whether hitters or pitches are more scarce, I like the idea of using cheap homegrown pitchers and buying hitters simply because hitters are much more durable. If you are going to tie up $100M+ into a 4 WAR player, I would rather it be position player than a starting pitcher. The position player has a much better chance of being productive for a longer period of time.

If the overall organizational philosophy is to grow pitchers, use them up, and then discard them before they get expensive/injured, then you better be acquiring a lot of young pitchers.

 

[CJ9]

I didn't love this draft, but don't view this post as a criticism. I'm just legitimately trying to get some thoughts on what I'm missing with Kyle Muller. I've read a lot of scouting reports about him, and it seems like everyone likes the fastball and he throws hard -- but there doesn't seem to be much else. People are talking about maybe having an average curveball and then there's a changeup he has that doesn't throw much now. What am I missing on the hype here?

 

[smootness]

I didn't love this draft, but don't view this post as a criticism. I'm just legitimately trying to get some thoughts on what I'm missing with Kyle Muller. I've read a lot of scouting reports about him, and it seems like everyone likes the fastball and he throws hard -- but there doesn't seem to be much else. People are talking about maybe having an average curveball and then there's a changeup he has that doesn't throw much now. What am I missing on the hype here?

Projection. Size, delivery, arm speed, ability to spin it, etc.

 

[smootness]

I think it's obvious we just didn't like the bats at the top of this draft. If that's the case, better to go pitching and get better talent than to take hitters you don't love because there's a need for hitters in the system.

Filling the system with hitters you don't think will become much doesn't help anything.

 

[CJ9]

Projection. Size, delivery, arm speed, ability to spin it, etc.

The MLB scouting report actually called his delivery methodical and said it hurts his curveball because of it. I get that there's projection there and that he throws hard. I was just hoping to read some good things about his offspeed stuff.

 

[nsacpi]

I think it's obvious we just didn't like the bats at the top of this draft.

We might have taken Senzel and Trammell with our first two picks if they were still available. Imo there is no big explanation needed. They stuck to their rankings. And it so happened that the best player available was a pitcher on the first three picks.