The Overlooked Organizational Issue
As has been covered, well, everywhere, the Mariners have a few problems. They’ll be hiring a new GM and a new manager this winter, and we’re hopeful that they’ll recognize the need for a new direction and new philosophies in how the team is run.
However, just hiring a new GM isn’t going to just miraculously turn this team around. He’s going to have to do more than just make good trades and free agent signings, because this team needs to do a better job of developing talent from within. This isn’t a scouting problem – the M’s are one of the best teams in baseball in acquiring amateur talent through the draft and international free agency. They’re constantly bringing talent into the fold, including some guys with star potential.
However, once the kids get into the system, there are some problems. Here’s one of the glaring ones.
Carlos Triunfel: 6.3% BB%
Gregory Halman: 6.2% BB%
Matt Tuiasasopo: 9.8% BB%
Michael Saunders: 8.6% BB%
Adam Moore: 8.4% BB%
Rob Johnson: 8.4% BB%
Matt Mangini: 5.3% BB%
Daniel Carroll: 6.0% BB%
Alex Liddi: 9.1% BB%
Denny Almonte: 7.7% BB%
Jharmidy DeJesus: 7.4% BB%
That is, basically, a list of the draft picks or significant bonus international signings over the last few years, or guys who are considered real prospects by the organization. And, of course, their walk rate is listed next to their name. The A’s used to have a policy that they wouldn’t promote a prospect from one minor league level to the next unless he had a walk rate of at least 10% – none of these guys meet the mark.
Yes, Clement walks, and so does Dennis Raben, but both of those guys learned how to take the base on balls in college – they already had a set philosophy of how to hit by the time they got into the organization. Of the guys the M’s are trying to turn from teenagers into major leaguers, they just don’t develop anyone with any real patience at the plate.
This is obvious at the major league level as well. Obviously Lopez and Betancourt are hackity-hack-hack-hacks. Balentien is still a free swinger, even despite a lot of improvement the last few years. Adam Jones learned how to swing at everything before going to Baltimore. Even the big league guys the team has gone after have a grip-it-and-rip-it approach, from Beltre, Johjima, Guillen, and even Ichiro – the M’s love guys who swing a lot, and that’s what they’re developing.
This has to change, and just hiring a new GM and hoping that fixes the issue isn’t going to work. Whoever takes over is going to have to have the freedom to make sweeping changes in how the organization coaches its young talent and the things that they’re stressing in player development. It simply isn’t good enough to be developing a bunch of clones who have to hit .300 to succeed since they never learned how to make a pitcher work the count.
Comments
62 Responses to “The Overlooked Organizational Issue”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Teaching something is a whole different exercise than learning something. It’s one thing to teach yourself. You understand how you think. It’s another thing to work with someone that may not think or handle things the way you do.
I think that is way too big a generalization on teaching and learning.
Although it is true that a good hitter doesn’t necessarily make a good hitting coach.
It is completely false that discipline cannot be developed or learned. If this were true, then plate discipline would not be considered an “old player” skill. In fact, both power and patience are skills that players can develop as they age.
What people are confusing is the difference between “developing patience hitting” and “developing into a patient hitter.” Jose Lopez will never be a patient hitter. That doesn’t imply that he cannot become more patient than he currently is. To me it looks like the problem with the Mariners is that they both (a) choose hitters who aren’t likely to develop into patient hitters and (b) don’t attempt to develop these hitters’ patience.
The question of whether “they” is vaguer than “he” as a pronoun referring to persons of both sexes depends on whether you care more about *number* or about *gender.* Both are vague, but they are vague in different ways. “They” obliterates the distinction between singular and plural. “He” confuses that between masculine and feminine. “It” suggests that what is referred to is sexless, lifeless, or non-human. (A little bit like the verb aru in Japanese).
Yes, my mistake.
Excellent example.
I seriously wonder if this isn’t an organizational philosophy built around: A) An old-school belief in batting average as the most critical offensive stat and; B) A foolish attempt to play a “more exciting brand of baseball.” It seems so consistent up and down the entire organization you have to believe they really want free-swinging players, if not for the reasons I’m imagining then for some other equally misguided purpose.
Ah, good point. I think I’ll steal it for my own.
Yuppers.
Hrm. More the former than the latter, I think. I don’t think they’re foolish enough to mix marketing aims with baseball aims at such a basic level. I think it’s truer that they think aggressive players put pressure on a pitcher…and I think I’ve read that they truly think they can teach patience at the major leauge level…
For this argument to be better explored, as Marc W suggests, we need a much larger sample size than, ‘the A’s used to have a policy that they wouldn’t promote a prospect from one minor league level to the next unless he had a walk rate of at least 10%’. That’s as limiting as suggesting that a team should always sign players with low walk rates because Vladdy is so good.
I’m not arguing with the conclusion, just wondering if there’s a way to apply this to, say, the top five hitting prospects in every organization.
I recall the old quote applied to prospects from the D.R.–‘no one ever walked off the island.’ Might this be true for foreign prospects in general, an area where the M’s have been relatively successful?
If they hadn’t promoted so many bobbleheads in this organization already, we might not be looking at another last place finish.
Ba-dum.
I always considered the greatest irony was that Hargrove was advocating with the hitters exactly the opposite of what had made him an effective player. He was quoted as telling the players that they should expect only one good pitch per at-bat, and they’d better swing at it. Yet Hargrove as a hitter was a guy who made it so difficult for pitchers to pitch to him they’d offer him up stuff just to get him to swing.
In 2001, Lou finally came around to the idea that selective hitters would wear down the opponent’s pitchers, after watching the Yankees do that to his pitchers. No team can survive getting five innings out of its starters night in and night out, and one way to get the starters out is to waste a lot of pitches and take a lot of pitches.
The 2008 Mariners are the perfect example of that, of course, with our starters typically in the 80s after four innings, while the other team’s starter has barely broken a sweat. I don’t understand why this is controversial, by the way.
Not to anyone in the 21st Century.
But this team seems adamant on keeping their Stone Age tools. They’re ignoring why they had the success they had in 2001; in fact, they seem to be doing the exact opposite of what made them so successful in 2001.
Plate discipline is considered an “old player” skill because is does not decline with age the way other skills do, not necessarily because it can be taught to older players. If you have objective evidence that plate discipline can be taught at the professional level, please cite it. I’m not saying you are wrong. I am just repeating conventional wisdom that appeared in the most famous baseball book ever and is frequently repeated in sabrmetric discussions. I’d love to see actual evidence to the contrary.
First, I didn’t claim that discipline could be *taught*, but that it could be *learned.* Second, there are plenty of players who have developed increased walk rates as they have aged; which is the best proof I can find of this.
Or were you looking for proof that it happens in general? I certainly didn’t claim that. I claimed that players *can* develop this skill. And it isn’t hard to find some players who actually have done so. Here is one: Richie Sexson is an example of a player whose walk rate increased throughout much of his career.
If it can be learned but not taught, then organizational philosophy is irrelevant, isn’t it? You either learn it or you don’t.