Moustakas to Brewers

[bmags]

I think constantly reevaluating your scouting is a good thing. 

[GreenSox]

19 minutes ago, bmags said:

I think constantly reevaluating your scouting is a good thing. 

I agree, but this is a reevaluation of philosophy, not scouting.
And that's probably a good thing too.

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by GreenSox

[Chicago White Sox]

6 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

I agree, but this is a reevaluation of philosophy, not scouting.

High OBP is always better than low OBP.
Low K is always better than high K.
High power is always better than low power.
It's the tradeoffs: You need to be on the right side of 2 of those:    the Sox have historically been been on the wrong side of 2 of the 3 (high K, low OBP).  Just need better hitters.

I really don’t understand what your complaint is here.  The Sox are adjusting their draft philosophy to better align with their development capabilities.  They have struggled in the past turning athletes into ballplayers.  Now they’re drafting with guys with plus hit tools & on-base skills.  They’re giving up some upside in the process, but until Getz can right the development ship, this is a pretty sound approach.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Chicago White Sox

[Eminor3rd]

1 hour ago, bmags said:

I think it’s interesting that both the Astros and now the brewers found initial success with high k, high power lineups, then evolved to greater offense as they looked to replace the higher k players out of their lineup, even if those players were fine obp-wise.

“Ks are just another out” is clearly becoming outdated with smart franchises. As our future team comes into play and we look to trade out assets for upgrades, it feels like our low-k prospects would be the ones to bank on staying, the high k guys such as Collins could be the ones used to get us upgrades.

 

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

The k is just another out never made any sense. It was just total denial. If you don’t k, you either put the ball in play, get HPB, walk, or hit a homer. 

I never understood how people were talking about BABIP, and saying a strikeout was just another out. There is about a 30% chance not King results in a hit.

The confusion comes from the fact that, like many things, the argument has been taken out of the proper context more often than not.

Back in the early 2000's there was a lot of "you can't hang in the majors if you strike out x much." Then, the counter-argument appeared from your saber-forward teams, which was "if you get on base enough and hit for enough power, we don't care how much you strike out." As they do, mainstream media then stripped all nuance from the conversation and boiled it down to a ridiculous polar stance that is uttered most often.

"K is just another out" never made any sense without the qualifiers that were originally attached to it. But, as is often the case, no one in the game was actually ever arguing for it that way.

[GreenSox]

7 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I really don’t understand what your complaint is here.  The Sox are adjusting their draft philosophy to better align with their development capabilities.  They have struggled in the past turning athletes into ballplayers.  Now they’re drafting with guys with plus hit tools & on-base skills.  They’re giving up some upside in the process, but until Getz can right the development ship, this is a pretty sound approach.

I have no complaints.
But what you described, which is what I thought they were doing, is not what was described as the new philosophy at the top of this thread.

Edited July 28, 2018 by GreenSox