Swing at Strikes

[The Kids Can Play]

23 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I agree the organization's coaching doesn't produce results as well as other organizations. 

I'm not exactly clear what you mean by coach consistently across all levels. 

I think his point is right about the Sox flaws in how they run their farm systems and why it's ranked 26th.

I think his first point is so correct about the Sox scouting dept. is horrible at identifying/scouting and drafting the right prospects.

Then his point about having coaching consistency across all minor league levels, is the fact the future GM regime must hire coaches on all levels that teach the same fundamentals, and situational baseball philosophies.

I am quite sure that the farm systems for the Rays and Dodgers for example, are always in the top 5 ranked farm systems yearly, because they have this consistency in the type of player they scout and draft. Then once in their minors, their coaches are all on the same page and they develop the prospects by teaching the same fundamentals and strategies at every level. 

I assure you the Sox having the 29th ranked farm system last year and 26th this year, is simply because they are seriously flawed in the scouting, drafting and developing of players. All their scouts and coaches in the minors, are probably not all on the same page. 

[Texsox]

That's great old school coaching and probably will be in fashion again soon. 

Modern coaching is based on the idea you have to find an approach that works for each unique player to reach their potential. Different people are motivated in different ways, learn in different ways, and improve in different ways. I believe that's where the coaching staff is failing. They force players into molds they aren't fitting. 

Regardless obviously it's not working. The ultimate goal is winning at the MLB level. I don't care where the system ranks if the MLB team is winning. 

Using an extreme example to illustrate this point. If you emptied all the talent from the system in a trade for three All Star level players, winning a WS, the system would bottom out, but have served it's primary function. We're at the worst situation, failing at the MLB level and have a shitty farm system. 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

With the Sox having such problems at 2nd base, the one guy they have at AAA who they picked up in the off season is having a great season so far.

Nate Mondou , 28, 5'7 , 205, LH . .292 BA , .415 OBP  . That guy knows how to take walks, plus despite his Altuve like size, he has 11 HR and .934 OPS. I can only guess that maybe his fielding isn't good .Sosa got his shot. Romy is getting his now , sort of ,  At this point why keep Andrus  even if you need the back up SS you know he's just going to be started at 2nd way too often now and that's one place the Sox do have some depth. Crappy depth so far  but between Romy,Sosa,and Mondou 2nd base is  loaded with guys who can p out produce Andrus at this point.

Sucks to have no depth at SS which is why Sosa keeps getting shots because he can play SS . Don't think Romy can as well as Sosa. and neither as well as Andrus. But Andrus is the next to go if he can't get hot very very quickly.

[Lip Man 1]

24 minutes ago, The Kids Can Play said:

I think his point is right about the Sox flaws in how they run their farm systems and why it's ranked 26th.

I think his first point is so correct about the Sox scouting dept. is horrible at identifying/scouting and drafting the right prospects.

Then his point about having coaching consistency across all minor league levels, is the fact the future GM regime must hire coaches on all levels that teach the same fundamentals, and situational baseball philosophies.

I am quite sure that the farm systems for the Rays and Dodgers for example, are always in the top 5 ranked farm systems yearly, because they have this consistency in the type of player they scout and draft. Then once in their minors, their coaches are all on the same page and they develop the prospects by teaching the same fundamentals and strategies at every level. 

I assure you the Sox having the 29th ranked farm system last year and 26th this year, is simply because they are seriously flawed in the scouting, drafting and developing of players. All their scouts and coaches in the minors, are probably not all on the same page. 

For decades we were told about the "Oriole Way" and the "Cardinal Way." It was a consistent baseball philosophy taught at all levels up to and including the big league team. If I remember right they had manuals like football playbooks that explained how things were to be done in situations.

[JoeC]

3 hours ago, Texsox said:

I agree the organization's coaching doesn't produce results as well as other organizations. 

I'm not exactly clear what you mean by coach consistently across all levels. 

Basically exactly what @The Kids Can Play said below:

2 hours ago, The Kids Can Play said:

Then his point about having coaching consistency across all minor league levels, is the fact the future GM regime must hire coaches on all levels that teach the same fundamentals, and situational baseball philosophies.

I am quite sure that the farm systems for the Rays and Dodgers for example, are always in the top 5 ranked farm systems yearly, because they have this consistency in the type of player they scout and draft. Then once in their minors, their coaches are all on the same page and they develop the prospects by teaching the same fundamentals and strategies at every level.

The quote(s) by Fulmer indicate that at each stop up the minor league ladder, there was a different coach with a different philosophy or "idea" who would try to make his mark on Fulmer. By the time Fulmer got to the big leagues, the physical traits and talent that made him successful at Vanderbilt had been coached out.

2 hours ago, Texsox said:

Modern coaching is based on the idea you have to find an approach that works for each unique player to reach their potential. Different people are motivated in different ways, learn in different ways, and improve in different ways. I believe that's where the coaching staff is failing. They force players into molds they aren't fitting. 

To me, that's two different things. There's the "what to teach" part of it (mechanics, skills, approach to the game, etc.), and then there's the "how to teach it" part of it.

What I've been ranting about is the "what to teach," and that's largely what I interpret Fulmer's complaints to be about.

The "how to teach it" is what you're talking about - how to get the players to buy in, how to motivate players, how to make the light bulb turn on. Ultimately, that part of the coaching jobs is too nuanced and hands-on to ever be obsolete... if you can teach people to give a s%*# and be humble enough to realize their coaches might know a thing or two... and if you CAN actually teach the skills, then you're bound to be a damn good minor league coach.

[JoeC]

2 hours ago, Texsox said:

Regardless obviously it's not working. The ultimate goal is winning at the MLB level. I don't care where the system ranks if the MLB team is winning. 

Using an extreme example to illustrate this point. If you emptied all the talent from the system in a trade for three All Star level players, winning a WS, the system would bottom out, but have served it's primary function. We're at the worst situation, failing at the MLB level and have a shitty farm system. 

This part of your post is where I want to take things a step further.

In the scenario where you're selling the farm for a "win now" season, teams like the Dodgers and Rays (and Guardians and others) appear to have some sort of steady pipeline they've developed that can consistently produce assets to the big league club - whether in the form of players who are ready to contribute to the club directly, or whether they are valuable as tradeable assets for big league contributors.

The Sox stocked their farm system by grabbing the best minor league talent that big league talent can buy, but they've done NOTHING to develop a development pipeline.

That's why Project Birmingham piqued my interest (what a month that was...), and that's where I will continue to be most critical of this organization's baseball operations.

[Texsox]

So when you bring in someone like Katz with different ideas do you explain the approach he has to teach to match the rest of the organization, hope the coaches below him adapt quickly to his ideas, or fire them all and allow him to hire a staff of pitching coaches? Or do you reject any candidate with ideas different than what had been taught in the minors to avoid the major changes like Fulmer is talking about? 

I like the idea of hiring a new guy and firing everyone. I think it's an interesting organization question. 

Next thought, let's say the organization is all in on vertical integration, would it fail because these players and coaches just aren't that good or is it that simple of a change for a dramatic improvement?

[chitownsportsfan]

2 minutes ago, Texsox said:

So when you bring in someone like Katz with different ideas do you explain the approach he has to teach to match the rest of the organization, hope the coaches below him adapt quickly to his ideas, or fire them all and allow him to hire a staff of pitching coaches? Or do you reject any candidate with ideas different than what had been taught in the minors to avoid the major changes like Fulmer is talking about? 

I like the idea of hiring a new guy and firing everyone. I think it's an interesting organization question. 

Next thought, let's say the organization is all in on vertical integration, would it fail because these players and coaches just aren't that good or is it that simple of a change for a dramatic improvement?

The Sox have never even given lip service to vertical integration and any sort of top to bottom philosophy that they scout and then develop. The Mariners, who are the Sox' west coast doppelgänger in many ways, at least preach a "control the zone"  mentality, even if they haven't been able to implement it well.

From 1000ft away, it seems like the Rays really prize athletes that can play multiple positions and then they teach them to hit enough. The Sox under KW were similar, although obviously not as successful at the teaching them to hit part.

The Dodgers? Well they have massive resources and it seems their MLB scouting is the best in the game by a large margin. If they acquire a vet or let one go, they almost always make the right decision.

Anyways, the Sox need to clean house but for the millionth time written on this board, it won't happen until JR either dies or sells the team.

[JoeC]

3 minutes ago, Texsox said:

So when you bring in someone like Katz with different ideas do you explain the approach he has to teach to match the rest of the organization, hope the coaches below him adapt quickly to his ideas, or fire them all and allow him to hire a staff of pitching coaches? Or do you reject any candidate with ideas different than what had been taught in the minors to avoid the major changes like Fulmer is talking about? 

I like the idea of hiring a new guy and firing everyone. I think it's an interesting organization question. 

Next thought, let's say the organization is all in on vertical integration, would it fail because these players and coaches just aren't that good or is it that simple of a change for a dramatic improvement?

If you bring someone in like Katz, you bring in the person (or people) who best fit the mold of the pitchers they'll be inheriting. This is likely why you often see multiple hitting / pitching coaches at the big league level.

As for the vertical integration being a magic bullet... of course, the coaches, players, and scouts all have to be good enough.
If you have s%*# scouts bringing in supremely talented players that don't fit any sort of development mold, that's going to overwhelm the coaching staff and confuse the players.
If you have the greatest coaching staff that's perfectly aligned with the scouts, but the players suck... you can't make chicken soup out of chicken s%*#.
If you have scouts bringing in the "right" players who are supremely talented into a pipeline of shitty coaches, there's no way to maximize the return on your player capital investment.

Anyways, that's my arm chair quarterbacking. Clearly there's a reason I'm posting on Soxtalk and not working in professional sports, but my views are derived from what I've gathered about how winning organizations operate... and hell - even how effective corporations operate.

[chitownsportsfan]

5 minutes ago, JoeC said:

If you bring someone in like Katz, you bring in the person (or people) who best fit the mold of the pitchers they'll be inheriting. This is likely why you often see multiple hitting / pitching coaches at the big league level.

As for the vertical integration being a magic bullet... of course, the coaches, players, and scouts all have to be good enough.
If you have s%*# scouts bringing in supremely talented players that don't fit any sort of development mold, that's going to overwhelm the coaching staff and confuse the players.
If you have the greatest coaching staff that's perfectly aligned with the scouts, but the players suck... you can't make chicken soup out of chicken s%*#.
If you have scouts bringing in the "right" players who are supremely talented into a pipeline of shitty coaches, there's no way to maximize the return on your player capital investment.

Anyways, that's my arm chair quarterbacking. Clearly there's a reason I'm posting on Soxtalk and not working in professional sports, but my views are derived from what I've gathered about how winning organizations operate... and hell - even how effective corporations operate.

I remember when the Sox were getting a lot of feel good stories about the ways they supported their LA signings off the field: hiring chefs to cook the comfort food of home, paying for English lessons, getting them into good "foster" homes if necessary instead of just staying in apartments and so on. That stuff is good and all but what are we doing ON THE FIELD? We're bringing in all these guys that are raw, but we aren't developing them to have a plan at the plate.  Part of that is tough love too. Robert admitting he doesn't watch any video is pretty bad. Who is in his ear is a mentor telling him that if he wants to just be better than good he needs to put the work in like everybody else? We need a guy like that in the org, for the American guys too, but mostly for the Latin guys as they have the most bat to ball talent, but struggle with pitch recognition and controlling the zone.

[JoeC]

Yeah - at the end of the day, the off-the-field care (like billet families) is really nice, but if you don't have a good plan for direct baseball activities.... you end up with players who are well-adjusted who suck.

[The Kids Can Play]

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

So when you bring in someone like Katz with different ideas do you explain the approach he has to teach to match the rest of the organization, hope the coaches below him adapt quickly to his ideas, or fire them all and allow him to hire a staff of pitching coaches? Or do you reject any candidate with ideas different than what had been taught in the minors to avoid the major changes like Fulmer is talking about? 

I like the idea of hiring a new guy and firing everyone. I think it's an interesting organization question. 

Next thought, let's say the organization is all in on vertical integration, would it fail because these players and coaches just aren't that good or is it that simple of a change for a dramatic improvement?

Obviously it can always fail. The point is the good organizations with consistent top farm systems have a stronger scouting department which starts the entire process. They seem to identify the better prospects to suggest to the GM to ultimately draft. Of course this starts at the top and trickles down. Somehow in the Dodgers and Rays clubs for example, once they are drafted, they seem to be able to convey to the minor league director and all their coaches at each minor league level, the type of hitting and pitching fundamentals and situational pitching and hitting philosophies to teach solid baseball skills. They seem to be better at making these prospects productive and future solid big league players...for either their own team or as valuable trade bait.

The fact the Sox AAA Knights at 5.91 and AA Barons at 5.77 are both dead last in team ERA in their respective minor league divisions, tells you the Sox do not have a good scouting and developing pitching prospects blueprint

I realize I always use the Rays and Dodgers as prime examples of good organizations, but take a look at the last 9 years between these two clubs regarding MLB farm system rankings:

           Dodgers   Rays

2023      #2           #6
2022      #2           #3
2021      #14         #1
2020      #9           #1
2019      #3           #2
2018     #10          #4
2017      #6           #10
2016      #1           #14
2015      #3           #11

When you have numbers like this above, it is not a fluke why both teams are usually in the playoffs most years.

Maybe the day Reinsdorf is gone and a new owner comes in, we can attempt to get this type of sold organizational structure.

[hankchifan]

On 6/3/2023 at 6:25 PM, SonofaRoache said:

Part of being a good hitter is pitch recognition. Our guys flail because they don't pick up the pitch in time. Hanging sliders get popped up because they guess fastball and react late. Fastballs get hit into the dirt because they don't pick up the speed in time and swing late. 

And they keep swinging and missing sliders out of the zone. And they are very impatient, not working counts,  not waiting for a good pitch to hit, and not taking any walks.

[Boopa1219]

They also don’t see enough pitches. In 2023, 3.91 is league average for pitches seen per plate appearance (P/PA).

The Sox see 3.83 which is 29th in the league. The Cubs are first with 4.12.

Let’s look at their walk rate.

A league average walk rate is 8.7%. The Sox rank dead last with a 6.6% walk rate. The Padres are first with 11.1%. On the bright side, they are striking out at a league average clip.

The offense is beyond broke.

The best way to fix it is getting rid of guys who contribute the most to these issues. Blow this thing up, it’s the only way forward. 

[hankchifan]

On 6/4/2023 at 7:59 AM, soxrwhite said:

There is no patience in the game today. Not only batters but management and especially fans want big hits and they want them now. Walks don't get hurrahs. You gotta swing in order to hit the ball. Team play is gone. The little things are laughable. Only the big splash gets you the acclaim and money.

The problem isthatguysarenot paid to take walks.  Big money goes to sluggers and to good pitchers.

[hankchifan]

14 hours ago, soxfaninfl said:

I have been hard on Grifol but I have to admit yesterday was one of his better managing efforts. Loading up on LH bats to face Lange is exactly how you should attack him. A LH bat can track his curve a lot easier and kudos to Pedro for seizing on an opportunity and not using his LH bats earlier.

And a wonderful job by Jake taking ball one. I had a feeling the minute the count was 1-0, Lange would have to throw a strike and Jake would find his pitch. Hope this and his walk earlier is an early sign of Jake maturing as a hitter. He just needs to be more selective because he murders anything middle down, especially middle out. Encouraging game all around.

Agree that Pedro has been making some better moves lately.  I like that all players on the bench are available to pinch hit, contrary to TLR not pinch hitting with “resting stars” last season.  Pedro is also using the running game more often than TLR did.

[Boopa1219]

3 minutes ago, hankchifan said:

Agree that Pedro has been making some better moves lately.  I like that all players on the bench are available to pinch hit, contrary to TLR not pinch hitting with “resting stars” last season.  Pedro is also using the running game more often than TLR did.

He’s learning on the job but he needs to do better at putting guys in a position to succeed. Look at Alberto, he should’ve only started against LHP. He’s strictly a platoon guy but Grifol left him out to dry against RHPs. That can’t happen 

[Texsox]

Help me out here. I was talking with a couple coaches I know who played in two different farm systems and I wasn't doing a good job explaining your points. 

Here's the question they asked. You draft Nolan Ryan (power pitcher) and Greg Maddux (control pitcher) in the same year. What would you be teaching each of them to do the same and what would you allow them to do differently? And if they are showing some success, but you hire a new MLB coach with new ideas, do you force those changes on them? 

I couldn't really answer that. Mostly trying to understand what gets taught to everyone at every level. 

What they believed worked the best were the coaches that collaborated. What's worked for you in the past, what hasn't, what do we need to do to get you to the next level? 

The concept sounds great, it's the specifics that I can't grasp. 

[JoeC]

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

Help me out here. I was talking with a couple coaches I know who played in two different farm systems and I wasn't doing a good job explaining your points. 

Here's the question they asked. You draft Nolan Ryan (power pitcher) and Greg Maddux (control pitcher) in the same year. What would you be teaching each of them to do the same and what would you allow them to do differently? And if they are showing some success, but you hire a new MLB coach with new ideas, do you force those changes on them? 

I couldn't really answer that. Mostly trying to understand what gets taught to everyone at every level. 

What they believed worked the best were the coaches that collaborated. What's worked for you in the past, what hasn't, what do we need to do to get you to the next level? 

The concept sounds great, it's the specifics that I can't grasp. 

I don't know enough on the specifics of coaching baseball (I'm a hockey guy when it comes to coaching). That said, I would assume that there are certain fundamentals that are common to all pitchers (like the mental game).

If I had to guess though - I'd say:
1. All else being equal, you'd draft one type of pitcher. Unless a guy is a true can't-miss prospect, you favor the guy you know your pipeline can maximize.
--or--
2. Your strategy is, especially in the lower minors where you can have somewhat-overlapping teams, you'd steer your "power" guys more toward one affiliate and your "control" guys more toward another affiliate. At the higher levels, you'd just work on reinforcing the message or having pitching coaches cede overall responsibilities to organizational coaches (roving pitching coaches) who are more specialized in dealing with certain guys.

When it comes to player development (again, this is based on my experience in hockey, so baseball may be wildly different), there's a good amount of alignment and communication between various levels, which CAN include "ok - I don't know how to develop this kid. What are the 3 things I should look out for, and can you lay down that groundwork for me to work with him?" I've done this at the youth levels, and I know it's done at the professional levels (NHL / AHL / ECHL)

Again, just my amateur opinion and idealistic oversimplification....

[JoeC]

Again, it just comes down to the organization having a clear alignment on each player's path toward maximizing their potential, which means alignment and buy-in by each coach at each affiliate on a) what to develop to maximize; b) how to get the most out of the player.

Right now, the Sox seem to have zero of that, and Fulmer's quotes, while it can be taken as comments from a bitter "failed" prospect, seem to agree with my abovementioned hypothesis.

[Texsox]

2 hours ago, JoeC said:

Again, it just comes down to the organization having a clear alignment on each player's path toward maximizing their potential, which means alignment and buy-in by each coach at each affiliate on a) what to develop to maximize; b) how to get the most out of the player.

Right now, the Sox seem to have zero of that, and Fulmer's quotes, while it can be taken as comments from a bitter "failed" prospect, seem to agree with my abovementioned hypothesis.

I agree with everything you are saying but can't figure out how it translates to actual coaching. Using the Ryan and Maddux examples, what are you aligning? The coach has those two guys in a bullpen session what should they have aligned? 

What makes sense to me is you have those two in AA, evaluate each individually and prioritize x number of things they need to work on to reach the MLB team. Each player's list will be different. Let's say there are six items. At some point there is enough progress that the player advances to AAA. 

In AA items 1, 3, 5, and 6 were the main concerns. Now they are in AAA and 2 and 4 move to the top. They still have the other four to continue to work on but the priority changes. 

A quality system to me should be able to develop a power pitcher and a control pitcher. It shouldn't have only one type of player they can develop. You need to develop guys that can hit for average and guys that hit for power. 

 

 

[pcq]

20 hours ago, JoeC said:

Basically exactly what @The Kids Can Play said below:

The quote(s) by Fulmer indicate that at each stop up the minor league ladder, there was a different coach with a different philosophy or "idea" who would try to make his mark on Fulmer. By the time Fulmer got to the big leagues, the physical traits and talent that made him successful at Vanderbilt had been coached out.

To me, that's two different things. There's the "what to teach" part of it (mechanics, skills, approach to the game, etc.), and then there's the "how to teach it" part of it.

What I've been ranting about is the "what to teach," and that's largely what I interpret Fulmer's complaints to be about.

The "how to teach it" is what you're talking about - how to get the players to buy in, how to motivate players, how to make the light bulb turn on. Ultimately, that part of the coaching jobs is too nuanced and hands-on to ever be obsolete... if you can teach people to give a s%*# and be humble enough to realize their coaches might know a thing or two... and if you CAN actually teach the skills, then you're bound to be a damn good minor league coach.

Shame there is no way for the coaches to keep in touch to ensure they all have a same page approach and to agree on revisions. 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

44 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I agree with everything you are saying but can't figure out how it translates to actual coaching. Using the Ryan and Maddux examples, what are you aligning? The coach has those two guys in a bullpen session what should they have aligned? 

What makes sense to me is you have those two in AA, evaluate each individually and prioritize x number of things they need to work on to reach the MLB team. Each player's list will be different. Let's say there are six items. At some point there is enough progress that the player advances to AAA. 

In AA items 1, 3, 5, and 6 were the main concerns. Now they are in AAA and 2 and 4 move to the top. They still have the other four to continue to work on but the priority changes. 

A quality system to me should be able to develop a power pitcher and a control pitcher. It shouldn't have only one type of player they can develop. You need to develop guys that can hit for average and guys that hit for power. 

 

 

No matter what the type of pitcher you have there are some things that you need to emphasize to both.  No matter how fast your FB is learn to throw it for strikes 1st and then you learn where to throw it and when. Work as hard on your strengths as you do your weaknesses. Your strengths won't always be your strengths if you ignore them to work on your weaknesses. Do not take your talent for granted. It can change at any time. You are never a finished product . You can always gain knowledge to improve yourself physically and mentally. These are more life philosophies because coaches have to deal with egos also and player have to deal with coaches egos. The balance is always precarious especially dealing with kids from all over the US and foreign counties. Coaches should all start learning Spanish for sure.

Once you are a professional getting paid in an organization if you have a coach trying to force his way on you then you must decide for yourself eventually your course of action for yourself. You aren't a kid any more who needs to be a sponge because of the vast amount of baseball knowledge out there. Good coaches should be able to recommend books on hitting or pitching. There are just so many different ways to skin a cat and so many different problems and possible solutions.

Any way I could go on and on about general coaching philosophies about communication, mutual respect or collaboration as you said.  Some players will be very life savvy , others so respectful of your authority  that they are eager to please. Intelligence levels different. Technical and mechanical  stuff is another thing , repeating your delivery, arm slot , pitch grips. So so many minute things that could have major impact.

[The Kids Can Play]

10 hours ago, hankchifan said:

The problem isthatguysarenot paid to take walks.  Big money goes to sluggers and to good pitchers.

Actually indirectly, the top power hitters are paid to take walks. 

Of course the big money paid players are paid to hit for power. However they are also very smart players and by being more patient at the plate they draw more walks. Additionally being more patient and taking more pitches in turn, give these power hitters the good hitting counts which is why they hit for power.

Look at the top ranked players in MLB for most BB's and their corresponding rank for HR's:

	BB	Rank	HR's	Rank
Juan Soto	56	1	10	T38
Kyle Schwarber	44	2	15	T7
Matt Olson	43	T3	17	T4
Adley Rutschman	43	T3	8	T69
Mookie Betts	36	8	15	T7
Paul Goldschmidt	35	T9	10	T38
Aaron Judge	35	T9	19	2
Max Muncy	35	T9	18	3
Yordan Alvarez	31	T16	16	6
Ronald Acuna Jr	29	T22	12	T17

 

[chitownsportsfan]

11 hours ago, hankchifan said:

The problem isthatguysarenot paid to take walks.  Big money goes to sluggers and to good pitchers.

Tell that to Juan Soto. The league prizes not making outs more than ever. Good players will get paid regardless of how.