Rex Hudler Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 To give you all the history, this discussion was started in another thread... Here is the premise. From Rex Hudler: Baggs, here is your assignment..... Find a way to objectively compare our farm system with others. How many everyday players/regular pitchers have other teams produced in recent years. My guess is, that the Sox have had no more injuries than most teams and are somewhere in the middle in regards to the number of players they have promoted. Good luck and we will look forward to you report! From Baggs: man..thats a project...trying to access every team..since you are the resident expert on minor league can you give me 6 teams to start with???...3 that you think are better than the sox and 3 that are worse...then ill go to their teams boards..get fan reaction on what their take is and try to come up with some stats.. also..what about players that change systems??..for example would jon garland be a product of our farm system or the cubs???..aaron miles , ours or houston's??...if alex fernandez were to crack the line up in san diego who would get credit for him???..gotta give me more guildlines. I was lurking over at WSI and jeremyb1 started a thread that was similar to our discussion. In the next post, I will post what he found in researching pitchers that MLB teams developed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted February 1, 2004 Author Share Posted February 1, 2004 Stolen directly from Jeremyb1 at WSI..... I thought it was good stuff so I am stealing it, yet giving him the footnote. I haven't checked it thoroughly so he may have missed one or two, but the list looks good to me at first glance..... So Baggs, it is up to you if you want to take this further. First lets take a look at how many good home grown pitchers most clubs have developed. I'll look at pitchers 26 and younger and they will be associated with the club they debuted with. The pitcher will have to be considered a top of the rotation starter for the purposes of this survey. I'll include any starter with a full season with an ERA under or very close to 4 with a few exceptions here and there when it seems appropriate. Yankees - 0 Boston - 0 Toronto - 1 (Halladay) Baltimore - 0 Tampa Bay - 0 Minnesota - 1 (Santana) White Sox - 2 (Buehrle, Wells) Kansas City - 0 Cleveland - 0 Detroit - 0 Oakland - 2 (Mulder, Zito) Seatle - 1 (Pinero) Anaheim - 0 Texas - 0 Atlanta - 2 (Horacio Ramirez, Perez) Florida - 3 (Penny, Willis, Beckett) Phillie - 1 (Padilla) Montreal - 1 (Armas Jr.) Mets - 1 (Seo) Cubs - 3 (Wood, Zambrano, Prior) Astros - 2 (Redding, Oswalt) Cardinals - 0 Pittsburg - 0 Milwaukee - 0 Giants - 0 L.A. - 0 Arizona - 1 (Webb) Padres - 2 (Eaton, Peavy) That gives us an average of .76 successful young pitchers developed by each organization. 14 of the 30 teams - nearly half - don't haven't developed a successful young pitcher recently. That makes the White Sox better than average at developing young pitchers even if you decided not to count Wells for whatever reason. As someone else pointed out, having high draft picks which the Sox have not also helps. Wood, Prior, Beckett, Mulder and Zito were all top ten picks in the draft. So, particularly in light of this reasearch my conclusion is that the White Sox are no worse at developing young pitching that other organizations. The overwhelming majority of young pitching prospects do NOT become successful major league pitchers. The failure to understand this and the fact that fans ussually take notice of their own team's failed prospects moreso than other clubs leads people to get the impression the White Sox have a poor track record with pitching prospects when this is not the case. Buehrle and Wells are all-star calliber players and Garland still has a few seasons to become a successful young pitcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Rector Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 It will be most interesting to see if the hyper-critical Baggs is able to create something good here. So far, all he's done is attack and criticize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Stolen directly from Jeremyb1 at WSI..... I thought it was good stuff so I am stealing it, yet giving him the footnote. I haven't checked it thoroughly so he may have missed one or two, but the list looks good to me at first glance..... So Baggs, it is up to you if you want to take this further. First lets take a look at how many good home grown pitchers most clubs have developed. I'll look at pitchers 26 and younger and they will be associated with the club they debuted with. The pitcher will have to be considered a top of the rotation starter for the purposes of this survey. I'll include any starter with a full season with an ERA under or very close to 4 with a few exceptions here and there when it seems appropriate. Yankees - 0 Boston - 0 Toronto - 1 (Halladay) Baltimore - 0 Tampa Bay - 0 Minnesota - 1 (Santana) White Sox - 2 (Buehrle, Wells) Kansas City - 0 Cleveland - 0 Detroit - 0 Oakland - 2 (Mulder, Zito) Seatle - 1 (Pinero) Anaheim - 0 Texas - 0 Atlanta - 2 (Horacio Ramirez, Perez) Florida - 3 (Penny, Willis, Beckett) Phillie - 1 (Padilla) Montreal - 1 (Armas Jr.) Mets - 1 (Seo) Cubs - 3 (Wood, Zambrano, Prior) Astros - 2 (Redding, Oswalt) Cardinals - 0 Pittsburg - 0 Milwaukee - 0 Giants - 0 L.A. - 0 Arizona - 1 (Webb) Padres - 2 (Eaton, Peavy) That gives us an average of .76 successful young pitchers developed by each organization. 14 of the 30 teams - nearly half - don't haven't developed a successful young pitcher recently. That makes the White Sox better than average at developing young pitchers even if you decided not to count Wells for whatever reason. As someone else pointed out, having high draft picks which the Sox have not also helps. Wood, Prior, Beckett, Mulder and Zito were all top ten picks in the draft. So, particularly in light of this reasearch my conclusion is that the White Sox are no worse at developing young pitching that other organizations. The overwhelming majority of young pitching prospects do NOT become successful major league pitchers. The failure to understand this and the fact that fans ussually take notice of their own team's failed prospects moreso than other clubs leads people to get the impression the White Sox have a poor track record with pitching prospects when this is not the case. Buehrle and Wells are all-star calliber players and Garland still has a few seasons to become a successful young pitcher. rex...this is so flawed..i actually tried to type a response about all the variables that were left out and i was half way to looking like i was rewriting war and peace the criteria is too narrow , doesnt take into account draft stratagies , front office stratagies, the condition of the parent team in each year of the draft (if they have a solid young 5 man rotation they wont draft starting pitching prospects early on as opposed to a team with a team era of over 5)...there all kinds of things i can get into... i just dont think you can take one section of a farm system and evaluate it and say this team is the best...or just for certain years because if the parent club is a contender they will be giving up 3 prospects for a veteran to help them win..while a team out of the race has a fire sale and picks up a bunch of prospects look at cleveland..they are loaded with young pitching..but most of those guys were double A prospects from 2 years ago from other teams when they dumped payroll...in 2 years they might have develop 5 starting pitchers under this guys criteria..but do they deserve that credit?? youre gonna have to give me some time to figure out how to do this as accurate as possible.. im thinking something along the lines of giving bonus points for developing a mark buehrle because he was a 38th round pick so we got him late and saw something special in him that no one else did and developed it...while a number 1 pick that pans out wouldnt get as many points...but we get bigtime minus points for trading away a number 1 draft pick (kipper) who struggled here but immediately starts living up to his potential after he gets traded...to me thats a big warning sign that maybe we arnt doing enough things right.. geez , i rewote this and its still long...but this sounds like fun so ill gvie it a shot.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted February 1, 2004 Author Share Posted February 1, 2004 I agree that it doesn't get into the depth it probably needs, but I think it gives us enough to go on that the Sox probably aren't much different than other clubs in player development. Some are better, others are worse. I think the Sox will land somewhere in the middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorthsox Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Not sure how you can give the Sox credit for Wells and not give the Yanks credit for Pettite, or the Scrubs credit for Maddux, or the Dodgers credit for Pedro, or the Expos credit for Unit and Vasquez, or the Tribe credit for Colon and Sabathia, and.....and......, and how the hell does Hudson get left off the A's, and didn't Penny pitch in the bigs with the D-backs, and.............as you can see I have lots of issues with that list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted February 1, 2004 Author Share Posted February 1, 2004 I'm sure there are "holes" in the list....... but the pitcher's age was a consideration, hence no Maddux, Johnson, etc. Vazquez should probably be on there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorthsox Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 I'm sure there are "holes" in the list....... but the pitcher's age was a consideration, hence no Maddux, Johnson, etc. Vazquez should probably be on there. Well if age is a consideration then I have more issues with it than before. What is this age limit because I have others I can think of too like Schmidt and Millwood for Atlanta, Morris for St Louis, Garcia for Seattle, Ortiz for San Fran, Washburn for Anaheim, Lowe for Boston................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loaiza21 Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Wasn't Buehrle a 38th round draft pick? If so, then wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted February 1, 2004 Author Share Posted February 1, 2004 Well if age is a consideration then I have more issues with it than before. What is this age limit because I have others I can think of too like Schmidt and Millwood for Atlanta, Morris for St Louis, Garcia for Seattle, Ortiz for San Fran, Washburn for Anaheim, Lowe for Boston................. Like I said before, there may be names left off the list and it looks as if there are.... I don't think evaluating this to the smallest detail is necessary, UNS. Look at the bigger picture and think in generalities just for today, k? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 I think under 30 would be more fair. Leaving out a Tim Hudson because he's 28 doesn't make sense. He's pitched ONLY with A's and not another team. Harden should be on the list as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Expanded, under/equal to 29: Anaheim - Washburn Arizona - Webb Atlanta - Ramirez, Perez Baltimore - Ponson Boston - To some extent Ohka Cubs - Cruz, Prior, Zambrano, Wood White Sox - Buehrle, Wells Cincy - Wagner? Cleveland - Sabathia Colorado - Chacon Detroit - Bonderman, Weaver Florida - Willis, Beckett, Penny, Burnett Houston - Hernandez, Oswalt, Miller, Redding Kansas City - None Los Angeles - Jackson? Milwaukee - Sheets Minnesota - Santana Montreal - Vazquez, Day? Mets - Seo (even though I think he'll bust) Yankees - None Oakland - Mulder, Hudson, Zito, Harden Philadelphia - Padilla, Wolf, Myers Pittsburgh - None San Diego - Perez, Eaton, Larence, Peavy San Francisco - Ainsworth, Williams, Foppert Seattle - Garcia, Piniero St. Louis - Morris Tampa - Kennedy (to some extent...two years ago) Texas - None Toronto - Halladay Now what does this show in terms of producing starting pitchers? It shows what you'd expect: randomness. You have Oakland, San Diego, Houston and Florida with the most amount of good young pitchers. And then everything is between 1-3, yay. This proves close to nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted February 1, 2004 Author Share Posted February 1, 2004 It shows me that the Sox system isn't much different than other teams. They certainly aren't the best, but they aren't the worst in terms of producing Major League players. But you are right that it proves nothing. I also think Garland needs to be on that list, based on others that are there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 I was lurking over at WSI and jeremyb1 started a thread that was similar to our discussion Jeremiyb1 is a QUALITY poster for sure. I though SoxTalk should have made him a 2-year offer when he was briefly a FA to lure him over. If Rex's stolen system is flawed because of its simplicity.....what Baggs has suggested will be just as flawed by the time he figures out the points-for-draft-round-and-minor-league-promotion-year system. Ultimately, I don't give a s*** about who was taken in what round or how many scouts are working in Thailand.....ALL I care about is how many youngsters (under 27yo works for me) helped carry a team through the season. Sox produced Burhle and Wells. When 24yo Garland inevitably breaks the 4.00 ERA mark again (he did in 2001), chalk him up as another Sox product. Rauch, Pacheco, Diaz, Stewart, Wright and Cotts will all have a fairly solid crack at giving us a 4th successful pitching prospect in 4 years. Peavy, Eaton, Bonderman, Ramirez, Fernandez among others BLOW. Brad Penny is border-line. Edwin Jackson needs to throw more than 15 innings. Cubs and Marlins are the only ones who are clearly better developers than us-- but they also had a BUNCH of high picks-- and Wood is about to be ineligible because of age. Edit: forgot about A's of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 It shows me that the Sox system isn't much different than other teams. They certainly aren't the best, but they aren't the worst in terms of producing Major League players. While not as Alvarez-Bere-Jack-Fernandez sharp, I think Sox are probably slightly above average right now. I think Sox suffered greatly back in 2000 when Parque, Sirotka, Barcelo and Rauch succumbed to shoulder injuries they may never recover from. Otherwise, I think 2 of them would have been on the list in the last 2 years. Wright was never the same after that shoulder incident coming into 2003, either. I know injuries happen everywhere, but those 4 were either successful briefly major leaguers or just a few months away from the majors.....not some 19yo A'ers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Yankees - 0 Boston - 0 Toronto - 1 (Halladay) Baltimore - 0 Tampa Bay - 0 Minnesota - 1 (Santana) White Sox - 2 (Buehrle, Wells) Kansas City - 0 Cleveland - 0 Detroit - 0 Oakland - 2 (Mulder, Zito) Seatle - 1 (Pinero) Anaheim - 0 Texas - 0 Atlanta - 2 (Horacio Ramirez, Perez) Florida - 3 (Penny, Willis, Beckett) Phillie - 1 (Padilla) Montreal - 1 (Armas Jr.) Mets - 1 (Seo) Cubs - 3 (Wood, Zambrano, Prior) Astros - 2 (Redding, Oswalt) Cardinals - 0 Pittsburg - 0 Milwaukee - 0 Giants - 0 L.A. - 0 Arizona - 1 (Webb) Padres - 2 (Eaton, Peavy) Man I miss Kip Wells... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 It shows me that the Sox system isn't much different than other teams. They certainly aren't the best, but they aren't the worst in terms of producing Major League players. But you are right that it proves nothing. I also think Garland needs to be on that list, based on others that are there. you have to weight this system this guy uses to draft stratagies..i mean if a team spends a majority of their first 10 picks on pitchers forthree straight seasons and another team spends the majority of its first 10 picks on hitters , and both teams have developed two pitchers that are top quality , they both would be equal...but really the team that went for hitters did a better job... if you want to use this guys pitching stats then our farm system would rate in the cellar overall...because we were in the middle in developing pitching prospects but we have only developed one everyday ballplayer in 4 years now (crede)...before that over a 4 year period , maggs , lee , konerko (i guess we get credit for him) , cameron , singleton now if harris , rowand and olivo develop that will equal things out but right now over the last 4 years i think its pretty obvious the farm system hasnt really delivered on that number 1 rating from 00-01.. these things probably run in cycles but i really find it hard to believe that anyone , fan or sox management , could say they really feel the farm system has been anything but disappointing the last few years... im sure ill be labled negative again but cmon..this farm system right now is not producing.. ps..a real SS prospect more than once every 20 years would be nice too wouldnt you agree??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Rowand looks good. Crede looks good. Burhle and Garland look solid. I have lots of faith in Danny Wright recovering completely from the elbow ailment and becoming a solid BP guy. Olivo has more hitting talent than given credit for. Willie Harris smoked AAA in 2003. Reed is AWESOME. One of Cotts/Rauch/Pacheco/Diaz/Munoz/Stewar/Grillit will surely make an impact this upcoming year. Honel and Wing are not that far away. No, at WORST, Sox are have an AVERAGE farm system. Now that we've gotten over that plague of injuries, and no longer over-promote prospects.....we're probably above average.....even considering that Royce Ring, Anthony Webster and Josh Rupe were lost last year. Certainly FAR from terrible. SO don't ven try to skew the criteria to make the Sox look worse than they really are, Baggs you bad man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 While I think our farm system has always failed to be flashy "Borchard, Rauch", it has produced both solid offense and defense. With our home grown talent and even a small free agent budget, we would be a front runner. You cant expect your farm system to be perfect, but it has put us in a position where if we had any money at all we could fill our holes easily. SB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.