“Aggressive player movement” is a phrase so commonly and casually thrown around in discussions of the St. Louis Cardinals minor league organization over the last few years that it is has become accepted as fact my many.
What does it really mean?
The words denote upward opportunity in the system addressed by promotions of players before more traditional and conservative measures of player evaluation may deem them ready. These openings might occur most often due to others’ injuries or departure from the organization due to poor performance or trades.
The subject came up right here recently in the context of evaluating the reasons why the Cardinals system dropped off in team wins and individual player recognition in 2009. Injuries, trades and aggressive player movement were each offered as theories for the slide in system-wide won-loss records as well as fewer all-star and best-of type selections.
How might player movement be measured?
After some thought and discussion, I am offering a method to determine how aggressive player movements within a season actually were – without undertaking the impossible task of accurately recreating and counting every individual transaction across the entire minor league system over multiple past seasons.
The data and the conclusions to be drawn from the process can either support or refute the perception of player movement having been a substantive factor in the system’s performance in a given year.
There are a finite number of active roster spots on every club. Each season at each level, some number of players suit up. This total will exceed the number of roster spots and system-wide, even the quantity of players under contract. This “double-counting” is entirely due to player movement between levels.
We can understand the comparative volume of player movement during a season simply by totaling the number of players that appeared on each roster up and down the system each year. Differences in the cross-system totals across years illustrate the relative quantity of player movement by season whether up or down.
To that end, I tallied the number of players that collected stats at the top six levels of the Cardinals system each season since 2004. I then calculated the year-to-year differences and the six-year average. With the methodology the same each year, these annual comparisons are completely valid, in my opinion.
Addressing potential questions
Knowing some will question the validity of the data simply because of the conclusions that can be drawn will make them feel uncomfortable, I decided to address several expected objections right up front.
First is the impact of rehab stints. When players from a higher level are in the recovery process from an injury, they often begin their playing return at a lower level of competition. This especially affects the Florida teams as many players that are not a true prospect at that level come and go during the season.
I addressed this by running two sets of numbers. The first includes all players that suited up while the second encompasses only those that saw ten or more games of action at that level. That factors out all those that did not accrue substantial playing time.
I can see why the smaller group might offer the reader a greater level of comfort with the data, but as you will see below, it doesn’t change the relative comparisons or the conclusions.
Here are the numbers:
| Top six levels | 6-Yr Avg | 2009 | YTY | 2008 | YTY | 2007 | YTY | 2006 | YTY | 2005 | YTY | 2004 |
| Players >10 G | 223 | 228 | -8 | 236 | 16 | 220 | 2 | 218 | -9 | 227 | 17 | 210 |
| All players | 294 | 294 | -9 | 303 | 13 | 290 | 17 | 273 | -37 | 310 | 16 | 294 |
Another question might arise regarding the impact of the Cardinals Gulf Coast League affiliate. This creation of this new level in the system, added three seasons ago, might somehow alter the representation of this supposed aggressive player movement, I expect some will claim.
To deal with that potential concern up front, for the three years since the GCL team began, I ran the data for the top seven levels of the system in both flavors, with all players and excluding the under-ten games played subset.
Here are those stats:
| Including GCL | 3-Yr Avg | 2009 | YTY | 2008 | YTY | 2007 |
| Players >10 G | 257 | 256 | -9 | 265 | 15 | 250 |
| All players | 349 | 348 | -4 | 352 | 6 | 346 |
The conclusions remain the same:
- In 2009, in-season player movement across the Cardinals system was LESS aggressive than in 2008, despite the supposed high level of injuries, trades and the like this past season.
- The 2009 level of movement was basically right on the system-wide six-year average (without GCL) and the three-year average since the GCL team began.
- The results do not substantively change when the under-ten games players at each level are removed.
I close with this final observation:
- 2008 was the only recent year in which in-season minor league player movement was significantly higher than average. Yet that was also the year during this period when the Cardinals system posted their best collective won-loss record.
Might that mean more roster churn is good?
Certainly that is not the case unless the players being called upon to step up are actually ready to produce. Despite an average number of in-season moves, the Cardinals system as a whole delivered below-.500 results in 2009.
That is fact.
For me, the amount of player movement is different than the aggressiveness of player movement. I view the aggressiveness as having to do more with the age/years of service relative to the league promoted to. However, I think this is decided just as much are not more by Spring Training and EST decisions on where players start as much as in season movements.
The original discussion which prompted this thread however did use player movement as a reason for several things which this post seems to debunk.
I see your point but believe quantity of moves can also be aggressive or not. Some have argued that more players have been pushed up more often and more rapidly than before. At least during the season, that does not appear to be the case.
The work above was not intended to catch where players start one year vs. where they ended the previous, not is it an analysis of age by level. The latter work has already been done elsewhere, while the former would be a major effort to pull together. I did try to state clearly that the focus here is specifically on in-season player movement.
I could probably chase data for weeks trying to debunk every objection thrown out there, but I will stand on my conclusions and let others present data to refute mine.
I wasn’t arguing that you should try to prove the age/quality question or debunking your data in the least — just pointing out a semantics issue relating to the word “aggressive”.
Understood and thanks for commenting. My response was more expansive for the benefit of other readers, including those who may be joining this ongoing discussion mid-stream.
I question whether 2008′s higher figure could be described as “significantly higher’. More like within the normal small range of fluctuation. The 236 for 2008 is no more removed from the average than was the 210 in 2004. And in any case the fluctuation from average is very near 5%, which strikes me as remarkably stable. If that amount of increased roster churm were significant enough to positively affect system and individual results in 2008, the similar variation from average in 2004 could be expected to have negatively affected system and individual results in that year.
bb, perhaps I was unclear. The final rhetorical question about 2008 was not central to my point. I was not seriously suggesting that 2008 success was driven by a higher level of roster churn.
I was instead poking at the original discussion which spurred me into doing this report. There was a theory presented and defended that injuries, trades and aggressive promotions led to excessive roster churn in 2009 that in turn could explain the downward trends across the system in every measurement compared to 2008.
Those are some of the debunked points to which CC referred.
I get the picture. I had mistakenly thought it was both the up-spike and following down-spike that was analyzed, since 2009 is only notable as compared to 2008. I also follow these debates about the farm system looking for evidence of shifts in policy or ‘prospect management style’. Prior to participating here, my experience looking at the farm system was limited to attending some games going back to the Louisville/Arkansas days.
Brian, just slightly off topic…..okay a lot, but we’re still in the ballpark. How does Dustin Mattison justify picking Adam Reifer as Reliever of the Year for Palm Beach when he lost more games (7) then all but one starter and blew over 10 save opportunities. Not to mention the extremely high era. Adam was a difference maker alright, but for the opposition. So he’s a top prospect, that doesn’t mean he should get the award just handed to him for suiting up. By the looks of things; Blake King was their superior producer in the pen. Is Dustin basing his decisions on prospect status or actual performance on the field? Just curious.
I will ask Dustin to stop by and comment.
Thanks Brian! I’m going off the board again, but I’m just wondering what the word on Jose Martinez is? Will he be ready for spring training? Will he be back at all? I still hold out hope he has a lot of upside and can overcome a bizarre year.
Ax,
Thanks for the question. I respect your opinion and totally agree that Blake King had a great year at Palm Beach. When making my decision, I talk to people in the organization along with others who have seen them in action.
Reifer had a terrible month of May. Four of his seven losses occurred during the month while his ERA was 11. He seemed to turn the corner and in his final 28 appearances, he posted a 3.16 ERA with 22 strikeouts compared to 12 walks. He greatly improved his batting average against, holding opponents to a .219 average during that time.
King did draw major consideration but his 6.87 BB/9 was a statistic that was hard to look past. Overall, I felt that Reifer’s peripherals were just a little better. But that is the great thing about this, everyone has an opinion and the right to express it.
Thanks Dustin
I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question. As for Reifer he still, as a closer had SEVEN loses. How many Blown Saves did he have? Double digit blown saves do not a player of the year make. Pardon the english.
While King may have walked a lot of batters, he also gave up fewer hits per inning pitched by a wide margin over ANYONE else in our system. Blake’s K/9 rate was also vastly superior to Reifer’s. King’s ERA was also a full 2 runs better.
I respectfully disagree with your choice of Reifer and if I were him I would decline your nomination. Frankly, I’d be embarassed to accept because I don’t think my team-mates would agree with it either. Having said that, maybe if you polled his team, they would disagree with me and I would certainly be embarassed.
My friend I think you took the high road to appease the Cardinal baseball gods and/or the fans who may only recognize Adam Reifer’s name from the top prospect list, but that’s just my opinion. It’s always easy to take the safe pick. I’m pretty sure you’d never see Brian do that.
I don’t think the final comment is fair, Axcion. I didn’t study the PB relievers, so I don’t know what I would have done. It is worth noting that the Cardinals sent Reifer, not King, to the Arizona Fall League, though that does not necessarily indicate which had the better season. It may more be an indication of which is considered the better prospect, but even that cannot be proven.
I’m with Ax here. King was by far the superior reliever. Reifer got a bunch of saves but I believe he also blew quite a few also. Other than that, King is better almost across the board stat wise. I don’t have the breakout but his relief stats were actually better than his overall stats as he struggled in his starts. I actually would have given it to either Freeman or Mulligan since that is where they pitched the most this season.
I meant to add this above but I don’t think trends should be given much weight in a yearly award. Does it matter if a player was good and got worse or was bad and got better when looking at a season long award? I think for prospect status it is relevant but that’s not what this is supposedly about.
CC, Luhnow doesn’t need any more noise from the ’05 draft clouding up the view of his more recent succeses. Stats can be gotten around.
You are right Brian, I do apologize. I had no right to assume your judgment, although in my defense I’ve come to trust your unbias approach. Like everyone else I can agree or disagree that’s the way it is. If you think I’m wrong, I know all too well you’ll tell me so.
To me Dustin’s picks defied performance. Was Pete Parise better than Jess Todd at Memphis? God no! Not even close! (Same with King/Reifer.) Besides I thought you had a rule that the pitcher could only win in the league where he pitched the most innings. I could very well be wrong on that. It’s the same with David Carpenter, he was maybe the forth best reliever on his team. I just don’t agree with picking the Closer De Jour just because he holds that position at seasons end. Shouldn’t it be based on effectiveness/performance, not on prospect ranking. Just my opinion and maybe CC’s. There I go again.
Okay, let me have it; both barrels!
Apology accepted, but it was not necessary to me. Yes, the guideline I set is that the player is eligible at the level at which he pitched the most innings or accrued the most at-bats.
Just my opinion Boss, but I think it dampens the integrity of what you’re trying to do. I apologize to Dustin for reigning on his parade, however, your website is well respected by the fans in the know (that is how they get to be that way of course) and I feel that you may be doing a disservice to yourselves by not being totally unbiased in your assessments (and I don’t mean you). Many fans will take what your people say as being gospel. Some like myself, follow the minor leagues closely during the season (yes even when I was employed) and in my opinion, some of the selections were misleading to the fans. Again I feel that some were selected on prospect status and not performance. I could very well be wrong, but I feel the spirit of what you’re doing was to reveal top performers on each team. That in itself is hard to do when the better players get promoted during the season. Where’s the reward for Casey Mulligan who was almost untouchable at 3 levels?
Hey everyone makes mistakes. Take me for example; I shouldn’t have hijacked your post to discuss this matter. As a former manager I know I should have handled this off the record in personal emails so as to avoid any embarassment. However, hindsight doesn’t help now.
As an editor, what would demonstrate greater integrity – telling a writer what to write or allowing him to make his own decisions, while being available for advice?
Using any thread here to discuss anything is fine with me. The prospect status vs. performance point has been made with enough emphasis though.
Good point. Live and learn. That’s why you are the sagacious guru at the top of the mountain.
In re-reading this thread, I realize I didn’t answer the Jose Martinez question. It looked like he was going to play winter ball back in Venezuela, but now that is in question. That is something he almost always has done and would seem a logical step to get back into playing shape after having missed the entire season. Watch the Winter Leagues Notebook at the main The Cardinal Nation site for updates on Martinez. It would not be a good sign if he doesn’t play.
Geez Louise, Anxcion. Hard to understand the discontent your having over the award Not to mention there is nothing really the complaining can change. I know your =entitled to your very strong opinion, but sometimes it is as if you are beating a dead horse…
King did not fair very well when he got brought up to Springfield. No stats necessary, (I’am sure you know) and as of yesterday, Reifer is struggling in the Arizona League.
How about a little positive stuff from your brillant mind instead of the negative.
That would be pretty sad if he doesn’t overcome his trials Brian. I was a big believer that he would be a very capable major leaguer. To me he was a selfless player. He understood the importance of scoring the run over padding the batting average. I think he had an excellent grasp of situational hitting. I just saw him as an under-rated talent who was about to blossom.
I think I recall he was trying to bring his immediate family to America. Do you know if he was able to do that? I get the feeling that if he walks away from his talent it will be because of safety concerns for his wife and child.
You know I love the underdogs Brian and this kid to me is number 1 on the radar for prospects I want to see in a Cardinal uniform.
Bologna 4 me; I won’t beat a dead horse here other than to say constructive criticism can be a good thing too. I thought it a pertinent view to share. While I’m convinced Brian may have been a little POed with my apparant over-emphasis, I’m just as sure he welcomes the feedback. If there is one thing I’m sure of is Brian’s professional integrity and his almost Pujols like perfectionism. I guarantee Brian has discussed the validity (or lack there of) of my comments with that writer. If he told him that I’m full of boloney (no offense), so be it.
I was a little confused over why certain choices were made because they didn’t seem to be consistent to whether it was about recognizing the top players or the top prospects. In my opinion I thought Josh Jones did a tremendous job identifying the top performers in the DSL and VSL.
I know you were probably being facetious with the “brilliant mind” comment, but that’s okay. I hardly can claim to be at that level. I consider myself a good analyst and an overall astute person, but nothing grandiose past that. Oh, and a big fan of the Cardinal organization. However, I have taken note that my unemployed state has turned me into a bitter ole fart. i will endeavor to give you more positive reading material in the future and I thank you for your feedback!