Questioning reasons assigned to focus areas for the St. Louis Cardinals minor league system.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch Cardinals beat writer Joe Strauss’ weekly Q&A sessions cover a wide variety of team-related topics and are a must-read for the team’s fans.
When the subject of the minor leagues come up, however, sometimes I feel that cause and effect relationships are being drawn in what appears to be an absolute manner about subjects that are more complex than can be neatly summarized in a few sentences.
Here is one such example.
“…Rather than remaining transfixed on minor-league records (the Cardinals led the industry in minor-league win percentage last season), greater emphasis will be placed on development…”
Is this supposed problem statement accurate and is its proposed resolution an appropriate pairing?
Is the fundamental problem a lack of focus on development or a lack of coordination between the preferred teaching approaches of the major and minor league staffs? The latter definitely seemed the case in the pitching area as the ongoing disconnect between Dave Duncan and the minor league instructors received continued heavy public scrutiny.
It seems an unwarranted attack on the professionals across the minor league system to imply they were single-mindedly focused on winning at the expense of developing their players. I spent time with most of the Cardinals minor league affiliates this summer and did not see evidence of this alleged fixation.
In fact, I don’t think I could define the set of actions in the real world that would illustrate this concept. Would it mean stacking rosters? Starting the best players every day? Not messing with the approach of players who are doing well? Signing large quantities of minor league veterans? Exactly what would an all-out focus on winning actually mean? If someone sent out a memo to that effect, I would love to read what it says.
It is rumored there will be a return of two important positions that have been open in the Minor League Field Coordinator, last filled by Jim Riggleman three years ago and Hitting Coordinator, previously held by Dan Radison in 2009. That is a positive, but should one leap to the conclusion that it will be done to reverse a supposed past over-emphasis on winning?
From the outside looking in, it indicates the organization can be damned either way. In the recent past, they were viewed as rushing players, promoting them before they are viewed to be ready for the next level. In 2010, they seemed to slow down the process, leaving players in place longer and in some cases, reversing promotions that proved to be too aggressive. An increased level of roster stability may have been a factor in improved won-loss records.
A later question in the same session allowed Strauss to zero in on what I believe is a more likely explanation than a supposed fixation on won-loss attainment. But even that was not presented without further drawing of unsupported conclusions as to why.
“Critics of recent Cardinal drafts note a lack of size (power) and athleticism (speed) due to a stats-based approach. My sense is there is an approaching adjustment away from “safe” picks who may reach the majors as complementary types toward higher-risk, higher-impact guys. At some point, the organization’s enhanced commitment within Latin America should reap dividends.”
The lack of size and athleticism seems a fair observation, but how do we know the reason is because of the use of stats?
Precisely who are these alleged critics and where did they say this?
Don’t the higher-risk, higher-impact guys have good stats, too?
Such comments as the above seem to reinforce the tired, old “one way or the other” arguments of scouts versus stats of five or six years ago rather than an acknowledgment of today’s reliance on a blend of the two – an approach that is commonplace across all of baseball, not just in St. Louis.
The second sentence in the above quote is what I believe may be a key factor behind the earlier comment regarding the minor league records.
A system heavy with “safe” picks may very well be a reason the minor league results have improved. The downside, of course, is fewer of these players are viewed to be future impact major leaguers. This is a quantity versus quality question that I think may have merit.
Just this week, I spoke with a minor league manager on this very subject. When I complimented him on a fine season, he reminded me of the overriding importance of player development. He then recalled a team he once managed that posted a terrible won-loss record, but ended up producing five future major leaguers.
It seems unlikely there is a single reason behind this quantity versus quality question, however. It is easy to point an accusatory finger at the “stat geeks” but the issue could have just as likely been a reluctance to invest the necessary over slot signing bonuses demanded by the top players in the draft. Critics of the system usually trot out the 2007 first-round draft selection of relatively-inexpensive Pete Kozma over big-bucks, big talent Rick Porcello to drive home this point.
As was also touched on ever-so-briefly in the excerpted answer above, the increased investment in Latin America must be considered in the overall picture. With a finite amount of financial resource, tradeoffs have to be made. If more money is spent in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela, it only stands to reason there will be less to allocate on the US amateur draft.
To that end, I am currently working on writing up The Cardinal Nation’s annual awards across the Cardinals minor league system. Among them are three awards for the rookie Starting Pitcher, Reliever and Position Player of the Year. Two of the three winners are graduates of the overseas academies, playing their first seasons in the USA, while only one is a member of the 2010 draft class.
In conclusion, I don’t disagree with much of what Strauss was getting at, but I do question where, why and how firmly the blame is being attached. I believe there is combination of many factors that must be adjusted and fine-tuned together to enable system-wide improvement across the board.
Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.
The Kozma/Porcello topic has gotten misunderstood. Lots of teams passed on Porcello, not just the Cards, thus there were downsides to drafting Porcello in the eyes of lots of teams. Second, Porcello had a fine rookie season, but spent some time back in the minors this year. Third, Kozma was not a “safe” choice, because the success rate for SSes who turn pro from high school is ominously low. Rather with Kozma (07) and Greene (05), the Cards were stocking up, because SS is an important position.
It can probably be generally said that the Cards have tended to favor signing “high floor” amateur ballplayers versus raw talent with higher ceiling. The Phillies have been one of the best NL teams on amateur recruitment, through the years, and have turned up a couple of hot prospects at low rounds in Brown and Singleton, so it can be done. But the Cards have been making some similar bets like Pham, Swinson, Hill, among others.
2010 was about the first year there were promising performances among some Dominican and Venezuelan signees at low rungs in the States. They may be finally turning the corner on the international talent.
I pretty much agree.
I am generally disappointed by our continued “high floor” approach but I do not believe we had such strong minor league results (from a W-L perspective) because of some organizational focus on winning over development. I agree that that would have to come in the form of evidence such as minor league free agents, other veterans, and even players playing down levels just to have better results.
Although…even thought I don’t believe we are doing that, I wouldn’t put it past us to do that. We seem abnormally affected by outside perception. Luhnow’s sad little spat with Keith Law is more than enough evidence of that.
Despite improved system depth from top to bottom and improved upside in the lower minors we still have only a couple non-relievers who profile, with any probability, as above average regulars. In other words, we might have 30+ players Sickels would call “C prospects”.
For every one Tommy Pham we roll the dice on, Philly seems to place six similar bets.
From a financial perspective, Detroit committing $10M to Porcello, of which over $7M was guaranteed and a major league contract, made Kozma’s $1M minor league deal from the Cards look like a very safe move in comparison. Both were high schoolers so I agree with you that from a readiness view, neither would be considered safe, though Porcello was considered by most to be much closer (which he turned out to be).
I rehashed that old subject as an example of why I felt it was an oversimplification to place blame on stats guys for the perceived dearth of high-end talent in the system, done without even mentioning money.
Amateur stats tend to be information to consider for collegiates. High school stats would be more uncertain in terms of predicting of pro success, for a variety of reasons. The stats vs. tools debate is tired.
Ceiling probably deserves more consideration by the Cards, since they have stocked the minor league system pretty well. “Quality” is important within baseball. Millions of dollars are invested in pursuit of small advantages, as in bonusing a pitcher who throws one or two mph faster than the average guy.
The Cards seem better at picking places to invest more bonus money. Shelby Miller is an example, with Mo giving him about $1MM more than his draft position would expect.
There have been cases of the Cards gambling on good college hitting stats, when there are defensive fit questions. Steven Hill or Alan Ahmady seem examples. If Hill can develop into a catcher, he has enough bat. If Ahmady could shift to 3B, he might have enough. Neither guy has a great chance at 1B, because undersized for the position. Some ML teams would not have drafted Shane Robinson, since on the small size even for CF. The Cards gamble on short RHPs like Gorgen. If a man truly has a huge arm, his height does not matter, but if he does not….
It is possible the Cards need to put a little more weight on pitcher health. McCormick (1S-05) fell in the draft and ultimately had shoulder problems that ended his career. Bittle (4-09) needed an operation. Lyons (9-10) too. This may come about if the Cards try to find “good value” in the draft. They may gobble up a few guys who other teams have backed off on, because of health questions.
The Cards’ minor-league teams skewed young at every level, so I agree w. Brian’s point: this would argue against the Cards making a conscious attempt to win in the minors at the expense of player development.
However, I do agree w. Strauss’ point for a different reason: winning in the minors does seem related to the reliance on statistical models when drafting. My guess is that the stats allow the Cards to find productive players in the late rounds. Do they draft those guys instead of higher-ceiling guys who don’t make the spreadsheets swoon? Only the people in the room on draft day would know that.
Just this year, guys like Cody Stanley and Greg Garcia were highly rated by at least one site that ranks prospects by stats. And they both did fine for first-year players.
I don’t think it’s a crippling problem, as long as there’s a balance of high-upside guys, which this draft seems to include.
The stats stuff may be linked with holding tryout camps around the country near to the draft. Get a bunch of guys with good college stats together and take a look at them. This could explain Matt Adams. He racked up stats at a Division 2 or 3 school in the north and went to a camp hosted by the Cards.
Collegiate data-mining discoveries, like Luke Gregerson, are going to tend to be most helpful for hunting in rounds 6 to 50. Data analysis seems less help in making decisions in rounds 1 to 5, among the best known amateurs.
One example of a questionable management decision was UCLA’s Jermaine Curtis in the 5th round in 2008. Curtis played 3B in college, but was known to not have the arm for the position. Ok. But its hard to reach the majors at 2B unless you can either swing left, steal some bases, or offer an occasional homer. Curtis is not a base-stealer, hits singles, swings right. With these characteristics, his chances of reaching the majors are really tough and a mere fan (me) can guess this on draft day. The ranking process of the Cards needs to favor higher ceiling alternatives, even if they have lower floors.
easton714 — Can you elaborate on the Luhnow-Keith Law spat you referred to? What was that about?
HBT, Law used to work for the Blue Jays. Before the 2007 draft, there were rumors the Jays were thinking of Kozma in the first round. Law was on an MLB show covering the draft. He probably had all sorts of negative ideas in his mind ready to bash the Jays’ selection of Kozma. When the Cards took Kozma first, Law unloaded in inappropriate ways given his role in helping MLB’s coverage. He argued the Cards made a mistake and Kozma did not have enough upside to justify first round selection. A reporter can write this on his own blog, but its not apt to do this when part of MLB’s coverage. Also its inappropriate to pre-judge an elite amateur’s potential years off. Law was probably primed to bash his former employer, the Jays, and ended up taking it out on Kozma.
HB, I am not familiar with the Kozma story that Jumbo shared, but I believe this post explains the situation to which easton referred and about which you asked.
Law works for ESPN and in late January ranked the Cardinals farm system nearly at the bottom, 29th of 30.
Luhnow’s reply, delivered via a Joe Strauss article if I recall correctly (it seems the P-D has taken down the article), included this statement: “I’ll put our analysis up against Keith Law’s all day long and after five minutes the debate will be over.” Luhnow instead saw his system in the middle of the pack and noted his staff looks at players differently.
Law’s retort: “Yes. Now we know: Not only do the Cardinals need better prospects, they need better analysts too.”
I recall the 2007 context well enought. It is probably the back story for the latest Luhnow-Law exchange during 2010.
During MLB’s coverage of the 07 draft, Law disparaged the selection of Kozma, on air, as it happenned. The draft is generally intended to celebrate young men, whose eventual career luck and performance are then unknown. It was bad taste by Keith and a lot of fans were mad at the time, on behalf of Kozma.
Law’s comments must have put Luhnow under unexpected pressure during the midst of the07 draft to issue statements to reassure fans. The Cards initially compared Kozma to their former draftee Jack Wllson. Since Wilson was a 9th round find, this did not inspire Cards media and fans enough. Within an hour or two, Luhnow was next comparing Kozma to Nomar, an offensively oriented SS who placed high in the draft, coming out of Georgia Tech. Nomar became the draft day “comp” to try to reassure the fan base.
Nomar was not a terrific comp, because a high floor and high ceiling prospect at the time of turning pro. Kozma was more of a mid-floor, mid-ceiling prospect, since coming out of HS and not having Garciaparra’s power. I can understand how Luhnow felt pressure to justify the choice on draft day, first because few had been anticipating Kozma and owing to Law’s disparagement of the choice. The Cards were probably taken aback that MLB’s own show launched a surprise attack on their top pick.
Brian & Jumbo, thanks for the info on the Luhnow-Law issue. I went Googling and found the quotes Brian cited, in fact, was just about to post them.
I share Brian’s assessment on the weekly Strauss chats. They are must reading for Cards fans.
However, it’s always a useful exercise to try to understand the point of view/bias of a writer. After a limited time reading at the Post, it’s fairly obvious to me that schisms in the Cards organization centered on Jeff Luhnow are mirrored in some of the P-D writers. Joe Strauss is solidly in the anti-Luhnow camp while Jeff Gordon appears to be Mr. Luhnow’s amanuensis.
That sheds light on the points Brian made earlier today in his article.
Jumbo & Brian — Good reasons why Keith Law is not likely to be found on Jeff Luhnow’s friends list on Facebook!
amanuensis?????????????? Gordon sometimes tries to stay relevant, by talking to folks trapped on both sides of the river. ( Styx ) There are two sides to every (dollar) it would seem.
On the 2010 Luhnow-Law exchange………
Rankings of the prospects within organizations is going to use simple grounds, such as how many players qualify as among the best 100 prospects within the minor leagues. There is not some fortune-teller and Supercomputer that figured out years ago that 2010 would be when a 32 year old Torres sends Rowand to the bench.
Back circa 1998, the Cards had the hottest prospects in the game in Ankiel and Drew, so the Cards would have scored high. Right now, Shelby Miller has been the best in the stable though still some years away. The Cards do not have a handful of high profile prospects that would give grounds to reporters to move them up by the crude metric of team rankings. I dont have any problem with Law putting the Cards 29th.
Its possible Luhnow knew there were some unheralded players who could emerge during 2010, such as Oscar Tavares. This would give grounds for him to object. He also knows fans want him to object, so will anyway.
I thought Law was right and still do. We need better prospects and better analysts. Luhnow seemed to be in la-la land as to how our system stacks up. He has since been downsized. I would think Mo and Bill agreed more with Law than Luhnow.
I have read/heard that Kansas City’s system is stacked pretty good. Did they spend more? Do the Rays spend more? I’m not convinced more money is the answer.
bling, Luhnow is Bill’s man, whereas Keith Law is not.
The Royals have drafted very high, as did the Rays. The system is designed to help out bottom dwellers.
The Red Sox and Tigers may be better examples for the Cards than Royals and Rays. The Sox and Tigers invest aggressively, though they tend to pick toward the bottom of rounds. To compete well on a long term basis, the Cards need to do creative things, like they have done the past two years with Cox and Miller.
Some nice writing here Brian. I’m guessing your questions are somewhat rhetorical……
Most parasites anesthetize their hosts…………. is that done out of courtesy, or necessity? It wouldn’t take much imagination to imagine that “”control” of as many parameters as possible creates the most profit. Control of your ML roster becomes much more expensive and unstable when you have kids breaking down the doors of your carefully marketed and managed “product”.
Cardinals have traded most of there interesting prospect to avoid paying for the talent that they do bring in………….avoiding the FA market like the plague……………
Example…………..what would it look like right now, if the Cardinals hand two speed guys up front opening up 1st base for AP……..often…….. or showing up his preferred” speed of game”.
What would having some speed make the rest of your chumps look like………….. public would be clamoring for athletes………….. ouch! Colby has some step……..doesn’t steel a base……..how can that be…….someone afraid he might be too frail…….injury prone? Making the depth question more severe………….. ……………….. something is feeding here, public doesn’t feel a thing…….the affected areas growing more ugly by the day……………
Anthony Reyes is a free agent. Stop the presses.
The hiring of Sandy Alderson reminds me when with the Padres, Alderson tried to end payments to Khalil Greene on grounds that since he intentionally injured himself, Khalil did not deserve to be paid. In the long run, the Mets helped themselves greatly by recruiting Alderson.
Anthony Reyes had a 4.15 ERA in Rookie ball for Cleveland this year (2 starts) and a 25.41 ERA in AA ball (3 starts). He might be done. But who can forget his effort in game 1 of the WS in 2006. The following two paragraphs from Wiki.
Two rookies faced off in Game 1 for the first time in history: Anthony Reyes for St. Louis and Justin Verlander for Detroit. It looked like the Tigers were going to get to Reyes early in the bottom of the first, when Craig Monroe doubled and Magglio Ordóñez walked. Carlos Guillén singled Monroe in, giving the Tigers a 1–0 lead. However in the top of the second, Scott Rolen hit a long home run to left field, tying the score at 1–1. Rolen was 0-for-15 in his career in the World Series before hitting the home run. The previous mark had been 0-for-13, set by Benny Kauff of the New York Giants in the 1917 World Series. In the third inning the Cards broke through, first when Chris Duncan’s RBI double scored Yadier Molina to give the Cardinals the lead. On Verlander’s next pitch, 2005 National League MVP Albert Pujols banged a two-run home run, punishing the rookie who elected to pitch to the dangerous Pujols, rather than walk him with first base open and two outs and pitch to Jim Edmonds.
Meanwhile, Anthony Reyes was the story. The pitcher who had the fewest regular season wins of a Game 1 World Series starter (5) and retired seventeen in a row from the first inning to the sixth inning, a World Series record for a rookie. The previous record was thirteen (John Stuper, STL, 1982, and Dickie Kerr, CHW, 1919). Reyes’ final line was eight-plus innings, four hits, two runs, and four strikeouts. The Cards took advantage of Detroit’s mistakes again in the sixth, when Brandon Inge made two errors in one play. With runners on second and third, Inge threw to home wild to score a run and then obstructed Scott Rolen, who was running home, to score another run. Craig Monroe hit a solo home run off Reyes in the bottom of the ninth, which led to Reyes being pulled from the game, as Braden Looper came in to finish the game. The final score was 7–2 Cardinals, marking the first time since 2003 that the National League had won a World Series game, and the first World Series game won by St. Louis since Game 5 of the 1987 World Series.
hi 57………..welcome back…………
1. Strauss is so biased and dug in with his preconceived notions on this subject I don’t know if he is a source worth acknowledging on this subject.
2. Not sure that Strauss has ever shown one piece of evidence to show that the Cards have sacrificed development for winning in the minor leagues.
3. Brian, the higher risk guys do not have the same stats (once adjusted). As Jumbo points out, HS stats are less reliable. The Cards have also invested somewhat in small college guys with eye popping stats who are not as good of athletes as some playing at big name schools.
4. Brian, was the minor league manager implying (or siad directly) that this year’s winning team unlikely had few major leaguers?
5. The Cards (since the Porcello/Kozma mistake) have shown a willingness to go over slot for first round/ sandwich picks but not much deeper than that. Many teams drafted HS players in rounds 3-10 and have gone significantly over slot (with even first round $$) to induce those players to bypass college. The Cards have seldom done this recently and not with 1st/2nd round talents.
6. The Latin American investment question is debatable. The Cards have upgraded their facilities and their scouting but as far as signing top talent their record is spotty. They signed De La Cruz in 2008 as well as several other 2nd tier players but in 2009 they only signed Mateo (who had his contract canceled) and later in the year one $400K player. In 2010 it appears that Martinez may be the only significant signing. One top player a year with no 2nd tier player sis not going to cut it. And while the Cards leapfrogged some organizations when they started investing more in LA it appears many of those orgs and others have now repassed the Cards. Even the Reds and Walt are out shining us in LA and the Cubs are probably our equal there as well as eating our lunch in Asia.
7. HBTex – I’ll bet Luhnow and Law follow each other on Twitter though!
8. bb – It is unclear if Luhnow has been downsized. In any case, for this discussion which relates to talent infusion, he may have been upsized.
CC and all, thanks for the comments.
1. Because Strauss is the beat writer and therefore well-connected, some sizable segment of the fan base accept as fact his opinions delivered via these Q&A sessions. Then again, he isn’t making this stuff up. Sometimes I feel someone needs to comment.
4. I don’t get the feeling that the manager was necessarily passing judgment on his roster.
Good god CC, you may be right about Luhnow. I can’t help thinking that the demise of instructs relates in some way. Never has been a satisfactory explaination about it.
The integrity, or should I say the assumption of integrity, of the delicate scales of talent evaluation you all seem to be talking about, could probably use a more complete inspection. Somebody has taped a lead slug to the bottom of one of the trays…………….and someone has been complaining about it for a few years now…………………………… this isn’t even about baseball………….its about profiting and market definition. Its going to get ugly……
Lozano isn’t going to go down like Holiday?Boras…………if there is a collusion, he is going to leave scratch marks……… agents are always having private conversations with GM’s and owners…………away from the ears of their clients………….he likely has figured out that BD has a plan………….and very likely “intelligence” surrounding his intentions………………Dave is set, Tony is going to squeal like a piggy if the Cardinals don’t make some moves ahead of the AP negotiations……….. the detente is broken.
Strauss isn’t ‘well connected’ because he’s a great sports journalist. He may be, but his well connectedness exists because Bill/Mo allow it to be so. A flick of the wrist, the thumb points down instead of up, the connections dessolve. A beat reporter without connectedness needs a new job.
So why does a “sizable segment of the fan base accept as fact his opinions’? That’s where being a good sports journalist comes in.
Strauss seems to be well connected to the field staff and players, but has worried aloud about being put on the ‘enemies list’ of the front office types.