BaseballAmerica: Kelley Draws Rave Reviews from Instructs

[Chicago White Sox]

3 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Going to be some tough decisions. As of now I have this: 

High-A Winston-Salem: 

OF: Bryce Bush, Duke Ellis, AJ Gill, Jon Allen. 

INF: Sam Abbott, Luis Curbelo, Yolbert Sanchez, Lenyn Sosa

Catcher: 

I’m guessing your post didn’t finish, but Bush & Sosa seem all but a certainty for High A given the backlog of prospects in need of full season reps. With Curbelo now 23, it’s pretty much boom or bust time for him, so High A seem pretty likely.

Regarding Abbott, are you guessing he goes to High A because he’s further along than Mendoza (I’m guessing not) or simply because he’s more expandable?  Both are roughly the same age, so that shouldn’t be much of a consideration.  I’d think Mendoza is the better regarded prospect, but that’s mostly based on their stat lines.

[bmags]

12 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I’m guessing your post didn’t finish, but Bush & Sosa seem all but a certainty for High A given the backlog of prospects in need of full season reps. With Curbelo now 23, it’s pretty much boom or bust time for him, so High A seem pretty likely.

Regarding Abbott, are you guessing he goes to High A because he’s further along than Mendoza (I’m guessing not) or simply because he’s more expandable?  Both are roughly the same age, so that shouldn’t be much of a consideration.  I’d think Mendoza is the better regarded prospect, but that’s mostly based on their stat lines.

They’ll probably have 5 inf for four spots and rotate DH. They’ve been less full time for OFers and been ok rotating them in past so that’s my guess here too

[Y2Jimmy0]

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I’m guessing your post didn’t finish, but Bush & Sosa seem all but a certainty for High A given the backlog of prospects in need of full season reps. With Curbelo now 23, it’s pretty much boom or bust time for him, so High A seem pretty likely.

Regarding Abbott, are you guessing he goes to High A because he’s further along than Mendoza (I’m guessing not) or simply because he’s more expandable?  Both are roughly the same age, so that shouldn’t be much of a consideration.  I’d think Mendoza is the better regarded prospect, but that’s mostly based on their stat lines.

Well I think one of Gladney/Ramos probably plays some 1B and they like Tyler Osik too. 

[bmags]

On 1/2/2021 at 1:49 PM, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Well I think one of Gladney/Ramos probably plays some 1B and they like Tyler Osik too. 

Hey I was hoping to get your opinion on something. STarted it on twitter but I think we weren't on the same page and didn' want to waste time trying to do it on the character limits.

You've mentioned a few times that sox should add a second AZL team for the obvious player crunch affecting them.

I was wondering if the Schaumburg experience, and seeming success of both developing and preparing the players in it for actual baseball, gives sox confidence in just having a bunch of guys in Arizona complex playing in structured backfields games without being in a league can still prepare them.

It seemed like Astros execs, now all gone, were starting to push the idea of game reps not being the primary development strategy. 

The Schaumburg complex doesn't seem like it was a failure, but did it succeed due to the allowing younger prospects mix it up with older ones in a controlled enviornment where they aren't getting crushed byt he eyeballs, or is that semi-structured backyard play as good as game experience.

I don't know, I think game reps are super important for the slog of the long season and learning how to learn how to counter new ways pitchers attack (and vice versa), but I do wonder if they cut the minor league season in half, and just did the second half in a big complex mixing age and prep levels if it isn't as good or better way of doing things.

[Dominikk85]

11 minutes ago, bmags said:

Hey I was hoping to get your opinion on something. STarted it on twitter but I think we weren't on the same page and didn' want to waste time trying to do it on the character limits.

You've mentioned a few times that sox should add a second AZL team for the obvious player crunch affecting them.

I was wondering if the Schaumburg experience, and seeming success of both developing and preparing the players in it for actual baseball, gives sox confidence in just having a bunch of guys in Arizona complex playing in structured backfields games without being in a league can still prepare them.

It seemed like Astros execs, now all gone, were starting to push the idea of game reps not being the primary development strategy. 

The Schaumburg complex doesn't seem like it was a failure, but did it succeed due to the allowing younger prospects mix it up with older ones in a controlled enviornment where they aren't getting crushed byt he eyeballs, or is that semi-structured backyard play as good as game experience.

I don't know, I think game reps are super important for the slog of the long season and learning how to learn how to counter new ways pitchers attack (and vice versa), but I do wonder if they cut the minor league season in half, and just did the second half in a big complex mixing age and prep levels if it isn't as good or better way of doing things.

I think the future will show this. There is thinking in the game that less games and more training complimented with semi game action like live ABs is a more efficient way to develope players.

 

My thinking is that this is true for very raw players as you can work more specifically on weaknesses (mechanics, physical, approach) by for example telling a pitcher to attack a weakness of a hitter so he gets more practice in that but the more advanced a prospect is the more he needs game action as there is only so much you can improve by training and some stuff can't really be replicated in sim games, especially the mental aspect. Also sim games have the disadvantage of facing the same pitchers and hitters all the time and maybe pitchers not throwing you inside as they don't want to hurt someone.

On the other hand for a more raw prospect it can be great to do a live AB, then you take him to video, analyze a weakness, do a few mechanics drills and then practice what you just learned in another couple live at bats.

I think we won't have a real answer until in a couple years. Also we will see how alternate site prospects are doing this season.

[ptatc]

13 minutes ago, Dominikk85 said:

I think the future will show this. There is thinking in the game that less games and more training complimented with semi game action like live ABs is a more efficient way to develope players.

 

My thinking is that this is true for very raw players as you can work more specifically on weaknesses (mechanics, physical, approach) by for example telling a pitcher to attack a weakness of a hitter so he gets more practice in that but the more advanced a prospect is the more he needs game action as there is only so much you can improve by training and some stuff can't really be replicated in sim games, especially the mental aspect. Also sim games have the disadvantage of facing the same pitchers and hitters all the time and maybe pitchers not throwing you inside as they don't want to hurt someone.

On the other hand for a more raw prospect it can be great to do a live AB, then you take him to video, analyze a weakness, do a few mechanics drills and then practice what you just learned in another couple live at bats.

I think we won't have a real answer until in a couple years. Also we will see how alternate site prospects are doing this season.

Some of this depends on how the organization values winning in the minors. I've worked in some that valued the players winning and winning as a group as they climb levels. Others value individual development regardless of game outcome. 

[bmags]

32 minutes ago, Dominikk85 said:

I think the future will show this. There is thinking in the game that less games and more training complimented with semi game action like live ABs is a more efficient way to develope players.

 

My thinking is that this is true for very raw players as you can work more specifically on weaknesses (mechanics, physical, approach) by for example telling a pitcher to attack a weakness of a hitter so he gets more practice in that but the more advanced a prospect is the more he needs game action as there is only so much you can improve by training and some stuff can't really be replicated in sim games, especially the mental aspect. Also sim games have the disadvantage of facing the same pitchers and hitters all the time and maybe pitchers not throwing you inside as they don't want to hurt someone.

On the other hand for a more raw prospect it can be great to do a live AB, then you take him to video, analyze a weakness, do a few mechanics drills and then practice what you just learned in another couple live at bats.

I think we won't have a real answer until in a couple years. Also we will see how alternate site prospects are doing this season.

Yeah. I don't think no games is the correct way. But I think there is too much emphasis on getting players ready for the grind. It's really hard for players to make changes mid season in the majors, but I don't know that that should be the case in the minors. Wouldn't it me better ot maybe just have a first half / second half with a 3 week gap in between to try and allow players to breathe and work on something and carry it forward right into games?

I think it is interesting though, whether younger guys can be developed best by a more semi game action approach like you said, and then get them ready for majors against polished players in AAA. Maybe its reversed where getting them in good game habits right away, then when they've identiifed weaknesses, working in a dedicated arena before they go to majors against the best of the rest of the farm.

[Dominikk85]

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

Some of this depends on how the organization values winning in the minors. I've worked in some that valued the players winning and winning as a group as they climb levels. Others value individual development regardless of game outcome. 

I think both has its advantages.

Really developing tools is very important and if you are a "gamer" and throw 85 that is not getting you very far.

But I also some believe learning to win and learning the game is important and since kids nowadays focus on metrics like 60 yards and exit velo since age 12 there are many kids with good tools who don't know how to play.

Probably needs both

[Harold's Leg Lift]

2 hours ago, bmags said:

Hey I was hoping to get your opinion on something. STarted it on twitter but I think we weren't on the same page and didn' want to waste time trying to do it on the character limits.

You've mentioned a few times that sox should add a second AZL team for the obvious player crunch affecting them.

It doesn't sound like MLB is going to allow organizations to have 2 complex teams.  It goes away from the purpose of contracting the minor leagues. Organizations will be allowed 6 minor league teams ( AAA, AA, A+, A-, Complex, DSL) and 180 players.  It hasn't been approved yet but that's the immediate goal.  

[Y2Jimmy0]

33 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

It doesn't sound like MLB is going to allow organizations to have 2 complex teams.  It goes away from the purpose of contracting the minor leagues. Organizations will be allowed 6 minor league teams ( AAA, AA, A+, A-, Complex, DSL) and 180 players.  It hasn't been approved yet but that's the immediate goal.  

This is correct. The players in the DSL don't count against the 180 though. 

[Harold's Leg Lift]

4 hours ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

This is correct. The players in the DSL don't count against the 180 though. 

Huh. I was led to believe they did.  Maybe they will allow 2 complex teams.  That would definitely be a good thing.  

[Squirmin' for Yermin]

Hoping we really hang on to Kelley

[Y2Jimmy0]

23 hours ago, bmags said:

Hey I was hoping to get your opinion on something. STarted it on twitter but I think we weren't on the same page and didn' want to waste time trying to do it on the character limits.

You've mentioned a few times that sox should add a second AZL team for the obvious player crunch affecting them.

I was wondering if the Schaumburg experience, and seeming success of both developing and preparing the players in it for actual baseball, gives sox confidence in just having a bunch of guys in Arizona complex playing in structured backfields games without being in a league can still prepare them.

It seemed like Astros execs, now all gone, were starting to push the idea of game reps not being the primary development strategy. 

The Schaumburg complex doesn't seem like it was a failure, but did it succeed due to the allowing younger prospects mix it up with older ones in a controlled enviornment where they aren't getting crushed byt he eyeballs, or is that semi-structured backyard play as good as game experience.

I don't know, I think game reps are super important for the slog of the long season and learning how to learn how to counter new ways pitchers attack (and vice versa), but I do wonder if they cut the minor league season in half, and just did the second half in a big complex mixing age and prep levels if it isn't as good or better way of doing things.

I think every team now sees the benefits of an alternate site type thing. The only issue would be having enough staff. I’ll be curious to see what the org does with the Great Falls staff 

[Dominikk85]

The alternate site thing is gone as soon there is minor league play again. It was better than nothing but it won't replace minor league play.