Just Say "NO" Jack!

[xisxisxis]

Hi, my name is Jack Zduriencik and I'm addicted to high school pitchers. I started my addiction to HS pitchers in 1991 when with the Pittsburgh Pirates. We picked Dave Doorneweerd of Richwood HS, Port Richey, FL in the second round. The tools, the projection, so much promise and so many disappointments. HS pitchers have none of the blemishes of a college pitcher, someone else hasn't owned them. Mike Jones had a perfect delivery. Not a flaw in sight, now he's recovering from another injury. Mark Rogers had the most fluid delivery imaginable, too bad he can't find the plate. They are new and special and I can't stop drafting them even when year after year they disappoint me. I can't stop no matter how many times I've been hooked on the drug with no name. I'm here today asking for your help and understanding. I know now that it's an illness. I'll make mistakes. I'll draft another HS pitcher again, but I hope through the understanding and support of my family and fans I can put this illness behind me.

 

To show your support for Jack Z, email the Brewers today and tell him to just say "NO" to high school pitchers.

[Mass Haas]

Four words:

 

Will Inman

 

Yo Gallardo

 

But I do hear what you're saying...

[Oldcity]

I guess I don't understand why so many people seem to be casting Rogers aside. I thought the most important thing for a young pitcher was strikeout rates... and Rogers' rates are great. Didn't they revamp his mechanics after they drafted him? I'm willing to give him a lot more time. I still see him as a top prospect.

[colbyjack]

Mass said it all. I may be on board with you if you're talking solely about the first round, but after that you better back yourself up better than that if you want me jumping on your bandwagon.

[gregmag]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: until and unless a HS pitcher drafted by the Brewers actually helps the Brewers win games, the burden of persuasion in this discussion rests on the people who want to spend high picks on HS pitchers -- not on the skeptics.

 

Will Inman and Yo Gallardo are wonderful prospects, but you can't invoke their names in this argument before they make it out of A ball. Mike Jones was a terrific prospect in A ball. So was Nick Neugebauer. As of right now, if the evidence you want to evaluate is the experience of the Brewers' organization in drafting HS pitchers, David's point is absolutely, 100% right. I'm not saying that's the only relevant evidence -- we've hashed this issue out a lot before, and Patrick has made me think about it in a little bit more nuanced way. But you can't pretend that Inman's and Gallardo's success in A ball, while they're still smack dab in the middle of the injury nexus, goes one inch toward refuting the argument against drafting HS pitchers. I'll be thrilled to eat crow if they make it.

 

We also should acknowledge that, as of right now, the Mark Rogers pick looks like an unmitigated disaster of the type that small market teams simply can't afford. Of course Mark still has time to turn it around. But the Brewers need pitching ASAP. While Mark tries to figure out the FSL, Jeremy Sowers is dominating AAA; Thomas Diamond and Glen Perkins are pitching wonderfully at AA; David Purcey is holding his own at AAA.

 

Greg.

[brewmann04]

I would think the Brewers who major Pitching Prospect are no higher than High A ball,might look to a college Pitcher who can be more Advanced to help out the Major league team.

[bjkrautk]

My biggest problem with the Rogers pick wasn't that he was a HS pitcher (although that fueled a good deal of the concern), but that he wasn't even considered the best HS pitcher available.

 

Looking at Homer Bailey's line (3.1 ERA, 52 k's, 16 bb in 45+ IP, according to a quick flip over to BA), I think it was a mistake twice-over.

 

 

Call me crazy, but I'm of the belief that a team should set an organizational goal that 60-80% of their first round picks should at least make it onto the 25 man roster. (The number should be higher than league average, but not so high as to be virtually impossible to reach.) Until they hit the major league level, the return on investment is virtually nil. One of the best ways to fall short of that number is to draft HS pitching, and if you are falling short....chances are you're falling behind everyone else.

[brettac1]

It's not just say no to HS pitchers altogether, just say no to paying them large sums of money in the first round. Actually, I'd probably just say no to paying any amateur pitcher a large amount of money, college or not. Let the other teams make those mistakes and take the most advanced (or higher upside HS, if that's your cup of tea) hitter you can get your hands on.

[lovehate]

I think what Jack's been trying to do in most cases is hit the home run. To find a guy with huge upside, that the Brewers can sign, and that may have the potential to be a star Major Leaguer. All of our first rounders have been that, as well as guys like Eric Thomas (although taking guys that are already injured is a bit much).

 

What I've been wondering for some time is if you sign 30 or more guys a year, for 5-6 years, a couple should be able to stumble to the bigs, when do player development people (Ried Nichols) come into question ?

[molitor fan]

The stats below are not for judgement, just for definition of what we are talking about.....again, notice the ages and k rates

 

 

Homer Bailey - 1.12 K per inning - 20 years old - FSL - Hi A

 

Sowers - .56 k per inning - 23 years old - AAA

 

Rogers - 1.46 k per inning - 20 years old - FSL - Hi A

 

Diamond - 1.41 k per inning - 23 years old - AA (with a 1.5 WHIP)

 

Perkins - 1.33 k per inning - 23 years old - AA

 

Purcey - .88 k per inning - 24 years old - AAA - (1.50 WHIP)

[splitterpfj]

Developing pitching will always be the hardest part of building a team. You have to take pitchers at some point of course, but I say no to high schoolers in round one. I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule, but to me that's as risky as a #1 pick can get.

[colbyjack]

Greg has always made a well-state case for the anti-prep pick debate. I have always said that you can't exclude any player based on the groupings of players that have preceeded them despite leaning towards not taking prep pitchers in round 1.

 

My biggest problem with the Rogers pick wasn't that he was a HS pitcher (although that fueled a good deal of the concern), but that he wasn't even considered the best HS pitcher available.

 

According to some teams he wasn't, but according to others he was. I know you keep bringing this point up, but really we only know that based on the reports from Baseball America. If the Brewers had stuck to who the best players available were at the time (according to others), Prince Fielder never would have been the team's selection in 2002 based on the reports. In fact, that is why so many people (including myself up until I got to see him perform at the pre-draft workout) were upset with the Fielder pick at the time.

 

I was against the Rogers pick when it happened, and I think most others were pretty opposed to it at the time as well, especially when Jeremy Sowers and Thomas Diamond were sitting there (Sowers would be in the rotation right now). I was pretty stoked about the Gallardo pick because in a mock draft before the '04 draft I had him going 10th overall to the Rangers. Getting him in the 2nd round was a huge bargain, and no matter what your philosophy is, getting a player that should/could have been a mid-first rounder in the 2nd round is always a good thing.

 

As for Inman, no one (except for his family members) expected this kind of success early on. I understand that he has a long ways to go, but so far, so good, and I don't see how you couldn't call his selection a huge success based on his initial results.

 

lovehate brings up a good point that Jack Z. prefers to hit home runs with his early picks instead of going for a safe, more polished player. He also has made claims of his preference of getting the "best" of something, such as Jones and Rogers being (in their opinion) the best prep pitchers available in the entire draft, Prince being the best hitter, Krynzel being the best athlete/fastest, etc. Rickie was a no-brainer. Really, Fielder is the only first-rounder that Jack Z. has hit on when using that philosophy, which is actually pretty scary when you think about it.

 

I would like to remind you of my player procurement story:

 

www.brewerfan.net/ViewArt...icleId=198

 

If you start ignoring high school pitchers in the first round you would have passed on Jake Westbrook, Chris Carpenter, Roy Halladay, CC Sabathia, Jeremy Bonderman, Jon Garland and Josh Beckett. Second rounders include Greg Maddux, Greg Maddux, David Wells and Jeff Suppan. Matt Clement and Bronson Arroyo are a couple of notable prep third rounders.

 

On the flip side, I have also disproved that prep hitters are noticeably better than college ones in this story:

 

www.brewerfan.net/ViewArt...icleId=229

[fewgoodcards]

this thread is pretty funny to me. i'm a cardinals fan and i am getting tired of us taking college pitchers in the first round b/c they seem to never develop for us. here are the college pitchers the cardinals have taken in the first round the last several years, tell me how many you see in the majors.

 

1999

Chance Caple

Nick Stocks

2000

Blake Williams

2001

Justin Pope

2004

Chris Lambert (flew through A-ball, but really struggling in AA last 2 years)

2005

Mark McCormick (great stuff, no idea where it is going)

 

now i know there is a difference between the back of the first round where caple, williams, and pope were taken and the supplemental round for stocks and mccormick, from #5 like mark rogers but just b/c they are college players doesn't make them a safer bet. you may say it is just b/c the cardinals have no idea how to develop talent and i would agree to an extent, but you would think they would have got lucky and atleast one of these guys would have made just based on sheer numbers.

[brewmann04]

I have no Problem with the Brewers taking a high Reward Hs Pitcher. I don"t think Signability should be an Issue with our new Owner.I think If we can get a college Pitcher in Round 1 with good upside then draft Him.

I can also see why thecrew draft needs to be half Pitchers because of the need and Injury factors.

[lovehate]

My guess is if there has only been 1 or maybe 2 HS hitters taken, and 7-10 college pitchers taken by our pick, we're going HS hitter. Unless for the first time someone above Jack Z weighs heavily on the decision, and we go for the safer

college arm.

[brewmann04]

It should be a Pitcher the other need spot would be Catcher

which should come later in the top 10 rounds

[gregmag]

I think molitorfan was subtly making the point -- or at least the stats he cited support the point -- that Rogers still has a much higher ceiling than the college guys chosen behind him. I agree, and that's certainly something to consider. Patrick's mention of the "home run" vs. "safe pick" draft philosophy comes into play here; clearly a pick like Rogers reflects a carefully considered choice of ceiling over safety.

 

My aversion to HS pitchers has a lot to do with the fact that they face not one but two large obstacles on the path toward hitting their ceilings. First, there's the developmental unpredictability that afflicts all prospects, but is probably worse for pitchers than for hitters and is necessarily worse for rawer/younger prospects than for more polished/older prospects. Second, there's the injury nexus. I get the appeal of ceiling, but I just think the odds are too long to make a gamble like Rogers at all sensible.

 

But -- if any one of Rogers, Gallardo, or Inman works out, then my position on this issue will be exposed as unduly strident if not utterly wrong.

 

Greg.

[colbyjack]

I appreciate getting another fan's perspective on this, so thanks for jumping in fewgoodcards. It is funny how we pine for a college pitcher, yet another fan hopes for a prep arm.

 

I think what both points prove is that you have to take the RIGHT arm, or the right player overall. It doesn't matter what level they play at.

 

It's funny because most of the guys fewgoodcards mentioned were fire-ballers coming out of college, guys that were known for how hard they threw and not for how well they pitched. The Brewers prep draft picks have the same problems. That's why I always like the guys that show the ability to pitch first and throw hard second. Jeremy Sowers has been getting batters out at every level he has been at despite topping out around 90 mph. Look at Doug Davis, Capuano, and even Tomo Ohka if you want to throw a righty in the mix. David Bush is consistently 89-91 from what I've seen of him so far this year, and the rotation's only true fireballer is on the DL.

 

Gimme Jared Hughes or David Huff in round one for the above reason. Hughes is a groundball machine while Huff is your prototypical crafty lefty that is drawing more and more comparisons to Barry Zito.

[xisxisxis]

I may be on board with you if you're talking solely about the first round, but after that you better back yourself up better than that if you want me jumping on your bandwagon.

 

I'm sure you don't want to jump on my bandwagon because if I was running the Brewers organization we wouldn't have a winning season since 2000. Oh wait..... http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

I wasn't really serious about avoiding all HS pitchers, I would tend to grade them lower than a similar college pitcher if that college pitcher was mostly healthy. I think most people are making excellent points so I won't counter them (except for molitorfan's ommission of Rogers WHIP = 2.0, which I'm sure was an accident and not an intential withholding of negative data that would lessen the strength of his argument http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif ). One thing that doesn't/hasn't been discussed is what happens after the player is drafted and how well the organization is doing at maximizing that players realization of their talent. It may be a complete crapshoot, but it seems like some organizations just produce pitchers (Braves, Cubs) and others don't (Brewers, Cards, Royals). Maybe it isn't in the players that are drafted, but it has to do with the player development system of the organization. Maybe the Brewers inability to take HS Pitcher A and turn him into a healthy player who can produce in some role at the major league level is the real problem. The Brewers either have one improbable record of bad luck, or is it possible they have some problems in player development that happens after the draft and before that player implodes at the major league level. Was Manny Parra injured every other week in HS and JC? What happened to that fluid delivery of Mike Jones? Nick Neugebauer and Dana Evelend were rushed too quickly to the majors by 2 different GMs. I don't pretend to know the lower reaches of the Brewers player development staff, but is there a real possibility that there is an organizational need for better people? I don't have the answers, but what if the right players are being drafted and we just don't have the right people in the organization to maximize their potentials.

 

 

It's funny because most of the guys fewgoodcards mentioned were fire-ballers coming out of college, guys that were known for how hard they threw and not for how well they pitched. The Brewers prep draft picks have the same problems. That's why I always like the guys that show the ability to pitch first and throw hard second.

 

I think this is an excellent point and one reason I shy away from or am less than happy about some of Jack Z's early round picks. For pitchers he seems to over emphasize velocity and for hitters he seems to overemphasize tools. I can understand (not really like, but understand) his desire to go for a HR with the 1st/early round pick(s), but it was my assumption that you have a higher chance of getting a major leaguer out of the early rounds so I would be less inclined to swing for the fences and go with the safer pick early and swing for the fences after the first few rounds. Just my opinion and I could be completely wrong and the Brewers will have that winning season eventually even if I'm not the GM. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/happy.gif

[colbyjack]

One thing that doesn't/hasn't been discussed is what happens after the player is drafted and how well the organization is doing at maximizing that players realization of their talent. It may be a complete crapshoot, but it seems like some organizations just produce pitchers (Braves, Cubs) and others don't (Brewers, Cards, Royals). Maybe it isn't in the players that are drafted, but it has to do with the player development system of the organization. Maybe the Brewers inability to take HS Pitcher A and turn him into a healthy player who can produce in some role at the major league level is the real problem.

 

First of all, the Cubs? If the Cubs were a talent machine like the Braves, they wouldn't be so "cursed."

 

But I agree with your point, and someone else brought this up as well above (or on the thread in the minor league forum discussing this). It's interesting that you brought up the Cardinals because like the Brewers they're at their best picking up other team's players on the cheap. Jim Edmonds, Scott Rolen, Larry Walker, Chris Carpenter and others were all acquired relatively cheap, as the Brewers can make the same claims with Davis, Turnbow and all of Dougie's reclammation projects, not to mention several shrewd trades.

 

So maybe that's the key, let other people develop players and then go out and trade for them.

 

Nick Neugebauer and Dana Evelend were rushed too quickly to the majors by 2 different GMs.

 

Eveland was rushed? Maybe last year's callup was a little hasty, but I don't think he was rushed.

 

For pitchers he seems to over emphasize velocity and for hitters he seems to overemphasize tools.

 

I'll give you the pitchers, as we're really hanging onto Gallardo and Inman (and Rogers), who are Jack Z's most recent, early prep picks. However, I have always been impressed with the Fielder selection because he went with the best hitter. While hitting (and power) are tools, he wasn't going for that toolsy outfielder (like Krynzel, or even Cameron Maybin), as Fielder was questioned for everything outside of his hitting prowess.

 

Hardy wasn't overly toolsy, he was just one heck of a shortstop. Not that JJ is lacking on tools, but he's not exactly Josh Murray, and there was a fair amount of concern about his ability to hit when they drafted him.

[DHonks]

Gimme Jared Hughes or David Huff in round one for the above reason. Hughes is a groundball machine while Huff is your prototypical crafty lefty that is drawing more and more comparisons to Barry Zito.

 

colby, just wondering why you've changed your tune this year, and you're suddenly openly mentioning who you'd like to see taken. I thought in the past years you were very secretive.

[Never Outhustled]

Second, there's the injury nexus.

 

This is why I prefer HS pitchers. The Brewers are proving that in a carefully controlled setting, you can largely avoid injuries to HS pitchers. College pitchers are already wrecked from misuse before you even get your hands on them. The injury rate of college pitchers has been threw the roof the last few drafts. The most recent research shows the injury rate of HS and college pitchers are the same, and thats only because some archaic teams still don't properly care for their HS pitchers.

[colbyjack]

colby, just wondering why you've changed your tune this year, and you're suddenly openly mentioning who you'd like to see taken. I thought in the past years you were very secretive.

 

Those are my faves IF the team takes a pitcher, and I have a couple of prep guys I would take if they were there (Kyle Drabek could fall, who reaks of a player most here would hate to see selected, but would be an excellent value pick). That doesn't even begin to mention the hitters I like (versus the hitters I'm hearing in connection with the Brewers, who I have more than hinted at in other places).

 

And, I'm less bashful about sharing my faves because of where the team picks, and I do believe they need to start thinking about the more immediate future with their draft picks.

 

Last year was really the only year I didn't have an overwhelming favorite, but that was more because there were 3-5 guys I would have been happy with given the strength at the top.

[gregmag]

The most recent research shows the injury rate of HS and college pitchers are the same, and thats only because some archaic teams still don't properly care for their HS pitchers.

 

I disagree. I actually reported an exchange about this with Sickels last year. IIRC, he did a study (presumably the one to which you refer) that showed injury rates for HS and college pitching draftees were similar over the first few years after drafting. But the problem with that analysis is that, just about three years out, college pitchers are leaving the peak injury years, while HS pitchers are still in them. So the three-year study unwittingly painted the rosiest possible picture of HS pitching draftees' injury risk relative to college draftees.

 

I also question the qualitative logic of your point. Show me the MLB organization that has developed a surefire strategy, or even a repeatable good strategy, for avoiding injuries to pitchers in their late teens and early 20s. I'm no doctor, but my general understanding is that pitchers in that age range get hurt because their bodies are still developing in unpredictable ways, which renders just about any pitching delivery highly risky.

 

You're right to the extent that controlling workload at that age presumably helps a lot, and some colleges don't do that. But (a) plenty of high schools have already hurt their pitchers, and (b) I don't think it's rational to bet that a MLB organization will be categorically less likely than a college to mess up a pitcher, given the ticking development clock imposed by the CBA.

 

Greg.

[xisxisxis]

First of all, the Cubs? If the Cubs were a talent machine like the Braves, they wouldn't be so "cursed."

 

Well the Cubs have developed some nice pitchers over the last few years, except most of them don't pitch (or for them). I won't touch Prior because he fell in their lap ala Rickie Weeks, but Zambrano, Willis, Sergio Mitre, Sean Marshall, and Ricky Nolasco is not a bad set of 5 pitchers to have "developed" over the last 5 years. I think that would be 5 more than the Brewers. If only we were that "cursed."

 

 

Eveland was rushed? Maybe last year's callup was a little hasty, but I don't think he was rushed.

 

So you think Dana is going to stay a 1ER/inning, 2+ WHIP pitcher?

 

Has Dana dominated for a year in any upper level league? I wouldn't be so critical if he hasn't looked so abysmal in the majors. He probably will be just fine, but I don't see what benefit either he or the Brewers have from his pitching in the majors the last 2 years. I know you like him, but his numbers make me fond for the days of Wayne Franklin and Wes Obermuelller. Maybe the light will go on and he'll look like a major league pitcher tomorrow, until then I'd rather have him in Nashville.

 

 

I'll give you the pitchers, as we're really hanging onto Gallardo and Inman (and Rogers), who are Jack Z's most recent, early prep picks. However, I have always been impressed with the Fielder selection because he went with the best hitter. While hitting (and power) are tools, he wasn't going for that toolsy outfielder (like Krynzel, or even Cameron Maybin), as Fielder was questioned for everything outside of his hitting prowess.

 

I admit I was wrong on Fielder as he looks like he'll be a special hitter and it is hard to see more than 2 tools from Prince. And since Krynzel Jack has been less in love with the tools prospects, but a Chase Utley, Boof Bonser, or Adam Wainright would look a whole lot better right now. Hindsight is 20/20 but I wish the Josh Murrays of the world were picked by some other organization and maybe Jack Z and the Brewers are making an effort to look for results in addition to tools. Time will tell.