Phillies Assistant GM comments

Interesting comments given that the GM, Ruben Amaro, played college ball at Stanford (and won a national championship there...maybe 2?).

The asst. GM's comments are a bit of the old school 'college ruins players' ilk. Not saying he's wrong. Just interesting considering who his boss is.

What I find interesting is the "like kids that play multiple sports" quote. This is a big topic in our house with football right around the corner. Lots of pressure from family/friends on both sides of the fence. He's always hearing- "Play football- its your senior year, Don't play you might get hurt, play fall baseball and go to Juliter",etc...last year he played both football and fall baseball and both velocity and PG ranking went down...

John

We had the same thing at our house.a lot of my friends thought I was crazy letting my son (LHP/1b) play high school football.

I could not imagine taking away his opportunity to be a starting QB for three years....he will have those memories for years to come.

One goal of his was to committ to a school before the start of his senior year so he could play football and not have to go south in the fall....he was fortunate to accomplish that goal. He talked to many college coaches during the process and every single one of them commented positively about him playing football.

My advice is to let him do what he wants to do and if he wants to play football, let him.


On a different note I grew up in St Louis...what is going on with the cards? How is Matheny being received?

I think in general pro Teams feel a player will be more advanced with 4 yrs of pro development then with 4 yrs of college baseball.
Not every level of baseball is played the same... so they would have to reteach the game.

A lot of this comment has to do with economics and the current standing of the big league club. The Phillies are a big market team and have been good for years. They can afford to draft projectable and wait to build talent.

justbaseball- I doubt Amaro's playing experience has very much to do with his decision making. I'm sure a whole lot more is learned through the front office than on the college diamond. Billy Beane is the most high profile prime example of that.

quote:

justbaseball- I doubt Amaro's playing experience has very much to do with his decision making. I'm sure a whole lot more is learned through the front office than on the college diamond. Billy Beane is the most high profile prime example of that.

Completely agree. But let me expand a little. Ruben Amaro still maintains close ties to the Stanford program...at least I think he does. Stanford is one of those programs that is well known for having HS kids they sign be nearly impossible pro signs out of HS. I think 1 in about 20 years.

I wonder if Ruben even has the view expressed by his Asst. GM and if he does, has he shared it with Coach Marquess and Stotz? Because anyone who is recruited by them will know that they will give you all kinds of (good) reasons that you should go to college. Some, but not all directly baseball related, but still good reasons.

Makes me wish I could have a conversation with Ruben Amaro.

justbaseball- Keith Law has stated several times that he believes Stanford in particular ruins a player's swing because they want their roster to model themselves the "Cardinal Way". This obviously isn't a Major League executive, but nonetheless is an interesting observation from someone in the industry. I don't have an opinion either way because of the lack of experience, so this is just an observation coming from me.

Ironically enough, 20 of the 25 players listed on the Phillies active roster (as of today) were drafted at some point (5 were international free agents). 15 out of those 20 went to college, including 1 Stanford alum. Interesting tidbit...

DAD 43- Thanks for your post. As far as the Cardinals and Matheny goes so far so good. He's being well received. The big news today is the Cardinals drafted Matheny's son Tate yesterday even though Mike didn't want them to. First page story on the top of the STL Post this morning no less (slow news day)! As far as the Cards performance they are about .500 and dealing with injuries (Caprpenter, Berkman, Jay, Schumacher, McClellan all on DL) and the both the starters and bullpen are struggling after a good April. They are hitting well. Long season and I'll bet they'll be in the hunt come September 1st...

quote:

justbaseball- Keith Law has stated several times that he believes Stanford in particular ruins a player's swing because they want their roster to model themselves the "Cardinal Way". This obviously isn't a Major League executive, but nonetheless is an interesting observation from someone in the industry. I don't have an opinion either way because of the lack of experience, so this is just an observation coming from me.

And there are some people (actually many) who do not think Keith Law has a clue about much of anything. I wouldn't/don't know. I can tell you that a few years ago, scouts (in the hood) that I know out here told me that 'tired old' criticism was just plain wrong and that the way Stanford developed hitters was just fine.

If I look just at this year's team, there is at least one hitter who couldn't hit his way out of a paper bag as a freshman, but certainly can now and was just drafted in the top-10 rounds. There's another who was Mr. SuperStud as a freshman...with a huge rep and a 2nd round draft choice out of HS...and he struggled at times this year. Still, he was drafted in the 4th round. And there is still another, a freshman, that I saw regularly in HS and thought he was about the best HS hitter I'd ever seen (yet was cut by his initial Area Code team, drafted in the 30+ round). He plays every day, hits in the middle of the lineup, was all-Pac12 Hon. Mention and National Player of the Week once this year...his swing has not downgraded a bit. In fact, he has hit as many home runs (maybe 1 more?) this year than last year in HS...that is unusual I would think. He was named a freshman All American in the last day or so. Lets see where he gets drafted in two years (barring injury).

On the pitching side, Mark Appel certainly arrived with a big reputation. As a freshman he was low 90s and mostly pitching out of the bullpen. As a junior he was mid-to-hi 90s (at least once this year 99 in late innings) and could have been drafted as high as #1 (was picked #8). That would NOT have happened for him out of HS.

Who is right? I am not being defensive (at all), its a point that I just don't know the answer.

So, having a kid (pitcher) in the minor leagues...who experienced both Stanford and the so-called 'real coaching' of MiLB...I could write a very long post on my view of the good and not-so-good of both. Bottom line for us, considering everything...the whole picture including coaching...we have no regrets...none whatsoever about the decision to go to college and Stanford in particular.

JB,
On another site I read there was a discussion about Law's comments, one guy warning players not to go to Vandy as the coaches ruin pitchers and not to go to Stanford as they ruin a hitters swing.

I had to chuckle.

There is NO "real coaching" in proball until you reach ML. There you are working with the best to learn form that is why they are there. Just a lot of different philsophies from level to level and people trying to change this and that even though they try to keep one philosophy consistant. If it were so good there wouldn't be so many injuries. A lot depends on the team as well.

Having a player that has also done both, I see far more injuries in pro ball than college, for all positions, why is that? I have no clue.

Well...after last night I'm not sure what Keith Law would say about Stanford hitting and pitching?!

Injuries in the pros? I guess I'm thinking in college you are more likely to play through some stuff than in pro ball?

I think it is wrong to blame coaching (pro or college). I do think you can credit good coaching, but good players don't depend on good coaching. College and pro coaching shouldn't be compared because they work under different circumstances.

BTW, some of the very best coaching is in college programs. Some of the very best is in professional baseball.

The two (pro/college) are completely different in many ways. Development is critical in pro baseball, so most clubs don't go out and hire a bunch of dummies to help develop millions of dollars worth of talent. Pro is baseball all the time, a game nearly every day. Every organization has, Minor league director, instructors, roving instructors, pro scouting, player development departments, etc. Much of the evaluation and development goes on without the player even realizing it at times.

Truth is, at least for position players, injuries are more likely to happen in a 150 game schedule than a 50 game schedule. Not that many pitch more than 150 innings in the minor leagues (about one inning for game scheduled during season). 30-40 years ago 200+ innings was more the norm for pitchers. That leads back to another discussion about are we babying pitchers too much these days based on the injury results? 150 innings in 150 games is the equivalent of 50 innings in a 50 game schedule, but the schedule in minor leagues is three times as long. 3 times the chance for injury.

Though most good college starting pitchers go beyond 50 innings pitched. The IP number is highest at the MLB level. However, even that has dropped a lot over the past 50 years. Conditioning has gotten better. Players are bigger and stronger. The biggest two differences are that pitchers throw harder over all these days and they don't pitch as much. Is it the velocity or is it that we are babying pitchers too much. There are very hard throwers from years ago that had very longt careers. Nolan Ryan threw more pitches than anyone and he threw with as much velocity as nearly anyone. His stance is that we are babying pitchers these days. It's all interesting stuff. Sorry if it doesn't pertain to this discussion.

Regarding programs like Stanford or Vanderbilt, it is stupid to downplay what they accomplish. If they are ruining all their players/pitchers rather than developing them, why are so many of them in professional baseball.

There are things I agree with what you have said. If a player is a top prospect, he doesn't have to rely on coaching, but for the most part, most players are not, so therefore they do.
I also agree that there are differences in coaching.
But I can say, that I have heard many folks tell me they were shocked about how poor the instruction was in pro compared to college experiences.
I heard on the radio that the better coaches (not managers) leave for college due to higher pay, therefore in general, colleges are turning out good products.

What is your opinion?

I have no issue with using pitchers more if you use them the right way. But do most really know how to use them correctly? They all seem to be used often in the same manor, not all are the same.

JMO.

Coaching is always very important. However, my point is, if a bad coach ruins players, every player would be ruined. Most everyone who plays long enough is going to experience poor coaching along the way. Therefore players cannot depend on coaching in order to be successful.

Once again, there are great college coaches and there are great professional coaches. Perhaps the biggest difference is college coaches have to depend on recruiting to have a successful program.