How do you define rushing a prospect?

[forphase1]

42 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

But what do you think happens if you bring them up and they struggle.  What is the result of “rushing them” in your examples?

It depends on the exact situation and the makeup of the players, but we can't forget that this isn't viewed in a vacuum, every decision impacts more than just the one player.  Let's take Gunner Henderson as an example, back when he was mashing low A pitching, when we brought him up, it meant we either 1) took away at bats from another prospect or 2) we moved another prospect up or down to make room.  There are only so many innings and so many at bats.  So if you bring up a player who isn't ready (as evidenced by their struggles) you are taking away time from another prospect who may be more prepared to take advantage of those innings/at bats.  And while I think the psychological side of sports is sometimes over blown, there are some individuals who don't handle failure well, and would be better served by not being thrown to the wolves, so to speak, until they are ready to do so.  I personally think that's vastly overrated, but you do hear about those who struggle, and that struggle makes them press, which simply compounds the problem.  

I do, however, think there is a danger in bringing them up too soon.  Again, going back to the building block and mathematics example, if the foundations are not properly set, then it may be close to impossible to build upon them properly.  My kid may be a math wiz, but if I don't give him/her the time needed to get addition down well, they may never properly learn multiplication.  I don't think it would be wise, for example, to take an 18 year old high school player and immediately put him in AAA and just let him struggle and try to figure it out.  He NEEDS the experience and adjustments needed at the A and AA level.  No, I'm not saying that every single step MUST be made (low A to high A to AA to AAA to MLB) and we can see examples of those who jumped a level here and there and ended up fine.  But I think that's more of the exception than the rule.  I'm one that certainly would rather seem them have success at the various levels before moving them up, and just how long the success needs to be sustained is up for discussion.  I thought Gunnar should have been promoted earlier than he was, but as I noted before there are many factors to come into play beyond just his performance.   

In a nutshell, I think sometimes we miss the forest for the trees in some of these discussions, from both sides.  

[orioles22]

I saw Means pitch in Louisville.  Didn't he win a spot in the spring after most of a season in Norfolk?

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, orioles22 said:

I saw Means pitch in Louisville.  Didn't he win a spot in the spring after most of a season in Norfolk?

I seem to recall him starting in the bullpen.

I'm not sure you can "win" a spot in Baltimore's bullpen.

[Sports Guy]

14 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

It depends on the exact situation and the makeup of the players, but we can't forget that this isn't viewed in a vacuum, every decision impacts more than just the one player.  Let's take Gunner Henderson as an example, back when he was mashing low A pitching, when we brought him up, it meant we either 1) took away at bats from another prospect or 2) we moved another prospect up or down to make room.  There are only so many innings and so many at bats.  So if you bring up a player who isn't ready (as evidenced by their struggles) you are taking away time from another prospect who may be more prepared to take advantage of those innings/at bats.  And while I think the psychological side of sports is sometimes over blown, there are some individuals who don't handle failure well, and would be better served by not being thrown to the wolves, so to speak, until they are ready to do so.  I personally think that's vastly overrated, but you do hear about those who struggle, and that struggle makes them press, which simply compounds the problem.  

I do, however, think there is a danger in bringing them up too soon.  Again, going back to the building block and mathematics example, if the foundations are not properly set, then it may be close to impossible to build upon them properly.  My kid may be a math wiz, but if I don't give him/her the time needed to get addition down well, they may never properly learn multiplication.  I don't think it would be wise, for example, to take an 18 year old high school player and immediately put him in AAA and just let him struggle and try to figure it out.  He NEEDS the experience and adjustments needed at the A and AA level.  No, I'm not saying that every single step MUST be made (low A to high A to AA to AAA to MLB) and we can see examples of those who jumped a level here and there and ended up fine.  But I think that's more of the exception than the rule.  I'm one that certainly would rather seem them have success at the various levels before moving them up, and just how long the success needs to be sustained is up for discussion.  I thought Gunnar should have been promoted earlier than he was, but as I noted before there are many factors to come into play beyond just his performance.   

In a nutshell, I think sometimes we miss the forest for the trees in some of these discussions, from both sides.  

Well first of all, in almost all situations,  you worry about the "real prospects".

 

I think there are extreme examples where rushing applies,  You mentioned a high school kid immediately in AAA, that likely would be an example.

But I don't think there are many other examples outside of extremes.  I also am not aware of any research that backs up the theory that rushing even exists AND is a detriment to players long term.  I mean, the Os likely rushed Brooks when he first came up.  He went back down and he did pretty well for himself.  

 

I have always felt if a players confidence can be crushed that quickly, that he was probably never going to amount to anything anyway, since so much of the game is between the ears.

[Bahama O's Fan]

Machado, rushed?

[forphase1]

24 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well first of all, in almost all situations,  you worry about the "real prospects".

 

I think there are extreme examples where rushing applies,  You mentioned a high school kid immediately in AAA, that likely would be an example.

But I don't think there are many other examples outside of extremes.  I also am not aware of any research that backs up the theory that rushing even exists AND is a detriment to players long term.  I mean, the Os likely rushed Brooks when he first came up.  He went back down and he did pretty well for himself.  

 

I have always felt if a players confidence can be crushed that quickly, that he was probably never going to amount to anything anyway, since so much of the game is between the ears.

Sure, but who are the 'real' prospects?  Those with good pedigrees (highly drafted)?  Those on top 100 lists?  Those with the best numbers/performance?  Picking to give at bats to one prospect over another is certainly not an exact science, especially when you do have a solution to keep both getting playing time, but keeping one down at a lower level until he proves the promotion is deserved...i.e., not rushing him.    

[orioles22]

38 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I seem to recall him starting in the bullpen.

I'm not sure you can "win" a spot in Baltimore's bullpen.

Well, someone gets cut/sent back every spring.

[orioles22]

9 minutes ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

Machado, rushed?

No, and that seems to be the only example we've had in Baltimore lately. I'd imagine most can use a little time in AAA.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, forphase1 said:

Sure, but who are the 'real' prospects?  Those with good pedigrees (highly drafted)?  Those on top 100 lists?  Those with the best numbers/performance?  Picking to give at bats to one prospect over another is certainly not an exact science, especially when you do have a solution to keep both getting playing time, but keeping one down at a lower level until he proves the promotion is deserved...i.e., not rushing him.    

The other prospects will get their at bats, they just arent the top priorities.

You are acting like these organizations have tons of real prospects all over the place.  Its just not accurate.

There are plenty of at bats for everyone.

[Redskins Rick]

SG, are you trolling us?

You ask for opinions, which everybody has.

Then you want to debate those opinions.

As well as Manny worked out, that was a pretty isolated situated. Highly athletic with a super duper set of skills, a desperate team in need of somebody to man the corner.

Yet, with all of that. Many posters felt he was being rushed, and would just be a 2 week experiment and end up badly.

Of course, at that time, those running the team, knew more than some of the fans.

 

[Frobby]

For anyone who’d like a trip down memory lane:

A lot of fun takes in that thread.   

[Ruzious]

For the people who want nothing but dominance, I think that sends the wrong message to prospects.  Presumably, they're in the minors to learn to be a quality MAJOR leaguer.  A lot of that is to work on your weaknesses.  If you're just supposed to dominate minor leaguers... suppose you have a fastball that's gonna outclass most minor leaguers, but your changeup sucks - and you need that changeup to win in the Majors.  Do you really want to encourage that pitcher to not develop his changeup in the minors?  

[Bahama O's Fan]

To me, a top prospect, early first round pick, that is going to become a regular all-star only needs a year, maybe two at the most to master the minors.

[maybenxtyr]

49 minutes ago, Frobby said:

For anyone who’d like a trip down memory lane:

A lot of fun takes in that thread.   

A lot of posters in that thread that I wish were still around. I read the whole thread again...I remember that night as I was cruising home from NY. It really was a great time to be and O's fan!

[orioles22]

2 hours ago, Ruzious said:

For the people who want nothing but dominance, I think that sends the wrong message to prospects.  Presumably, they're in the minors to learn to be a quality MAJOR leaguer.  A lot of that is to work on your weaknesses.  If you're just supposed to dominate minor leaguers... suppose you have a fastball that's gonna outclass most minor leaguers, but your changeup sucks - and you need that changeup to win in the Majors.  Do you really want to encourage that pitcher to not develop his changeup in the minors?  

There was a lot of talk about Akin working on his changeup during his season in AAA. He wasn't nearly as dominant as he was in AA, but he clearly wasn't ready to move up another level.

My argument was moving up a level during a season should mean the player has clearly outclassed the competition, or if not what is the rush about. Whether they move up a level the following season should be about winning a job at the next stop.