Jump to content

wockenfussy

Riley Greene

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Casimir said:

I wonder if they watch Greene's playing time this season?  He mentioned he felt like he ran into a wall last season.  I don't doubt pitchers get more scrutiny than outfielders in terms of how to increase from a high school/college schedule to a professional schedule.  Maybe that wall is just a one year transition from one phase (amateur) to the next (professional).

Regardless, its nice to see him playing well early in Lakeland.

It would be surprising if he doesn't struggle the second half. It's a long grind, both mentally and physically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Longgone said:

It would be surprising if he doesn't struggle the second half. It's a long grind, both mentally and physically.

Yeah, and I would think bumping up two levels might have had something to do with it as well. 

But the mental whirlwind of a calendar year plus that he probably had.  Senior year of high school, offer letters, scouts and other MLB management, high school season, the tournaments he was invited to, the draft, being in professional ball and being out on his own away from home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it is almost more to do with the character of the kid, you could have 10 kids with all roughly the same skill set and some would benefit from more "seasoning" in the minors and some would flourish in the majors.  I think having a set standard for everyone sucks.  Not saying they do, but it FEELS like the organizations have more of a "lets season" him attitude with upcoming kids.

Just a gut feeling, but I would guess that if you took all the exceptional talents that about 50% would actually benefit from getting thrown in the fire as opposed to slowly working their way up.  Especially in todays society...it is much more "I want it now" kind of attitude with kids.  Leaving out whether that is right or wrong etc...I just think more would benefit if given a shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, roarintiger1 said:

If he gets called up quickly, it means someone ahead of him has failed...........sigh.

There is nobody ahead of him that I expect to be part of their future.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to Lee's point, yes, there is nobody blocking Greene.  (Except Greene himself.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

To me it is almost more to do with the character of the kid, you could have 10 kids with all roughly the same skill set and some would benefit from more "seasoning" in the minors and some would flourish in the majors. 

 

You mean evaluating a kid's "makeup" is relevant to projecting him and developing him as a player? But I was told for years that makeup was stupid and you couldn't quantify it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get back to Farah.

Never had the poster. Now Cheryl Ladd......if there had been an internet in the 70s I would have exploded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Microline133 said:

 

You mean evaluating a kid's "makeup" is relevant to projecting him and developing him as a player? But I was told for years that makeup was stupid and you couldn't quantify it!

Well whoever is telling you that is not going to use my opinion as an epiphany moment for sure!  lol

But I think this is a no brainer and I am sure most people realize it, but it is a hard thing to predict.  I would not want to have that power.  Having my report be the reason a kid is sent up...then that kid failed.  That would blow...even if you got 50% right....you still have that other 50% where you ruined some kids dreams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

Well whoever is telling you that is not going to use my opinion as an epiphany moment for sure!  lol

But I think this is a no brainer and I am sure most people realize it, but it is a hard thing to predict.  I would not want to have that power.  Having my report be the reason a kid is sent up...then that kid failed.  That would blow...even if you got 50% right....you still have that other 50% where you ruined some kids dreams.

If a kid can hit, he's going to get a chance regardless. Milton Bradly was in the bigs at 22 and played 12 seasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Microline133 said:

 

You mean evaluating a kid's "makeup" is relevant to projecting him and developing him as a player? But I was told for years that makeup was stupid and you couldn't quantify it!

Can it be quantified?  A few years ago, I heard presentations from scouts and front office people at various symposiums and they said that evaluating make up was a constant battle.  They knew it was important but they admitted that the industry wasn't particularly good at it yet.  Has there been progress in that area in recent years?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sparky was alive today he’d tell you that Riley Greene will be the next Al Kaline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Can it be quantified?  A few years ago, I heard presentations from scouts and front office people at various symposiums and they said that evaluating make up was a constant battle.  They knew it was important but they admitted that the industry wasn't particularly good at it yet.  Has there been progress in that area in recent years?  

Yes, there has been progress, Lee. Some teams are actually taking a page out some of the old (and still valid) corporate playbooks with personality assessments, performance enhancement (think mental health focused) coaches, and leadership development programs and opportunities. Investments in these areas are becoming more commonplace across the industry and teams are learning how to use the information gleaned to enhance player development -- both with individuals and with organizational philosophy toward player development.

I'd see it as a side affect of the more corporate look (Ivy League educated, business focused) of front offices. When they first started coming in the idea was you had to be able to quantify the information for it to be valuable -- largely because so much of baseball performance can be quantified, so there was this stigma attached to things like "makeup." Now you're seeing teams embrace the idea of makeup, culture, and personal development just as successful corporations do to develop their people at all levels of the organization.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Yoda said:

If a kid can hit, he's going to get a chance regardless. Milton Bradly was in the bigs at 22 and played 12 seasons. 

Yeah...we were specifically talking about (or at least I was) sending a young kid up and how that could affect his playing career and his life and how to balance that with actually giving the ok to send him up and either having that work out (Trout etc) or having it blow up and basically ending their chances because it gets in their heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

Yeah...we were specifically talking about (or at least I was) sending a young kid up and how that could affect his playing career and his life and how to balance that with actually giving the ok to send him up and either having that work out (Trout etc) or having it blow up and basically ending their chances because it gets in their heads.

The old school thought process there is that if a kid gets that badly rattled by being called up early that it ruins his career, then he probably didn't have it in him to have a MLB career anyhow. No idea if this is still the thought process, but I tend to agree with it. Yes, people change, and what you can handle at 25 may be different from when you were 21, but I don't know that it's anything more than negligible. It wouldn't be a reason I held someone back. But I don't know **** really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Microline133 said:

Yes, there has been progress, Lee. Some teams are actually taking a page out some of the old (and still valid) corporate playbooks with personality assessments, performance enhancement (think mental health focused) coaches, and leadership development programs and opportunities. Investments in these areas are becoming more commonplace across the industry and teams are learning how to use the information gleaned to enhance player development -- both with individuals and with organizational philosophy toward player development.

I'd see it as a side affect of the more corporate look (Ivy League educated, business focused) of front offices. When they first started coming in the idea was you had to be able to quantify the information for it to be valuable -- largely because so much of baseball performance can be quantified, so there was this stigma attached to things like "makeup." Now you're seeing teams embrace the idea of makeup, culture, and personal development just as successful corporations do to develop their people at all levels of the organization.

OTOH, I have to say that if it's coming from corporate America - there is high potential for it to carry a lot of garbage. In my experience too much of what the corporate world is really interested in in employee analysis is conformity rather than performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

OTOH, I have to say that if it's coming from corporate America - there is high potential for it to carry a lot of garbage. In my experience too much of what the corporate world is really interested in in employee analysis is conformity rather than performance.

That's a reasonable concern. I think that bias toward conformance or certain traits existed on a team-by-team basis before this wave of performance analysis or development started, though.

Now, instead of saying a guy is soft, or has a good face, or his teammates like him, they're using a little more robust means to gather personal and psychological information about players to better predict where they might go if pushed in certain directions. They're essentially trying to add more predictability to the inherently unpredictable process of player development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

OTOH, I have to say that if it's coming from corporate America - there is high potential for it to carry a lot of garbage. In my experience too much of what the corporate world is really interested in in employee analysis is conformity rather than performance.

That would be my concern as well.  Some level of conformity might be what they want on a team, but that can be carried tool far and exclude some talented players that march to the beat of a different drum..  At any rate, attempting to quantify is better than just guessing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Yoda said:

The old school thought process there is that if a kid gets that badly rattled by being called up early that it ruins his career, then he probably didn't have it in him to have a MLB career anyhow. No idea if this is still the thought process, but I tend to agree with it. Yes, people change, and what you can handle at 25 may be different from when you were 21, but I don't know that it's anything more than negligible. It wouldn't be a reason I held someone back. But I don't know **** really. 

I don't either just throwing some stuff out there.  

It is not only about ruining the career that was more a small possibility than a big part of my reasoning.  My basic premise is that I think more kids COULD handle the pressure and thrive, but most are held back for other reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Microline133 said:

 

You mean evaluating a kid's "makeup" is relevant to projecting him and developing him as a player? But I was told for years that makeup was stupid and you couldn't quantify it!

I don't care if he wears makeup or not, just as long as he hits.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a time when people derided "chemistry" and "leadership" and stuff like that, and justify themselves by saying "Bill James doesn't agree with that", back when Bill James was the gold standard.  Eventually Bill James had to correct everybody by saying "I never said that chemistry wasn't important.  All I said was that I didn't know how to measure it". 

I think that it's the same thing with psychological makeup and I am happy that an attempt is being made to examine that, but I echo the reservations that previous posters have expressed about borrowing too heavily from the corporate world of employee psychological evaluation.  After all, that is the origin of such employment interview questions as "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?".  It could be worse though, it could be that baseball was emulating the armed forces and their HR practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Charles Liston said:

There was a time when people derided "chemistry" and "leadership" and stuff like that, and justify themselves by saying "Bill James doesn't agree with that", back when Bill James was the gold standard.  Eventually Bill James had to correct everybody by saying "I never said that chemistry wasn't important.  All I said was that I didn't know how to measure it". 

I think that it's the same thing with psychological makeup and I am happy that an attempt is being made to examine that, but I echo the reservations that previous posters have expressed about borrowing too heavily from the corporate world of employee psychological evaluation.  After all, that is the origin of such employment interview questions as "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?".  It could be worse though, it could be that baseball was emulating the armed forces and their HR practices.

the fundamental problem with psychological profiling is that there is no way to separate the cultural/intellectual reference frame of the analyst/test designer, from that of the testee. All psychological probing has to based on evaluation of meaning and response to semiotics of some kind, and there are virtually no non-trivial symbols or markers whose meaning is not conditioned by a person's particular history - which may contain or lack experience without which his assignations of meaning will not correspond to 'normal' in the universe of the test designer. This creates a floor of uncertainty for even the best evaluators/methods. What it comes down to is that there is always a cost in lost talent due to 'false' negative profile results. If your management objectives don't care about that you pays your money and only hire close to your baseline.

While it's not directly part of my gig, I work with people who spend a lot of their time studying engineering team dynamics. But their efforts focus less on trying to predict the outcome of particular groupings than developing tools to facilitate better function even in groups that may have, or at least appear to have, poor compatibility prospects. The assumption being that in the real world, team formation is usually going to be arbitrary wrt personality factors, so what's useful is getting things to work regardless. If you think about it, that is pretty much what baseball teams  pay managers to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,815
    • Total Posts
      3,020,283
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...