May 10th, Box Score Roundup

Box Score Recap

Here is the thread to discuss the night’s games.

Lehigh Valley loses 3-2.

Reading wins 4-2.

Clearwater loses 4-3.

Lakewood loses 2-1.

Nick Hernandez with the best pitching performance of the night

7 IP – 0 ER – 3 H – 1 BB – 4 K

29 thoughts on “May 10th, Box Score Roundup”

  1. Well, at least we’ve all calmed down from the first week of the season and realized that Anthony Hewitt is, in fact, still a bust. It’s too bad because he seems like a good kid, but he’s 21 and at Low-A ball and hitting .237 and has a horrendous K/BB ratio.

    It’s just not happening. I wish him all the best though and hope that he does something good with the nice chunk of change he got, and maybe goes back and gets his college education. I don’t begrudge him a thing, I just don’t see him ever being an adequate professional baseball player.

    Like

  2. Let’s discuss at the end of the season. It’s too early to give up on a 21 year old kid, after a rough couple of games. There are alot of up’s and down’s during a long season. We’ll have a better idea after a full body of work. (After a good couple weeks, you don’t hear too much, then after 2-3 bad games, it’s “he stinks and can’t play”.

    Like

  3. I don’t know what’s going to happen with Hewitt, but, so far, his showing continues to support my belief that wasting first round, and perhaps even second round, picks on “tool shed” position players (note that I did not say pitchers – I am fine with signing an unpolished pitcher who can throw a baseball extremely hard) who have no real demonstrated track record does not seem like a very smart decision when you can acquire other tool shed players later on in the draft, typically by busting slot recommendations. The Phillies have been doing this for at least 20 years with a lot of their first or second round picks – when has this draft strategy ever paid off for them? As I look through my file of Jeff Jacksons, Reggie Taylors, Greg Golsons and (so far, anyway), Anthony Hewitts, I’d say it has NEVER paid off for them. So why continue with a strategy that has never succeeded, particularly when the Domonic Browns, Jiwan James and Michael Taylors of the world do seem to be available in later rounds. It’s a bit of a mystery to me – I say save the true lottery tickets for the later rounds of the draft (by later, I mean at least third or fourth round and later).

    Like

  4. Funny enough, the high school arms are even a greater risk than those toolshed position players.

    Like

  5. Agree on not using first round picks for raw tool sheds, Catch 22. They have good success doing that in later rounds. Stick with that. Reminder: That does NOT mean ignoring talented high schoolers in first round if they have demonstrated skills against significant competition. But they basically drafted Hewitt of physique, speed, and raw power, with poor skills.

    That said, I think improved performance at a higher level–even if very streaky–is quite significant. He definitely has received the message to be patient at the plate and wait for a good pitch, and tries to do that. But he has too many games where the concentration lapses. If he improves incrementally each year, we could have a Russell Branyan type hitter who has more defensive value in the OF. I am hoping for a little more than that, but not expecting it.

    Like

  6. @ Catch22 f/k/a H Man: I know what you’re saying and it’s easy to be frustrated, but there is another team that has basically taken the same approach — the Tampa Bay Rays. They draft athletes and turn them into baseball players. Maybe the problem is with our development of said tool sheds instead of with the draft strategy. It has certainly worked for the Rays.

    Like

  7. The last 3 games , which alot of the pontificators on here base this upon, the entire Lakewood lineup has had Strikeout totals of 13,15, and 9. So maybe they ran into some good pitching from the Savannah (Mets). Alot of players strikeout and a look at the totals will confirm this. Hewitt’s numbers look better at this time than James’ or Santana’s . These players have hit dry spells before and have rebounded, they will likely do so again more than once. That is how a player learns and develops. Therefore things will play out further before the people who know anything make any decisions.

    The draft strategy is superior to the taking of College boy Hitters who plinked out a whole lot of hits on Aluminum Bats and generated some real nice stats to look at. They will enter pro ball at around the same age as Hewitt and James et al. are now, and will then take a couple additional years to break them of bad habits learned from Aluminum Bats. Hewitt, James, et al. would just be entering pro ball now, so how would their LO-A numbers look then?

    All those pitchers who generate those real nice pitch M.P.H. numbers to look at, would cost an arm and a leg to sign, and the signing of one of them might likely blow most of the draft budget on one guy. One guy with one arm, which might have the possibility of arm injury, at a higher than normal rate. These players also can be gotten with a greater value later in the draft.

    The draft stategy is Great.

    Like

  8. Has it been mentioned that Nick Hernandez is the nephew of insane MLB umpire Angel Hernanez?

    Like

  9. Very disappointed in the hewitt, and others so far. looking at the phillies team , who is a toolsy outfielder on the team??? Werth was a high choice of another team who was hurt and rebounded, vic was offered back twice to the dodgers, we had to pay a lot for a old leftfielder , cause we cant develop any outfielders, chase was a first round choice, jimmy second ,ruiz took eight years to be decent, and howard was a gem in the fifth round. There rate of success with toolsy outfielder is not good. If it wasnt for gillick we wouldnt have won, he plucked a lot of these players out of other organization. I never blame Hewitt for failing its the scouts who over rated him,

    Like

  10. @rocky: I’m baffled by your line of thinking. Would your rather draft players that weren’t toolsy? Wasn’t Matt Kemp a “toolsy outfielder” once? (6th Round). Wasn’t Torii Hunter? (1st Round). Wasn’t Carl Crawford? (2nd Round). Wasn’t Ricky Henderson (4th). Hell, Jason Werth was a toolsy outfielder when he was picked out of high school by the Blue Jays.

    Just because Anthony Hewitt strikes out too much, that doesn’t mean the organization’s philosophy is wrong. In baseball, projecting players is a whole lot of misses and a few hits. If we hit, I’d rather hit on a potential super star. Drafting college hitters is a low-risk, low reward proposition unless you’re picking at the very top of the draft and can get the studs. I don’t understand why some of us look at tools like a scarlet letter.

    Like

  11. I think with the Rays they had a lot of very, very high picks – guys that pretty much everyone thought would be great players.

    And, by the way, tools aren’t a scarlet letter – we all want players with tools. The scarlet letter is the lack of demonstrated ability – drafting the rawest of the raw athletes with very high picks with the hope they will become very good position players seems to be a risk/reward strategy that, for whatever reason, has never worked for the team. I’m not saying they should take low ceiling players, just that they should be more judicious with some of their high draft picks. Now, signing high risk tool shed players in the international market is something I support completely – no draft picks are used, so I could really care less if they waste a few hundred thousand dollars on a player that doesn’t pan out.

    Like

  12. Toolsy, high draft pick,Torii Hunter says you don’t know what you’re talking about. Toolsy, high draft pick, Carl Crawford says you don’t know what you’re talking about. Toolsy, high draft pick Jimmy Rollins says you don’t know what you are talking about.
    The term ‘toolsy’ has turned into a catch phrase for bigoted thinkers.

    Like

  14. Werth was a catcher. But the point is taken.

    There’s really only a handful of pure blue-chip prospects in every draft, and the same teams get them every year because they suck. Sometimes it works out– see the Rays. Sometimes it doesn’t (Royals).

    When you’re picking lower, you have only two options: high-risk-high-ceiling, or polished but limited college guy. The A’s have followed the latter into mediocrity for more than a decade. I’d prefer the former.

    Like

  15. “Anonymous”:

    First, the word “bigoted” has nothing to do with “toolsy”. By toolsy, I think we mean players who have great athletic abilities but who do not have a substantial baseball track record. If what you are saying is that “toolsy” has become a code word for black then, not only are you wrong, your suggesting that on this site is both outrageous and irresponsible. Racism has no place in society or on this site and I’ve never seen any racist remarks on this site by our host or regular posters.

    Second, Jimmy Rollins was not a “toolsy” player – he was a fine baseball player drafted out of high school. My point was that the PHILLIES have never been successful with “toolsy” high round draft picks. Carl Crawford and Torri Hunter, in case you have checked, weren’t drafted by the Phillies.

    Third, of course you are going to find good “toolsy” players taken with high draft picks if you pick and choose who you identify. That’s entirely besides the point. The point is whether taking an unpolished great athlete with a very high draft pick is a good use of your resources when you can take other unpolished great athletes later in the draft, particularly if you “bust slot” – I think it’s generally not a great cost/benefit strategy, but, of course, every case is different, and I’m sure there are times when you must make an exception for a player you think will become a star.

    Like

  16. Agreed Catch, Teams like the Rays, Marlins, etc have higher draft choices (normally) and then do a great job of identifying players that have ‘tools’ & skills… when drafting much lower, the options are not nearly the same… There is a much higher risk of boom or bust… Keep in mind the Phils often do not even have a 1st round pick, so technically our 2nd or 3rd become our 1st by default… That being said, I still think there is room to draft more skill players early instead of players with ‘higher upside’ (aka Toolsy). We could still get solid 3rd or 4th rotation pitcher late in Rd 1(See Happ) instead of always going going for broke. Or maybe a reliver/ closer prospect late Rd 1. There are options… but strictly drafting ‘Toolsy’ players every year to me is not the way to go… I prefer what they did with Hamels, they took a confirmed skilled player with medical concerns later, same as Drabek, and well Savery… the point is the talent with these players was agreed upon by all it was their health that made them drop… High risk/ reward types but the skills / talent are obvious… Again for the International FA sign as many you can (afford) or save up and sign the best of the bunch (1 / year)… especially if we lost our 1st / 2nd draft picks then take that money and sign International ‘Toolsy’ players… as I would imagine that money could be spread around to sign several players…

    Like

  17. I am confused toolsy or riskey kids who posses speed and little baseball hitting ability is my meaning, and show me where we have been successful drafting them. picking low doesnt mean you dont hit on talent. never heard jimmy rollins was toolsy, you can get toolsy picks later in the draft, is the point. look at this team all the outfielders are from other teams. so how is it working, we cant develop a third basemen, our pitchers are mostly from other teams. its the reason werth is not going to sign if we had some pitching that was young and could replace a blanton cheaper and romano, type we would’nt be strapped for cash,if one of the high picks worked out no need to give victorino the large contract, as I stated if it wasnt for gillick we most likely wouldnt have won, he found werth and others off other teams, and when did toolsy mean black why bring race into a discussion no need for it.

    Like

  19. Marfis said:
    “The draft strategy is superior to the taking of College boy Hitters who plinked out a whole lot of hits on Aluminum Bats and generated some real nice stats to look at. They will enter pro ball at around the same age as Hewitt and James et al. are now, and will then take a couple additional years to break them of bad habits learned from Aluminum Bats. Hewitt, James, et al. would just be entering pro ball now, so how would their LO-A numbers look then?”

    There are more than 2 alternatives. You can use the high picks on college pitchers, you can pick HS kids that are more accomplished than toolsy, you can pick college kids that have shown skills in wood bat leagues, you can pick HS pitchers with potential. Just stop picking toolsy but unaccomplished HS kids. Everyone knew (all the scouts, anyway) that both Hewitt and Golson had questionable contact skills. They had to completely remake Golson’s swing. Hewitt is still working extremely hard on pitch recognition, because he just didn’t play all that much in HS. Save your picks in the top three rounds for the kind of players who are more likely to succeed–stay away from the super-tool sheds who have shown they can’t hit that well.

    Like

  20. Guess the question becomes one of what are you trying to get out of the draft. For big-market teams like the Phillies, I agree with the philosophy of trying to draft superstars vs. taking lower-ceiling guys with a better chance of making it to the big leagues.

    Drafting a superstar who is controllable for a few years can save $30-$40 million vs. signing a superstar FA while a team with a big payroll can spend the money to bring in mid-level talent to fill out a roster.

    So why bother drafting some safe college player with the ceiling of a middle reliever or 5th starter that can save you $5-$10M over the life of their contract vs. trying for the big payoff.

    The real issue with the Phillies is with the particular tool-shed they are picking vs. the strategy.

    Like

  22. Austin Hyatt through 8 1 hit 2 bb 14 so. we need to see him in reading. that is an amazing line

    Like

  27. Wow, I just revist this now and we’re having a race discussion.

    I think a few definitions are in order

    Toolsy = Player with supreme athletic ability. He runs fast, he has a strong arm, he has great raw power. In some cases, he may or may not have refined baseball abilities, like pitch recognition and game usable power.

    Domonic Brown not only has great athletic ability, but he also has baseball skills, so you can say he’s “toolsy”, but he’s a different kind of toolsy than, say, Anthony Hewitt.

    Its a pretty lame characterization. Maybe I can come up with something more clever to use this winter in my top 30 writeups.

    Like

  28. And Kevin Goldstein just replied on twitter that Hyatt’s fastball has been between 88-91. That’s what happens in A+ when you have great command of an average fastball. True test comes at Reading, but I still think he fits better as a reliever.

    Like

  29. It seemed that more confusion arouse over the meaning of “bigot.” A bigot is just someone stubbornly convinced of the superiority or correctness of their own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions. I think Anonymous’ point was that “toolsy” has taken on a use like Ken Tremendous’ use of “scrappy.”

    It is funny that both words have their racial connotations. But that wasn’t what Anonymous was talking about. I believe he was referring to draft philosophy intolerance, not racial intolerance.

    Like

Comments are closed.