Add new comment

It was to multiple rookies with almost no experience in the minors that I was really objecting to.
I respect scouts.  I also respect statheads.  I think, especially in the modern world, it is important to utilize both to make good decisions.
IMO, it is simply not possible to make an "informed" decision on a kid with 70 innings in A ball.
In one of the other threads, Oswalt and Miller were referenced.  Oswalt had 500 minor league innings, (though only 30 in AAA), and Miller had 400 (with basically a full season in AAA). 
My belief is that you MUST get a good number of innings to look at a kid in order to not only be certain of what you have - but also to assess what his strengths and weaknesses are - and to formulate your plan for optimizing the individual talent in question.
While I can accept the idea that in rare cases, (Strasburg), you get a kid so "developed" that lots of AAA innings aren't mandated.  But, I think the player and the organization likely benefit from at least some hands on experience with the kid.
Last March, I remember near certainty about the upside of Wilhelmsen and Lueke and how they were going to make the bullpen immediately solid.  And honestly, I would say bullpen is a LOT more conducive to immediate success than starting. 
Me?  I could easily accept that a kid with 300-400 innings in low to mid minors bypassing AAA in some cases.  But, that situation is based on having enough first hand experience with the guy that you are extremely confident that he has in fact developed enough that AAA is critical.
For me, Hultzen is the hardest call.  College innings at the highest level are probably akin to AA innings.  But, watching a kid isn't the same as working with him.  And in this age of pitch counts and inning limits, the lack of professional innings for these three guys doesn't help, either.
In the end, I think the minors are necessary in the majority of cases because in the majors, the #1 priority in 99% of cases is winning.  Period.  In the minors, while winning is nice ... DEVELOPMENT is often the priority.  To me, it is a generally a bad idea to emphasize development OVER winning once you reach the majors.  Obviously, all rookies have development to do.  The point is one of percentage of focus.  Winning is (and should be) less important in leagues specifically designed for player development.
For me, utilizing the majors as "just another development level" sort of precludes the idea that the majors are supposed to be about winning.  You cannot pretend to emphasize both. 
This is why a player like Ackley ... the best college player of the decade ... is better served putting in his work in AA and AAA.  So, by the time he reaches the majors, his focus is 90% on winning and only 10% on development.