Add new comment

Doc has been pretty good at looking at player development, IMHO.  And just recently I've jumped in with both feet.  
I think that the reason that there hasn't been any really indepth dicsussions about player development is because of a couple of things.
1 - Those "in the know" are afraid to back any fringy prospect out of fear to be looking like they are backing a failure.  I have never understood that philosphy because until any minor leaguer actually shows that they are peaking short of the MLB level then they should be put in the same catagory as those in the blue-chip column.
2 - Too many people are quick to strikedown a point of view because of a "small sample size", which is, IMHO, short-sighted.  Because they lack the ability and/or willingness to step away from the herd mentality they view attempts like mine, and in some cases Doc's approaches as "wrong".  Their loss.
Lately I've been delving deeper and deeper into the stats, and more importantly the splits of a lot of fringy prospects to see how they are really doing.  Too many people are stuck in the "small sample size" mode where anything less than a full-season worth of stats isn't worth looking at.  I say BUNK!  Growth can be seen in some of the smallest samples if a person is willing to take a look.
Lonnie