I don't think he's a good GM overall. The bar is far, FAR too low in Piratesland. but then again, why wouldn't it be? 5 championships in 125 years and 39 years since a pennant is a real embarrassment.
The org is behind. NH and co spent the last 4-5 years obsessing with ground balls. with middle infielders. Middle infielders, middle infielders!. Their analysis was that the future of baseball was groundballs and defensive shifting. That was the core strategy behind the team for the past 4-5 years. Pitchers pitch to contact and induce groundballs.
How do you beat a shift? Flyballs and power.
The Captain of this ship couldn't have read the weather more poorly. Now we're behind and trying to catch up... With the tiny amount of resources he has, we need a GM ahead of the curve. Not 2-3 years behind the game
The real problem
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
The real problem
The Pirates were ahead of the game as many teams then followed suit. That is how they made the playoffs three years in a row. How do you fault that strategy? It worked. They won more games than 25 other teams in that stretch.
Now, they need a new strategy. They are rebuilding. Hopefully, a new window will open again.
Now, they need a new strategy. They are rebuilding. Hopefully, a new window will open again.
-
Bobster21
The real problem
454E464A4F4E551016615840494E4E0F424E210 wrote: I agree with the article too. Teams that win, for the most part, build that core of young talent. The Pirates have not drafted well. This is my biggest knock on Huntington. Also why I blame him more than Nutting.
Before 2016, people thought Huntington was a very good GM. I guess two down years erase all the accomplishments?
Maybe he was a good GM then but not now. Things change. As they say, "you can't rest on your laurels."
Exactly! We are staring at a 3rd consecutive losing season after coming off 98 wins. He hasn't done enough.
He also took a team that won 57 games to 98 wins.
At this point, he has done more good than bad. He built up a farm system and made the playoffs three straight years. It looks like rebuilding is starting again this year. I will give him the benefit of the doubt going forward. His draft picks need to shine. Time will tell.
Dog, it sounds like you're talking more about his legacy. If so, I would agree with your point that he built up a bad organization and has done more good than bad. OTOH, if we're talking about his current performance as a GM, I'd say he leaves a lot to be desired. As you said, he has not drafted well and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. I don't think he has functioned well as a GM these past 3 years. And we are in the here and now. That doesn't mean he didn't do a better job at an earlier time. But legacy and current performance are 2 different things.
I was commenting on this statement:
"I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can say NH is a good GM. He has proven that he clearly is not."
Overall, he has proven to be a good GM. Yes, I look at the whole picture than just a few years. It can change for sure, but at this point he has been a good GM, overall.
Do you rate players the same way? Just look at their bad years and not consider what they did overall. That isn't fair in my opinion.
I'm glad you brought that up. I was thinking of using such an example in my prior comment. Again, it's a question of legacy vs current performance.
Mazeroski is a HOFer, and well-deserved in my opinion. A great player. But as age and injuries affected his game, his last 4 years (not even that old really, at 32-35) he combined to hit .231/.287/.308/.595 with 11 HRs and 83 RBIs and lost his range at 2B. At that time of his career he was not one of their better players. If someone had asked me who the team's good players were for those seasons, that is, who could be expected to perform at a high level at that time, I would not have included Maz. But I probably would have added that overall for his career, Maz had been a great player but he just wasn't one anymore.
So saying someone isn't good now--which may be an accurate statement--doesn't mean they didn't used to be good and doesn't mean they won't carry a legacy of being good even tho there became a time later when they weren't. It's not a question of being fair. It's a matter of talking about different periods. NH did a good job for awhile. Now he's not. Both are fair comments. It sounds like you have anointed him "Good GM for Life" on the basis of what he did a few years ago even tho you agree he isn't drafting well, the team isn't doing well, and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. So you seem to feel that because he's had previous success, he's a good GM regardless of whether he's actually functioning as a good GM now. That's where I disagree with you. NH's legacy remains to be seen. He's got 4 more years so who knows how he'll be viewed when his career is over? And you may yet be proven right. But I think that right now, you are talking about his perceived legacy while others are talking about his current performance (of which even you have been critical).
Before 2016, people thought Huntington was a very good GM. I guess two down years erase all the accomplishments?
Maybe he was a good GM then but not now. Things change. As they say, "you can't rest on your laurels."
Exactly! We are staring at a 3rd consecutive losing season after coming off 98 wins. He hasn't done enough.
He also took a team that won 57 games to 98 wins.
At this point, he has done more good than bad. He built up a farm system and made the playoffs three straight years. It looks like rebuilding is starting again this year. I will give him the benefit of the doubt going forward. His draft picks need to shine. Time will tell.
Dog, it sounds like you're talking more about his legacy. If so, I would agree with your point that he built up a bad organization and has done more good than bad. OTOH, if we're talking about his current performance as a GM, I'd say he leaves a lot to be desired. As you said, he has not drafted well and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. I don't think he has functioned well as a GM these past 3 years. And we are in the here and now. That doesn't mean he didn't do a better job at an earlier time. But legacy and current performance are 2 different things.
I was commenting on this statement:
"I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can say NH is a good GM. He has proven that he clearly is not."
Overall, he has proven to be a good GM. Yes, I look at the whole picture than just a few years. It can change for sure, but at this point he has been a good GM, overall.
Do you rate players the same way? Just look at their bad years and not consider what they did overall. That isn't fair in my opinion.
I'm glad you brought that up. I was thinking of using such an example in my prior comment. Again, it's a question of legacy vs current performance.
Mazeroski is a HOFer, and well-deserved in my opinion. A great player. But as age and injuries affected his game, his last 4 years (not even that old really, at 32-35) he combined to hit .231/.287/.308/.595 with 11 HRs and 83 RBIs and lost his range at 2B. At that time of his career he was not one of their better players. If someone had asked me who the team's good players were for those seasons, that is, who could be expected to perform at a high level at that time, I would not have included Maz. But I probably would have added that overall for his career, Maz had been a great player but he just wasn't one anymore.
So saying someone isn't good now--which may be an accurate statement--doesn't mean they didn't used to be good and doesn't mean they won't carry a legacy of being good even tho there became a time later when they weren't. It's not a question of being fair. It's a matter of talking about different periods. NH did a good job for awhile. Now he's not. Both are fair comments. It sounds like you have anointed him "Good GM for Life" on the basis of what he did a few years ago even tho you agree he isn't drafting well, the team isn't doing well, and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. So you seem to feel that because he's had previous success, he's a good GM regardless of whether he's actually functioning as a good GM now. That's where I disagree with you. NH's legacy remains to be seen. He's got 4 more years so who knows how he'll be viewed when his career is over? And you may yet be proven right. But I think that right now, you are talking about his perceived legacy while others are talking about his current performance (of which even you have been critical).
The real problem
58535B575253480D0B7C455D545353125F533C0 wrote: The Pirates were ahead of the game as many teams then followed suit. That is how they made the playoffs three years in a row. How do you fault that strategy? It worked. They won more games than 25 other teams in that stretch.
Now, they need a new strategy. They are rebuilding. Hopefully, a new window will open again.
Do you feel a GM should be held accountable for the W/L record. I am he is the one constructing the team.
Now, they need a new strategy. They are rebuilding. Hopefully, a new window will open again.
Do you feel a GM should be held accountable for the W/L record. I am he is the one constructing the team.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
The real problem
133E33222534236360510 wrote: I agree with the article too. Teams that win, for the most part, build that core of young talent. The Pirates have not drafted well. This is my biggest knock on Huntington. Also why I blame him more than Nutting.
Before 2016, people thought Huntington was a very good GM. I guess two down years erase all the accomplishments?
Maybe he was a good GM then but not now. Things change. As they say, "you can't rest on your laurels."
Exactly! We are staring at a 3rd consecutive losing season after coming off 98 wins. He hasn't done enough.
He also took a team that won 57 games to 98 wins.
At this point, he has done more good than bad. He built up a farm system and made the playoffs three straight years. It looks like rebuilding is starting again this year. I will give him the benefit of the doubt going forward. His draft picks need to shine. Time will tell.
Dog, it sounds like you're talking more about his legacy. If so, I would agree with your point that he built up a bad organization and has done more good than bad. OTOH, if we're talking about his current performance as a GM, I'd say he leaves a lot to be desired. As you said, he has not drafted well and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. I don't think he has functioned well as a GM these past 3 years. And we are in the here and now. That doesn't mean he didn't do a better job at an earlier time. But legacy and current performance are 2 different things.
I was commenting on this statement:
"I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can say NH is a good GM. He has proven that he clearly is not."
Overall, he has proven to be a good GM. Yes, I look at the whole picture than just a few years. It can change for sure, but at this point he has been a good GM, overall.
Do you rate players the same way? Just look at their bad years and not consider what they did overall. That isn't fair in my opinion.
I'm glad you brought that up. I was thinking of using such an example in my prior comment. Again, it's a question of legacy vs current performance.
Mazeroski is a HOFer, and well-deserved in my opinion. A great player. But as age and injuries affected his game, his last 4 years (not even that old really, at 32-35) he combined to hit .231/.287/.308/.595 with 11 HRs and 83 RBIs and lost his range at 2B. At that time of his career he was not one of their better players. If someone had asked me who the team's good players were for those seasons, that is, who could be expected to perform at a high level at that time, I would not have included Maz. But I probably would have added that overall for his career, Maz had been a great player but he just wasn't one anymore.
So saying someone isn't good now--which may be an accurate statement--doesn't mean they didn't used to be good and doesn't mean they won't carry a legacy of being good even tho there became a time later when they weren't. It's not a question of being fair. It's a matter of talking about different periods. NH did a good job for awhile. Now he's not. Both are fair comments. It sounds like you have anointed him "Good GM for Life" on the basis of what he did a few years ago even tho you agree he isn't drafting well, the team isn't doing well, and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. So you seem to feel that because he's had previous success, he's a good GM regardless of whether he's actually functioning as a good GM now. That's where I disagree with you. NH's legacy remains to be seen. He's got 4 more years so who knows how he'll be viewed when his career is over? And you may yet be proven right. But I think that right now, you are talking about his perceived legacy while others are talking about his current performance (of which even you have been critical).
You are correct. I answered the question as in overall performance. That can easily change with a few more bad seasons. That is why I also said "at this point". In my opinion, he has done more good than bad making him a good GM. If the bad outweighs the good, he will become a bad GM, overall.
If we don't see signs on improvement in the next three years, I will want him gone too. With his past success, I think he deserves a chance to rebuild. It will be a rebuild with all of his players, no hold overs.
To say he has proven that he is clearly not a good GM is not fair. The time period wasn't put in place when the question was asked.
Answering Win / Loss record question (notes34):
Win / Loss record can't be fully put on the GM. Huntington had to knock it all down before he built it up. So, those first few years under his tenure I give him a break. The cupboard was really bare when he took over, so it took more time than usual to rebuild. He has a winning record from 2011 to 2017. 2011 was the first year we (I) saw the improvement and the future. Not saying that is where he should be judged from, just pointing it out. Now, season to season he can be judged on record. It is his team for sure.
Before 2016, people thought Huntington was a very good GM. I guess two down years erase all the accomplishments?
Maybe he was a good GM then but not now. Things change. As they say, "you can't rest on your laurels."
Exactly! We are staring at a 3rd consecutive losing season after coming off 98 wins. He hasn't done enough.
He also took a team that won 57 games to 98 wins.
At this point, he has done more good than bad. He built up a farm system and made the playoffs three straight years. It looks like rebuilding is starting again this year. I will give him the benefit of the doubt going forward. His draft picks need to shine. Time will tell.
Dog, it sounds like you're talking more about his legacy. If so, I would agree with your point that he built up a bad organization and has done more good than bad. OTOH, if we're talking about his current performance as a GM, I'd say he leaves a lot to be desired. As you said, he has not drafted well and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. I don't think he has functioned well as a GM these past 3 years. And we are in the here and now. That doesn't mean he didn't do a better job at an earlier time. But legacy and current performance are 2 different things.
I was commenting on this statement:
"I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can say NH is a good GM. He has proven that he clearly is not."
Overall, he has proven to be a good GM. Yes, I look at the whole picture than just a few years. It can change for sure, but at this point he has been a good GM, overall.
Do you rate players the same way? Just look at their bad years and not consider what they did overall. That isn't fair in my opinion.
I'm glad you brought that up. I was thinking of using such an example in my prior comment. Again, it's a question of legacy vs current performance.
Mazeroski is a HOFer, and well-deserved in my opinion. A great player. But as age and injuries affected his game, his last 4 years (not even that old really, at 32-35) he combined to hit .231/.287/.308/.595 with 11 HRs and 83 RBIs and lost his range at 2B. At that time of his career he was not one of their better players. If someone had asked me who the team's good players were for those seasons, that is, who could be expected to perform at a high level at that time, I would not have included Maz. But I probably would have added that overall for his career, Maz had been a great player but he just wasn't one anymore.
So saying someone isn't good now--which may be an accurate statement--doesn't mean they didn't used to be good and doesn't mean they won't carry a legacy of being good even tho there became a time later when they weren't. It's not a question of being fair. It's a matter of talking about different periods. NH did a good job for awhile. Now he's not. Both are fair comments. It sounds like you have anointed him "Good GM for Life" on the basis of what he did a few years ago even tho you agree he isn't drafting well, the team isn't doing well, and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. So you seem to feel that because he's had previous success, he's a good GM regardless of whether he's actually functioning as a good GM now. That's where I disagree with you. NH's legacy remains to be seen. He's got 4 more years so who knows how he'll be viewed when his career is over? And you may yet be proven right. But I think that right now, you are talking about his perceived legacy while others are talking about his current performance (of which even you have been critical).
You are correct. I answered the question as in overall performance. That can easily change with a few more bad seasons. That is why I also said "at this point". In my opinion, he has done more good than bad making him a good GM. If the bad outweighs the good, he will become a bad GM, overall.
If we don't see signs on improvement in the next three years, I will want him gone too. With his past success, I think he deserves a chance to rebuild. It will be a rebuild with all of his players, no hold overs.
To say he has proven that he is clearly not a good GM is not fair. The time period wasn't put in place when the question was asked.
Answering Win / Loss record question (notes34):
Win / Loss record can't be fully put on the GM. Huntington had to knock it all down before he built it up. So, those first few years under his tenure I give him a break. The cupboard was really bare when he took over, so it took more time than usual to rebuild. He has a winning record from 2011 to 2017. 2011 was the first year we (I) saw the improvement and the future. Not saying that is where he should be judged from, just pointing it out. Now, season to season he can be judged on record. It is his team for sure.
-
Bobster21
The real problem
6F646C6065647F3A3C4B726A6364642568640B0 wrote: I agree with the article too. Teams that win, for the most part, build that core of young talent. The Pirates have not drafted well. This is my biggest knock on Huntington. Also why I blame him more than Nutting.
Before 2016, people thought Huntington was a very good GM. I guess two down years erase all the accomplishments?
Maybe he was a good GM then but not now. Things change. As they say, "you can't rest on your laurels."
Exactly! We are staring at a 3rd consecutive losing season after coming off 98 wins. He hasn't done enough.
He also took a team that won 57 games to 98 wins.
At this point, he has done more good than bad. He built up a farm system and made the playoffs three straight years. It looks like rebuilding is starting again this year. I will give him the benefit of the doubt going forward. His draft picks need to shine. Time will tell.
Dog, it sounds like you're talking more about his legacy. If so, I would agree with your point that he built up a bad organization and has done more good than bad. OTOH, if we're talking about his current performance as a GM, I'd say he leaves a lot to be desired. As you said, he has not drafted well and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. I don't think he has functioned well as a GM these past 3 years. And we are in the here and now. That doesn't mean he didn't do a better job at an earlier time. But legacy and current performance are 2 different things.
I was commenting on this statement:
"I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can say NH is a good GM. He has proven that he clearly is not."
Overall, he has proven to be a good GM. Yes, I look at the whole picture than just a few years. It can change for sure, but at this point he has been a good GM, overall.
Do you rate players the same way? Just look at their bad years and not consider what they did overall. That isn't fair in my opinion.
I'm glad you brought that up. I was thinking of using such an example in my prior comment. Again, it's a question of legacy vs current performance.
Mazeroski is a HOFer, and well-deserved in my opinion. A great player. But as age and injuries affected his game, his last 4 years (not even that old really, at 32-35) he combined to hit .231/.287/.308/.595 with 11 HRs and 83 RBIs and lost his range at 2B. At that time of his career he was not one of their better players. If someone had asked me who the team's good players were for those seasons, that is, who could be expected to perform at a high level at that time, I would not have included Maz. But I probably would have added that overall for his career, Maz had been a great player but he just wasn't one anymore.
So saying someone isn't good now--which may be an accurate statement--doesn't mean they didn't used to be good and doesn't mean they won't carry a legacy of being good even tho there became a time later when they weren't. It's not a question of being fair. It's a matter of talking about different periods. NH did a good job for awhile. Now he's not. Both are fair comments. It sounds like you have anointed him "Good GM for Life" on the basis of what he did a few years ago even tho you agree he isn't drafting well, the team isn't doing well, and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. So you seem to feel that because he's had previous success, he's a good GM regardless of whether he's actually functioning as a good GM now. That's where I disagree with you. NH's legacy remains to be seen. He's got 4 more years so who knows how he'll be viewed when his career is over? And you may yet be proven right. But I think that right now, you are talking about his perceived legacy while others are talking about his current performance (of which even you have been critical).
You are correct. I answered the question as in overall performance. That can easily change with a few more bad seasons. That is why I also said "at this point". In my opinion, he has done more good than bad making him a good GM. If the bad outweighs the good, he will become a bad GM, overall.
If we don't see signs on improvement in the next three years, I will want him gone too. With his past success, I think he deserves a chance to rebuild. It will be a rebuild with all of his players, no hold overs.
To say he has proven that he is clearly not a good GM is not fair. The time period wasn't put in place when the question was asked.
Answering Win / Loss record question (notes34):
Win / Loss record can't be fully put on the GM. Huntington had to knock it all down before he built it up. So, those first few years under his tenure I give him a break. The cupboard was really bare when he took over, so it took more time than usual to rebuild. He has a winning record from 2011 to 2017. 2011 was the first year we (I) saw the improvement and the future. Not saying that is where he should be judged from, just pointing it out. Now, season to season he can be judged on record. It is his team for sure.
That's fair, Dog.
Before 2016, people thought Huntington was a very good GM. I guess two down years erase all the accomplishments?
Maybe he was a good GM then but not now. Things change. As they say, "you can't rest on your laurels."
Exactly! We are staring at a 3rd consecutive losing season after coming off 98 wins. He hasn't done enough.
He also took a team that won 57 games to 98 wins.
At this point, he has done more good than bad. He built up a farm system and made the playoffs three straight years. It looks like rebuilding is starting again this year. I will give him the benefit of the doubt going forward. His draft picks need to shine. Time will tell.
Dog, it sounds like you're talking more about his legacy. If so, I would agree with your point that he built up a bad organization and has done more good than bad. OTOH, if we're talking about his current performance as a GM, I'd say he leaves a lot to be desired. As you said, he has not drafted well and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. I don't think he has functioned well as a GM these past 3 years. And we are in the here and now. That doesn't mean he didn't do a better job at an earlier time. But legacy and current performance are 2 different things.
I was commenting on this statement:
"I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can say NH is a good GM. He has proven that he clearly is not."
Overall, he has proven to be a good GM. Yes, I look at the whole picture than just a few years. It can change for sure, but at this point he has been a good GM, overall.
Do you rate players the same way? Just look at their bad years and not consider what they did overall. That isn't fair in my opinion.
I'm glad you brought that up. I was thinking of using such an example in my prior comment. Again, it's a question of legacy vs current performance.
Mazeroski is a HOFer, and well-deserved in my opinion. A great player. But as age and injuries affected his game, his last 4 years (not even that old really, at 32-35) he combined to hit .231/.287/.308/.595 with 11 HRs and 83 RBIs and lost his range at 2B. At that time of his career he was not one of their better players. If someone had asked me who the team's good players were for those seasons, that is, who could be expected to perform at a high level at that time, I would not have included Maz. But I probably would have added that overall for his career, Maz had been a great player but he just wasn't one anymore.
So saying someone isn't good now--which may be an accurate statement--doesn't mean they didn't used to be good and doesn't mean they won't carry a legacy of being good even tho there became a time later when they weren't. It's not a question of being fair. It's a matter of talking about different periods. NH did a good job for awhile. Now he's not. Both are fair comments. It sounds like you have anointed him "Good GM for Life" on the basis of what he did a few years ago even tho you agree he isn't drafting well, the team isn't doing well, and you blame him more than you blame Nutting. So you seem to feel that because he's had previous success, he's a good GM regardless of whether he's actually functioning as a good GM now. That's where I disagree with you. NH's legacy remains to be seen. He's got 4 more years so who knows how he'll be viewed when his career is over? And you may yet be proven right. But I think that right now, you are talking about his perceived legacy while others are talking about his current performance (of which even you have been critical).
You are correct. I answered the question as in overall performance. That can easily change with a few more bad seasons. That is why I also said "at this point". In my opinion, he has done more good than bad making him a good GM. If the bad outweighs the good, he will become a bad GM, overall.
If we don't see signs on improvement in the next three years, I will want him gone too. With his past success, I think he deserves a chance to rebuild. It will be a rebuild with all of his players, no hold overs.
To say he has proven that he is clearly not a good GM is not fair. The time period wasn't put in place when the question was asked.
Answering Win / Loss record question (notes34):
Win / Loss record can't be fully put on the GM. Huntington had to knock it all down before he built it up. So, those first few years under his tenure I give him a break. The cupboard was really bare when he took over, so it took more time than usual to rebuild. He has a winning record from 2011 to 2017. 2011 was the first year we (I) saw the improvement and the future. Not saying that is where he should be judged from, just pointing it out. Now, season to season he can be judged on record. It is his team for sure.
That's fair, Dog.
The real problem
We are supposed to judge him on the whole, but throw out 2008 - 2011 (4 years) because it wasn't his team. (Despite some disasterous initial trades)
Then we are supposed to credit him for 2012-2015 despite the 10+ WAR and a league MVP he got from DL draftpicks Cutch and Neil Walker both years. While getting little support from his own draft picks
Are people allowed to at least blame him for the past two years or is that too unfair? We're supposed to blame Marte and Kang for those.
So yes. If I'm fair and throw out or excuse the bad years, he's a really good GM
Then we are supposed to credit him for 2012-2015 despite the 10+ WAR and a league MVP he got from DL draftpicks Cutch and Neil Walker both years. While getting little support from his own draft picks
Are people allowed to at least blame him for the past two years or is that too unfair? We're supposed to blame Marte and Kang for those.
So yes. If I'm fair and throw out or excuse the bad years, he's a really good GM
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
The real problem
I knew you would twist that around. I even put a disclaimer in there knowing.
If you judge his overall win loss record, then Yes, he's been a bad GM. But if you are a realist and understand the state of the team he took over, you should have a different opinion. Did you really think he would have a winning record his very first year as the GM?
If you judge his overall win loss record, then Yes, he's been a bad GM. But if you are a realist and understand the state of the team he took over, you should have a different opinion. Did you really think he would have a winning record his very first year as the GM?
The real problem
0A3729242B212A082037262021450 wrote:
They do excel at drafting prep pitchers,
Can you provide a list of the successful major league pitchers, that were prep pitchers that NH has drafted and developed?
I'm not talking about prep pitchers that you thought seemed like good picks but flamed out, or picks that didn't cost much in term of signing bonus or late round picks that made AAA.
I'm talking about prep pitchers that are experiencing good major league careers, drafted and developed by NH that brought you to the conclusion that he and his guys excel at drafting prep pitchers.
Well, Taillon. I also imagine the total number of high school pitchers drafted since 2010 that have had ML success is small. Probably somewhere between 25-40. The Pirates have one of those guys, and they also have Glasnow, Kingham, Holmes and Keller in the system at the moment.
I would suggest you go through past drafts, The hit rate on an ML draft pick is probably like 20% in the first round and 5% overall. That's why I have a problem with complaining about the Pirate drafting. They have some clear whiffs, but they have struck enough times to consider them at least a league average team in the draft. They also need to do a better job at signing picks, Guys they drafted and didn't sign include, Buehler, Trea Turner and Paul Dejong.
I would suggest you look up the definition of excel. Because having one pitcher, the number two overall pick, does not prove NH excels at drafting prep pitchers. Neither does including other pitchers who have either been unsuccessful at major league level or have never pitched at the major league level.
Perhaps had you said you wish NH excelled at drafting prep pitchers, it would have been more accurate. Because right now the evidence simply does not remotely support the claim.
They do excel at drafting prep pitchers,
Can you provide a list of the successful major league pitchers, that were prep pitchers that NH has drafted and developed?
I'm not talking about prep pitchers that you thought seemed like good picks but flamed out, or picks that didn't cost much in term of signing bonus or late round picks that made AAA.
I'm talking about prep pitchers that are experiencing good major league careers, drafted and developed by NH that brought you to the conclusion that he and his guys excel at drafting prep pitchers.
Well, Taillon. I also imagine the total number of high school pitchers drafted since 2010 that have had ML success is small. Probably somewhere between 25-40. The Pirates have one of those guys, and they also have Glasnow, Kingham, Holmes and Keller in the system at the moment.
I would suggest you go through past drafts, The hit rate on an ML draft pick is probably like 20% in the first round and 5% overall. That's why I have a problem with complaining about the Pirate drafting. They have some clear whiffs, but they have struck enough times to consider them at least a league average team in the draft. They also need to do a better job at signing picks, Guys they drafted and didn't sign include, Buehler, Trea Turner and Paul Dejong.
I would suggest you look up the definition of excel. Because having one pitcher, the number two overall pick, does not prove NH excels at drafting prep pitchers. Neither does including other pitchers who have either been unsuccessful at major league level or have never pitched at the major league level.
Perhaps had you said you wish NH excelled at drafting prep pitchers, it would have been more accurate. Because right now the evidence simply does not remotely support the claim.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
The real problem
I don't think Huntington has done a good job drafting, but I also have no idea how other teams have done overall. I know "impact" players can be an opinion, but there has to be overall numbers on players who made the majors, played so many games, innings pitched, etc.
I do think Huntington drafted a bunch of good players out of high school who didn't sign, but he didn't draft any again. I saw a list, it seemed high to me.
I do think Huntington drafted a bunch of good players out of high school who didn't sign, but he didn't draft any again. I saw a list, it seemed high to me.