Todd Van Poppel v. Anthony Reyes

by felone on Aug 25, 2008 11:32 PM EDT Comment 41 comments

When the Cardinals traded Anthony Reyes it got me thinking about another high profile RHP who didn't seem to do to well under LaDunc - Todd Van Poppel.

I'm curious (and can't find any anecdotal evidence one way or another) as to what was the problem with Todd Van Poppel and why he didn't live up to the hype. Was there any of the "pitch to contact" philosophical differences? Was his stuff not as good as advertised? How did he get along with Duncan?

Does anyone recall this? Is Duncan ever blamed for his poor results? I recall the hype and lack of success, but too young to remember and can't find (alas before the days of instant blogification) the reasons why.

As a separate question - Can anyone think of starting pitchers who have been developed in the organization and had great success as pitchers under Duncan (either in Oak or STL)? The only one that comes to mind for me is Matt Morris (Wagonmaker's on his way, even though he wasn't drafted by the Cardinals). Duncan's greatest successes that I can think of seem to be 'Duncan specials' (Suppan, Bottenfield, Welch, Stewart, Carpenter, Lohse, etc,) and didn't come up through the system.

1st fan post, please be kind :-)

0 recs | Comment 41 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Fascinating...

I went back and looked year by year at LaRussa’s stint with Oakland and found no starting pitcher that developed and had a high level of success over his career. I did find that Jose Rijo, though not drafted by Oakland, also wasn’t able to catch on there, but found a high level of success in Cincinatti. Also, I found that the Oakland rotations back then often featured mediocre vets like Mike Moore, Scott Sanderson, etc. VERY SIMILAR to what we’ve seen in St. Louis.

Nick Stavinoah = John Gall

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Aug 25, 2008 11:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Poster boy for this

Dave Stewart. Talented, but unable to put it together, bounced to bullpen for a couple years, then dealt to Oakland and reeled off 4 straight seasons of 20 wins, ate ages 30 to 33. Definitely a case of mutualism there in what he did for their reps and what they did to salvage his career.

This has all been brought up before, but is still interesting to revisit now and again. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses in their jobs; the body of evidence for LaDuncan is that theirs is with salvage projects, and not with young pitching phenoms. They’ve done pretty damn well with that strength/weakness, so clearly they know how to make it work for them. I wouldn’t hire them to turn around a struggling franchise loaded with pitching prospects, though – there’s just no evidence in 20+ years that they can do it consistently.

by siddfynch on Aug 26, 2008 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As I posted in the main thread yesterday (with a coiuple of other posters as well)

This is the thing that people seem to misunderstand about LaDunc: They don’t work miracles with crappy pitchers, they simply take talented pitchers and focus them on following a fantastic gameplan which gives them confidence in their abilities to get hitters out. These are usually veterans who haven’t figured out how to pitch, but have good to great stuff. They just haven’t figured out how to use it. Duncan is able to get them to buy in to his philosophy and then their great stuff enables them to be better than average. With Dave Stewart it was simply about slowing down his delivery and harnessing control of his fastball by backing it off to allow it to move a bit more. Once that happened, Stewart became an above average starter for much of the next decade (he had some pretty good years with the Blue Jays in the early 90’s as well).

There are certain pitchers who are dead-set on doing things their way, believing it will work for them because it always has. What they fail to realize is that their best stuff isn’t always going to be there and that on a day it’s not they will get pummelled by big league hitters. Reyes has been accused of this, and while I believe that fault lies on both sides of the isle on that one, he does seem to be a stubborn type pitcher who only wants to pitch his way, even if that’s not necessarily the best path for him. Other guys, like Kip Wells, Jason Marquis, etc. have had the same problem under Duncan. Both of those guys can be tough when they have their absolute best stuff, but when they’re off they get hammered all over the ballpark. Good pitchers can be really effective when their stuff isn’t great, throwers simply can’t consistently get guys out when they don’t.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Aug 26, 2008 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haren's done quite well elsewhere

He was fine here before being traded, but they wanted a proven starter. No reason to rehash that here, but he falls in the Jose Rijo mode.

http://www.theticketguys.com

by felone on Aug 25, 2008 11:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

FWIW

I remember reading a while back that Walt almost didn’t make that trade because Duncan insisted he was selling Haren too low. He really believed he would become a top of the rotation guy.

by john vb on Aug 26, 2008 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duncan was vehemently against trading Danny Haren.

boo cubs, hooray beer

by Raconteur on Aug 26, 2008 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i heard that too

and its a damn shame

www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com
www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles

Dont take me seriously :-D

by jealousblues on Aug 28, 2008 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not a ton...

… but a few. Morris, Ankiel (it isn’t TLR’s fault he freaked out), Haren. Looper came up mostly in our system. not much else.

but it’s all really besides the point. as far as i can tell, the TLR/Dunc regime has nothing at all to do with draft decisions. and they also have had pretty much no say in how the minor league managers and pitching coaches instructed players. the organization has tried to unify the system more since Jock left, but that is a very new phenomenon (i.e. less than one year). before that, TLR/Dunc only had input when a player made it to the bigs. if no talent came up, that’s not entirely their fault.

this is an under-discussed aspect of the Reyes saga: the organizational system was not at all unified in how to instruct young pitchers so that they had a relatively seamless transition through the system, from A-ball to the bigs. in fact, it’s often seemed like the coaching philosophies have straight out clashed (e.g. Dyar Miller’s frequent under-mining of TLR/Dunc; not saying Miller wasn’t right, just saying there’s been a disconnect). that’s not very good for continuity and development. i think Mo’s taking some subtle, but strong, steps towards rectifying that situation, but it’s been a long time in coming.

as has been said, but apparently bears repeating, the TLR/Dunc regime isn’t the only one to have trouble with highly-touted pitching prospects. in the past few years alone, we’ve seen teams have trouble with the likes of Homer Bailey, Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy, and even Felix Hernandez. i don’t doubt that some of these guys will eventually turn out fine, but it’s not as if TLR/Dunc are the only ones not getting 100% smiles and roses out of their pitching prospects. and other than Reyes, i can’t think of any other top-flight pitching prospects that TLR/Dunc have had at their disposal in their decade+ with the Cards that haven’t worked out. there just hasn’t been much in the pipeline during their tenure. but again: since they don’t draft and don’t dictate organizational philosophy at all levels, this can’t really be put at their feet.

by kindred on Aug 26, 2008 1:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Organizational Failures

but it’s all really besides the point. as far as i can tell, the TLR/Dunc regime has nothing at all to do with draft decisions. and they also have had pretty much no say in how the minor league managers and pitching coaches instructed players. the organization has tried to unify the system more since Jock left, but that is a very new phenomenon (i.e. less than one year). before that, TLR/Dunc only had input when a player made it to the bigs. if no talent came up, that’s not entirely their fault.

These are organization failures, especially in the Cards system lately – not developing major league quality SP.

Bud Smith came to mind as another flop, because I recall him being somewhat highly regarded (at least I remember him being in the BA top 100). I did some googling and found this list:
1995 Alan Benes, rhp – SP
1996 Alan Benes, rhp
1997 Matt Morris, rhp – SP
1998 Rick Ankiel, lhp
1999 J.D. Drew, of
2000 Rick Ankiel, lhp – SP
2001 Bud Smith, lhp – SP
2002 Jimmy Journell, rhp – SP
2003 Dan Haren, rhp – SP
2004 Blake Hawksworth, rhp – SP

Again, not all solid ML talent, but Al. Benes, Ankiel, Bud Smith, Haren and Hawksworth were some of the top rated talent in the organization during the LaDunc regime. Benes had injury problems, Ank’s an OF, Bud Smith flamed out, Journell and Hawksworth were probably overmatched. Haren is a great pitcher but the spin was that he wasn’t projected to be this good (I recall hearing 3rd starter at best) when he was traded.

Prior to the drying up of ML ready SP’s (which is partially the reason for Luhnow / Mozeliak regime now), the Cardinals had some developed early in the regime. If they can start developing SP’s with Al Benes and Ankiel like talent. I’d be all for it – with Duncan or not.

http://www.theticketguys.com

by felone on Aug 26, 2008 7:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree.....

That as an organization, we’ve had a ton of pitching failures in recent years. That has to be a drafting or minor league instructor issue, not a TLR/Duncan problem, right?

by SoonerfanTU on Aug 26, 2008 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes and no?

If the organization doesn’t produce the talent then yes TLR and Dunc aren’t to blame.

If the organization produces what is supposed to be ML ready pitching talent (not judged by fans or Cards, but BA and others) and they can’t make it work, then yes it’s their fault (history will judge the Reyes trade, too early to tell now).

It’s a tad scary that pitchers like Boggs, Todd, Garcia, et al are supposed to be the future for this
team and the manager and pitching coach who have a solid history of everything else, don’t have a solid history of producing ML starters from young arms.

http://www.theticketguys.com

by felone on Aug 26, 2008 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and how many BA top 100s have TLR/Dunc had?

just a few. and at least several of them have turned out fine, or even exceeded expectations (albeit sometimes in other organizations a la Haren; but you can’t say that TLR/Dunc ruined him).

the glaring exception is Reyes, but you can’t craft a viable theory with only one data point.

by kindred on Aug 26, 2008 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure it's this simple

Look at it another way – what are the top 5 pitchers they have actually produced from AAA through to a bona-fide major leaguer? You don’t have to only have top-100 prospects to work with to accidentally crank out a few decent ones over a 30+ year career.

I’ll bet LaDunc has produced a less impressive top 5 over the last 30 years than almost all major league teams. Just shooting from the hip here, so feel free to prove me wrong.

At the same time, I also am not saying this makes them bad or evil or anything – just that their forte is working with older players, and so they work with their strenghts and avoid their weaknesses.

by siddfynch on Aug 26, 2008 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with that

Is the stunning lack of real prospects that made it to AAA. There are some, like Bud Smith, Journell, Hutchinson….but there are many more that were guys that never made it in another teams system.

I think the failure has been more with the farm system than anything LaRussa/Duncan have done. It is pretty amazing that here I am arguing that we don’t have a definitive answer, when these guys have been in the league over 2 decades. I have to admit that. Maybe I’ll have to rifle through B-ref and look to document who all has been sitting in AAA in their systems. I do know that with the Cardinals it isn’t much. And I don’t think they can be blamed for Van Poppel either.

by Merry CRasmus on Aug 26, 2008 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A quick look

1979-1986 with Chisox
- Britt Burns
- Rich Dotson
- Lamar Hoyt
- Bobby Thigpen (partial credit, since they overlapped only in 1986)
Not bad, really – Hoyt, Burns, and Dotson were all good pitchers, even if they were ridden hard and put away a little wet.
- (Duncan joined at pitching coach in 1982)

1986-1995 with Oak
- really no young pitchers developed; made a living off imported vets like Stewart/Welch/Young/Moore/Stottlemyre/etc.
- Notable misses include Karsay and Van Popple. Can’t remember how highly rated other guys such as Rijo, Prieto, etc. were during this time. Remember, the media wasn’t as into prospecting back then.

1996-2008 with STL
- Pretty well covered elsewhere in this thread.

by siddfynch on Aug 27, 2008 4:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was just about to do this...

thanks, I was feeling lazy….But anyways, I was gonna point out that LaRussa and Duncan (along w/carp & izzy) deserve most, if not all, of the credit for developing Adam Wainwright. So that gives them 2 – Morris and Wainwright. I don’t believe we should be counting Dan Haren, since his career didn’t take off until he left St. Louis. I’m not completely sold on Anthony Reyes’ resurrection yet, but if he does turn into a quality starter, I certainly wouldn’t be heeping praise on LaDunc. Alan Benes and Rick Ankiel should’ve been successes, but for reasons beyond LaDunc’s control, they flamed out. Bud Smith wouldn’t be classified as a LaDunc failure, since his career busted once he left. I agree with you that 2 pitchers over the course of 23 seasons isn’t much at all. You would think that a steady pitcher would’ve stumbled along at least every 5 years or so. NOT EVERYONE in MLB was a top 100 prospect. Is it all LaDunc’s fault? Of course not, the cardinals drafted like shit in the early rounds for a number of years (Wagner, Caple, Lambert, ugh…I don’t even want to finish the list. It’s just amazing that only 2 have been developed and used by the A’s/Cards consistently since 1986. I think there was a huge organizational flaw that the teaching wasn’t consistent throught the minors. That being said, its fun to be in contention almost every year.

Nick Stavinoah = John Gall

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Aug 27, 2008 4:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wait, what?

are you seriously arguing that the quality of the pitchers given to the care of TLR/Dunc is irrelevant? i would think that that is the single most important variable to the entire discussion.

seriously. other than Reyes, what top-flight prospect pitcher who should’ve been good ended up not being good under TLR/Dunc. perhaps you can come up with one or two, although i’m hard-pressed to come up with any, but there’s certainly no more than a couple. and none of them have really had any success after leaving the organization, either.

the quality of drafts, minor league instruction and development; these are all VERY big parts of the equation with which TLR/Dunc have had almost no input. they can’t just be tossed aside like that.

by kindred on Aug 26, 2008 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kinda yeah, kinda no

And either I didn’t express my point very well, or you missed most of it.

Sure, most good pitchers come from well-respected prospects that make a name for themselves while still in the minors. But certainly not all solid major leaguers fall into that category – there are plenty of good pitchers who were most certainly NOT in the BA Top -100, which was the metric that the original poster was referring to. For every Cole Hamels phenom, there are at least a few Doug Davis type guys that hang around for a few years as solid major league starters that can contribute to a contending team.

Over the course of 30 years, I would expect ANY team to have developed at least a few such decent pitchers who were NOT from the BA Top 100. And my point is that I think Duncan/LaRussa have developed fewer solid starters than average, over such a time period, even when omitting the top-100 type guys. I’m talking about the Moyers. Wangs, Washburns, Davis’s, Neagles, etc. that likely never cracked the top 100.

But don’t be all offended by this – the other half of my point is that Duncan/LaRussa get their fair share of 15-game winners anyway, they just get ’em from the vet scrap heaps instead of grown straight from the farm. Guys like Tewksbury, Bottenfield, Wellemeyer, etc.

by siddfynch on Aug 27, 2008 3:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well...

… i’d argue that TLR and Dunc have done pretty well with the so-so talent that the system has recently produced. but the TLR/Dunc philosophy has been to put those guys in the pen where they have a greater chance of making a positive contribution to the team. the TLR/Dunc regime has gotten a lot of mileage out of guys like Kinney, Johnson, and Flores who are marginal talents, but all the system was producing at the time. they’ve always some of these guys in the bullpen, and they’ve mostly been fairly successful with them, at least for a little while.

but still my point from below (and i think above) still applies: TLR’s job isn’t to develop. it’s to manage the line-up and bullpen. if marginal talents aren’t developing into contributors, then i just don’t see how that is TLR’s fault, especially when the organizational coaching philosophy has clashed so strongly with his/Dunc’s over the years.

by kindred on Aug 27, 2008 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not crafting a theory here

My point above (OP) was that the whole Reyes thing made me think of Todd Van Poppel.

I have no motive to prove or disprove that LaDunc don’t develop SP’s. I just find it interesting / concerning that they haven’t.

If the organization produces what is supposed to be ML ready pitching talent (not judged by fans or Cards, but BA and others) and they can’t make it work, then yes it’s their fault (history will judge the Reyes trade, too early to tell now).

Even if Reyes does awesome in Cleveland, it’s only one incident, which you can chalk up to not seeing eye to eye. But if we start developing pitching like the organization hopes, then we’ll have definite prove as to what happens with them.

by felone on Aug 26, 2008 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but...

… it isn’t TLR/Dunc’s job to “develop” anybody, if by “develop” you mean “train and instruct the player in ways which will prepare them for success in the major leagues”. TLR/Dunc only get the players after most of the developing has already been done. their job is to get the most out of the skills that the player has already developed. yes, development continues, but by the point the player reaches the major leagues, diminishing returns have already set in.

and, again, if TLR/Dunc were habitually neglecting to tap the full potential of their pitching prospects, then we should see those players achieve greater levels of success after they leave the organization. this doesn’t appear to be the case. in fact, the opposite seems more likely to be true.

by kindred on Aug 26, 2008 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Hard to mold a guy, when he isn’t around you except for a week or so in the spring each year.

Also, and this applies mostly to STL, not sure about the Whitesox and the A’s, but it’s been an organizational policy to trade young pitching, and to go with vets. Therefore there were probably a few, at least, minor league arms that we simply didn’t keep around long enough to “develop”.

by SoonerfanTU on Aug 27, 2008 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

man

I thought Alan Benes was going to be a cy younger winner.

boo cubs, hooray beer

by Raconteur on Aug 26, 2008 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

poor guy...

he was gonna be better than andy

Nick Stavinoah = John Gall

by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Aug 27, 2008 4:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

one of my lowest moments as a baseball fan

was the day I went to a Memphis Redbirds-Iowa Cubs game and the starting pitcher for the I-Cubs was Alan Benes. I will admit I drank a lot of franklins that night.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Aug 30, 2008 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ankiel

Tony took a lot of the blame for Ankiel’s losing it, and deservedly so. I believe that LaRussa, to this day, would tell you that he put him in a situation that he wasn’t ready for and should have gone with a veteran pitcher for that playoff start. I think that was part of the reason for the flood of emotion from Tony, who’s never emotional about anything, over Rick’s return last August. This was touched on a bit in the MSM after Anthony Reyes was named the Game 1 starter in the World Series in 2006. While the blame doesn’t lie squarely on TLR — this happens to certain pitchers — I think that he does deserve some criticism for it.

I object to the Felix Hernandez citing as someone who’s been mishandled. If anything, he’s been babied to much by the Seattle organization, and has shown that he can be an absolutely dominant starter when healthy. His problem is staying healthy, which he hasn’t been able to do to this point, but don’t think that’s something that can be attributed to his development.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Aug 26, 2008 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ankiel...

… isn’t the first rookie to pitch in a high pressure situation, but he’s the first to break down like that. TLR maybe could have protected him better (hell, he could’ve not played him, but what good is a pitcher who can’t pitch?), but Ankiel had major issues to begin with. it was a critical mass, and i don’t think any manager would’ve been able to prevent an eventual meltdown.

as for Felix… he certainly hasn’t been bad, and he’s almost surely going to get better. but he’s been injured a lot, and there have been all sorts of reports of fights and arguments involving him and his managers, coaches, and teammates. “babying someone too much” is also a type of mishandling. i certainly don’t think he’s unredeemable, but he has certainly not lived up to expectation so far, and Seattle only has him under control for two more years.

anyway, you can strike his name from the list if you please and add another half-dozen of big-shot pitching prospects from the past few years who have struggled in the bigs. the point is that it isn’t just TLR/Dunc. it’s every team.

by kindred on Aug 26, 2008 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I totally agree with the last part

There are just too many top pitching prospects that flame out to even count out — we just don’t remember a lot of them.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Aug 26, 2008 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ankiel

the loss of matheny and subing in carlos hernandez irs a huge part in the ankiel saga

I can't believe i gave up a homerun to that punch and judy hitter-major league 2

by punchinjudy on Aug 26, 2008 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

perhaps...

… and another factor that TLR couldn’t control.

by kindred on Aug 26, 2008 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Major League Contract

He had to be moved through the system regardless of how he performed. He did nothing in the minors to suggest he would be ready. And he wasn’t.

I think this is one of the worst things an agent can do for their client. It can seriously damage a kids long term prospects if things don’t go as planned. And really, how often do things go as planned? When assigning blame for how that career went, I put his representation at the top of the list and no one else is even close.

by Merry CRasmus on Aug 26, 2008 1:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

For a high schooler? Yes

For a college pitcher? No. If a top-level college pitcher (those are the only ones who get those) isn’t ready to stick in the majors by the time 3 years ends then something that is going to permanently derail their career has likely happened so it’s irrelevant anyway. At that point the player is greatly benefitted by #1 being able to structure the deal however either side wants and #2 runs them out of options so if they are equivalent to someone else without them they get to stay on the big club.

Kosuke Fukudome: $55 million .264 .364 .384
Skip Schumaker: $Free .311 .372 .426

by joker24 on Aug 26, 2008 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Todd Van Poppel owes me $10

That rookie card never did pay dividends.

hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit

by Alxfritz on Aug 26, 2008 9:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

well

Brien Taylor owes me a whole lot more than that dammit…..

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Aug 26, 2008 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I Swear I Had 4 of His Rookie Cards

Came in 4 seperate packs. Got a couple Michael Jordans at the same time. I lived in Dallas for a few years and Todd sucked there too. And last I checked Tony and Dunc never managed for the Rangers.

by bornin82 on Aug 26, 2008 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Van Poppel

It’s worth noting that he didn’t catch on anywhere else either, mainly because he didn’t spend enough time in the minor leagues learning how to pitch, which is a necessity at the big league level and something that Duncan preaches: Setting up hitters with a gameplan about how to pitch them to get as many easy outs on as few pitches as possible. We refer to this as “pitch to contact”, but it’s also the easiest and least stressful way to run through a lineup: by exploiting each individual hitter’s weaknesses.

As MCR brought up above, he was pushed through the system quickly and was meant to make a big splash, although never allowed to develop properly. There’s a laundry list of pitchers like that. Part of the problem with guys of this ilk (Kerry Wood, Bill Pulsipher, Mark Prior) is that generally they dominate hitters all the way up to the big league level and then hit a wall when they can’t get by on just their raw stuff anymore. Good pitchers (Curt Schilling comes to mind) learn to do their homework when that happens and develop as pitchers rather than throwers. The throwers generally are relegated to the bullpen or are out of baseball entirely.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Aug 26, 2008 9:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Didn't TVP have an injury of some kind?

I might not be remembering correctly, but it seems like he did.

by SoonerfanTU on Aug 26, 2008 10:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Shouldn't we look at this from the other angle?

And maybe we have, but what about the pitchers who were crap that LaDuncan made league average (or above average) with preparation and then the pitcher failed after leaving or being traded.

I’m thinking of the Edmonds trade, but were there others where a pitcher had success with LaDuncan and no where else?

You could have this happen two ways – he met success with STL and was traded or left in free agency and made a ton of money. Here’s to you, Dreamweaver. Suppan also.

How much $$$ has LaDuncan brought to their respective franchises by having a superior system for pitchers to pitch in? Thinking about how Jocketty used that in trades is pretty impressive.

by jpmorgan5150 on Aug 27, 2008 10:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Follow up:

Kent Bottenfield was the pitcher in the Edmonds trade. Also, I’m not saying that Suppan has fallen apart after leaving; however, he is an example of a pitcher catching his stride and leaving after doing so.

They key in my mind applies to many different types of sports or businesses – having a superior system comes from experience and knowing what you are doing. The Cards have a system that is proven to prepare the pitchers and allow them to use their best stuff when they have and compete when they don’t.

by jpmorgan5150 on Aug 27, 2008 10:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why is suppan an example?

ERA+ before STL: 106, 93, 111, 103, 111

In STL: 108, 119, 103

Average of 105 before and 110 here. Far from hitting his stride and largely attributed to the much better defense in STL vs where he played before.

He was the same pitcher here as he was before. Duncan didn’t do jack for for Suppan. Suppan just continued to be Suppan.

I am so tired of Duncan getting credit for things he didn’t even do.

by DriverZn on Aug 29, 2008 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Todd Von Poppel =Anthony Reyes? Apples=Lizards......

There is no way I even see a connection between those two.

Von Poppel was a first round draft pick, highly touted coming out of high school. He received a big bonus.

Reyes was a 15th round draft pick, four year college player, who was injured at the time of the draft, and the seasons preceding it. His bonus was so small, it is not even listed. They list everything over 100K…..

Scouts thought maybe if Reyes could get healthy, he might be special. No one thought he would get healthy, though. Everyone thought Von Poppel would be a stud, at least at the beginning.

The hype was there from the start for Von Poppel; it didn’t start for Reyes until he started pitching lights out in the minor leagues.

Someone mentioned Jose Rios. He definitely got worse each year Duncan coached him. I think it’s fair to say Reyes got worse each year Duncan coached him. Rios did become a top pitcher for his new team-he burned very bright for a few years, then succumbed to arm injuries. Reyes has burned very bright for a few starts-if he continues to pitch well, then maybe that would be a fair comparison. Not yet, though.

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on Sep 1, 2008 1:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs