Holy Hell- Jared Gillstrom

[agrudez]

Has Markus indicated the amount of time it takes for a player to get bored?

Not that I can recall, but I can take another look. John's mention of player morale dipping is probably a good indicator, though.

[Ted]

Along the same sort of line as guys getting bored at aa level, I feel I've noticed that a lot of guys seem to top out around a 7 rating in AAA and just sit there until there potential drops (especially if they are absolutely crushing the league they are in). It's another reason I give these guys at least a little time in the bigs, to see if the higher level of competition pushes them to develop. The stuff I've read seems to indicate that level of competition (i.e. too easy or too hard) really does affect development.

[Ted]

Along the same sort of line as guys getting bored at a level, I feel I've noticed that a lot of guys seem to top out around a 7 rating in AAA and just sit there until there potential drops (especially if they are absolutely crushing the league they are in). It's another reason I give these guys at least a little time in the bigs, to see if the higher level of competition pushes them to develop. The stuff I've read seems to indicate that level of competition (i.e. too easy or too hard) really does affect development.

[scottsdale_joe]

My . I don't care what his minor league stats are. Its all about ratings. He has a ways to go to be fully developed so I wouldn't have brought him up this season either.

This.

[Lane]

My . I don't care what his minor league stats are. Its all about ratings. He has a ways to go to be fully developed so I wouldn't have brought him up this season either.

This.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aaronweiner]

This is only partially truth. Minor league stats really do translate a lot of the time. Of course, they're also closely linked with ratings, so it's sort of a moot point.

[agrudez]

I really don't understand the percentage of ratings argument. A 7/7/7/7/7 is a ML player - and probably a good one at that (if he is LH'd, of course!) - and should be in the majors (or tanking his morale if he is not). This is regardless of whether he is at his max potential or has a 3 points in each to go (ie. 10/10/10/10/10 potential). My understanding is that leaving that 7/7/7/7/7 in AAA will eventually (maybe not right away) hurt his development.

[udlb58]

I really don't understand the percentage of ratings argument. A 7/7/7/7/7 is a ML player - and probably a good one at that (if he is LH'd, of course!) - and should be in the majors (or tanking his morale if he is not). This is regardless of whether he is at his max potential or has a 3 points in each to go (ie. 10/10/10/10/10 potential). My understanding is that leaving that 7/7/7/7/7 in AAA will eventually (maybe not right away) hurt his development.

I agree, but it's more of a philosophical stance on prospects we're debating here. If you promote too fast, you can harm a player, if you promote too slow, you can harm a player; but it is kind of a case-by-case thing, not every player is ready at the same time and we all have to decide what we use to determine if a player is ready. To me, if a guy is performing at his current level and has the ratings to compete at the next, he gets promoted. If he has the ratings, but not the production (or vice versa) I am a lot more hesitant to promote him, even if one of those two things say he is ready for the next step.

As for the percentage of ratings, that to me is irrelevant. If a guy has the current ability of a top 5 player at his position, it really doesn't matter what his overall potential is. IMO, I think many OOTP players promote guys too slowly because they are waiting for his ratings to 'fill out'. Guys typically reach their peak between 25-27(maybe 28). So if you have a 23 year old who has the ratings and production in the minors to warrant promotion, a GM shouldn't hold him back to wait for his ratings to fill out (unless you have guys on the ML roster who are better, then obviously he would be blocked). But it is all up to the individual GM, if someone wants to marinate their prospects in the minors a little longer, and they have the quality at the ML level to justify it, then I see nothing wrong with the tactic.

It's the EBA, so the ratings are a little different, but Meye crushed the EL (EBA AAA) this year, finishing 2nd in SLG and TB, 3rd in ISO and HR, and 5th in OPS and WAR. His batting eye has a long way to go to reach his potential, but I think he could be a .260/.290/.420 player in the EBA. That would equate to about a 90-95 OPS+ in the EBA, so a league average hitter with slightly above average defense. Probably the only way he doesn't get a shot is if I get another middle-infielder that forces me to play Santana at his natural position of 3B, blocking Meye.

[RonCo]

Gilstrom was/is ready to play. I think the point was that if he starts in the MBWA in the spring of next year, then there was no contractual harm in getting him up to MON late this season--and in fact there are good arguments to be made that it would have been better for his development. At the end of the day, there is a randomness to it, though. So no one can ever say if it helped or hurt him developmentally to stay down.

All you can say for certain is that MON lost a couple months of him playing at the major league level that they could have had. Shrug.

[JohnC]

Gilstrom was/is ready to play. I think the point was that if he starts in the MBWA in the spring of next year, then there was no contractual harm in getting him up to MON late this season--and in fact there are good arguments to be made that it would have been better for his development. At the end of the day, there is a randomness to it, though. So no one can ever say if it helped or hurt him developmentally to stay down.

All you can say for certain is that MON lost a couple months of him playing at the major league level that they could have had. Shrug.

How did we "lose a couple of months"? We didn't lose it because we didn't want it. There was zero guarantee that promoting him this season would help his ratings. There was also no guarantee that leaving him in the minors would help them either. Assuming his ratings stay the same or get better he will be in the ML next season.

I find this entire thread amusing. As I have said many times, I have a model I follow with prospects. I have been very successful with it as my track record has proven. I have even had GM's in this league, and in the PBDL ask me my philosophy on running my minor league system. So it makes no difference to me if other GM's on here say I should have promoted him or not. He will be promoted to the ML when I want him to be there. Last time I checked he was a in the Blazers organization.

[RonCo]

We agree...as I said, there's no way to know if staying down or being called up helped him or hurt him. The only thing you can say with 100% certainty is that he could have spent two months or so on the MON roster without impacting his _contractual situation_ in any way. MON is, of course, completely in control of MON's decisions. It's a no lose situation for you in many ways.

[udlb58]

I find this entire thread amusing. As I have said many times, I have a model I follow with prospects. I have been very successful with it as my track record has proven. I have even had GM's in this league, and in the PBDL ask me my philosophy on running my minor league system. So it makes no difference to me if other GM's on here say I should have promoted him or not. He will be promoted to the ML when I want him to be there. Last time I checked he was a in the Blazers organization.

Right. There are 1,000 ways to skin a cat (or run a system). I completely understand you keeping him in the minors this year. Considering you already have the OSA #1 SS in Santana and a passable 2B in Chavarría, there was no reason to bring Gillstrom up. And, at the beginning of the season, Gillstrom was only 6-7-6-5-3, not yet the monster he has become.

[recte44]

This thread did what I wanted it to. There's discussion going again after a really dead period in the league.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[RonCo]

This thread did what I wanted it to. There's discussion going again after a really dead period in the league.

I blame me.

[c-mitch]

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's amazing prospect.

[RonCo]

What universe do you live in?

[Ted]

Gilstrom was/is ready to play. I think the point was that if he starts in the MBWA in the spring of next year, then there was no contractual harm in getting him up to MON late this season--and in fact there are good arguments to be made that it would have been better for his development. At the end of the day, there is a randomness to it, though. So no one can ever say if it helped or hurt him developmentally to stay down.

All you can say for certain is that MON lost a couple months of him playing at the major league level that they could have had. Shrug.

How did we "lose a couple of months"? We didn't lose it because we didn't want it. There was zero guarantee that promoting him this season would help his ratings. There was also no guarantee that leaving him in the minors would help them either. Assuming his ratings stay the same or get better he will be in the ML next season.

I find this entire thread amusing. As I have said many times, I have a model I follow with prospects. I have been very successful with it as my track record has proven. I have even had GM's in this league, and in the PBDL ask me my philosophy on running my minor league system. So it makes no difference to me if other GM's on here say I should have promoted him or not. He will be promoted to the ML when I want him to be there. Last time I checked he was a in the Blazers organization.

But if you don't let us pick nits and argue that someone else is doing it wrong, whatever shall we do?

[Ted]

This thread did what I wanted it to. There's discussion going again after a really dead period in the league.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

I've been bad too. Sorry about that. Been a bit busyish, but plan on a big writing weekend.

[agrudez]

But if you don't let us pick nits and argue that someone else is doing it wrong, whatever shall we do?

I can't speak for others, but I was trying to approach the discussion from a philosophical stand point (especially with the last post) rather than narrowing the discussion to this particular instance. Unfortunately, in a lot of ways, this thread is kind of a microcosm (at least for me) of this (and the past few) past season. Matt stated that he started it to drive conversation, but then the conversation got stymied because there is some very strong levels of sensitivity in this league.

Sometimes (in fact, maybe MOST of the time) Occam's Razor to being "PC" is just not even saying anything to begin with. As I've said, my recent (and current) workload is a big influence for my dip in participation, but I'm also definitely artificially censoring myself as well (often times I'll start an article or post, revise it half a dozen times and end up just dumping it all together because I don't want to fall on the inevitable sword it'll lay at my feet) because, well... I'm finding it more and more just not worth it to put myself out there as the punching bag any more. As I've said time and time and time again, conversations are really, really, really boring when everyone agrees with everyone else. Yet, if you try to start an actual conversation by disagreeing with someone (or even just being curious what their rationale was without a strong detracting opinion) its more often than not construed as an "attack".

At a certain point we really have to be introspective as a league as a whole and come to a consensus on whether we want to be a league that has a bunch of people posting TNs with a dozen iterations of "good job!" as the reply or do we want to drop the façade and broaden our horizons without crying foul at the drop of a hat? You don't have to go to the GUBA level of rhetoric, but there is certainly a happy medium that can drastically help facilitate participation - or, at least, an atmosphere more conducive to participation.

[udlb58]

But if you don't let us pick nits and argue that someone else is doing it wrong, whatever shall we do?

I can't speak for others, but I was trying to approach the discussion from a philosophical stand point (especially with the last post) rather than narrowing the discussion to this particular instance. Unfortunately, in a lot of ways, this thread is kind of a microcosm (at least for me) of this (and the past few) past season. Matt stated that he started it to drive conversation, but then the conversation got stymied because there is some very strong levels of sensitivity in this league.

Sometimes (in fact, maybe MOST of the time) Occam's Razor to being "PC" is just not even saying anything to begin with. As I've said, my recent (and current) workload is a big influence for my dip in participation, but I'm also definitely artificially censoring myself as well (often times I'll start an article or post, revise it half a dozen times and end up just dumping it all together because I don't want to fall on the inevitable sword it'll lay at my feet) because, well... I'm finding it more and more just not worth it to put myself out there as the punching bag any more. As I've said time and time and time again, conversations are really, really, really boring when everyone agrees with everyone else. Yet, if you try to start an actual conversation by disagreeing with someone (or even just being curious what their rationale was without a strong detracting opinion) its more often than not construed as an "attack".

At a certain point we really have to be introspective as a league as a whole and come to a consensus on whether we want to be a league that has a bunch of people posting TNs with a dozen iterations of "good job!" as the reply or do we want to drop the façade and broaden our horizons without crying foul at the drop of a hat? You don't have to go to the GUBA level of rhetoric, but there is certainly a happy medium that can drastically help facilitate participation - or, at least, an atmosphere more conducive to participation.

I agree? No, wait; I take offense!

Seriously though, I don't have near the longevity to comment on how things are vs how they have been, but it is something that I have noticed in forums and especially in game simulation forums. This isn't directed at any specific person, but just a general comment on the forums in general. We are asked to be journalists and GMs of a team, there is at least a small hesitation to call out someone for doing a shitty job because you might risk the chance that it pisses them off and they are someone you are no longer able to do business with.

However, to me, that criticism is to be expected. If the Moonshiners go out and lose 115 games in 2026, I make a terrible signing, and the farm system isn't replenished, I wholly expect at least a few people to put out some (at bare minimum) critical comments about the state of the franchise and question the direction I'm taking them. That wouldn't make me less likely to trade with that person down the road, because my "job" is to put my organization in a position to succeed and I'm not going to let personal bias get in the way of that.

Sure, we all want to be friends, but sometimes being a friend means telling a guy he looks like crap and needs to go straighten himself out. And if your idea of fun is only hearing positive comments (even if they are hollow and meaningless) while shutting out any criticism, maybe a league that requires it's GMs to write, comment, and even suggests we critique each other (hello trade analysis forum) isn't for you.