Prospect Lists - Phillies and Overall - 2022-2025

[allentown]

Outside of 2016-2018, they're still not finding players in the top ten rounds, even bench quality guys.

This makes zero sense and contradicts the data you present. 2016-18 gave them Bohm and Stott, but 2013 yielded Crawford, 2014 Nola and Hoskins, and 2021 gave us our current top prospect. And we got Stott in 2019.

One huge change in recent years: the Phillies have drastically reduced the assets devoted to signing amateur pitching. We were far more balanced in the past. In last year's draft, we didn't take a pitcher until the 8th round. In 2023 we didn't draft a pitcher until.round 6. We also didn't give much bonus $ to LA pitching in those years. Lots of luck with that approach and destructive insanity for an organization that has gotten far more bang for the buck signing and developing pitching.

[fish]

One huge change in recent years: the Phillies have drastically reduced the assets devoted to signing amateur pitching.

Which is a move that has some logic…if you’re good at developing hitters… and strange if pitching development is somewhat a strength.

[Pat_Burrell]

Law out this morning with his top 100 prospects on The Athletic which of course is subscriber based so I won’t post full list. Notables: Painter 12, Miller 13, Crawford 41, Caba 72

[Austinfan]

I think they've given up the dream of drafting big arms with poor command and fixing their mechanics, can't think of one that panned out. Which means you take pitchers early (high upside) or later (conversion to bullpen or really raw).
2024: 9th, 11th to 20th rds were pitchers.
Outside of O'Hoppe, how many hitters make it after the 8th round or so?

So it's similar to LA, add a lot of low probability pitchers later in the draft, sign a lot of low cost projects.

[allentown]

So it's similar to LA, add a lot of low probability pitchers later in the draft, sign a lot of low cost projects.

And whom did we score with? First rounders Nola and Painter! We did get Kerkering later in draft and Suarez in LA. I think your method works with relievers and 4th/5th starters.

[fish]

I think they've given up the dream of drafting big arms with poor command and fixing their mechanics, can't think of one that panned out.

Panned out, and created value from them are different. They created trade capital out of Ben Brown and George Klassen (and I think Graves is the next in line for that) They developed Kierkering. Whatever Painter becomes he’s a huge trade asset if nothing else. Abel “had” big trade value, but that’s the game you play with these guys when trying to figure out who to keep and who to sell high on.

Granted, they aren’t getting much from the strategy to draft a lot of high octane raw reliever nobodies after the 10th round, but that type of guy could take like 5+ years to figure it out.

[Austinfan]

I'm thinking of McGarry, Baker, et al.
Klassen is probably the only one they got value out of. And by trading before he may crash and burn.

Graves and Brown weren't big arm/bad command, but young arms with upside.

I'm starting to think that command, like being able to see spin for hitters, is an innate quality that can't be taught.
Either you have the body control to consistently repeat your pitching motion or no amount of tweaking your mechanics will fix the problem.

[andyb]

Analytics dictate that pitching is just more risky than hitting. So teams draft hitters more often because of WAR/draft position or bonus. It is reasonable behavior. It just leaves open the question of how to get pitching. For the Phillies that questioned is largely answered by the desire to sign free agents or trade for them - not to spend draft or international resources on them.

This is not some grand Phillies plan knowing how to develop more pitching with low cost arms than anyone else. It is rather an acknowledgement that we get more WAR by developing hitters as long as we have the money to buy pitching later.

BTW that Law list has 22 pitchers and 78 position players on it. The whole industry is making these choices, not just the Phillies.

[allentown]

I like Bohm, still have hope for Rojas in CF, and think Aiden Miller will be a solid IF addition for us (although, to be completely honest, I thought more highly of Kingery). To me, that seems an inadequate yield from our emphasis on position players. We are a team whose lineup is not homegrown, suggesting that the make-your-own hitters and buy pitching is not a sustainable proposition. That is the elephant in the room when we talk about it being logical for the Phillies to de-emphasize the acquisition of solid pitching prospects. We simply haven't signed/developed a hitter who has achieved the value of Nola. With Wheeler and Nola aging, it would be good to replace them internally, as our MLB budget is strained. Painter, hopefully, replaces one of them in a few years. The home-grown Kerkering seems set to be a high-leverage reliever for us. That's another win on the pitching development side. The hitting side consumed a lot more $ and gave us Bohm and Stott, with Aiden Miller perhaps the position equivalent of Painter, although I must argue lower ceiling for Aiden. I don't think position players are lower risk FOR THE PHILLIES.

[andyb]

I don't think position players are lower risk FOR THE PHILLIES.

I think you are missing the larger picture though. The Phillies have definitely had their dumb first round position player picks like Haseley. But really other than Painter we have not hit on a high dollar pitcher since Nola. That includes arms like Gowdy in the draft and Starlyn Castillo internationally. I think our success rate (WAR pre free-agency) with high dollar picks and signings has been better on the hitting side than on the pitching side even considering Painter.

This is what the whole industry is seeing. One of our reactions has been big arms that can't throw strikes like Klassen because we know that velocity is the most important raw tool. That is just how we get big arms in less premium signings - by going for the ones without command or good secondaries.

Everyone is de-emphasizing pitching prospects. It is rational. It just is not guarantee to develop actual pitching. Trades like Chace and signing expensive free agents may be the best way to go if we can afford it.

[Austinfan]

Pitchers are more variable, which is why you go high or low, but not in between.
And the big arms without command rarely pan out, you're better off with the low cost skinny guys who fill out and add velocity.

Hitters are more predictable, which also suggests that they're not worth drafting outside of 5th rd value or so, because at that point you're looking at lower ceilings, and you can always pick up AAA+ guys on waivers or cheap trades, so growing your own should be a low priority. Whereas solid BP pieces have more value.

[andyb]

And the big arms without command rarely pan out, you're better off with the low cost skinny guys who fill out and add velocity.

If the Phillies are so smart about their new strategy, why do they continually go for big arm without command? Once again, signing low cost arms at the back of your draft and Latin American classes is not a strategy. It is just what everyone does.

Clearly the Phillies look for big arms and often the ones they can afford are the ones with command or secondary pitch issues. That is just a fact.

[Austinfan]

They didn't do that last draft.

[Matt_Winkelman]

There are a lot of moving parts with pitching acquisition and development. A lot of it comes down to development and traits. The Phillies go big on stuff and poor command for relievers, especially small schools and places with poor development (Miami is one of them and one of the reasons why Alex McFarlane was breaking out before his arm blew out). The Phillies also mostly do not emphasize fastball traits over everything, both in the majors and minors they make up for fastball shape with multiple fastballs. They also fill in the gaps in arsenals, most of their starters and many of the relievers will throw two different breaking ball shapes with different utilities. The Phillies are also one of the teams (the Rays being the one of the others, and you can pinpoint the connection) that likes weird outliers. There are funky arm angles and pitch shapes throughout the org whether it is someone like Sanchez or Kerkering, or some of the reliever types they have brought in, they don't min/max they get funky.

To top it all off with pitching, so much of it is pro scouting and development. It is finding Jeff Hoffman, Andrew Bellatti, Jose Ruiz, Matt Strahm, etc and identifying untapped potential and bringing it out of guys.

Pitching is injury risk, but a lot of why it is valued the way it is, is because you have a tier of guys who get paid because they are "safe" and then much of the rest is betting on a collection of things that you can make better.

[andyb]

because you have a tier of guys who get paid because they are "safe"

I definitely am happy that they have moved beyond the upper/mid round safe college arms. The Cal State-Fullerton pipeline of guys that throw 88-90 with command. We just don't get much bang for the buck on those $400K-$600K bonuses. I prefer the big swings at Alex McFarlane and George Klassen types. Even Kerkering is closer to that category for the mid-top 10 rounds.

When you can use pro scouting to identify guys like Hoffman or Cristopher Sanchez, the draft and international dollars are better spent on position players and flawed pitchers with stuff. It is completely rational and backed up analytics and success rates.

[andyb]

They didn't do that last draft.

They actually still did (going for stuff over command). They just waited till the 8th and 9th round to start doing it. And then they drafted all relievers in the second 10 rounds. They decided to invest less overall in pitching this year, but the general strategy was similar. As Matt noted they started emphasizing some programs that do not develop pitchers well as maybe another way to find hidden value.

[Austinfan]

Raw stuff without command doesn't even work out the pen most of the time.
What does seem to work better are high spin rates.
That is a 4 seamer that rises at 93-95 is harder to hit than a "straight" 4 seamer at 95-97.

The 88-90 guys without upside are useless b/c except for a few outliers, no SPs are successful these days averaging under 92. But once you hit that minimum, command and secondary pitches are far more valuable than an additional 1-2 MPH.

Guys who average 95+ with 3 secondary pitches and command are rare as hen's teeth. Which is why the Phillies pay Wheeler big money and why Painter is a top 5 prospect.

Out of the pen, velocity has more value, but as Neris showed, 95-97 when his split didn't work was HR city.
You have to have a plus secondary pitch to set up your FB.

[allentown]

. I think our success rate (WAR pre free-agency) with high dollar picks and signings has been better on the hitting side than on the pitching side even considering Painter.

You may think that, but it's not true. Nola has 24 WAR pre-FA service accrual, although the Phillies bought out some of his arb time with an extension agreement. Kerkering has 1.6 WAR. On the position player side, Bohm has 3.8 WAR and, I think, 2 more years before FA. Stott.has 2.5 WAR and, ,I think one more year before FA, Hoskins has 11.2 WAR. I think that's it for draftees in this cycle, so more WAR to the pitchers and more bonus $ to the hitters. If I go back to 2013 and add the traded J.P. Crawford, that adds 18.5 WAR through his FA time. That would make it 32.2 WAR for hitters and 25.6 for pitchers. Still more $ efficient for the pitchers, I think. Please show your math.

[andyb]

I said since Nola in my post. And generally I have been correct that other than Painter we have not really had many successful picks. In the Moniak draft we spent big dollars on Gowdy, Romero and Cole Irvin and did not get much out of that money spent. 2017 featured big money to Spencer Howard and Conor Seabold (the command over stuff model).

2018 actually looks like a pretty good position player draft with Bohm, Vierling, and O'Hoppe (and the miss on Eastman). Stott seems a successful pick the next year and then Abel in 2020 looks bad at the moment.

The point is Painter is the exception. The Phillies took some of that knowledge along with industry success rates and have changed course. Crawford and Miller are the result. Nori and Burkholder too. The Phillies may not be good at it, but we have changed behavior. We are just not spending 2nd and 3rd round picks on pitching as much any more. They have concluded that more money should be spent on hitting than pitching in both the draft and international spending.

BTW Stott has 8 WAR so far on Baseball Reference. He looks like a really good pick given his mid-round spot in the draft and likely 2-3 WAR yearly value on defense alone even if his offense does not improve.

[zambonir]

I think it's pretty hard to claim any sort of trend at all when you're talking about a 10-year period that spans four different baseball department heads (if you count Gillick 2.0 as one of them) and three different scouting directors.

Barber's reign has seemed more situational than anything, in terms of team goals/needs, draft position and also the specific pick. Abel was thought to be a possible steal given his youth and lack of experience (due to COVID); had they not felt he was a good value there probably they would have taken a position player (five of the next six guys taken after him were non-pitchers).

I also feel like Barber's first drafts were reactive to his predecessor - taking two HS pitchers on the heels of two college position players who already looked like they were going to work out in 2020. Before Bohm and Stott the Phillies also took position players three previous years in a row. During much of that time the team believed it already had the makings of a homegrown (if mostly trade-acquired) pitching staff, and it kind of did, in that Eflin, Pivetta and Ben Lively were all still credible major league starters last year, and Velasquez did give them innings (with Thompson being the big flop). In the end they also traded both Sanchez and Howard.

Then Barber reacted to his own drafts and the team's seeming depth by pivoting to HS position players, having stocked up on pitching at the top in '21 (and with two of the four picks in '20).

When you factor in the 2020 draft and the subsequent changes to the draft the Dombrowski/Barber data set is small, and any larger data set is full of variables.