In conjunction with the news that started to surface late last fall regarding a possible restructuring of Minor League Baseball, I began to run through my own thoughts of what the most efficient system would look like. Around this same time, I also was asked the following powerful question by one major league organization: “what is player development getting wrong and why?” My initial thoughts were related to hitting approaches, training philosophies, velocity development and arm health, but all seemed too myopic. It was not until I stepped back and examined player development from a macro level that my thoughts crystalized. From this point I recognized something. This “something” is a problem for every single professional baseball organization regardless of money, championships, history, or market size. My thoughts follow. Please enjoy.
Every organization operates with limited resources, both economic and human. At a macro level, the player development goal of every organization should be to apply its allotted economic and human resources in the most efficient, cost effective manner to develop as much MLB ready talent as possible in the shortest time frame to maximize its return on investment. Player development in most organizations comes nowhere close to operating in a manner consistent with this goal.
Aside from its entertainment value, minor league baseball has historically been set up primarily to give players thousands of repetitions spread over multiple years with the hope that players will somehow just figure out how to get better. Given the plethora of scientific data-mining tools currently available to determine which players have the requisite athleticism or mechanical skill sets to compete at an MLB level, operating with little more than a Darwinian survival of the fittest approach to player development is tremendously inefficient.
In player development, there are only four broad variables that can be manipulated:
a) Mechanics
b) Athleticism/explosiveness
c) Decision making
d) Mental approach
All minor league players should be compartmentalized or bucketed based on which of these variables, or combination of variables, is limiting their ability to play at the MLB level, and then trained with evidence-based development models to correct those limiting factors. Following such a model would require organizations to restructure their current players and staff based on each player’s greatest needs and staff member’s greatest ability.
While there are obvious exceptions, flawed mechanics and/or inadequate athleticism/explosiveness are by far the two greatest limiting factors to a player becoming MLB ready.
When it comes to player development, minor league games should largely exist to test whether players can execute pitches or swings under game conditions with sound mechanics, while displaying acceptable athleticism, sound decision making, and a productive approach. If a player is able to execute these aspects of performance within a game, then that player should continue to be exposed to game competition until he masters the proficiency necessary to move up to the next level. But, if a player already has a quantifiable or detectable flaw that limits, for example, his throwing velocity, spin rate, or command in the case of a pitcher, or bat speed or swing path in the case of a hitter, it is foolish to subject the player to games that will only increasingly hard-wire the flaw.
Specific to mechanics, a more enlightened approach to player development would be to place players in either a “mechanically sound” or “mechanically flawed” bucket. Players placed in the “mechanically sound” bucket should be given every opportunity to play in game competition to increase their number of game speed exposures. Players in the “mechanically sound” bucket may, however, lack in the three other categories. If so, they should receive additional coaching or training guidelines in the categories where they are deficient, while continuing to play in games. This may include a specific power/athleticism protocol, game scenario simulations, and/or psychological coaching or counseling sessions depending on the issues holding the player back. Conversely, players placed in a “mechanically flawed” bucket should not be permitted to play in games until they have demonstrated mechanical proficiency in a more controlled environment.
Player development departments must understand that the only way to correct a mechanical flaw is to create a new neurological pathway, more simply known as a muscle firing pattern. Trying to alter how muscles fire while performing complex high-speed movements such as throwing or hitting takes considerable time and repetition. As an example, Tiger Woods once said it takes him roughly six to nine months to make a swing change that will stand up in competition. Think about it. Perhaps the greatest golfer of all time with a nearly unparalleled single-minded focus and work ethic says it takes him six to nine months to make a swing change. Yet in baseball, player development staffs frequently believe they can work with a player a few days a week, throw him right back into competition, and think any changes worked on over those few days will carry over into game competition. They won’t. Creating a new firing pattern requires an alteration of neuromuscular control, which is the mechanism by which the brain controls muscle firing patterns during high speed movements, and this ability cannot be altered in a few days. Forcing players to take at bats or throw pitches in games where players know their results (e.g. strike outs, walks, velocity, K/9, swing and miss percentage, OPS, wOBA, etc.) will directly impact their future is counterproductive, as doing so causes players to default to utilizing the very flawed mechanics that are limiting their development, simply because that is what is comfortable.
The notion that the game is the best teacher and therefore players need to just play hundreds of games for multiple years to become MLB ready is simply outdated, false, an insult to player development staffs, and runs counter to everything we know about motor learning.
So, what is the right model?
Optimizing player development must begin with a precise analysis and assessment of each player to prioritize which limitation(s), if corrected, will make the player MLB ready. Each player should then be placed in a bucket according to his limitation(s). Evidence-based development protocols must then be structured to eliminate those limitations as quickly as possible. While players often face similar general problems (e.g. low throwing velocity, poor hands, slow running speed, poor command, low exit velocity, improper decision-making, etc.), correcting any of these deficiencies for a specific player requires a highly individualized, targeted plan. Because player development fails in most instances to perform little more than a superficial assessment of a player’s limitations, when it comes to training, most players and coaches often spend an inordinate amount of time working on things peripheral to the primary deficiency limiting the player’s advancement, something John Wooden termed, “confusing activity with achievement.”
Furthermore, considerable research has been performed over the past decade to identify the most effective approaches to increase throwing velocity, bat speed, running speed, and reduce injury risk. Across the entire organization, player development should be structured in a top down model based on available research to implement training approaches scientifically proven to produce desired results. To avoid providing conflicting instruction, the organization’s entire development staff must be taught the organization’s adopted approaches to all aspects of player development (e.g. improving throwing velocity, exit velocity, swing path, sprint speed, agility, enhancing command, UCL injury risk reduction, etc.) so that all players receive the benefit of training with the most effective principles science has to offer, without knifing through conflicting information.
Players deemed not ready to benefit from playing games will be tasked with spending their foreseeable future with the sole goal of getting game ready, which further emphasizes the importance of an informed, cohesive, player development staff that operates with a sense of urgency. Although out of the ordinary in the current minor league set up, instead of playing games, players with mechanical flaws should spend more time working directly with staff to become game ready with the mechanical qualities necessary to play at the MLB level. For some players, this might mean they go an entire season without playing a single game, or they only play games with very specific instructions and goals with no regard for conventional measures of success. As an example, similar to the approach many established big leaguers employ in Spring Training, a pitcher in a minor league game might be assigned to only throw 2 seam fastballs up and out or glove side down change ups, and hitters might be instructed to not swing at any pitch other than an up fastball. In every action, the goal of getting a player major league ready as quickly as possible must remain at the forefront of the player development staff, rather than producing desirable statistics.
I do not pretend to understand the economic benefits of independently operating between five to eight levels of Minor League Baseball, but moving towards a more centralized approach to player development offers numerous advantages. Doing so gives players greater teaching consistency in the deficiencies they need to correct and improves the overall knowledge and skills of the player development staff to produce better players. Both, in turn, yield a stronger on field product at the Major League level.
Setting aside the economic impact of pulling out of some minor league cities, organizationally, there is no need to cut players or staff by switching to such a model. By allocating players to specific levels or locations based on their most immediate needs, a similar relocation would occur for staff. Spring training host sites then become the true home to most of the organization. This further allows for a more uniform, yet individualized approach to developing players. The staff member best suited to assist with a specific issue, bat path for example, may have previously been the Double A hitting coach. By centralizing the players with mechanical inefficiencies at the spring training host site, that very same hitting coach will then be able to work with all players with such an issue, rather than just those playing for him in that moment, streamlining the development process. The thought of calling in a coordinator to a specific city or telling a player to hold off until the roving instructor arrives in a week then becomes a piece of baseball history, not a common occurrence.
If any organization’s overarching goal for player development is to grow as much MLB ready talent as quickly as possible at the lowest cost, the structure of player development and the role of Minor League Baseball must change. Modern technology allows for immediate identification of the precise deficiencies each player must correct relative to mechanics, athleticism, decision-making, and mental approach to be able to play at the big league level. Organizations which fail to restructure their approach to player development to take full advantage of this technology and growth opportunity will quickly find themselves looking up in the standings at those who do.
What do you think player development is currently getting wrong? I would love to discuss.
Adam Moreau, MBA, CSCS
Director of Player Development and Recruiting Coordinator
Eckerd College
419-250-7243
Komentáře