Between supper and playing Santa on Christmas Eve, Kyle Stark repsonded to the questions we sent to him back in November.  For those that haven’t followed along, Stark had asked if we would wait until he completed his minor league hiring since some of the questions dealt with those positions. 

Lastly, I stressed in a post a few weeks ago that if the Pirates were only signing one-year deals to key development people (1A and up plus the rovers), then we weren’t taking the steps necessary to build a cohesive system.  So I asked Stark and he replied:

 ”I appreciate where you’re heading with your question, but we’re not going to comment on the contract status of our coaches.  I will say that we are only as good as our coaches so you can bet my focus is on assembling and preserving (if not improving) a quality staff.”

That being said, I continue to be worried that we are only hiring stop-gap solutions, albeit many are quality men.  But until the Pirates can hire and hold their key development staff, too much productivity will be lost in each transition and the entire system weaker as a result.  We won’t turn the corner until that happens but, as Stark notes about personnel below, we are getting closer.

Now for the Q&A:

1.  In your first Q&A with us in April you stated that the most important process change you implemented in the system was your new philosophy:  “To help players achieve their potential, while developing them as professionals, through a relentless, systematic, and cohesive approach. That drives everything we do in development.”

While strides were clearly made in the system, one might argue that those standards took a few hits this year: cohesiveness, the significantly high turnover rate of field staff;  and systematic, in that a few notable players in the system criticized their player plans as being inefficient, untimely, and/or inadequate. What steps are being taken to better inform players what is expected of them on a more consistent and timely basis?  And, what steps are being taken to reduce staff turnover in your system?

Stark:  Strides were definitely made and I would argue that whatever bumps we ran into along the way (and we certainly ran into some as one would expect when implementing a new system in any environment) still were heads and shoulders above where we were as an organization a year ago. The fact that not everyone was on board or some players were critical of their player plans still is better than everyone doing their own thing with no cohesive message or a checklist of things a player should be able to do that was not relevant to a player’s development.  I will discuss both items in more detail, but first want to comment on the good things that are going on in development. 

I am extremely encouraged with where we’ve come in about 12-13 months, which makes me excited about where we’re going in the next 12-13 months.  Whether it be individual staff members getting better, players improving, stories from the community commitment program, staff from other clubs complimenting our staff or how our players play to me, personnel within the organization in other departments recognizing the strides and expressing pride in our development system for the first time, external people complimenting our Spring Training and Instructional League workouts (one such person commented that he had visited about 20 different camps and they all lagged behind ours), or other organizations expressing some interest in our staff for other positions (12 of them which I’ve never heard of in one offseason … and many chose to be a part of this), I believe in what we’re doing.

As for the turnover in staff, it really is not much different than what we had the year before.  I am not shocked that not everyone was completely on board with what we are doing.  In fact, if everyone embraced it then the message was probably not different enough from the past one or not challenging enough.  We talked openly that there is more than one way to develop players (even though we feel strongly this is the best way) and that no one would take things personal if people wanted to leave. 

We used this year to determine who was on board with what we were doing and who was competent to execute what we were doing, and ultimately made some decisions that not everyone was. 

The fact that many people have chosen to be a part of this (both existing staff and new adds like Kremblas, Walbeck, Forbes, Treanor, Whitehurst, Brewer, Long, Skaalen (almost!), etc. who all chose our opportunity over others) tells me that we’re on the right track and don’t have to worry about staff turnover being near as great going forward.  Although, with as much interest that was shown by other organizations in our current staff, we may have to worry about losing people to other opportunities!  However, that’s a good problem to have and actually a goal of ours, i.e. to see Pirates throughout the game as ML staff members, coordinators, farm and scouting directors, cross-checkers, general managers, ML managers, etc.  I am very excited about the staff we’ve assembled in a very short period of time. 

I think we have good leadership in the coordinator group (one person commenting that we have a pretty good ML staff right there), a manager group who better aligns itself with our development philosophy, and excellent teachers throughout.  We’ve added difference makers at the upper levels, moved personnel to roles and levels they are better suited for, and been creative in adding people to complement our staff (ex. veteran baseball guys like Rich Donnelly and Jim Skaalen – who we lost to OAK as their ML hitting coach, experienced teachers at the lower levels like Gary Robinson – diverse background and long history of developing players – and Mark Brewer – veteran pitching coach up to 3A with coordinating experience in Latin America as a rehab pitching coach in Bradenton to help with rehabs and entry level pitchers, etc.).  Much has been made about “clipboard holders” being hired in development or people desperate for jobs, but I think this offseason shows a different approach.

As for players and their player plans, any player who is/has complained should be calling himself out since players are involved in the process and creation and player plans are designed to create accountability in the players so there are no questions about what he has to do to advance (it’s completely on his shoulders).  I have commented a number of times that not only does the talent in our organization need to improve, but so does the mentality and this is a reflection of that.  Some people still are struggling with the accountability concept. 

That being said, the player plan system has not been implemented perfectly in less than one year and has room for improvement.  I think we made strides in introducing the concept, getting people’s mindsets to change from a checklist of items that may or may not be kept up-to-date to a living document that changes with the player, and introducing it to the players.  However, we need more familiarity with the concepts (that it drives a player’s development and our teaching) and more consistent implementation by all staff.  When functioning efficiently, the player plan system will let all parties know exactly what needs to be done, what is being done on a daily basis to help accomplish those goals, and what progress is being made.  The mindset has been introduced, but we need to further application of being systematic in our development.

2.  Have you started getting baselines of some of the young pitchers at ASMI? If so, how many and can you tell us who has been there? If you haven’t started yet, can you tell us if, and when, you plan to start and who would be likely candidates to go?

Stark:  We have not gotten any pitchers to ASMI yet; however, we have laid the groundwork and have started getting our staff more acclimated with what ASMI does.  Like anything else we do, we strive for consistency throughout with all parties involved being on the same page so we’ve decided to make sure that all personnel (strength and conditioning, medical, pitching, ML/minor league) have a familiarity with ASMI. 

We had planned to send some pitchers during Instructional League, but could not work out the logistics.  Timing is important as the pitchers need to throw at roughly 90% intensity to ensure accurate results.  The next logical opportunity to try it would be towards the end of ST or during next IL.  Ultimately, the groundwork has been laid and we’re ready to add this aspect to our pitching evaluation and development processes. Likely candidates would include guys coming off injury, those with red flag mechanical concerns, and some higher dollar investment guys to get initial baselines established going forward.

3.  Can you tell us the goals of the new flat ground throwing program that pitching coordinator Troy Buckley implemented this last year?

Stark:  First, everything that has and will be implemented in player development is a joint effort and a commitment by us rather than an individual person.  That being said, Troy Buckley, as our pitching coordinator, has a significant voice and serves as part of our pitching “leadership”. His pitching philosophy greatly aligns with mine, Neal’s, our ML pitching coach, and others within the organization. 

Our throwing program, which we feel like led to significant strides made by a number of pitchers and led to the overall improvements in health (as noted by your question below), does include a flatground element.  This is no different from most other quality throwing programs that I have been associated with or come across.  Basically, pitchers finish their long toss session with a limited number of “pitches” at 50-55′ on flatground for daily maintenance of their delivery and feel.  Unlike hitting where everyone can get hundreds of swings every day to work on their mechanics, pitchers are limited in the number of throws they can execute. 

Doing it on flatground helps limit the stress, as well as monitoring the intensity, but allows us to practice our delivery every day as opposed to only on sideline days.  Also, the flatground routine is part of our progression of intensity from long toss to flatground to bullpen to game so that pitchers do not have to flip on a switch and go from 60% intensity to 95% in competition.

4.  I had heard a rumor during the year that certain pitchers had been prohibited from throwing certain pitch types. Is that true? If so, can you tell us what the benefits of such a restriction would be?

Stark:  Certain pitchers were limited in their pitch selection in certain situations.  Examples include a more general limitation like the amount of 2-seam fastballs thrown by younger prospects to more specific limitations like capping the number of breaking balls a pitcher threw (or limiting them to one of the two innings the pitcher threw) or challenging pitchers to throw fastballs rather than falling in love with their offspeed stuff.  The goals can vary greatly depending on the pitcher and the situation, but the main purpose is the same, i.e. our sole focus is on what that player can be (hopefully someday in Pittsburgh) as opposed to what he can be on a certain night.  Sometimes you need to sacrifice a battle to win the war! 

This applies to the situations outlined above in the following ways:  limiting the number of breaking balls thrown was done to force the pitcher to throw his change-up more (which led to a solid average if not above average change-up in Ronald Uviedo’s situation); challenging a specific pitcher to pitch with his fastball as opposed to simply rely on the change-up (even though we are trying to increase the use of the change-up throughout the organization) was done to get the pitcher to pitch off his fastball (and hopefully develop some more velocity which it did) as opposed to pitching off his change-up (which led to Tony Watson being viewed more than simply an A-ball lefty with a change-up who can dominate A-ball hitters); and the limitations on the 2-seam fastballs are done to promote the 4-seam fastball (the foundational pitch in basic pitcher development), which leads to 1) better command, 2) more arm strength, 3) not afraid of contact mentality (de-aluminize their thinking), and 4) change-up development because of the lack of fear of contact. 

Everyone wants to focus on that night and finding shortcuts to help, but our focus is more of a big picture, long-term perspective since development is progression-oriented.  Obviously, each pitcher is different and different courses of action are applied in each situation, but our core philosophies and beliefs serve as a foundation where we start from and build off for the individual person.

5.  Pick one: tools or makeup?  Why?

Stark:  BOTH!  I don’t know that you can get away with only one or the other. However, it all starts with tools.  If you don’t have some base level of tools, then you are limited.  You’ve probably heard the line about chicken salad (can’t make chicken salad out of …).  Tools allow us to have something to work with in helping players reach their potential. Those players with greater tools tend to have greater potential.

However, make-up can be the separator in whether the player reaches his potential or how close he comes to reaching it.  We’ve made it a point to spend a great deal of time defining “Pirates” makeup, identifying players with those characteristics, and developing those characteristics in our system.  The fact that we’re defining makeup indicates the importance we’ve put on it, but also the fact that it is such a gray area.  We all want to surround ourselves with good people, but that is not necessarily makeup.  Therefore, we’ve separated it into off field (character), on field (competitive), and baseball intelligence.  I’ve told numerous people that the two greatest things that needed to change in this system were obviously talent, but also the mindset.  This is where the accountability concepts have come into play. 

6.  It’s hard to have a Q&A with you and not talk about the potential for a logjam at third base with Alvarez, Walker, LaRoche, and others. Without divine intervention it’s hard to tell who will end up where down the road, but is it safe to say Alvarez has to stick?  If you say possibly no, is there any plan to get Alvarez some time at first base in 2009? And, is there any chance Neil Walker will start seeing some time behind the plate again?

Stark:  I think Pirate fans have been waiting a long time to talk about logjams of talent!  I personally am looking forward to the day when we’re talking about them at more than one position.  However, I can tell you that setting up projected rosters for next year was much more challenging than last year as we have more prospects at similar positions that need every day at-bats.  As for third base, we think all three players can be quality ML third basemen and also see a scenario where all three fit on the same team.  Each bring different things to the table (LaRoche has the best track record, Walker brings athleticism and defense, and Pedro has the upside).  The amazing thing about this game is that these things tend to work themselves out (which is why you need multiple options at every position), but it is a good problem to have. 

I can tell you that there is no plan for Pedro to get time at first base in 2009 (or beyond at this point) or for Walker to get time behind the plate again.

7.  Can you tell us about a few players who made significant ‘under the radar’ strides in 2008?

Stark:  When we first got here, our long-term goals were to obviously create a sustainable championship organization and development’s role in that was/is to help our players reach their potential.  Therefore, we needed to start to create a cohesive philosophy that would guide our process.

The short-term implications of that were to maximize what was here and hopefully find some “value” where the industry didn’t expect it.  I think we saw a number of those cases emerge this year where players either maximized their prospect status or put themselves on the map in many people’s eyes.  I suppose those players put themselves “on the radar”, but they certainly weren’t when we first got here.  Examples include Kyle Bloom, Jeff Sues, and Ronald Uviedo, none of whom people expected to be in the roster protect discussions; Luis Cruz becoming a viable ML utility middle infielder; Jimmy Negrych earning player of the year honors; Jose Tabata, Steve Lerud, Jimmy Barthmaier, and Juan Mateo re-establishing their “prospect” status; Evan Meek making significant adjustments after struggling horribly in the Big Leagues; Miles Durham, Matt McSwain, Moises Robles, and Tom Boleska all performing themselves into the mix. 

However, I think there were some players who took strides that might not have gotten as much attention due to the fact that their overall numbers were not as good.  These “under the radar” guys include Shelby Ford, Dustin Molleken (threw well in move to pen after getting chance to log innings early), Jordy Mercer and Brian Friday (competing at advanced levels for them), Angel Gonzalez (competed at 2A playing SS everyday), Michael Crotta (certainly not expected to be in the discussion to go to AFL earlier in the year), Neil Walker (on defense and power offensively), Andrew McCutchen (controlling the strike zone plus the strides he made during IL), etc. 

While we cannot create impact players, we can help all of our players get better.  There are a lot of good things going on in our system (which makes us even more encouraged for maximizing the potential of impact players when they’re added).

8.  Many old school baseball folks say winning in the farm system is an important part of the development cycle.  New wave baseball folks seem to place less emphasis on winning, especially at the lower levels. What’s your philosophy and why?

Stark:  This seems to be a hot button topic and one with very black and white sides to the issue.  Two significant elements of our overall development philosophy fall on both sides of the equation. 

First and foremost, the most important game in our system every night is the one in Pittsburgh. That is why we’re here and what we’re striving for, i.e. winning championships in Pittsburgh.  Therefore, everything we do in development is aligned with that concept. 

Second, we are not just developing players to play in Pittsburgh, but to win championships there (as mentioned previously) so winning and learning how to win becomes part of development. 

The question then becomes how do we win and teach players to win (develop players in a winning environment) while not getting short-sighted and focus on that night’s game as opposed to the long-term development of the player (the discussion above on pitchers and pitch selection alludes to this).  We feel like this is accomplished by our staff’s attitude (show up to the park everyday expecting to win), managing the game with development first in mind but winning as the goal of the game, and getting our players better. 

We talk about staff earning their salaries from noon until 7 pm and that the game is the reward, as opposed to the game being the focus of the day.  This concept ensures the players are prepared and that we’re doing everything we can to get them better, which leads to more wins.  However, we are not going to artificially create wins by holding players back levels, signing fillers to take at-bats away from our own players (who could be or are prospects), or making managerial decisions that limit a prospect’s development (ex. Pinch-hitting that left-handed hitting prospect because the opposing manager brings in a left-handed reliever).

9.  It appears you significantly reduced days lost due to injuries in the system last year, but is it possible to place too much of an emphasis on having players play through injuries? I’m thinking about cases like Shelby Ford last year who appeared to continue playing despite a hip pointer diagnosis, he failed, and then had to be shut down. What’s the balance?

Stark:  Because our focus is on what the player can ultimately be (long-term, big picture view), we are not going to make short-term decisions for a given night that risk the health of a player.  That being said, we did have an overall healthy year on the field in 2008 and feel like me made strides in overall health and processes leading to injury prevention and maintenance. 

Our new throwing program discussed above played a major role in that with our pitchers, and our strength and conditioning and medical staffs in the minor leagues did a great job responding to expectations and slightly different processes.  Shelby Ford’s situation actually involved one of those slightly different processes/expectations as he could have been rehabbed a certain way to get him back on the field sooner.  However, due to his history, we chose to shut him down completely, send him to Bradenton, and tackle the root of the problem rather than trying to keep him healthy to play.  This occurred after the diagnosis (as opposed to challenging him to play, him failing, and then us responding).  A similar approach was taken with Brian Friday when he suffered some back discomfort during the season.

10.  What has been the hardest part of your job over the first year and what are three advances you would like to see the system take in your second year?

Stark:  The most challenging part of this job in any year is managing all of the different (often competing) interests from all the parties involved. That is also what makes this job one of the most interesting and rewarding as well. 

I think the biggest obstacle we ran into during this first year was trying to implement a completely different system in a short period of time.  Most people suggested that I use year one to observe and evaluate before implementing any systems and processes; however, I knew there were certain things that we needed to do a certain way and we needed to get them in place as soon as possible.  We still used the year to observe and evaluate (staff, players, etc.), but decided to tackle the culture, philosophy, and processes immediately.

As for advances for next year, I think I would prioritize them as:

1) continuing to tailor our general philosophies to individual players (we made huge strides in getting some things in place, but now we need to let them and our staff work the way they can to better our players),

2) continuing to get all parties on the same page (both with new staff and another year of familiarity with each other and our ideas), and

3) expanding our use of other resources that were non-existent before and took significant strides last year but have a ways to go (video, charted data, player plans, etc.).