I'm actually starting this topic because of somebody else's insight/opinion, with which I somewhat disagree, so I hope he'll speak up at least to
correct me if I give an incorrect account of his views.
Al (Dad of Andrew) frequently opines that minor league baseball games (in affiliated leagues) only matter on the level of player development. Thus, any decision that a minor league manager or organization makes that runs contrary to the major league organization's player development strategy is inappropriate. More broadly, anyone (at least any fan of the major league organization) who focuses on the outcomes of minor league games, rather than the ultimate end of player development, should readjust his/her focus to the real task at hand.
I have always found this position interesting, and I'd love to hear what others think. Here's my take: Al is 100% right from the perspective of the major league organization. That's a very important perspective, because (a) the major league organization writes the checks, and (b) we here are, after all, Brewers fans. In my view, however, Al is wrong in failing to recognize that lots of other people have legitimate perspectives that might lead in different directions. I'll put this in Nashville terms:
-- Nashville fans have no reason to care about the success of the Milwaukee Brewers. They want the Nashville Sounds to win baseball games. We should expect them to be every bit as mad as Brewers fans are happy when the Brewers call up one of their star players during the PCL stretch run. Do the Brewers have a defensible reason for doing that? Sure, but not a reason that we should expect Nashville fans to care about.
-- Frank Kremblas would be behaving strangely, by any usual standard, if he didn't direct most of his mental energy toward winning baseball games. The Nashville players, even the prospects, also have good reasons to care first and foremost about winning baseball games. If the manager's and players' desire to win games gets in the way of the Brewers' development strategy, I would assume the onus would fall on the Brewers organization to make necessary course corrections. But I also assume development strategy 101 holds that, more often than not, the best way to develop players is to have them play baseball games that matter in their own right, which should usually harmonize the manager's / players' focus on winning games with the organization's focus on development.
-- Most interestingly in philosophical terms (but probably least in practical terms), I don't believe Brewers fans are off base to care whether Nashville wins or loses. This is baseball; none of it actually matters, in the "real world" sense. My kid won't have a happy life if the Brewers win the World Series; the U.S. economy won't improve if Doug Melvin picks up a lefthanded bat. We care about baseball, as fans, because we decide to care, and we decide to care based on a wide range of factors. A big factor, for a lot of us, is familiarity; we grow up reading about the Brewers, and watching their games, and rooting for them. Well, in this day and age, I can follow the West Virginia Power almost as easily and fully as I can follow the Milwaukee Brewers -- so why, in the big picture, is it weird for me to be happy if the Power run off a winning streak, even if the prospects on the team are regressing? (I changed the example from Nashville at the end there because I wanted to maintain some grounding in reality.)
I think all of this connects to an interesting discussion about how the minor leagues are organized, in particular the costs and benefits (in whatever terms you please) of big league organizations' control over the minor leagues. I don't know the history or economics of minor league baseball well enough to form a coherent opinion about that issue, but I'd love to hear the views of anyone who does.
Greg.
Al (Dad of Andrew) frequently opines that minor league baseball games (in affiliated leagues) only matter on the level of player development. Thus, any decision that a minor league manager or organization makes that runs contrary to the major league organization's player development strategy is inappropriate. More broadly, anyone (at least any fan of the major league organization) who focuses on the outcomes of minor league games, rather than the ultimate end of player development, should readjust his/her focus to the real task at hand.
I have always found this position interesting, and I'd love to hear what others think. Here's my take: Al is 100% right from the perspective of the major league organization. That's a very important perspective, because (a) the major league organization writes the checks, and (b) we here are, after all, Brewers fans. In my view, however, Al is wrong in failing to recognize that lots of other people have legitimate perspectives that might lead in different directions. I'll put this in Nashville terms:
-- Nashville fans have no reason to care about the success of the Milwaukee Brewers. They want the Nashville Sounds to win baseball games. We should expect them to be every bit as mad as Brewers fans are happy when the Brewers call up one of their star players during the PCL stretch run. Do the Brewers have a defensible reason for doing that? Sure, but not a reason that we should expect Nashville fans to care about.
-- Frank Kremblas would be behaving strangely, by any usual standard, if he didn't direct most of his mental energy toward winning baseball games. The Nashville players, even the prospects, also have good reasons to care first and foremost about winning baseball games. If the manager's and players' desire to win games gets in the way of the Brewers' development strategy, I would assume the onus would fall on the Brewers organization to make necessary course corrections. But I also assume development strategy 101 holds that, more often than not, the best way to develop players is to have them play baseball games that matter in their own right, which should usually harmonize the manager's / players' focus on winning games with the organization's focus on development.
-- Most interestingly in philosophical terms (but probably least in practical terms), I don't believe Brewers fans are off base to care whether Nashville wins or loses. This is baseball; none of it actually matters, in the "real world" sense. My kid won't have a happy life if the Brewers win the World Series; the U.S. economy won't improve if Doug Melvin picks up a lefthanded bat. We care about baseball, as fans, because we decide to care, and we decide to care based on a wide range of factors. A big factor, for a lot of us, is familiarity; we grow up reading about the Brewers, and watching their games, and rooting for them. Well, in this day and age, I can follow the West Virginia Power almost as easily and fully as I can follow the Milwaukee Brewers -- so why, in the big picture, is it weird for me to be happy if the Power run off a winning streak, even if the prospects on the team are regressing? (I changed the example from Nashville at the end there because I wanted to maintain some grounding in reality.)
I think all of this connects to an interesting discussion about how the minor leagues are organized, in particular the costs and benefits (in whatever terms you please) of big league organizations' control over the minor leagues. I don't know the history or economics of minor league baseball well enough to form a coherent opinion about that issue, but I'd love to hear the views of anyone who does.
Greg.
