Developing Two-Way Players

by RedSoxFaithful on Apr 18, 2009 9:44 PM EDT

I think this might be an interesting discussion. High school and college baseball offer an interesting dynamic that is unusual in pro ball: the prospect of two-way players. It follows that players get drafted in MLB's Amateur Draft that are legitimate talents both as pitchers and as positional players.

For the most part, when these players are drafted, the team is drafting him with one path in mind. Here's the tricky question, though. When you have a player that's a first round talent both as a pitcher and as a batter, how do you handle him? Sometimes, the player answers the question for the team, refusing to sign if forced to play in the field (or on the mound). Other times, the situation is less clear.

One such situation occurred with Casey Kelly and the Red Sox last June. The Sox decided to play him on the mound for 100 innings, and then play him at shortstop for the remainder of the season. While Boston has come up with a unique solution for Kelly, other teams are putting potential two-way players on more focused routes. Aaron Hicks, for example, will exclusively be an outfielder in the minors, while Ethan Martin will stick to pitching. They were also first round talents as a pitcher and a third baseman, respectively.

So here's the question. If you're a GM, how do you handle such a player? Do you take a focused approach, and develop a player exclusively at a position? Or do you let the player's minor league stats decide his fate by playing him both ways? I've set up a poll for this, but I'm hoping for some actual discussion on the topic. I wanted to study previous cases of minor league two-way players, but I don't see enough guys from which I can draw conclusions.

Are there any interesting potential pitcher/position players in this year's draft class? I know Mychal Givens is there; how would you handle him?

Poll

If you were a major league GM, and you just used a pick on a two-way player that was a first round talent both as a pitcher and a batter, how would you develop that player? Assume that the player is as good a pitcher as he is a hitter.

Develop the player as a pitcher.

7 votes

Develop the player as a position player.

14 votes

Let the player decide.

10 votes

Play the player both ways, and let his play decide.

46 votes

Other (Explain)

4 votes

81 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Other.

A player will show you his projectabliity more at any one position, whether someone sees that or not. Feel for breaking pitches will usually tell you early on if he’s a future pitcher. Pitch recognition is the key for hitters. Tools are nice, but all things being equal purely talent-wise, it’s not about letting them play and deciding from that, it’s about scouting which one he profiles best at on an individual basis. Michael Main on the Rangers is one where that’s a perfect example, and although his tools played quite well in center, you’re asking yourself whether you want a speedy center fielder with average pitch recognition or a guy that might eventually play up to a #1 starting pitcher. Easy decision when you break it down that way, and that’s how most teams do it.

In the case of Mychal Givens, he’ll be a pitcher unless he implodes there over the first couple years in the pros. His hitting is just not developed enough. If you threw him into the fire in a full-season league next spring, he’d sink and sink badly. He’d essentially have a season like Matt Bush’s 2005 in Fort Wayne. His arm is also so good that you need to put him there, even if he turns out to be a reliever, as his fastball projects that well.

Other 2 way players in this draft are Blake Smith from Cal, Robert Stock from USC, Brooks Raley from Texas A&M, and Aaron Miller from Baylor. As you can see, most are college guys this year, which is different from the norm. I think Smith and possibly Miller will go the hitting route, and while Raley is almost definitely going to be a pitcher, Stock’s the best true two-way prospect. I’d lean towards pitching for him at this exact moment, but a hot streak with the bat like his teammate Grant Green could land him as a 2nd round draft pick as a catcher.

by Andy Seiler on Apr 18, 2009 10:53 PM EDT reply actions

Colby Rasmus

Was a two way in high school, actually many teams preferred him as a pitcher. But I think the Cardinals made the right decision.

by CoolCat23 on Apr 18, 2009 11:50 PM EDT reply actions

High School v. College

I think the approach taken with Casey Kelly makes some sense for a high school pick, but I don’t think it would for a college guy. Tim Hudson was a big hitter in college, in addition to being an ace, but if the A’s had tried him as a hitter in addition to trying him as a hitter, it’s pretty much impossible that he would have been in the majors within two years (as he was). Essentially, with players who are closer to the majors I don’t think it’s smart for teams to mess around experimenting, and they should instead bite the bullet and pick whether to have them hit or pitch.

by Fanon on Apr 19, 2009 10:58 AM EDT reply actions

Hitter

I agree that you would decide on a case by case basis but if the players perceived potential was the same level as a hitter and pitcher then I would develop him as a hitter due to the high attrition rate and injuries to pitching prospects.

by DeJay on Apr 20, 2009 10:00 AM EDT reply actions