I agree we have sustained below average pitching. Not good. However, [& a nuanced question for the more learned]... is it fair to look at MLB success & extrapolate backwards & assume GT did something wrong or bad to that player? The resources (& time) for MLB player development can't be compared to college. Some of that positive development should be attributed to that... I think. Can't necessarily be assumed same development was "missed" at GT.
Again... a nuanced question/comment. The pitching record is clear. I'm still flummoxed by the fact there was clearly an emphasis & upgrade with facilities & hiring of DBo. It's not like they're not trying (last 5 years or so) None of that has worked.
Fred, I agree. MLB has a lot more eyes and experience that can notice what may or may not work for a given pitcher.
I've brought up Mike Vasil from UVA before. Highly rated recruit out of high school, went to UVA and they tried to change his pitching style. Had an underwhelming career at UVA. Mets drafted him, changed his pitching style closer to how it was in high school, and he is now the #11 prospect in the Mets organization. Has struggled at AAA so far, but shows how even a program that has been known for pitching can screw someone up.
Another example is Christian Scott. Used primarily as a reliever at Florida, again another school known for it's pitching, the Mets transitioned him to a starter and changed his pitch mix. He is now the #5 prospect in the Mets organization and #100 overall on MLB.com. So far he has a 2.84 ERA in 2 starts with 12.2 IP, 11 H, 4 ER, 1 HR, 3 BB, and 14 K's in MLB. And those starts were against Tampa Bay and Atlanta.
Even the best college programs known for pitching have misses that MLB can "clean up". When you're a program not known for pitching, it's just more evident. Just my opinion, of course.