SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by jmei on Sept 3, 2013 21:19:42 GMT -5
The criteria was NOT cherry picked because it happens to fit the description of ALL of the Red Sox top pitching prospects other than Ball. Hence if we want to know how well this current crop of pitchers will do it's instructive to know how well they have done with similar players in the past. The evidence shows that they have done a very good job of creating value out of such prospects. I appreciate your sarcasm, but I don't understand why a better makeup wouldn't increase a AA pitchers chance of eventually becoming a good major league player. If the thesis is that the Red Sox develop players better than other organizations, why are we only looking at top prospects at AA or above? What value added do we derive by adding those two limiting factors? Doing something like taking all pitchers drafted in the first three rounds over the period 2003-2011 seems like a much better data set to me, because it covers all drafts by the Epstein front office.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 3, 2013 21:29:32 GMT -5
Lester was also listed as an Ace with no one questioning it. He's never been an Ace. From 2008 to 2011, Lester threw 813.1 innings of 3.33 ERA. I dare you to find 30 better pitchers in the majors during that same time. Heck, I dare you to find 10 better pitchers. He was an ace, it shouldn't even be debatable. If was as "stable" as a few others. Maybe back of the end #1 category, but yes.. To me he was a #1 when he was throwing 95-7 and his cutter was really effective then. He wasn't in the top #1, like Sabathia, Halladay range, but he would qualify. At the end of 2011 season, didn't he have the highest winning percentage in the history of the game for a SP with 50 wins, or something like that?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 3, 2013 21:33:40 GMT -5
At any rate, let's not derail the thread any more. I'll concede that the Red Sox have a recent history of doing an excellent job of translating well-rated prospects into above-average major league production. Perhaps that trend will continue.
Regardless, each of the current crop of starters has mild to significant red flags, and aside from maybe Owens (who is the furthest away from the majors), none is really the kind of can't miss prospect that Buchholz (#4 in 2008) or Lester (#22 in 2006) were. Guys like Webster, De La Rosa (if ranked), Webster, Ranaudo, and Barnes are likely to be in the 50-100 spots in the year-end rankings at best, and Owens might only crack the top 50 due to late helium.
Plus, even if most or all of those guys eventually reach their mid-rotation ceilings at some point in their careers, what are the odds that two or three will reach that level by 2015? Are you willing to trust starters who have had up-and-down debuts (similar to, say, Doubront's early years) when this team will have loads of salary space after 2014? Chances are the Red Sox will want to sign a veteran starter or two that offseason. Which of those guys looks like the most promising target at this early junction?
PS: each of these starters has an individual thread if you want to discuss them individually (e.g., Owens' ceiling). Trade speculation should also be kept to a minimum, as there's a whole subforum for that sort of thing. Let's keep this thread to potential free agent acquisitions and other "grand strategy"-type discussions.
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,052
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Sept 4, 2013 9:35:21 GMT -5
Lester was also listed as an Ace with no one questioning it. He's never been an Ace. From 2008 to 2011, Lester threw 813.1 innings of 3.33 ERA. I dare you to find 30 better pitchers in the majors during that same time. Heck, I dare you to find 10 better pitchers. He was an ace, it shouldn't even be debatable. First there aren't 30 Ace's - maybe we can just agree to disagree, but I can't go there. As for your 10 - I can give a lot more then that. You can argue either way on a few, but these guys are all as good or better then Lester over that period. Halladay CC King Felix Haren Verlander lincecum Cain Greinke Hamels Weaver Shields lee These guys when healthy: Oswalt Carpenter Santana Hudson Can even throw Kershaw in there Lester never was or became an Ace because of control issues. He couldn't go deep enough into games as a result. An Ace helps the bullpen out, doesn't require you to use it regularly. Lester is 52nd in walks per 9 over that time (min 600IP) I'd take what he was all day long. He was very very good. There isn't a need to put him in a category he's not in. Was good enough where he was, just never made it to the elite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 11:34:32 GMT -5
I think if you read the passage of mine that you quoted you would find that I answered BOTH of these questions AND that you are misstating the hypothesis presented.
I don't see how this discussion derails the thread. Any discussion of what free agents the team should sign for the 2015 season should include some analysis of the current crop of starters in AA or above. The better that crop does, the less of a need to sign another starter.
The statement was made by Sox4Life earlier that the Red Sox current crop of starting pitching prospects would likely fill at least two rotation spots in 2015. Based upon the evidence Eric presented, this would seem to be a reasonable expectation.
Do you disagree and if so do you have actual evidence to support your case? All that you and Fenway have presented between you thus far is rude sarcastic comments, and straw men.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 4, 2013 11:53:14 GMT -5
I think if you read the passage of mine that you quoted you would find that I answered BOTH of these questions AND that you are misstating the hypothesis presented. I understand that the current crop of Red Sox prospects fits the criteria. But what is the ex ante logic of that criteria? Why does makeup matter only when a prospect has already become highly rated or reached AA? Why are we excluding players that the front office drafted in early rounds that don't fit that criteria? Without good answers to those questions, you cannot draw the conclusion that the Red Sox focus on makeup gives them a competitive advantage. Yes, the Red Sox have an excellent history of translating highly rated prospects in the upper minors into quality major league players. I agree. But Eric's original argument was that this FO's focus on makeup at the draft level led to success at well above league-average levels. I'm not sure that this study shows that. Nor am I convinced that this stretch of good results is predictive.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 4, 2013 11:55:53 GMT -5
Also, none of the starters cited by Eric were effective mid-rotation starters in their first full season in the major leagues (which would be 2015 for all these guys). They all had their ups and downs in their early years in the majors. I've argued that this means relying on them in 2015 is a risky strategy and the Red Sox would be well served to grab a veteran FA or two.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 4, 2013 12:32:50 GMT -5
Also, none of the starters cited by Eric were effective mid-rotation starters in their first full season in the major leagues (which would be 2015 for all these guys). They all had their ups and downs in their early years in the majors. I've argued that this means relying on them in 2015 is a risky strategy and the Red Sox would be well served to grab a veteran FA or two. Think the team by next year will be using at least 1 of them in extended starts. Dempster will be either gone, or in the pen F/T. Don't see his mish mash of off speed stuff succeeding in fooling AL hitters much longer myself and the team may even try to ship him back to the NL over the winter, opening up a spot for a Workman, or Bucholz should he be back for good possibility next year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 12:53:14 GMT -5
First off you are creating more straw men.
No one has said that makeup "only matters" when a player reaches AA. Only that it DOES matter in these specific relevant circumstances. Nothing has been argued regarding prospects in other circumstances.
To make a reasonable forecast of the future of the current crop it makes sense to use similar pitching prospects of the past. That Caleb Clay flamed out tells us nothing about Anthony Ranaudo's future because Ranaudo has already accomplished more as a professional than Clay ever did. We would expect Ranaudo to have a better chance at becoming a good professional pitcher today than we would a random Red Sox pitcher drafted in the first three rounds.
The purpose of a statistical study is NOT to show why an event occurred. All it can show is the likelihood of the event happening randomly. In this case the chances of this particular event happening randomly are extremely small. Hence we can safely conclude that something else caused this variance other than randomness.
If the results are not predictive, than the observed events must have been due to a factor(s) that is no longer relevant. You have said that the ten pitchers in the study are better talents than the current crop which isn't true. Four of the pitchers in the study were never in the BA Top 100. All of the current crop other than Workman, has been in the BA Top 100 at least once or will likely be.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Sept 4, 2013 13:11:09 GMT -5
Also, none of the starters cited by Eric were effective mid-rotation starters in their first full season in the major leagues (which would be 2015 for all these guys). They all had their ups and downs in their early years in the majors. I've argued that this means relying on them in 2015 is a risky strategy and the Red Sox would be well served to grab a veteran FA or two. Think the team by next year will be using at least 1 of them in extended starts. Dempster will be either gone, or in the pen F/T. Don't see his mish mash of off speed stuff succeeding in fooling AL hitters much longer myself and the team may even try to ship him back to the NL over the winter, opening up a spot for a Workman, or Bucholz should he be back for good possibility next year. I'd like to see Webster get 20 or so starts for Boston next season. He's the closest, but also, he just needs to experience his lumps in the majors. That way you can assume a reasonably good outcome for the 2015 season. Which also allows you to similarly integrate the next "ready" prospect for 20 or so games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 13:53:18 GMT -5
Right I think it's safe to assume that at least one of the current crop is going to have a significant number of starts in the majors next year especially if they trade Dempster. It could be Webster it could be someone else, but it will be someone.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Sept 4, 2013 14:18:21 GMT -5
I wouldn't count on him pitching that much, but if there are significant injuries, and his turn in the rotation lines up decently well, I could see him getting 10-15 starts. Workman, AR, Barnes, RDLR, Wright might be getting starts too, that's the main reason I think 20 is to many to assume prior to the season.
|
|
|
Post by knuckledown on Sept 4, 2013 14:51:39 GMT -5
I know projecting knuckleballers is a nightmare, weird BABIP and a small sample size of their breed... how likely is Wright to have a 2015 rotation spot? He has been as up-and-down as Webster, but the final line between AAA+MLB seems to land in Wright's favor. Before I'm crucified, I think Webster has a much higher upside, but the results of the comparison are pretty interesting. Also, I like knuckleball pitchers just because.
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Sept 4, 2013 15:55:37 GMT -5
Its always tough with the knuckleball pitchers because you pretty much need to give them a very long look in the rotation to come to any good decision. One or 2 starts in a row tell you nothing whether he gets shelled or pitches 2 shutouts. I just don't see the Sox giving him that opportunity, barring an injury. Which is a shame, because his AAA stats show he clearly has the skills to succeed with the pitch, and those 2 long relief appearances were great in the majors.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 12, 2013 8:14:59 GMT -5
I know projecting knuckleballers is a nightmare, weird BABIP and a small sample size of their breed... how likely is Wright to have a 2015 rotation spot? He has been as up-and-down as Webster, but the final line between AAA+MLB seems to land in Wright's favor. Before I'm crucified, I think Webster has a much higher upside, but the results of the comparison are pretty interesting. Also, I like knuckleball pitchers just because. I think Wright is criminally underrated here, since he has already shown that the only thing that is keeping him from being about to have Tim Wakefield's career is start-to-start consistency. He simply needs to increase his good outing / stinker ratio. Given how long he's been throwing the knuckler, it's reasonable to think he has soon for improvement there. He has two more option years to work on it. I think he will be in the mix for first call-up next year. Whether he ends up as a member of the rotation, a long reliever / spot starter, or is just the next Charlie Haeger, remains to bee seen, of course.
|
|
|