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 taftreign on Jan 29, 2014 15:12:37 GMT -5
That would be Felix Hernandez like starting so young. Although Felix was 19 years 4 months when he debuted.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 29, 2014 15:23:10 GMT -5
"Downside is a Bill Mueller-type of career, but I see Cecchini hitting for higher AVG & OBPs while providing comparable defense" That's a hell of a downside. There's no way that's the 50th-best prospect in baseball. Bill Mueller had a career .373 OBP. If that's Cecchini's downside, but his real projection is for higher AVG/OBP with solid defense at third ... um, that's a pretty good player. Consistent All-Star good. Multiple years of .400 OBP good. I'm a huge Cecchini booster, mind you, and I think it's possible he's that good, but even I would shy away from calling Bill Mueller Cecchini's downside. I think that might also be a vague reference to Mueller's struggles with his health. As I am sure you remember, Mueller wasn't a consistent all-star in part because he had so few seasons in which he was really healthy. Cecchini has struggled with his health as well. The stats don't back me up but I remember Mueller being an excellent 3B who was athletic enough to play 2B at times and that doesn't seem to be Cecchini's profile. A more realistic downside projection is probably Mueller's bat at LF or 1B and although that's not what is traditionally at those positions, that's still pretty good. As a point of reference Mueller only had one full season in which he even came close to a .400 OBP and that was his 2003 season in which he had a BABIP more than 40 points above his career average. He was usually in the .365-.385 range.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 29, 2014 15:25:25 GMT -5
"Downside is a Bill Mueller-type of career, but I see Cecchini hitting for higher AVG & OBPs while providing comparable defense" That's a hell of a downside. I was thinking the same thing... I loved Mueller and if that is the floor... then I'm wondering why he is ranked so low Sent from my SGH-T999 using proboards I think the answer to that question was, as Law alludes to in the scouting report, is that Cecchini has to prove that he can stay at 3B. If he was a no doubt 3B he'd be ranked higher.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 29, 2014 16:48:37 GMT -5
Yes but Urias isn't ranked #1,that would be insane. I don't think #14 is borderline insane. I agree with Chris about the Buxton point. I was going to make a similar point that Buxton's toolset is unparalleled by any other position player which is essentially what he said. I find it unlikely that we would say the same regarding Urias' stuff. Listen, I'm not trying to say that he isn't a good or even great prospect. I just think that ranking him ahead of guys like Walker, Gausman, and Syndergaard seems a bit suspect. I feel like Keith Law wants to be able to say down the line "I was the first to rank him this high." I can't say for sure, but I doubt you can say Urias' stuff is better than that of the guys I listed. Therefore I don't understand why you rank him ahead of guys who need less projection. Not to mention Urias' body type isn't typically one that gains improvements in stuff as he ages. I understand how young he is though, so the range of outcomes is a bit wide. I just think Law is trying to be bold, even if Urias is a stud. I think placement in the top 50 or 40 would have been more reasonable. To be fair, Law included the following disclaimer regarding his ranking methodology:
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 29, 2014 16:57:59 GMT -5
I agree with Chris about the Buxton point. I was going to make a similar point that Buxton's toolset is unparalleled by any other position player which is essentially what he said. I find it unlikely that we would say the same regarding Urias' stuff. Listen, I'm not trying to say that he isn't a good or even great prospect. I just think that ranking him ahead of guys like Walker, Gausman, and Syndergaard seems a bit suspect. I feel like Keith Law wants to be able to say down the line "I was the first to rank him this high." I can't say for sure, but I doubt you can say Urias' stuff is better than that of the guys I listed. Therefore I don't understand why you rank him ahead of guys who need less projection. Not to mention Urias' body type isn't typically one that gains improvements in stuff as he ages. I understand how young he is though, so the range of outcomes is a bit wide. I just think Law is trying to be bold, even if Urias is a stud. I think placement in the top 50 or 40 would have been more reasonable. To be fair, Law included the following disclaimer regarding his ranking methodology: Thanks, I clearly missed that. I suppose that explains why Mondesi is so high on his list too.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jan 29, 2014 17:09:40 GMT -5
I'm interested in his team top 10 tomorrow. We know it will be: 1 Bogaerts 2 Owens 3 Bradley Jr 4 Cecchini 5 Swihart 6 Betts 7 Barnes We also know Law has Webster in the top 10 from his chat. Who will be the last two? I imagine it comes down to Ranaudo, Vazquez and Ball. Who would you be more surprised to see left out? Also does it upset you that guys the team passed on in the draft are showing up high on top 100 lists (Shipley, Meadows, Smith) where as Ball is not? I suspect there was not enough sample after signing to accurately gage his potential vs someone like Hunter Harvey who vaulted up with an impressive debut. Keith Law in his farm systems ranking: When a defensive whiz like Christian Vazquez, a catcher who can hit a little, can't crack your top 10, you're doing a lot of things right.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jan 29, 2014 17:37:52 GMT -5
Google: A number of people in the Dodgers organization are convinced 16-year-old lefty Julio Urias could be in the big leagues by the time he’s 18. — Jeff Passan (@jeffpassan) July 20, 2013 That has to mean "while he's still 18", as in late spring 2015.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jan 29, 2014 17:39:29 GMT -5
Also does it upset you that guys the team passed on in the draft are showing up high on top 100 lists (Shipley, Meadows, Smith) where as Ball is not? I suspect there was not enough sample after signing to accurately gage his potential vs someone like Hunter Harvey who vaulted up with an impressive debut. It does a little, at least with Meadows. I feel like he was a top 5 concensus, and then suddenly he wasn't. Why isn't that the guy to grab? I guess they wanted a pitcher, but still.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 29, 2014 17:44:14 GMT -5
Also does it upset you that guys the team passed on in the draft are showing up high on top 100 lists (Shipley, Meadows, Smith) where as Ball is not? I suspect there was not enough sample after signing to accurately gage his potential vs someone like Hunter Harvey who vaulted up with an impressive debut. It does a little, at least with Meadows. I feel like he was a top 5 concensus, and then suddenly he wasn't. Why isn't that the guy to grab? I guess they wanted a pitcher, but still. I don't think they wanted a pitcher. If anything I think the opposite is true. I think they simply like Ball more than Meadows.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 29, 2014 18:10:05 GMT -5
There's no way that's the 50th-best prospect in baseball. Bill Mueller had a career .373 OBP. If that's Cecchini's downside, but his real projection is for higher AVG/OBP with solid defense at third ... um, that's a pretty good player. Consistent All-Star good. Multiple years of .400 OBP good. I'm a huge Cecchini booster, mind you, and I think it's possible he's that good, but even I would shy away from calling Bill Mueller Cecchini's downside. I think that might also be a vague reference to Mueller's struggles with his health. As I am sure you remember, Mueller wasn't a consistent all-star in part because he had so few seasons in which he was really healthy. Cecchini has struggled with his health as well. The stats don't back me up but I remember Mueller being an excellent 3B who was athletic enough to play 2B at times and that doesn't seem to be Cecchini's profile. A more realistic downside projection is probably Mueller's bat at LF or 1B and although that's not what is traditionally at those positions, that's still pretty good.As a point of reference Mueller only had one full season in which he even came close to a .400 OBP and that was his 2003 season in which he had a BABIP more than 40 points above his career average. He was usually in the .365-.385 range. Yeah, that's pretty much what I would put as Cecchini's downside projection ... good OBP/low power in low-priority defensive positions. I doubt Law's projection was based on health, though; that's assuming something that's not really backed up by the statement. I think Law may just be underestimating how good Mueller really was. I suspect what he means by the statement is just shorthand for "decent-but-unspectacular offensive third baseman without much power who maybe has a very good peak season or two."
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 29, 2014 19:01:00 GMT -5
51 Jackie Bradley Jr. CF BOS 61 Mookie Betts 2B BOS This is puzzling to me. I don't see how you can really argue that Mookie's ceiling is significantly higher than JBJ and there's no question JBJ is far more likely to reach it.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 29, 2014 19:03:55 GMT -5
You know, I'd never looked this closely at Urias's stat line. Holy &%!#. Over his last 11 starts, he threw 28 innings and had a 1.61 ERA, walked three and struck out 37. Opponents hit .186/.218/.268 against him I mean, I'm not saying he's not great but, 28 innings over 11 starts should tell you something. Those are glorified relief appearances and in that sense the numbers aren't that insane, even for a 16 year old.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jan 29, 2014 19:12:47 GMT -5
Sure it stings a little seeing others rated in there and not Ball but we shouldn't think any less of the pick at 7 just yet. Balls from a cold weather state and I can't even recall if Laws laid eyes on him. He has as much upside as anyone else we could have had and he's a lefty. Sure I like Smith and Meadows a lot but lefties like Ball don't grow on trees. Truth is I would have been able to get behind Ball, Smith, Meadows or Shipley.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 29, 2014 19:33:40 GMT -5
"Downside is a Bill Mueller-type of career, but I see Cecchini hitting for higher AVG & OBPs while providing comparable defense" That's a hell of a downside. I think Boston fans are the only ones who really appreciate Mueller. I agree though Well he had his best couple of years here. I assume he means cecchini's downside is a .370 OBP .400 slg.
|
|
|
Post by bjb406 on Jan 29, 2014 20:11:38 GMT -5
when does BA's list come out, anyone know?
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jan 29, 2014 21:59:32 GMT -5
I think the rest of this week and next will be dedicated to College Stuff so maybe the week after that?
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 29, 2014 22:32:52 GMT -5
It was mid February last year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 29, 2014 22:36:20 GMT -5
I think Boston fans are the only ones who really appreciate Mueller. I agree though Well he had his best couple of years here. I assume he means cecchini's downside is a .370 OBP .400 slg. If that's really his "downside," Cecchini needs to be ranked a hell of a lot higher. If he's an average 3B defender with that line, he's a three win player. A .370 OBP/.400 SLG plays up even if he has to move off 3B. If he's an average defender in LF with that line, he'd be a roughly two win player, and if he's an average 1B defender with that line, he's a 1.5 win player. Having a floor of an averagish regular would be really impressive on its own, especially since his ceiling is that of an All-Star level player if he stays at 3B and flashes some power. I know it's just a throwaway line from Law, but I see this sort of imperfect understanding of player value a lot with prospect evaluators. A high OBP player is incredibly valuable even if he hits for little power. A great defensive catcher or shortstop is incredibly valuable even if he doesn't hit very well.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 29, 2014 23:12:21 GMT -5
We have to take all these for what they are, one person's evaluation. The comp here is a bit silly. Mueller was a good player who might have been even better if he had not been hurt so often - as others have pointed out. Casting Cecchini at that level would put him very high up not just on SoxProspects, but on Law's own list. There probably aren't twenty position players on it whose careers will match Mueller's over the long run.
Law isn't a bad evaluator, but like a lot of people who write for the web, he can be a little glib. It was probably a throwaway line as you say.
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Jan 29, 2014 23:36:20 GMT -5
Well he had his best couple of years here. I assume he means cecchini's downside is a .370 OBP .400 slg. If that's really his "downside," Cecchini needs to be ranked a hell of a lot higher. If he's an average 3B defender with that line, he's a three win player. A .370 OBP/.400 SLG plays up even if he has to move off 3B. If he's an average defender in LF with that line, he'd be a roughly two win player, and if he's an average 1B defender with that line, he's a 1.5 win player. Having a floor of an averagish regular would be really impressive on its own, especially since his ceiling is that of an All-Star level player if he stays at 3B and flashes some power. I know it's just a throwaway line from Law, but I see this sort of imperfect understanding of player value a lot with prospect evaluators. A high OBP player is incredibly valuable even if he hits for little power. A great defensive catcher or shortstop is incredibly valuable even if he doesn't hit very well. I think we can all look towards Daniel Nava and see that very clearly in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 30, 2014 0:12:34 GMT -5
Also does it upset you that guys the team passed on in the draft are showing up high on top 100 lists (Shipley, Meadows, Smith) where as Ball is not? I suspect there was not enough sample after signing to accurately gage his potential vs someone like Hunter Harvey who vaulted up with an impressive debut. It does a little, at least with Meadows. I feel like he was a top 5 concensus, and then suddenly he wasn't. Why isn't that the guy to grab? I guess they wanted a pitcher, but still. I think they knew when they took Ball that other players they passed on would look better six months later. However the purpose of the draft is not to take the player who will rank highest in the annual rankings six months hence. The goal is to draft the player you think will be the most valuable major league player. The hope is that Ball's athleticism will allow him to do just that and anchor their rotation five years from now. If you think about it's a balsy move. They have a million starters in the upper minors but not much in terms of pitching below that. They were in a position to take a risk and go for a guy like Ball. I wouldn't worry quite yet.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 30, 2014 0:21:39 GMT -5
Regarding Cecchini when referring to a players "downside" or floor the assumption is that the players health will remain reasonably the same.
Obviously any player can develop a chronic injury that saps their skills.
|
|
|
Post by rodstero4 on Jan 30, 2014 4:27:12 GMT -5
but I see this sort of imperfect understanding of player value a lot with prospect evaluators. A high OBP player is incredibly valuable even if he hits for little power. I totally agree with this, but I can't help but think they're interconnected. Let's take Che-Hsuan as the most recent extreme example of Red Sox prospects. I know you were one of the people who never thought much of him, but I'm just saying, you need both. I remember this board arguing Reddick-Kalish a couple years ago and the argument was basically power vs plate discipline. (Obviously we didn't get a conclusion with Kalish's injuries) Point being, yes: a high OBP is indeed incredibly valuable. But, Who says that having a high walk rate in the minors is going to equate to a high walk rate in the majors? Alternatively, who says a shit walk rate in the minors isn't going to eventually lead to a decent walk rate in the majors? (Robinson Cano comes to mind). Skills (as opposed to tools) are still underrated in scouting, but for good reason, I think. Skills can be learned, tools are natural.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 30, 2014 8:51:42 GMT -5
but I see this sort of imperfect understanding of player value a lot with prospect evaluators. A high OBP player is incredibly valuable even if he hits for little power. I totally agree with this, but I can't help but think they're interconnected. Let's take Che-Hsuan as the most recent extreme example of Red Sox prospects. I know you were one of the people who never thought much of him, but I'm just saying, you need both. I remember this board arguing Reddick-Kalish a couple years ago and the argument was basically power vs plate discipline. (Obviously we didn't get a conclusion with Kalish's injuries) Point being, yes: a high OBP is indeed incredibly valuable. But, Who says that having a high walk rate in the minors is going to equate to a high walk rate in the majors? Alternatively, who says a shit walk rate in the minors isn't going to eventually lead to a decent walk rate in the majors? (Robinson Cano comes to mind). Skills (as opposed to tools) are still underrated in scouting, but for good reason, I think. Skills can be learned, tools are natural. In the abstract I agree with you. It's generally believe that minor league players players with a high walk rate but a limited hit tool/power will struggle to maintain that walk rate in the majors because pitchers will have better control/command and are able to just pound the strike zone and dare the hitter to beat them. I'm not sure to what extent this mantra is actually empirically true, but there are lots of examples of it playing out that way (Lin is a good one, for instance) and I generally agree with it. Prospects in the Red Sox system who may experience this effect include Alex Hassan and Christian Vazquez, both of which have maintained excellent walk rates in the minors but who don't scout well in terms of bat speed/power. But in the specific instance, Cecchini is almost universally regarded to have a plus hit tool, so he doesn't fit the profile of the overly passive hitter who can't hurt a pitcher much if he puts the ball in play. Sure, he probably won't be able to maintain his minor league OBPs in the majors (as is true for virtually every player making that jump), but considering he put up a 16.4% BB at A+ and a 17.3% BB at AA last year, he can still be an extremely valuable player even if it falls back quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Jan 30, 2014 9:13:34 GMT -5
Actually in the interview Alex Hassan said that he needs to be aggressive and should not miss mistakes because even AAA pitchers have pretty good command and don't give second chances to hit too often.
|
|
|