|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 31, 2014 13:54:31 GMT -5
]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. I totally, totally disagree with you here. He was one of the youngest people in his signing class, and nearly everyone else he signed with spent all of 2013 in the DSL. He was facing hitters significantly older and more polished - minor league veterans, college hitters, high school phenoms, etc... and they weren't touching him. Of course he was throwing short outings - he was, as far as I can tell, the youngest professional pitcher in North America last season. And he wasn't in the Rookie Leagues, he was in a full season league! For perspective, Henry Owens had a 28.9% K rate against 450 batters in his Single-A debut as a 19 year old, and we all got (rightfully) very excited. Urias had a 31.8% K rate against 211 batters when he was three years younger. I said he's great. I, and I think many others, don't believe age-advancement is as meaningful for pitchers as hitters. And I think that's reflected in his ranking as a 16 year old position player tearing up A ball would probably be a top 5 prospect in the game. Owens is a straw man as I never mentioned him and I personally didn't get crazy excited because of his numbers. I'm just saying the numbers are a tad inflated due to sample size, and yes that is mitigated by his extreme age-advancement.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 31, 2014 15:02:13 GMT -5
I was using Owens to provide context to what Urias did last season, not as any sort of straw man.
We'll have to agree to disagree on age-advancement.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Feb 6, 2014 7:17:23 GMT -5
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,980
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 6, 2014 19:15:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 7, 2014 0:27:50 GMT -5
Thanks Mike Lord, may The Lord be with you. Also thanks Cindy Crawford, without your existence maybe Mike doesn't like Xander as much.
(I hope I got the reference right)
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 7, 2014 1:19:25 GMT -5
Nice interview. My takeaway was that given his experiences as a boy, there was even more helium in his balloon than meets the eye (for those of you that can see helium).
Seems like a great "kid" but I always thought that.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 7, 2014 1:22:50 GMT -5
Law's Red Sox Top 10: 1 Xander Bogaerts, SS 2 Henry Owens, LHP 3 Jackie Bradley Jr., CF 4 Garin Cecchini, 3B 5 Blake Swihart, C 6 Mookie Betts, 2B 7 Matt Barnes, RHP 8 Allen Webster, RHP 9 Anthony Ranaudo, RHP 10 Trey Ball, LHP www.overthemonster.com/2014/1/30/5361250/keith-law-releases-red-sox-top-10-prospects
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Pereira on Feb 7, 2014 11:25:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 7, 2014 17:34:10 GMT -5
Regarding the earlier discussion about Urias, from Law's chat:
Todd (MN) Urias is so young that it's not out of the realm of possibility that he grows (in a good way) and or adds some velocity. If that doesn't happen, and he pretty much holds steady physically while showing the same stuff and good pitchability, do you think his stock would rise due to proximity to the majors or drop due to loss of some projection?
Klaw(1:28 PM) His pure stuff doesn't have to get better for him to profile as a number two starter, but his command will, and of course he has to build up his durability. The main concern with his height is getting plane on the fastball, and perhaps with him distributing his weight (he's a little pudgy) across a taller frame.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 7, 2014 20:46:46 GMT -5
Same chat:
Trey Anastasio (Burlington, VT) Love your work Keith, thank you for chatting. The Boston area was highly anticipating the #7 pick in last years and I was disappointed to see Trey Ball miss your top 100. Was that pick a mistake? What's your overall take on him as a prospect?
Klaw (1:41 PM) Not a mistake, just seems to be a little bit further away than I thought he was on draft day. Missing my top 100 doesn't indicate I dislike the player's future.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 7, 2014 20:49:48 GMT -5
In his weekly chat, he listed Kelly as one of the players that didn't make the top 100 because of an injury in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Pereira on Feb 7, 2014 23:34:48 GMT -5
In his weekly chat, he listed Kelly as one of the players that didn't make the top 100 because of an injury in 2013. Which is why the link is about how both Webster and Kelly were just missed candidates for the top 100.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 12, 2014 12:46:10 GMT -5
Law posted his top 20 impact rookies, and two Sox are near the top. Nick Castellanos is ranked ahead of Xander because Law feels he is more mature/ready for THIS year, and also has a guaranteed full-time gig, while the two Sox have questions about playing time (see Drew and Sizemore). If Bradley posts that line (.340 OBP and 8 dingers) I for one will be stoked!
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 12, 2014 13:10:04 GMT -5
If Bradley posts that line (.340 OBP and 8 dingers) I for one will be stoked! Me, too. I don't look at Bradley as replacing Ellsbury and Bogaerts replacing Drew ... offensively, I'm looking for Bradley to replace Drew and Bogaerts to replace Ellsbury. Different players, obviously, in the case of Bogaerts and Ellsbury, but in overall value, I've been more confident of Bogaerts in this scenario than Bradley. But a .340 OBP and 8 dingers would make Bradley a perfectly fine replacement for Drew in the lineup.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 12, 2014 13:17:35 GMT -5
Drew and Ellsbury put up a combined 9.2 fWAR last year (3.4 Drew, 5.8 Ellsbury). To expect Bradley and Bogaerts to reach that level of excellence in their first full year is setting expectations much too high. I would be thrilled, for instance, if Bradley and Bogaerts combine for something on the order of 6 wins next year.
This years' team may very well be as good as last years', but the improvement will have to mostly come from elsewhere-- say, a bounce-back from Middlebrooks and a sustained run of health and performance from the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 12, 2014 13:22:47 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree ... which is why I don't actually think Bradley will approximate Drew's production. I think that'll be a step down, but I'm irrationally bullish on Bogaerts, I admit. I just can't shake the feeling that he's going to put up a .830+OPS next year, with a good OBP. But Bogaerts+Bradley will probably not be as valuable defensively as Drew+Ellsbury.
Total aside, but without looking, guess the difference in OPS last year between Ellsbury and Drew ...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 14, 2014 17:22:26 GMT -5
|
|