|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 20, 2014 13:48:31 GMT -5
Trey Ball has thrown 7 professional innings. I'm pretty sure his stock has not moved whatsoever since he was drafted.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 20, 2014 16:54:46 GMT -5
Trey Ball has thrown 7 professional innings. I'm pretty sure his stock has not moved whatsoever since he was drafted. It's not really a case of his stock falling but more other draftees such as Meadows rising. The rankings also take into account the instructional league if applicable.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 20, 2014 17:00:42 GMT -5
And the expected value of a player can change over time. The Red Sox feel that Ball has the makeup and athleticism to eventually become a #2 starting pitcher. It's just going to take him a few years to get there because he doesn't have the experience that other high school pitchers have.
I don't think that they took Ball because they wanted a pitcher as opposed to a hitter. It's likely more of a case that they love pitchers who have great athleticism (Kelly Buccholz) and couldn't pass on one of the more athletic high school pitchers in the draft.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 20, 2014 18:22:38 GMT -5
Meadows ranked higher on their pre-draft rankings, played more in his debut, performed very very well. No reason to be "concern" about Ball we just haven't seen enough to be concern about anything. Give him some time.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 20, 2014 23:15:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 21, 2014 13:04:41 GMT -5
But the reason he is ranked so low is that he also has a ton of risk. That risk has yet to be alleviated by him playing pro ball successfully, but it could also be compounded by him playing pro ball poorly. If the prospect-watchers were confident that he was really good, he'd be ranked higher.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,828
|
Post by nomar on Feb 21, 2014 14:14:07 GMT -5
Wouldn't shock me if Swihart or Ball were the #1 next year over Owens. If Swihart shows good pop this year (like Mookie last year) he's a potential top 10 spec.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 22, 2014 18:24:26 GMT -5
One of the baseball America writers said yesterday on a preview segment that there was more of a difference between number one and number two than there was between number two and number 14 on their list. I think this has already been pointed out, but I'd bet cash money that the phrase "in terms of tools" had to be in that sentence. Because I doubt the BA guy is an idiot. And it's a true statement if you add that phrase and an idiotic one if it's omitted. The reason why Xander is #2 is that he has once-in-a-decade makeup to go with merely outstanding tools (the sort that a dozen guys have in any prospect class). What that kind of makeup does is raise your floor. The odds of him being Delmon Young or Ruben Rivera and never finding the right toolbox to carry those tools in are essentially zero. We know that nothing except injury is going to prevent him from getting nearly everything out of his talent. Not only don't we know that about 3-14, we know that the odds are good that a few of them will disappoint because of makeup flaws. I think that when you factor in makeup, the big gap is between 2 and 3. When you look at Xander's walk rate in AA in 2012 versus his rate in 2013's MLB post-season, you see tangible evidence of once-in-a-decade makeup every bit as compelling as the evidence for Buxton's once-in-a-decade tools. Since makeup is generally about floor, and tools are about ceiling*, Buxton at 1 is clearly the correct call. But any prospect ranking that has Xander at other than 2 (and I know I just saw one) just doesn't understand the importance of makeup to prospect success. *Unless you're Dustin Pedroia (and maybe Wade Boggs). But the number of guys whose makeup is so insanely off the charts that it raises their ceiling -- well, they are few.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 22, 2014 21:23:41 GMT -5
But the reason he is ranked so low is that he also has a ton of risk. That risk has yet to be alleviated by him playing pro ball successfully, but it could also be compounded by him playing pro ball poorly. If the prospect-watchers were confident that he was really good, he'd be ranked higher. [br And the Red Sox think they can mitigate that risk through teaching him a third pitch and giving him experience. Ball will probably be able to celebrate his major league debut with an adult beverage of his choice whereas Meadows might not. But that doesn't mean that Ball was the wrong pick.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 4, 2014 10:26:31 GMT -5
On Ask BA, BA released the names of those who made top 150 ballots but did not make the top 100. Here are the Red Sox names (with number of ballots appeared on and peak ranking): Anthony Ranaudo 5 109 Brandon Workman 4 95 Christian Vasquez 1 149 Deven Marrero 1 127 Manuel Margot 1 149 Matt Barnes 4 104
|
|