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.
How Strong is the System?
|
Post by burythehammer on Jun 1, 2014 9:44:54 GMT -5
I realize this thread didn't end up being about him or what he wrote but, you could literally spend one day on the internet learning about baseball and by the next day you would understand the game more than Dan Shaughnessy who's covered it for 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jun 1, 2014 10:01:43 GMT -5
but if JBJ goes 0/4 tonight with 2 k's.....then the entire system will be overrated again So then, greatest system ever? :-) Produces all-star baseball players who act like hockey players. If they acted like hockey players, the group meeting after Carp was hit Friday would have been far different and the situation would be ancient history.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jun 1, 2014 10:29:26 GMT -5
I realize this thread didn't end up being about him or what he wrote but, you could literally spend one day on the internet learning about baseball and by the next day you would understand the game more than Dan Shaughnessy who's covered it for 100 years. Amen brother! That guy hasn't got a clue, even on a good day, and God knows,he has not seen many good days.
|
|
|
Post by nysoxfan on Jun 1, 2014 13:43:28 GMT -5
If the idea of asking if the system is over-hyped is repositioned as: This system is definitely much better than the ones of the 2007ish-2011, but should we be careful to not overrate the individual potential of each individual guy, just because of the collective bevvy of talent? As someone pointed out, criticizing the system and using that overall analysis of "overrated" or "over-hyped" as a lens while measuring any individual guy is just not really appropriate or effective. Similarly, the question I think being asked was maybe just the other side of that coin, are we possibly expecting too much out of any single guy because the system is getting a ton of pub right now for being loaded.
With Xander graduated it is fairly safe to argue the system is back to lacking any truly elite individual prospects. The majority of systems in the top 10 on most lists have at least 1 if not 2 very legit future all star potential ceiling guys. I know we have some too, but our list of guys feel like they have to max out ceiling just to exceed the expectation/ceiling of above average. Maybe that's the way to think about it, the system right now doesn't really have many bats that will hit 3 or 4 in a lineup, and don't have any #1 front of rotation pitchers.
The system is getting ranked #5 overall. To ask: should we be careful over-hyping guys like Cecchini and Betts and even to some extent Swihart (probably deserves the most hype for tools and is the one guy I'd say really flies in the face of this). Can someone help make this point more salient with more info about prospect grades in the general prospect universe and ceilings and grade ranges? I feel like we have a TON of 40-60 guys and nobody who's really getting up into the 60s, and that is coming from the least educated position ever, I'm just hoping to start that conversation (so don't freak out and tell me what your job is and why I'm wrong, please).
Maybe an easier exercise... guys i think can be all-star, or maybe let's say for the semantics police out there, "above average at the position" players: - Betts - Owens - Swihart - Vazquez - Margot - Devers
Honorable mentions: Brian Johnson, maybe Trey Ball?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 1, 2014 16:31:51 GMT -5
I realize this thread didn't end up being about him or what he wrote but, you could literally spend one day on the internet learning about baseball and by the next day you would understand the game more than Dan Shaughnessy who's covered it for 100 years. He understands perfectly fine. Some writers don't like that fans come to the park to see the players not them. So they write columns that put themselves in the spotlight. Sure he could call scouts from other teams and verify that they do indeed have a lot of good prospects. But it's much easier to stir the pot and then throw up his hands and say it's just his opinion. He wants to appeal to the angry middle class white guy who calls sports radio and yells after each loss.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 1, 2014 16:40:42 GMT -5
Nysox fan.
I would say that out of your list only Betts, Devers, and Ball have 7 ceilings.
The Red Sox system's strength is the amount of guys who project to be major league regulars. I think a lot of people don't appreciate that. It is a major strength that when the sox need two starters they can go to Brandon Workman as opposed to being forced to put Capuano in the rotation or a retread
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 1, 2014 19:06:27 GMT -5
Nysox fan. I would say that out of your list only Betts, Devers, and Ball have 7 ceilings. The Red Sox system's strength is the amount of guys who project to be major league regulars. I think a lot of people don't appreciate that. It is a major strength that when the sox need two starters they can go to Brandon Workman as opposed to being forced to put Capuano in the rotation or a retread I agree with you that most of our top prospects project as major league regular but if we're talking ceilings, I think its fine to include the guys that he did with the exception of maybe Vazquez. In fact, I'd add Webster based on the strength of his arsenal.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 1, 2014 19:52:00 GMT -5
With Xander graduated it is fairly safe to argue the system is back to lacking any truly elite individual prospects. The majority of systems in the top 10 on most lists have at least 1 if not 2 very legit future all star potential ceiling guys. I know we have some too, but our list of guys feel like they have to max out ceiling just to exceed the expectation/ceiling of above average. Maybe that's the way to think about it, the system right now doesn't really have many bats that will hit 3 or 4 in a lineup, and don't have any #1 front of rotation pitchers. I think this is a pretty outdated way of looking at it, especially on the position player side. No, they don't really have anyone who projects to hit 25+ home runs (unless you really, really squint with Devers or are really high on Brentz), but they have a bunch of prospects whose ceilings include both above-average offense and above-average defense at a premium defensive position. You mention most of these guys later on (Betts, Swihart, Margot, Devers, etc.; maybe even guys like Vazquez or Marrero or Rijo), but I think you're still underrating how valuable it is to have good hitters at the up-the-middle positions. If Betts or Swihart crack an .800 OPS, they're going to be easy four win players. That's an elite prospect, even if they don't project as so-called "middle of the order" hitters. Betts, in particular, is a top-20 or 25 prospect for most evaluators-- I find it hard to call him anything but a truly elite individual prospect.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 1, 2014 20:10:38 GMT -5
Nysox fan. I would say that out of your list only Betts, Devers, and Ball have 7 ceilings. The Red Sox system's strength is the amount of guys who project to be major league regulars. I think a lot of people don't appreciate that. It is a major strength that when the sox need two starters they can go to Brandon Workman as opposed to being forced to put Capuano in the rotation or a retread I agree with you that most of our top prospects project as major league regular but if we're talking ceilings, I think its fine to include the guys that he did with the exception of maybe Vazquez. In fact, I'd add Webster based on the strength of his arsenal. I think I am referring to a realistic ceiling as opposed to a possible ceiling. Sure it's possible that Webster might one day be a perennial Cy contender. But he's in his second goround at AAA now and still lacks the type of fastball command that would make him a top starter. I think we should celebrate that the Sox have so many players that project to one day help the major league team. But let's also remember that prospects are far more likely to dissapoint than to exceed their projections. There is a post earlier in the thread that assumes that one of the big 6 starters will outperform and we'll get an ace out of that. In actuality it's more likely that none of them hold down a rotation spot.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jun 1, 2014 20:22:07 GMT -5
given that the grading scale of 8 is an elite MLB player, i.e., the small handful that are above All-Star, which is grade 7, I would like to suggest that we avoid the use of the term "elite prospect" to describe a projected All-Star talent, even though a prospect worthy of grade 7 is very exceptional. As much I hope Mookie and Hank (etc., etc.) turn out to be All-Star or even elite, I do not see a serious issue with setting the upper range of several of our current prospects to be 7. That could be a way to describe a perennial above average player, with one or 2 All-Star seasons.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jun 1, 2014 20:56:32 GMT -5
Nysox fan. I would say that out of your list only Betts, Devers, and Ball have 7 ceilings. The Red Sox system's strength is the amount of guys who project to be major league regulars. I think a lot of people don't appreciate that. It is a major strength that when the sox need two starters they can go to Brandon Workman as opposed to being forced to put Capuano in the rotation or a retread It's probably quibbling since I generally agree with your point, but I don't see any way Swihart doesn't have a realistic 7 ceiling. But I think RDLR's performance yesterday underscores that the volatility of pitching prospects isn't *only* on the downside. Webster, RDLR, Barnes, and Owens all have things you can dream on with them, and all have valid reasons why they won't amount to much of anything. And Ball ... I'm not even really paying attention to that guy right now. He's in a sort of quantum state in my mind, just a wide smear of barely-differentiated possible futures. I totally buy Cherington's strategy of just stockpiling as many pitchers as possible that have "good MLB starter" somewhere in their error bar. Position players just don't have the same width on those error bars, Mookie being the exception that proves the rule there. Although I think Margot has a pretty wide range of possible outcomes, some of which includes a few All-Star games.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jun 1, 2014 21:16:53 GMT -5
I realize this thread didn't end up being about him or what he wrote but, you could literally spend one day on the internet learning about baseball and by the next day you would understand the game more than Dan Shaughnessy who's covered it for 100 years. He understands perfectly fine. Some writers don't like that fans come to the park to see the players not them. So they write columns that put themselves in the spotlight. Sure he could call scouts from other teams and verify that they do indeed have a lot of good prospects. But it's much easier to stir the pot and then throw up his hands and say it's just his opinion. He wants to appeal to the angry middle class white guy who calls sports radio and yells after each loss. I disagree. He is that guy you describe in your last sentence there, only with a journalism degree and a public forum. Don't think for a second that he's artificially dumbing his opinions down .
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 2, 2014 6:44:15 GMT -5
Brian one start versus a bad offensive team doesn't demonstrate much of anything. Yes sometimes players, especially pitchers, outperform their projections. But more often they do not.
In RDLRs case his downside isn't a stuff issue. He has the three pitch mix to be a top pitcher. It's questions about ability to throw 220 innings a year and stay off of the operating table.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jun 2, 2014 7:09:16 GMT -5
Michael Pineda and Carl Pavano immediately come to mind as pitchers that remind me of RDLR's possible injury-riddled early years, also Anibal Sanchez I believe went between flashes of brilliance and injuries for years to start his career. Here's hoping RDLR continues to improve his command while staying on the field for as long as possible. Saturday was fun to watch no matter what the quality of the Rays lineup.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 2, 2014 7:26:37 GMT -5
I wouldn't call De La Rosa "injury-riddled." Looking at his BP injury history, he's only had one major injury, and it was a torn UCL that required Tommy John surgery, from which he is fully recovered now. Comparing him to Pineda or Sanchez (both of whom suffered major shoulder injuries, which are much more threatening in terms of long-term prognosis than a one-time TJ) is comparing apples to oranges. There are some legit durability concerns, but those are driven by the fact that he hasn't thrown 100 innings in a calendar year since 2011 and doesn't appear to have ever thrown more than 120 innings in a calendar year. So in that sense he's "unproven," but I wouldn't say he's injury-prone or describe him as one of those injured-or-good pitchers (think Josh Johnson, Rich Harden, etc).
In my mind, the better barometer for De La Rosa's future success is his control and command. If he keeps the walks down to a reasonable level (below 4-ish BB/9), he's going to be at least a solid mid-rotation starter, considering his ability to get strikeouts and ground balls in bunches. If he develops better-than-average command, he has a chance to be a front-end guy. If his command regresses and he's a 4.5 BB/9 guy, he's probably a reliever.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 2, 2014 7:57:06 GMT -5
He understands perfectly fine. Some writers don't like that fans come to the park to see the players not them. So they write columns that put themselves in the spotlight. Sure he could call scouts from other teams and verify that they do indeed have a lot of good prospects. But it's much easier to stir the pot and then throw up his hands and say it's just his opinion. He wants to appeal to the angry middle class white guy who calls sports radio and yells after each loss. I disagree. He is that guy you describe in your last sentence there, only with a journalism degree and a public forum. Don't think for a second that he's artificially dumbing his opinions down . Does it matter? As Vonnegut wrote "we are what we pretend to be". Oh, and by the way, the system is fine and it's been fine. Look at it this way: the "drop off" in production has been from Justin Masterson in '08 to Xander Bogaerts '13/14. In that time the Red Sox "only" produced Doubront, Nava, Tazawa, Middlebrooks and a few other Lavarnway up-and-down types. You know what's missing from that timeline? Anthony Rizzo. If he doesn't get traded there's not even the slightest basis for having this discussion*. So roughly speaking you have a farm system that in a six year span produced a durable mid-to-front of the rotation starter, a first baseman who very reasonably projects as a perennial all-star, and Xander Bogaerts, the future of baseball itself. And scattered around those guys they produced some bullpen help, a good platoon outfielder, a promising third baseman who probably should have been traded two years ago, etc... And to address the "overhyped" aspect of this, all of this player production is without ever having any crazy hype from anyone who knows that they're talking about. The system has never been as pumped up as, say, the Royals with THE BEST FARM SYSTEM EVER a few years back. It's been a well-regarded top-10, top-5 type system. So in other words, anyone who actually knows what they're talking about and has realistic expectations about what a farm system is likely to produce should be very happy with what the Red Sox have been able to come up with in recent years and there should be no real cause for concern in the foreseeable future. But of course when the five high-minors starters in the system right now "only" turn into one mid-rotation guy and a couple relievers, it'll be "ZOMG WORST SYSTEM EVER OVERHYPED I AM DISAPPOINT FIRE BEN PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME AND MY DYING MEDIUM" all over again I'm sure. *of course, Rizzo still exists. It's not like someone went back in time and prevented his parents from ever meeting, so really there is absolutely no basis for having this discussion. But for sake of argument we'll allow that playing for the Cubes equates to total non-existence.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 2, 2014 7:59:47 GMT -5
Jmei if you look at his delivery it puts a lot of stress on his arm. That's why you read about his durability in virtually every scouting report on him and why many see him as a reliever.
He has also already had a major injury. Sometimes you need to do a little more than just click on a couple of links.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 2, 2014 8:01:55 GMT -5
There's a difference between questions on durability and getting hurt more than one time.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 2, 2014 8:29:39 GMT -5
I agree with you that most of our top prospects project as major league regular but if we're talking ceilings, I think its fine to include the guys that he did with the exception of maybe Vazquez. In fact, I'd add Webster based on the strength of his arsenal. I think I am referring to a realistic ceiling as opposed to a possible ceiling. Sure it's possible that Webster might one day be a perennial Cy contender. But he's in his second goround at AAA now and still lacks the type of fastball command that would make him a top starter. I think we should celebrate that the Sox have so many players that project to one day help the major league team. But let's also remember that prospects are far more likely to dissapoint than to exceed their projections. There is a post earlier in the thread that assumes that one of the big 6 starters will outperform and we'll get an ace out of that. In actuality it's more likely that none of them hold down a rotation spot. Ok. I mean I guess my definition of 'ceiling' equates to that which is possible and not necessarily probable. A 'possible ceiling' and a 'realistic projection' make sense to me. A 'realistic ceiling' confuses me a bit. I still maintain that Webster has a 7 'ceiling.' It might not be the most realistic scenario, but its also not like he struggled in his first year in AAA. Anyways, carry on....its all semantics.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 2, 2014 8:38:34 GMT -5
I don't know often 6 out of 6 pitchers bust when all but one of them were ranked in the top 100. That's pretty pessimistic. I mean why bother coming to this site if you just assume everyone is going to be a bust?
Spare me with the "favors" tempering my expectations. Santa isn't real either.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 2, 2014 8:48:07 GMT -5
Jmei if you look at his delivery it puts a lot of stress on his arm. That's why you read about his durability in virtually every scouting report on him and why many see him as a reliever.He has also already had a major injury. Sometimes you need to do a little more than just click on a couple of links. Do you have a link for the bolded claim? I looked through a half-dozen scouting reports, and while many mentioned an inconsistent delivery and issues maintaining his arm slot, I couldn't find anything suggesting that his mechanics will lead to injury. Instead, I find stuff like " At 94-97, RDLR’s delivery is relatively smooth" and " Delivery/Arm Action: 60" (on the 20-80 scouting scale). There is some stuff about effort in his delivery, but he's made improvements to it over time (see here or here), and an occasionally high-effort delivery doesn't seem like enough to put him in the injury-prone category yet.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jun 2, 2014 9:23:32 GMT -5
Re: RDLR "He took a long list of things after spring training and of course you can see the results. He took everything that we expected from him, that we told him before the season after we sent him down because of course the results were not happening in spring training. And we thought, man, we've got to make some moves," said pitching coach Juan Nieves. "He took every bit of it with a large grain of urgency and you see it."
The checklist was lengthy: A more upbeat tempo in his delivery; standing taller on the mound; not over-rotating on the rubber so that his direction was towards and through home plate rather than spinning off of it; keeping the hands in front of the body from the windup as opposed to over the head to decrease movement and make his delivery more repeatable; the reintroduction of a curveball to go with the fastball/slider/changeup mix to vary the looks and velocities at which he was working.
It was a lot to digest -- enough that it was hard to know if De La Rosa could make all the adjustments to be able to realize his considerable potential. But just before the start of the season, in a bullpen session with PawSox pitching coach Rich Sauveur, there was a eureka moment. De La Rosa managed to make the adjustments to his delivery and repeat them, pitch after pitch, each of his offerings darting over the plate and staying down, something he carried into the start of the season. www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2014/06/01/gem-worth-wait-rubby-de-la-rosas-lesson-player
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jun 2, 2014 10:34:02 GMT -5
Brian one start versus a bad offensive team doesn't demonstrate much of anything. Yes sometimes players, especially pitchers, outperform their projections. But more often they do not.In RDLRs case his downside isn't a stuff issue. He has the three pitch mix to be a top pitcher. It's questions about ability to throw 220 innings a year and stay off of the operating table. Sure. I just said it "underscored" ... it wasn't meant to be evidence either way. And I was more talking about his whole season so far, which has been encouraging (I won't cover the second paragraph beyond just agreeing with jmei that the downside of RDLR is in command and consistency). My only point is in the "especially pitchers" part of your second sentence and what that means when evaluating the Sox system. I think that having a stable of top-100 arms is more important than having one top-10 arm. Having both would be terrific, but I think that the ceiling of RDLR, Webster, Owens, even Barnes and possibly Ranaudo (although I'm not that high on Ranaudo) includes the possibility for a Jon Lester-like career. Maybe not Cy Young awards, but solid stretches of dominance and an anchor for a championship rotation. NONE of them may reach it, for sure, but diversity of risk/upside is important when it comes to pitchers. Honestly, I don't think I'm disagreeing with you on any of this, more clarifying a point.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jun 2, 2014 10:55:24 GMT -5
Jmei if you look at his delivery it puts a lot of stress on his arm. That's why you read about his durability in virtually every scouting report on him and why many see him as a reliever.He has also already had a major injury. Sometimes you need to do a little more than just click on a couple of links. Do you have a link for the bolded claim? I looked through a half-dozen scouting reports, and while many mentioned an inconsistent delivery and issues maintaining his arm slot, I couldn't find anything suggesting that his mechanics will lead to injury. Instead, I find stuff like " At 94-97, RDLR’s delivery is relatively smooth" and " Delivery/Arm Action: 60" (on the 20-80 scouting scale). Not a scout, but his delivery looks quite good to me. No over-extension, tight to the body with a straight follow-through (something Nieves emphasized), very little wasted motion which leads to tremendous deception - each pitch coming out of the same location . None of that is a guarantee of anything, of course. Pitching mechanics are still a lot more art than science with little predictive power outside of a few standout issues such as the inverted W. The durability questions have a lot more to do with the fact that he doesn't have a season-long track record that extends beyond 100 innings, something others have mentioned. That does have some upside in that he really doesn't have extended wear and tear outside of the TJ surgery. But it's also a big unknown, a blank spot in his resume. I'd not seen him pitch more than five innings prior to Saturday, and so I made note of the fact that he was hitting in the high nineties late in the game. There aren't that many pitchers who can do that. He's got a solid build, but again that's no promise of anything. While I don't see much stress in the delivery itself, the mojo he puts on that thing has got to be coming from somewhere. The changeup is just crazy. Guess we'll find out.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 2, 2014 11:05:36 GMT -5
It's questions about ability to throw 220 innings a year and stay off of the operating table. Seriously, why bother using a top 5 MLB innings pitched pitcher as a basis for anything unless it's to exaggerate?
|
|
|