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.
Struggles of top prospects in MLB
|
Post by godot on Aug 25, 2014 9:20:49 GMT -5
No doubt they ( not just the Sox) are rushing their 'prospects', and one reason is what else, money. They are cheaper than signing free agents or giving big salaries to keep guys out of free agency. The Sox are very open about this and many fans have bought into, plus their taste for some new toy. The result sometimes like the Sox are many bridge years.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 26, 2014 15:57:18 GMT -5
No doubt they ( not just the Sox) are rushing their 'prospects', and one reason is what else, money. They are cheaper than signing free agents or giving big salaries to keep guys out of free agency. The Sox are very open about this and many fans have bought into, plus their taste for some new toy. The result sometimes like the Sox are many bridge years. So the Red Sox are cheap? Funny that the super cheap teams keep players in the minors forever just to manipulate service time.
|
|
|
Post by onbase on Aug 26, 2014 17:50:06 GMT -5
Some questions: - What is the correlation between maturing early enough to be noticed, scouted, drafted in early rounds, handed a truckload of money, being age advanced through the minors, and succeeding at the major league level? - What is the correlation between maturing later, being drafted in later rounds or not at all, being noticed late and signed for peanuts, lucking into a job at the major league level due to injury or other circumstance and succeeding? - Does it penalize teams to eschew the late bloomer?
I'm thinking of players like Scutaro, Bautista, Nava, and Holt vs Darnel McDonald, Kolbrin Vitek, Argenis Diaz. Please don't jump on me if the examples aren't perfect, I think you can understand the questions, and what I'm getting at. I understand that age advancement adds value, but in combination with whether it's correctly promoted, is it correctly valued?
EDIT: typos
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Aug 26, 2014 19:37:20 GMT -5
Some questions: - What is the correlation between maturing early enough to be noticed, scouted, drafted in early rounds, haded a truckload of money, being age advanced through the minors, and succeeding at the majpr league level? - What is the correlation between maturing later, being drafted in later rounds or not at all, being noticed late and signed for peanuts, lucking into a job at the major league level due to injury or other circumstance and succeeding? - Does it penalize teams to eschew the late bloomer? I'm thinking of players like Scutaro, Bautista, Nava, and Holt vs Darnel McDonald, Kolbrin Vitek, Argenis Diaz. Please don't jump on me if the examples aren't perfect, I think you can understand the questions, and what I'm getting at. I understand that age advancement adds value, but in combination with whether it's correctly promoted, is it correctly valued? I think those are good questions. I don't have the answers. I know one thing, I'm tired of hearing how old Xander is.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Aug 27, 2014 7:23:11 GMT -5
Some questions: - What is the correlation between maturing early enough to be noticed, scouted, drafted in early rounds, handed a truckload of money, being age advanced through the minors, and succeeding at the major league level? - What is the correlation between maturing later, being drafted in later rounds or not at all, being noticed late and signed for peanuts, lucking into a job at the major league level due to injury or other circumstance and succeeding? - Does it penalize teams to eschew the late bloomer? I'm thinking of players like Scutaro, Bautista, Nava, and Holt vs Darnel McDonald, Kolbrin Vitek, Argenis Diaz. Please don't jump on me if the examples aren't perfect, I think you can understand the questions, and what I'm getting at. I understand that age advancement adds value, but in combination with whether it's correctly promoted, is it correctly valued? EDIT: typos I think it's fairly obvious that players who are drafted in the early rounds and are younger tend to do better overall. One of my pet peaves is that some on this board and elsewhere take the success of players like Holt and Nava and then try to exstrapolate their success on to older lower rated prospects. Like Travis Shaw for instance. Further they tend to overrate these players once they have success in the majors. Yes some players bloom later than others and yes some later drafted players end up with good careers. Organuzations should not eschew late bloomers and they do not. But they aren't and shouldn't be given the same opportunities as higher rated younger players. I love Carlos Asujae, but he's not getting the same opportunities that Trey Ball will get nor should he.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Aug 27, 2014 8:45:59 GMT -5
I think "cheap" has to be thought of two ways. Teams try to balance cheap labor vs. cheap career prime. For a player like Xander, if the FO thinks they will extend him early anyway because he's a 'sure thing', letting him take his lumps at the MLB level is ok. For a player like Nava, who is older, may as well let him toil in the minors, get his full prime, then let him get overpaid somewhere else.
The Red Sox really need to be calling up guys when they are the best option available, and I think they have had a tendency to try to keep fans excited and bring guys up early. I'd like to see the full AAA season or more for most players, personally. I'd love to see them hold onto Betts, but not keep him in the majors next year (don't think either is much of a possibility, because apparently the kid can play).
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 27, 2014 9:10:01 GMT -5
The Red Sox are trying to balance long term vs. short term. It would be nice if they could just go out and hire a veteran until each of their prospects were ready, but it doesn't work that way.
Unfortunately the free agent signing that makes you stronger this year usually makes you weaker in subsequent years.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Aug 27, 2014 9:42:50 GMT -5
I don't know if it was noticed but the Pirates demoted there top prospect. The outfielder Polanco I think. There promoted Marte back up.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Oct 14, 2014 22:26:22 GMT -5
I haven't seen this commented on elsewhere, so: www.hardballtimes.com/the-strike-zone-expansion-is-out-of-control/This is pure speculation, but it would be very interesting to find out if this same thing has been happening to minor league strike zones as well. If not,i.e. if prospects were being promoted to a league that was adding a couple of inches to the bottom of the strike zone, this could explain the nearly ubiquitous struggle of rookies across the majors. It would be interesting to know if there was a reasonable resource to check this.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 14, 2014 23:11:24 GMT -5
I haven't seen this commented on elsewhere, so: www.hardballtimes.com/the-strike-zone-expansion-is-out-of-control/This is pure speculation, but it would be very interesting to find out if this same thing has been happening to minor league strike zones as well. If not,i.e. if prospects were being promoted to a league that was adding a couple of inches to the bottom of the strike zone, this could explain the nearly ubiquitous struggle of rookies across the majors. It would be interesting to know if there was a reasonable resource to check this. Interesting. This is the obverse of Hatfield's find, about umpires calling the strike zone correctly. Set all of that aside. Regardless of whether this "new" strike zone is the right one or not, the downward expansion has to be a factor in plummeting offensive performance. I'm not surprised at all that the slow but steady trend dates precisely from the time of the Bonds' indictment (Add: and subsequent trial date). It's the squeeze play. Add2: What makes you say it's speculation? It has actual data behind it.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Oct 15, 2014 5:14:29 GMT -5
Oregon Norm:
Sorry for the lack of clarity. The speculative part was the suggestion that strike zones in the Major Leagues might be expanding while those in the Minor Leagues had not or had done so at a slower rate. There is no information about the minors in the article. If minor leaguers were accustomed to a smaller strike zone, they might struggle more when promoted to a league wth a bigger strike zone. This would be especially true in an organization that emphasizes strike zone judgement.
As I said it was just a speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 15, 2014 11:24:51 GMT -5
Ranaudo noted after his first start, I think, that the MLB strike zone was smaller, yes?
Could just be a rookie thing though.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 15, 2014 11:38:51 GMT -5
Ranaudo noted after his first start, I think, that the MLB strike zone was smaller, yes? Could just be a rookie thing though. The rookie thing is real. I bet JBJ's OBP would have been over .300 if he weren't screwed on about 25 called third strikes. If he got the Jeter treatment, he probably would have hit as well as Jeter. Slightly sarcastic there.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 15, 2014 12:51:25 GMT -5
Ranaudo noted after his first start, I think, that the MLB strike zone was smaller, yes? Could just be a rookie thing though. I think umpires "adjust" to new pitchers. Ranaudo's curve ball might have caught the ump unaware. Rookie thing? Yeah. But don't disregard an umpire adjust to a pitcher. Maddux did not get the "off the black" strike call when he was a rookie.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 15, 2014 14:44:55 GMT -5
I haven't seen this commented on elsewhere, so: www.hardballtimes.com/the-strike-zone-expansion-is-out-of-control/This is pure speculation, but it would be very interesting to find out if this same thing has been happening to minor league strike zones as well. If not,i.e. if prospects were being promoted to a league that was adding a couple of inches to the bottom of the strike zone, this could explain the nearly ubiquitous struggle of rookies across the majors. It would be interesting to know if there was a reasonable resource to check this. It's interesting speculation, but I think you could test it without knowing the MiLB strike zone ... in fact, I sorta doubt there even is a common strike zone in the minor leagues, with such a wide variety of umpires and leagues in play. But I think you'd want to test two things ... first, the central hypothesis rests on the idea that rookies are having more trouble now than in the past. Is that true? And, if so, are they having more trouble with pitches low in the zone than other hitters? If the answers to both are "yes," then that's pretty strong evidence that the speculation holds water ... Of course, even if both are true, it could just be as simple as, "hitting the baseball in MLB is harder now, and rookies - being rookies - are affected more than most."
|
|
|