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 dirtywater on Nov 4, 2014 8:53:44 GMT -5
Call me crazy, but I really think Allen Webster figures it out in the end. He showed a little bit of improvement as the year went on last year. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, because I really don't think his stuff plays in the bullpen. There are countless examples of guys like him who failed in their first or second major league trial. Not sure if Garret Richards is the fairest of comparisons but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility we could see a similar breakout happening with him. You look at the numbers and they are comparable. 6ish k/9, 4.5ish BB/9 in their first two years. Both guys have electric stuff and were rated 50-100 of top prospects. But both have to learn in the majors that hitters won't chase out of the zone as much as they do in the minors. Hopefully he harnesses his repertoire because it is major league caliber. But it's just a hunch.
I'm definitely higher on him as a starter than I am with guys like Rubby, Ranaudo, Barnes and obviously Workman or Wright.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,914
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 4, 2014 9:21:40 GMT -5
I actually don't see the point of Triple-A for Webster from a development standpoint (different if he gets beat out for a spot and is in Pawtucket as depth). Sometimes you need to let guys work it out in the majors. I want him to figure out how to pitch in the stage he needs to learn how to pitch on. It's happened a few times now that he makes an adjustment, comes up... and it's gone. Make the adjustment in the Bigs and show you can repeat it, y'know? I don't think there's any difference here between AAA and MLB. He's been inconsistent while at AAA. In the sense that he's not learning anything about getting hitters out, I agree with you, he needs no development. But whatever it is that allows a pitcher to improve their ability to keep consistent mechanics from one start to the next (reinforcing "muscle memory," figuring out the things in one's routine that disrupt neurological output) -- I think that works at any level, and I think that sheer experience at any level helps. And I don't see a spot for him in MLB if everyone is healthy. He would probably be the first in line for a job if they have one injury and they add two pitchers, or second in line if they add 3. (X, maybe Y, Buchholz, Kelly, De La Rosa; Uehara, Z, Tazawa, Mujica, Workman, Layne, Britton, Wright -- that's 12 or 13.) That would work if a pitcher had consistent repertoire, velocity, and stuff across his starts, but those are going to vary and contribute a lot to hardness of contact allowed. In Webster's case, his wild variations in GB% from start to start indicate that those factors were very variable. Furthermore, for many pitchers, hardness of contact is a counter-intuitive function of strikeout and walk rate; you can increase strikeouts and decrease walks by simply challenging guys well within the strike zone, but you get hit much harder if you do. For Webster last year, his hardness of contact allowed (measured as linear weights of hits, per balls in play) is a significant function of his K rate; it gets worse until his K rate hits .280 and then starts to improve again. I don't see any trend in the component of HRC not explained by that (the residual of the regression) across the season, although it's hard to tell without a level adjustment.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 4, 2014 14:53:14 GMT -5
Call me crazy, but I really think Allen Webster figures it out in the end. He showed a little bit of improvement as the year went on last year. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, because I really don't think his stuff plays in the bullpen. There are countless examples of guys like him who failed in their first or second major league trial. Not sure if Garret Richards is the fairest of comparisons but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility we could see a similar breakout happening with him. You look at the numbers and they are comparable. 6ish k/9, 4.5ish BB/9 in their first two years. Both guys have electric stuff and were rated 50-100 of top prospects. But both have to learn in the majors that hitters won't chase out of the zone as much as they do in the minors. Hopefully he harnesses his repertoire because it is major league caliber. But it's just a hunch. I'm definitely higher on him as a starter than I am with guys like Rubby, Ranaudo, Barnes and obviously Workman or Wright. If the sox want to contend in 2015, can they wait for Webster to figure it out?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Nov 4, 2014 15:41:26 GMT -5
Call me crazy, but I really think Allen Webster figures it out in the end. He showed a little bit of improvement as the year went on last year. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, because I really don't think his stuff plays in the bullpen. There are countless examples of guys like him who failed in their first or second major league trial. Not sure if Garret Richards is the fairest of comparisons but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility we could see a similar breakout happening with him. You look at the numbers and they are comparable. 6ish k/9, 4.5ish BB/9 in their first two years. Both guys have electric stuff and were rated 50-100 of top prospects. But both have to learn in the majors that hitters won't chase out of the zone as much as they do in the minors. Hopefully he harnesses his repertoire because it is major league caliber. But it's just a hunch. I'm definitely higher on him as a starter than I am with guys like Rubby, Ranaudo, Barnes and obviously Workman or Wright. If the sox want to contend in 2015, can they wait for Webster to figure it out? In the bullpen? Sure why not? Some guys just have trouble turning over a lineup more than once, and/or are better off if they can use less of their repertoire. Some guys even show better command over shorter stretches. I wonder if Webster will be one of those guys. His fastball is so good that if he just throws that and his change-up with any command at all, no one will hit him over a short stretch. The Red Sox currently have openings for three starters and four relievers. They are not acquiring seven pitchers in the off-season.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 4, 2014 18:20:38 GMT -5
Webster is a puzzle...one of those guys with great natural stuff and movement but faulty control/command. I would rather see him continue to try to harness that command in AAA as a starter or be included in a trade rather than in the Sox bullpen where he will get many less reps to facilitate improvement.
At present Webster is, to me, 'Masterson lite'.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Nov 5, 2014 8:39:30 GMT -5
Webster is a puzzle...one of those guys with great natural stuff and movement but faulty control/command. I would rather see him continue to try to harness that command in AAA as a starter or be included in a trade rather than in the Sox bullpen where he will get many less reps to facilitate improvement. At present Webster is, to me, 'Masterson lite'. Webster throws a good changeup so in theory he should be good against lefties, which was Masterson's downfall.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Nov 5, 2014 9:15:50 GMT -5
The optimist in me shows he is trending in the right direction. In his last four starts he had a 2.63 era in 24 IP, recording 15Ks and only 5BB spread among the four starts.
If you look at his stats for the season you wouldn't be impressed. And he certainly needs to show some consistency to retain his place in the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 5, 2014 11:04:13 GMT -5
Webster is a puzzle...one of those guys with great natural stuff and movement but faulty control/command. I would rather see him continue to try to harness that command in AAA as a starter or be included in a trade rather than in the Sox bullpen where he will get many less reps to facilitate improvement. At present Webster is, to me, 'Masterson lite'. Webster throws a good changeup so in theory he should be good against lefties, which was Masterson's downfall. Yeah they're completely different. I'd say Masterson has about maximized what he can get out of what he has so far, whereas Webster pitches well below his stuff, so to speak. I don't think it's about reps at this point. He's had plenty of reps. He just needs something to click.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 618
|
Post by alnipper on Nov 5, 2014 12:27:23 GMT -5
I agree with you Chris. I think Webster's issues are between his ears. He has the stuff, but not the confidence.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Nov 5, 2014 12:45:51 GMT -5
I agree with you Chris. I think Webster's issues are between his ears. He has the stuff, but not the confidence. I think that being in the bullpen might help that. Doesn't really have to worry about throwing his slider as often and only has to go out and throw as hard as he can 15-20 times.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 5, 2014 13:02:04 GMT -5
I agree with you Chris. I think Webster's issues are between his ears. He has the stuff, but not the confidence. He doesn't have confidence because he can't repeat his delivery consistently enough. Let's not go down the headcase path again. Confidence is the result of pitching well, it doesn't come first.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 5, 2014 13:04:24 GMT -5
I agree with you Chris. I think Webster's issues are between his ears. He has the stuff, but not the confidence. I think that being in the bullpen might help that. Doesn't really have to worry about throwing his slider as often and only has to go out and throw as hard as he can 15-20 times. I think part of his problem started when he was hitting 99 in spring training a couple years ago. He seemed to take a step back when he started trying to throw too hard. His movement went away also.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 5, 2014 20:09:29 GMT -5
In Webster's case I don't believe bullpen work will help his starter development, he needs to work out his sequences/command with a full reportoire, turning it over several times preferably in the majors. I do agree with Eric, however, that starting in the minors has some usefulness based on body memory. I was fortunate enough to have a ski lesson with a former olympic medalist, Billy Kidd and he emphasized that even when resting in between runs you must stand in proper form, and will then retain it during actual skiing. As far as trading, the risk/reward seldom pays off dumping someone high ceiling like Webster, I'd keep him till the end..even a Ranaudo could surprise, but his lower ceiling would make a better bet.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 9, 2014 19:18:12 GMT -5
The Red Sox need to let some of these guys figure it out in the majors at the back end of the rotation. They need to sign and/or trade for 2 top end guys and let the last 3 spots be had by guys in the organization. If they aren't getting it done and the rest of the team is strong then you can add the veteran starter in June or July. If the rest of the team isn't strong then it doesn't matter if the 5th starter is.
Whoever they give the non Kelly and Buchholz spot to just need to be given a bunch of starts. I'm thinking Ruby should get the first crack with Webster second.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Nov 9, 2014 21:49:39 GMT -5
The Red Sox need to let some of these guys figure it out in the majors at the back end of the rotation. They need to sign and/or trade for 2 top end guys and let the last 3 spots be had by guys in the organization. If they aren't getting it done and the rest of the team is strong then you can add the veteran starter in June or July. If the rest of the team isn't strong then it doesn't matter if the 5th starter is. Whoever they give the non Kelly and Buchholz spot to just need to be given a bunch of starts. I'm thinking Ruby should get the first crack with Webster second. Everyone is saying we should bring in 2 SP's, but I disagree. We need 1 ace, whether it be Lester, Hamels, Cueto, or Scherzer, not 2 #3/#4 starters. Signing Buchholz Kelly De La Rosa Workman/Wright/Webster/Ranaudo/Barnes/Owens/Rodriguez/Johnson This is the way I see the rotation filling out. One of the young guys will seize the #5 job in camp, while the others fill out the bullpen (namely Workman and Ranaudo), and the others battle it out in AAA.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 10, 2014 0:50:02 GMT -5
The Red Sox need to let some of these guys figure it out in the majors at the back end of the rotation. They need to sign and/or trade for 2 top end guys and let the last 3 spots be had by guys in the organization. If they aren't getting it done and the rest of the team is strong then you can add the veteran starter in June or July. If the rest of the team isn't strong then it doesn't matter if the 5th starter is. Whoever they give the non Kelly and Buchholz spot to just need to be given a bunch of starts. I'm thinking Ruby should get the first crack with Webster second. Everyone is saying we should bring in 2 SP's, but I disagree. We need 1 ace, whether it be Lester, Hamels, Cueto, or Scherzer, not 2 #3/#4 starters. Signing Buchholz Kelly De La Rosa Workman/Wright/Webster/Ranaudo/Barnes/Owens/Rodriguez/Johnson This is the way I see the rotation filling out. One of the young guys will seize the #5 job in camp, while the others fill out the bullpen (namely Workman and Ranaudo), and the others battle it out in AAA. The big objections: - De La Rosa may very well be part of that batch of guys vying for the fifth spot. I can see why you're more comfortable with him than the others, but there's reason to hesitate going into the season with him penciled into the fourth slot of the rotation. - Buchholz, even with all the positives you can try to pull out of his post-DL 2014, has such a wide range of potential outcome for 2015 that relying on him as your #2 is just scary. #3, OK, but #2 is too high at this point. - Similar to Buchholz, you can be comfortable with Joe Kelly as your #4 guy, but #3? We hope, but again, that's pushing it. Agree with you on needing ace-type, but I really think they'd be crazy to not acquire a Latos-caliber pitcher as well. Owens and Rodriguez are too far away to think about them vying for a spot out of spring training, and the others are aspiring #4/#5 guys (maybe some could be a #3, but you can't count on that), so one or two of them emerging as such doesn't change the fact that your suggested rotation would be too flimsy in the 2-3 slots.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Nov 10, 2014 8:27:49 GMT -5
Agree with Matt, here. Ideally, I think, it's a Lester (or Scherzer) signing and then a trade, although I'm not personally excited about Latos.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,914
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 10, 2014 14:42:50 GMT -5
The big objections: - De La Rosa may very well be part of that batch of guys vying for the fifth spot. I can see why you're more comfortable with him than the others, but there's reason to hesitate going into the season with him penciled into the fourth slot of the rotation. - Buchholz, even with all the positives you can try to pull out of his post-DL 2014, has such a wide range of potential outcome for 2015 that relying on him as your #2 is just scary. #3, OK, but #2 is too high at this point. - Similar to Buchholz, you can be comfortable with Joe Kelly as your #4 guy, but #3? We hope, but again, that's pushing it. Agree with you on needing ace-type, but I really think they'd be crazy to not acquire a Latos-caliber pitcher as well. Owens and Rodriguez are too far away to think about them vying for a spot out of spring training, and the others are aspiring #4/#5 guys (maybe some could be a #3, but you can't count on that), so one or two of them emerging as such doesn't change the fact that your suggested rotation would be too flimsy in the 2-3 slots. As of August 10th, De La Rosa had an ace's WPA per 30 starts (2.39), a # 2's ERA- (81), a top #4's xFIP- (103), and a #4's FIP- (109). (I haven't done the benchmarks for SIERA yet, but I believe it would be a #3's). He had also exceeded his career high in IP. After that date, he had a 172 ERA-. His xFIP only went up slightly (to 112) and his FIP didn't change at all, which I take as more evidence of FIP's sketchiness over short stretches. I don't know why you'd have that guy compete for a rotation spot. The decision to sign two starters basically comes down to how good you think the candidates for 5th starter are. I frankly think the odds of the marginal difference between whomever we acquire and Steven Wright being worth the acquisition cost to be less than zero, and I'm perfectly comfortable handing him the 5 spot. While it's true that Buchholz, De La Rosa, Kelly, and Wright are all hard to project, I like their collective upside. Rubby may need to move to the pen at some point, but we'll have five guys in Pawtucket shooting for his job, and that makes acquiring a second starter even less defensible for me.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 10, 2014 16:39:42 GMT -5
Eric, your feelings on Wright are well documented and I'm sure you'll agree there's no point in arguing there.
But you'll admit, at least, that you're on an island in that opinion of Wright, right? What I mean is that there's no way the presence of Steven Wright, at least to any larger extent than the likes of RDLR, Webster, Ranaudo, Workman, etc., will affect the Red Sox actual offseason plans. It's pretty clear from the opportunities he's gotten (or hasn't, as it were) that, at best, they don't view him as any better than the rest of that crew, and that at worst (and more likely) they see him as being below them.
It's fine that you have your opinion on Wright. I'll respect it even though I disagree with it. But I don't see the point of bringing him up like he's going to factor into what the Red Sox do this offseason in any significant fashion. He had to significantly outpitch everyone else before he even got the pat on the head, "good job sport" courtesy start in the last week of the season.
Also, I don't know that I agree that it all comes down to the young guys. I think the team's confidence in Buchholz and Joe Kelly to flesh out the middle of the rotation plays a huge part in this. I get your point about the upside and probably agree (except as to Wright, but again, no point in arguing that anyway), but how about what you can reasonably expect? It's been four years since Buchholz gave the team at least 110 innings of above-average pitching. Joe Kelly is barely more proven than the Workman/RDLR/Ranaudo crew. Is it really that hard to see, say, Kelly being the one bumped from the rotation in July if Eduardo Rodriguez or Henry Owens is destroying the International League?
I think the club is in an awkward position. The answers might already be there, as you allude to. I'm with you. But can you REALLY go into the season relying on that to be the case without taking a very real chance that your season will be over by June on the real chance that it isn't?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Nov 10, 2014 16:58:50 GMT -5
But you'll admit, at least, that you're on an island in that opinion of Wright, right? It's a really nice island, come join us!
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 10, 2014 17:03:31 GMT -5
As of August 10th, De La Rosa had an ace's WPA per 30 starts (2.39), a # 2's ERA- (81), a top #4's xFIP- (103), and a #4's FIP- (109). (I haven't done the benchmarks for SIERA yet, but I believe it would be a #3's). He had also exceeded his career high in IP. After that date, he had a 172 ERA-. His xFIP only went up slightly (to 112) and his FIP didn't change at all, which I take as more evidence of FIP's sketchiness over short stretches. I don't know why you'd have that guy compete for a rotation spot. The decision to sign two starters basically comes down to how good you think the candidates for 5th starter are. I frankly think the odds of the marginal difference between whomever we acquire and Steven Wright being worth the acquisition cost to be less than zero, and I'm perfectly comfortable handing him the 5 spot. While it's true that Buchholz, De La Rosa, Kelly, and Wright are all hard to project, I like their collective upside. Rubby may need to move to the pen at some point, but we'll have five guys in Pawtucket shooting for his job, and that makes acquiring a second starter even less defensible for me. I agree with Hatfield's assessment with your second paragraph, but I want to add that I agree with your first paragraph entirely. De La Rosa really out-pitched the other young arms when he was still within his career innings threshold. He faded at the end of the year, yes. But young pitchers often do, and to use a tough September after a stellar year to lump him back in with the Webster/Ranaudo group who clearly did not impress like De La Rosa did seems totally self-defeating. My (possibly irrational) fear is that one of those guys comes out and has better spring training statistically than Rubby and that the Red Sox make their decision based on that. Normally I wouldn't think a smart team would do that, but then we all witnessed the Jackie Bradley 2013 fiasco.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 10, 2014 19:40:08 GMT -5
Chris,
I (of little significance) join Eric in my enthusiasm for Wright's potential based on an ongoing upward progression, and Alex Speir (of great significance) joins him too based on a late season article in which he notes that Wright elicited swings and misses and demonstrated command that the other young pitchers did not. I do agree with you, however, that the Redsox lack of enthusiasm thus far speaks to both their faith in how likely he would play a significant role in the rotation. I too agree that they are in an awkward spot- given the fans greed to win each year- in that they have enough young talent to compete, but perhaps not throughout the early part of next year. Therefore they could very well give up some future assets (urgg!) to make that happen, in addition to signing someone.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,914
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 10, 2014 23:14:30 GMT -5
Chris, I (of little significance) join Eric in my enthusiasm for Wright's potential based on an ongoing upward progression, and Alex Speir (of great significance) joins him too based on a late season article in which he notes that Wright elicited swings and misses and demonstrated command that the other young pitchers did not. I do agree with you, however, that the Redsox lack of enthusiasm thus far speaks to both their faith in how likely he would play a significant role in the rotation. I've read several reports, in fact, that there are people within the organization that feel that Wright was the most impressive of the new bunch, and that (contrary to Chris's assertion and your agreement of same) he put himself very much in the mix for any open rotation spot. I don't think all of these reports were from Speier, either: I think either Abraham or Cafardo has mentioned it, if not both. If this is true, then he is right with, if not ahead of, Webster, Ranaudo, and Workman. He may have been an afterthought originally, but then they saw in action my claim that there is almost no MLE adjustment from AAA to MLB for good knuckleballers. It's quite credible that seeing that would change opinions about him. He was basically out there demonstrating, see, MLB hitters can't hit this any better than AAA hitters can! No other AAA callup can make anything like that claim about any pitch they throw, so you can imagine it not occurring to guys in the FO until they saw it for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 10, 2014 23:30:12 GMT -5
Do you have any empirical evidence that knuckleballers have no MLE?
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater on Nov 11, 2014 12:13:56 GMT -5
But if you really delve into the numbers, De La Rosa didn't just have a bad September once he hit his career high in innings. His July and August weren't exactly spectacular. You could even argue they were quite below average to poor (i don't have time to delve into all the stats, but ~.880 OPS against from July on). Webster threw more innings in 2014 than he had in any season of his entire pro career as well, yet his good September once he was beyond his career innings threshold seems to be dismissed or punished.
|
|
|