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 dmaineah on May 20, 2015 11:32:59 GMT -5
Could he be in the bullpen sometime this season. He sure is pitching well. Possible future Closer?
Kyle Martin looks good too
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on May 20, 2015 12:16:45 GMT -5
Got out of a jam he created last night by walking the bases loaded, then striking out the last two batters. Sox will have to add him to the 40 at season's end.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 20, 2015 14:11:23 GMT -5
I think he's trade bait, but I could be wrong. Certainly no harm carrying him into next year. Could be a useful 7th inning-type guy or a bit more depending on how his stuff plays at more advanced levels.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,405
|
Post by ianrs on May 20, 2015 14:15:11 GMT -5
I think he's trade bait, but I could be wrong. Certainly no harm carrying him into next year. Could be a useful 7th inning-type guy or a bit more depending on how his stuff plays at more advanced levels. I think his stuff will definitely play at the AAA and MLB levels. The big question is the command, and really seeing if he can refine that at the lower levels. He's handling the bullpen transition much better than I expected so far, though he's been helped along a bit by a paltry .184 BABIP against. If he can develop better command, I can see him as a very solid and cheap 7th-8th inning guy.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 20, 2015 14:19:46 GMT -5
For what it's worth, scouts have always called Light's fastball very straight and noted that hitters get a good look at it (i.e., he has little deception). It's important to keep in mind that just because he throws hard doesn't necessarily mean his fastball is a legit weapon.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,405
|
Post by ianrs on May 20, 2015 14:29:45 GMT -5
For what it's worth, scouts have always called Light's fastball very straight and noted that hitters get a good look at it (i.e., he has little deception). It's important to keep in mind that just because he throws hard doesn't necessarily mean his fastball is a legit weapon. Ah, an important reminder. Hunter Strickland in the playoffs can attest to this phenomena. So, maybe you're onto something there guidas. In any case, would be nice if he could put it together to have another bullpen weapon.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,438
|
Post by nomar on May 20, 2015 15:35:44 GMT -5
I think he's trade bait, but I could be wrong. Certainly no harm carrying him into next year. Could be a useful 7th inning-type guy or a bit more depending on how his stuff plays at more advanced levels. I could see this, but I think he has the most upside of any converted bullpen arm in our system at the moment, so they genuinely may just be propelling him through the system too.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on May 23, 2015 14:01:42 GMT -5
For what it's worth, scouts have always called Light's fastball very straight and noted that hitters get a good look at it (i.e., he has little deception). It's important to keep in mind that just because he throws hard doesn't necessarily mean his fastball is a legit weapon. Human beings are incapable of judging vertical fastball movement by eye. Show me the scouts who had Okajima's FB as having better movement than Papelbon's. And folks were convinced that Bard had a straight FB after he got hit hard in his first few outings. People see a "straight FB" if it gets hit hard despite velocity. But it's usually poor command that's the culprit.
|
|
|
Pat Light
May 23, 2015 14:54:39 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jmei on May 23, 2015 14:54:39 GMT -5
For what it's worth, scouts have always called Light's fastball very straight and noted that hitters get a good look at it (i.e., he has little deception). It's important to keep in mind that just because he throws hard doesn't necessarily mean his fastball is a legit weapon. Human beings are incapable of judging vertical fastball movement by eye. Show me the scouts who had Okajima's FB as having better movement than Papelbon's. And folks were convinced that Bard had a straight FB after he got hit hard in his first few outings. People see a "straight FB" if it gets hit hard despite velocity. But it's usually poor command that's the culprit. Straight as in lacking horizontal movement, which is definitely a thing that matters and which scouts can judge.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on May 23, 2015 17:05:37 GMT -5
Of course having Light throwing 2 pitches he was never going to ever use for 2 years, then finally bringing back his forkball when the FO decides it's time to stick him into the 'pen 3 years too late could also be handy excuses if the Sox wind up losing him via the rule 5 draft should they choose to not protect him this winter.
Sometimes wonder what they are thinking. They get these thoughts in there head that people are starters and won't allow themselves to have it changed, regardless of how circumstances are with a player. Light is just the latest example. Other organizations have been quicker than has Boston on this aspect, hopefully since they finally realized the shortage of power arms at the MLB level as compared to other teams, combined with the loss of Garcia will change this from now on.
I know am not the only one who thinks like this, though some took offense every year I mentioned this about Pat Light since he was drafted.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,438
|
Pat Light
May 23, 2015 22:01:52 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nomar on May 23, 2015 22:01:52 GMT -5
Of course having Light throwing 2 pitches he was never going to ever use for 2 years, then finally bringing back his forkball when the FO decides it's time to stick him into the 'pen 3 years too late could also be handy excuses if the Sox wind up losing him via the rule 5 draft should they choose to not protect him this winter. Sometimes wonder what they are thinking. They get these thoughts in there head that people are starters and won't allow themselves to have it changed, regardless of how circumstances are with a player. Light is just the latest example. Other organizations have been quicker than has Boston on this aspect, hopefully since they finally realized the shortage of power arms at the MLB level as compared to other teams, combined with the loss of Garcia will change this from now on. I know am not the only one who thinks like this, though some took offense every year I mentioned this about Pat Light since he was drafted. He was drafted in 2012. He's played 2 seasons worth of games. How is that waiting too long? I think they gave him his chance at starting, converted him, and he's adapted well. I'm plenty satisfied with what we've done with Pat Light.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 24, 2015 10:04:19 GMT -5
It long has been the Red Sox philosophy to try to develop young pitchers first as starters. It hasn't meant that they saw every pitcher as a starter but that they believed it helped pitchers develop better stuff and better command.
However, what it hasn't done is develop very many relievers. It may be in this age of intense specialization that being a really good reliever requires as much development as being a really good starter.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 24, 2015 10:23:13 GMT -5
It long has been the Red Sox philosophy to try to develop young pitchers first as starters. It hasn't meant that they saw every pitcher as a starter but that they believed it helped pitchers develop better stuff and better command. However, what it hasn't done is develop very many relievers. It may be in this age of intense specialization that being a really good reliever requires as much development as being a really good starter. Eh, I don't know about that. Papelbon, Bard, Tazawa, and Manny Delcarmen all started their careers as starters and became very good-to-better relievers, and guys like Barnes, Workman, Escobar may still turn out to be bullpen weapons. It may well be the case that their development strategy is not ideal for churning out relievers, but I think it's had some success over the years.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on May 24, 2015 11:57:25 GMT -5
It's the taking so long to make up their mind and then running into 40 man roster issues with the people what are late to be finally moved into relief. No denying they have had some success with power relievers, yet none have been recent, other than Workman and possibly Taz.
Light and Mercedes become 40 man eligible this winter. Not saying either get protected, they have only had 2 months duty as relievers, though it would have been nice seeing both with a full season pitching 1-2IP stretches max.
No doubt, to me the Sox do decent developing starters, just shorten that period up between forcing someone to do well who won't in that role (Callahan) and instead get that arm into a relief role where they get time to look at them just in case another organization sees something Boston hasn't been. Build a KC, Seattle BP instead of what has been here the last few seasons and not trying to hit anyone.
|
|
|
Post by prometheus on May 24, 2015 13:40:27 GMT -5
It's the taking so long to make up their mind and then running into 40 man roster issues with the people what are late to be finally moved into relief. No denying they have had some success with power relievers, yet none have been recent, other than Workman and possibly Taz. Light and Mercedes become 40 man eligible this winter. Not saying either get protected, they have only had 2 months duty as relievers, though it would have been nice seeing both with a full season pitching 1-2IP stretches max. No doubt, to me the Sox do decent developing starters, just shorten that period up between forcing someone to do well who won't in that role (Callahan) and instead get that arm into a relief role where they get time to look at them just in case another organization sees something Boston hasn't been. Build a KC, Seattle BP instead of what has been here the last few seasons and not trying to hit anyone. The thing is KC seems to have a very similar way of thinking when it comes to their bullpen arms... Let's take a look at their bullpen: Greg Holland - Here is the one example of putting a guy straight into relief and seeing success. As we will see with the other members of the highly successful KC bullpen he is the exception. Wade Davis - Came up with TB as a starter. So when he went to KC they put him straight into the bullpen where he was a huge success right? Nope, the also tried him out as a SP for a year before finding success out of the bullpen Kelvin Herrera- A mixed story here. Tried him as a starter for his first 3 seasons but then switched him over in his fourth year to RP where he quickly came through. Luke Hochevar - Came all the way up KC's system as a SP and spent his first 5 years in the big leagues as a starter. Ryan Madson - Came up in the Phi system as a SP Brandon Finnegan - Rushed up last year to help as a RP. This year they've been trying to stretch him out to see if he can perform as a SP and have seen mostly poor results, but it seems they still want to see if he could potentially work out as a SP. I think sometimes we're the victim of being too close to the system that we see all the failures and instantly think that other teams are doing something drastically different. When in truth almost every team follows a very similar development program. We brought in A. Miller as a SP then moved him to RP to great success similar to how KC used W. Davis and they waited 3 years before switching over K. Herrera similar to our plans with P. Light and S. Mercedes. I think it's less a process problem and more a talent identification issue, KC has just had the better arms. Hopefully P. Light or S. Mercedes can work out like a Herrera or maybe we can find a starter out there who can be our Hochevar or Davis.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 24, 2015 13:44:36 GMT -5
A good starer is at least twice as valuable as a good reliever so there is almost no debate about the strategy. 5th starters end up getting signed for about as much as the best relief pitchers as free agents.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on May 24, 2015 14:09:04 GMT -5
A good starer is at least twice as valuable as a good reliever so there is almost no debate about the strategy. 5th starters end up getting signed for about as much as the best relief pitchers as free agents. When the BP has a serious flaw and have to go to the open market, give up an Eduardo Rodriquez type for an Andrew Miller that rule applies? Same when the Sox pen had flaws and they had to give up David Murphy for Gagne? Forcing some SP, who struggle for a couple of years with.. Say secondary pitches, maybe some mechanical issues to remain as starters can be more than just a debatable subject. It could be costing the Sox viable, long term relievers from pitchers who either end up with other organizations, or end up hurt, released etc..
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 24, 2015 14:37:01 GMT -5
A good starer is at least twice as valuable as a good reliever so there is almost no debate about the strategy. 5th starters end up getting signed for about as much as the best relief pitchers as free agents. When the BP has a serious flaw and have to go to the open market, give up an Eduardo Rodriquez type for an Andrew Miller that rule applies? Same when the Sox pen had flaws and they had to give up David Murphy for Gagne? Forcing some SP, who struggle for a couple of years with.. Say secondary pitches, maybe some mechanical issues to remain as starters can be more than just a debatable subject. It could be costing the Sox viable, long term relievers from pitchers who either end up with other organizations, or end up hurt, released etc.. Same could be said about giving up Iglesias and Montas for a washed up Jake Peavy when we could have easily gotten the same starts from Workman that year.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 24, 2015 18:23:41 GMT -5
It long has been the Red Sox philosophy to try to develop young pitchers first as starters. It hasn't meant that they saw every pitcher as a starter but that they believed it helped pitchers develop better stuff and better command. However, what it hasn't done is develop very many relievers. It may be in this age of intense specialization that being a really good reliever requires as much development as being a really good starter. Eh, I don't know about that. Papelbon, Bard, Tazawa, and Manny Delcarmen all started their careers as starters and became very good-to-better relievers, and guys like Barnes, Workman, Escobar may still turn out to be bullpen weapons. It may well be the case that their development strategy is not ideal for churning out relievers, but I think it's had some success over the years. I don't think what you wrote conflicted with what I wrote. Four RPs developed over the past 15 years is not a sterling record, particularly when two of them flamed out - although I don't know what happened to Delcarmen. Just when he was reaching his peak years he went into decline. I think the Sox have made a significant error in treating the BP as fungible. Teams with really good BPs don't do that. Yes, there always is some turnover. Many RPs have up and down careers. However, the really good ones don't. The Sox just haven't had many really good ones in a while. The pen right now is the best it has been in a couple of years, but it could be better. In theory I agree that SPs are worth far more than RPs. However, SPs now average about six innings a game. Unless a team has a huge offense, those last three innings are critical to success. So even though they don't pitch as many innings, and what they pitch is divided among six or seven pitchers, RPs are critical to the success of a team. And they just can't be retreads and average pitchers. For the team to be successful, the BP must be exceptional.
|
|
|
Pat Light
May 24, 2015 18:40:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by m1keyboots on May 24, 2015 18:40:24 GMT -5
For what it's worth, scouts have always called Light's fastball very straight and noted that hitters get a good look at it (i.e., he has little deception). It's important to keep in mind that just because he throws hard doesn't necessarily mean his fastball is a legit weapon. Ah, an important reminder. Hunter Strickland in the playoffs can attest to this phenomena. So, maybe you're onto something there guidas. In any case, would be nice if he could put it together to have another bullpen weapon. This is true, but hunter has had measures of success at the major league level with his extremely straight 4 seamer. The playoff explosion and some lag from that since have hurt him, but if I remember correctly he was pitching well down the stretch for them? Even as an 8th inning occasional closer relief? I could be wrong. But nothing wrong with light being a 6th/7th inning guy with that kind of velocity and potential in his breaking ball in those lower leverage situations
|
|
|
Pat Light
May 24, 2015 19:52:37 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by larrycook on May 24, 2015 19:52:37 GMT -5
Of course having Light throwing 2 pitches he was never going to ever use for 2 years, then finally bringing back his forkball when the FO decides it's time to stick him into the 'pen 3 years too late could also be handy excuses if the Sox wind up losing him via the rule 5 draft should they choose to not protect him this winter. Sometimes wonder what they are thinking. They get these thoughts in there head that people are starters and won't allow themselves to have it changed, regardless of how circumstances are with a player. Light is just the latest example. Other organizations have been quicker than has Boston on this aspect, hopefully since they finally realized the shortage of power arms at the MLB level as compared to other teams, combined with the loss of Garcia will change this from now on. I know am not the only one who thinks like this, though some took offense every year I mentioned this about Pat Light since he was drafted. He was drafted in 2012. He's played 2 seasons worth of games. How is that waiting too long? I think they gave him his chance at starting, converted him, and he's adapted well. I'm plenty satisfied with what we've done with Pat Light. When light overthrows the fastball it straightens out and he gets hit hard. When he learns to rear back for a few extra mph and can keep the hair on the pitch, then he will be a force.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 24, 2015 20:00:40 GMT -5
I don't think what you wrote conflicted with what I wrote. Four RPs developed over the past 15 years is not a sterling record, particularly when two of them flamed out - although I don't know what happened to Delcarmen. Just when he was reaching his peak years he went into decline. I think the Sox have made a significant error in treating the BP as fungible. Teams with really good BPs don't do that. Yes, there always is some turnover. Many RPs have up and down careers. However, the really good ones don't. The Sox just haven't had many really good ones in a while. The pen right now is the best it has been in a couple of years, but it could be better. Eh, the Red Sox have developed three of the top 30 relievers in fWAR since 2012, so it's not like they haven't been pulling their weight. I could keep going with the solid bullpen arms who are alums of this system-- think Josh Fields, Alex Wilson, Chris Martin, Ryan Pressly, Hunter Strickland, etc. I wouldn't say that they have an especially poor track record of developing relievers. I also think you're grossly overestimating the number of consistently elite relief pitchers in the majors. There are only four relievers who have put up a combined 6+ fWAR from 2012-2014, for instance. Take a look at the fWAR reliever leaderboard from 2011-- Of the top ten, you have four guys who basically aren't in the league anymore (Sean Marshall, John Axford, Joel Hanrahan, Mike Adams), and only one of those is older than 33, so it's not purely because of age. Finally, as was mentioned above, the elite Royals bullpen consists of a couple reclamation projects, a couple converted starters, and Greg Holland. They built an elite bullpen precisely by treating it as fungible and finding reclamation projects like Wade Davis and Luke Hochevar. The best bullpen in the league this year, the Dodgers' bullpen, have Kenley Jansen and a bunch of cheap pickups.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 24, 2015 20:21:46 GMT -5
The decision of whether to keep a pitcher a starter in the minor leagues really needs to be a case-by-case basis. Certain players' development needs will dictate what's more appropriate for them. Looking, for example, at Gunkel, he's almost certainly an MLB reliever. However, given that he really needs to focus on getting better against LHB and developing a third pitch, I think starting him/throwing him in piggyback-length relief outings is a good way to develop him. But with Light, it was the right time to move him to the bullpen - it clearly wasn't working as a starter after two years, the development of the non-split secondary pitches wasn't taking, etc. Move him to the bullpen and let him go.
Also, I don't think you can really look, post-hoc, at what MLB relief pitchers did in the minors. Many MLB relief pitchers are failed starter prospects. It's not like every MLB RP was thought in the minors to be a figure reliever for the whole time they were down there.
|
|
|
Pat Light
May 24, 2015 22:25:19 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on May 24, 2015 22:25:19 GMT -5
I tend to agree with Eric. A "straight" FB isn't a death knell for a pitcher by any means. Hell, Roger Clemens was critiqued early in his career for having a straight FB, but with command, velocity, and a nasty curve he broke out in '86. He never developed a moving fastball, he just learned to locate it precisely. I'm a believer that command is really the most important skill for a pitcher...velocity helps, but weak contact and strikeouts are a product of good location and, if the velocity isn't really there, a well-commanded secondary pitch. A starter with great command (say, 2010 Cliff Lee) of more than one pitch is often a three or better. With command of three pitches...even with average "stuff"...can be a two or, in very rare cases (Maddux, Glavine) an ace, provided the secondaries are above-average to plus. I think this is one reason Brian Johnson may be better than expected...he's got four average/solid-average pitches, but commands them all. 90-93 is good, not great, for a lefty...but if it's on the black at the edges, it's better than 98 over the plate but catching the middle. Look at Koji...two very-well commanded pitches, including a below-avg FB (and a plus or better splitter, I admit)...and he strikes out bunches. I like Light's chances, especially if he can dial it down a little and command at 94-96 instead of ripping it in willy-nilly at 97-100. Also the reason I like Kelly as a starter...he was a reliever for the first part of his career, so the command is a little behind. But, it's improving, and he holds his velocity. If he dials back to 94-95 on the black, he's going to be really tough.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on May 25, 2015 0:18:44 GMT -5
I saw Light as another Carter Capps think is the thing Chris. Develop him as a reliever straight out of college and focus on coming into games with one pitch, other than a upper 90's FB. It worked out ok for Bard until the mechanics and velocity fell apart and hoped it would for Light.
Capps, hopefully will still be able to help the Marlins. He's been dealing with that dreaded "elbow sprain" off an on since being traded to the Fish.
Regardless. Throwing 97+ doesn't make a pitcher unhittable of course, but toss in an average secondary pitch, like Bard's slider was and it makes that person a potent weapon in the pen. That's the kind of guy would like to see Light become, rather than some guy who turns into the next 40 man roster casualty.
|
|
|