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.
|
Trey Ball
Jun 11, 2015 8:29:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Jun 11, 2015 8:29:53 GMT -5
I honestly can't remotely understand how someone can be "disappointed in his development." When a consensus "raw" HS pitcher from a cold-weather state who was a two-way player and didn't throw a curve until he was 17 manages to make it to high-A ball at age 20, not to mention have success there, that's outstanding progress, by nearly all measures. If you're looking for Clayton Kershaw results...keep looking. You can join the other 29 teams and their hordes of scouts. That's a once-in-a-generation pick.
|
|
|
Trey Ball
Jun 11, 2015 9:07:28 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 11, 2015 9:07:28 GMT -5
I honestly can't remotely understand how someone can be "disappointed in his development." When a consensus "raw" HS pitcher from a cold-weather state who was a two-way player and didn't throw a curve until he was 17 manages to make it to high-A ball at age 20, not to mention have success there, that's outstanding progress, by nearly all measures. If you're looking for Clayton Kershaw results...keep looking. You can join the other 29 teams and their hordes of scouts. That's a once-in-a-generation pick. I think the frustration by posters is more, why did we pick a cold-weather arm, two-way player who hadn't thrown a curve until he was 17? With the 7TH overall pick.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 11, 2015 9:19:54 GMT -5
I honestly can't remotely understand how someone can be "disappointed in his development." When a consensus "raw" HS pitcher from a cold-weather state who was a two-way player and didn't throw a curve until he was 17 manages to make it to high-A ball at age 20, not to mention have success there, that's outstanding progress, by nearly all measures. If you're looking for Clayton Kershaw results...keep looking. You can join the other 29 teams and their hordes of scouts. That's a once-in-a-generation pick. I think the frustration by posters is more, why did we pick a cold-weather arm, two-way player who hadn't thrown a curve until he was 17? With the 7TH overall pick. Hindsight is always 20/20. When they made this pick people were saying that since he hasn't thrown the curve, he wouldn't have the wear and tear on his arm and this was seen as a relative positive. If he was looking like Eduardo Rodriguez no one would be guessing the thought process behind the pick. It's not like he was projected to go in later rounds, he was a reach between picking him 7th verses maybe 10. The Sox picked him knowing he was a project with the upside of a true ace and the downside of a complete bust. Austin Meadows was the obvious choice, but if Trey Ball hit his stride then I think people would have been quite happy with Ball over Meadows if both were to reach their ceilings. It was a bad pick based only on the performance that he's output thus far. There's still plenty of time, but the clock has started ticking.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 11, 2015 9:24:49 GMT -5
I honestly can't remotely understand how someone can be "disappointed in his development." When a consensus "raw" HS pitcher from a cold-weather state who was a two-way player and didn't throw a curve until he was 17 manages to make it to high-A ball at age 20, not to mention have success there, that's outstanding progress, by nearly all measures. If you're looking for Clayton Kershaw results...keep looking. You can join the other 29 teams and their hordes of scouts. That's a once-in-a-generation pick. I think the frustration by posters is more, why did we pick a cold-weather arm, two-way player who hadn't thrown a curve until he was 17? With the 7TH overall pick. I'm more frustrated that we didn't pick a Mike Trout at #7.
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Jun 11, 2015 9:29:55 GMT -5
I honestly can't remotely understand how someone can be "disappointed in his development." When a consensus "raw" HS pitcher from a cold-weather state who was a two-way player and didn't throw a curve until he was 17 manages to make it to high-A ball at age 20, not to mention have success there, that's outstanding progress, by nearly all measures. If you're looking for Clayton Kershaw results...keep looking. You can join the other 29 teams and their hordes of scouts. That's a once-in-a-generation pick. I think the frustration by posters is more, why did we pick a cold-weather arm, two-way player who hadn't thrown a curve until he was 17? With the 7TH overall pick. I don't know why they did, but in the Tommy John generation, the "cold-weather arm, two-way player who hadn't thrown a curve until he was 17" if probably the safest bet possible to not get hurt. But the false narrative that he was super-raw is silly. Ball was well know on the showcase circuit and had proven himself agains high-level talent. He broke out in the summer of 2012 by playing against the top players in the country. He wasn't some pop-up guy the Sox took a gamble on. The Sox picked him around where he was expected to go.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 11, 2015 9:56:56 GMT -5
I honestly can't remotely understand how someone can be "disappointed in his development." When a consensus "raw" HS pitcher from a cold-weather state who was a two-way player and didn't throw a curve until he was 17 manages to make it to high-A ball at age 20, not to mention have success there, that's outstanding progress, by nearly all measures. If you're looking for Clayton Kershaw results...keep looking. You can join the other 29 teams and their hordes of scouts. That's a once-in-a-generation pick. That's just the thing, I don't think he's really had any success yet. Based on the scouting reports that I've read and the metrics that I care about, he's looked below-average (in some cases, well below-average) at each of his stops in the minors so far. He's the second-worst qualified pitcher in the Carolina League this year by FIP and was in the bottom ten last year amongst Sally League pitchers. Scouting reports have consistently indicated that he has below-average present stuff and below-average command. Sure, there are occasional flashes, but not enough to make me think that there's a high likelihood that that projectability translates into results anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 11, 2015 10:02:59 GMT -5
By the way, it's a pretty ridiculous strawman to say that I would not be satisfied unless he was performing like Kershaw or whatever. If he was having Henry Owens' 2012, I would be thrilled and very enthusiastic about his future.
|
|
wbcd
Rookie
Posts: 33
|
Post by wbcd on Jun 11, 2015 13:04:55 GMT -5
According to this article - mobile.milb.com/news/article/20150609129640336/lefty_ball_dominates_once_again_for_salem - Bell is throwing low- to mid-90s and according to multiple reports, he's been working on his fastball command, particularly on throwing to both sides of the plate. He's 6'6" and he's a lefty and he put on something like 20 pounds last year and is still growing. He doesn't have a lot of innings under his belt. He's 9 days older than Benintendi. Can we give him a bit until we figure out what he's going to or not going to do? BTW, if Bell can average 92 mph on his fastball, he would be in good company as there are currently only 8 lefties in the majors averaging over 92 mph on their fastball (as of a couple of weeks ago, and not including ERod, who would be at the top of this list at this point): Chris Sale (93.9) Robbie Ray (93.8) David Price (93.8) Danny Duffy (93.8) Clayton Kershaw (93.4) Carlos Rodon (93.3) Jorge de la Rosa (93.2) Francisco Liriano (92.4)
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 11, 2015 18:32:43 GMT -5
I have liked Ball from the get go based on the scouting reports at the time of the draft. He's got every intangible beyond current pure velocity going for him- the projectable build, and the height related added velocity equivalent of a delivery closer to home plate, the downward plane and deception. Finally, and perhaps Eric can do a chart proving this one way or another, for years I've heard broadcasters, including Dennis Eckersley, mention that lefties can get away with a bit less velocity. Can't come up with a rationale for that one, unless it's the fact that most successful lefties have a good changeup, so that the net effect of the less common handedness and movement direction has more deception than the more commonly seen curveball from a righthander.
|
|
wbcd
Rookie
Posts: 33
|
Post by wbcd on Jun 12, 2015 7:15:58 GMT -5
for years I've heard broadcasters, including Dennis Eckersley, mention that lefties can get away with a bit less velocity. Can't come up with a rationale for that one, unless it's the fact that most successful lefties have a good changeup, so that the net effect of the less common handedness and movement direction has more deception than the more commonly seen curveball from a righthander. According to this - www.fangraphs.com/qa/1861/whats-average-fastball-speed-starting-left-handed-pitchers (taken from the texasleaguers site)- in 2012, the average speed was 90.39 MPH for left handers and 92.08 MPH for righties. So yes, lefties do throw less hard than righties, probably because there are so many more RHs.
As for "getting away" with less velocity, one thing I've heard is that the hardest pitch to hit is down and away, and it's a lot easier for pitchers to throw arm side than glove side, so LHs have a natural advantage when pitching to RH batters. I have no idea whether it's true or not, but I've heard it said and it makes a certain amount of sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Jun 12, 2015 12:22:15 GMT -5
Ball was #9 on this weeks BA prospect hot sheet. 1 spot above old friend Frankie Montas
|
|
|
Trey Ball
Jun 12, 2015 21:41:33 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Jun 12, 2015 21:41:33 GMT -5
By the way, it's a pretty ridiculous strawman to say that I would not be satisfied unless he was performing like Kershaw or whatever. If he was having Henry Owens' 2012, I would be thrilled and very enthusiastic about his future. 1) That "you're" was a general comment to people expecting Ball to be in the majors at 21, or some reasonable equivalent. It wasn't directed at you, which was why I posted it not as a reply, but as a general commentary. It was intended as "you the reader," and with the idea that that particular unrealistic expectation (or, perhaps, hope) is untenable and illogical. 2) As far as fallacies of reason go, I'd argue that that comment isn't so much a straw man as a reduction to absurdity. Then again, if you're reading what I said as that you personally actually expected him to be Kershaw, and that this was the crux of your actual argument, I get it. But that's your inference, not my intent. I know that you have more sense than that, which again was why I specifically *didn't* direct this comment at you. There *are* people posting on here that genuinely don't see that expectation as absurd. In reality, there's only been one outstanding pitcher (LH or RH) drafted at 7. But because Ball hasn't had a similar development path, people are quick to write him off. People *want* the absurd outcome so badly that no other outcome (particularly short-term) is acceptable...or at least, no outcome that suggests their ultimate desire is likely to be fulfilled. 3) So that we're clear: you may think Ball has been a huge disappointment. Fine, we view it differently. I'm more sanguine about it, I'm not ecstatic, but I see bright spots. I don't see any sense in arguing the subjective any longer, because disappointment is a feeling, not a truth, so it's a senseless argument. Neither of us is going to convince the other to *feel* differently. Now, if it's about arguing whether or not he's a "bust," I guess that's a little less subjective but IMO it's too early to tell. If he's 23 and getting shelled in AA, then I'm with you. Vitek, Place, Anderson, Rose...those guys were busts. But their careers had to take their courses before they could be declared as such.
|
|
|
Trey Ball
Jun 12, 2015 21:47:49 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Jun 12, 2015 21:47:49 GMT -5
Ball was #9 on this weeks BA prospect hot sheet. 1 spot above old friend Frankie Montas Hmmm...Heath Hembree and Edwin Esbobar or Montas and Iglesias? (and yes, I intentionally put Iglesias second there). Though the Sox did one better and got Rodriguez, so... And hey, Hembree did what no other Sox pitcher could do tonight... The real question is, can the Sox steal a horde of low-level power arms come firesale time? Like, in a couple of weeks?
|
|
|
Post by boston24 on Jun 15, 2015 21:15:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brnichols19873 on Jun 15, 2015 23:53:49 GMT -5
Hate to say it but a little research shows that Ball has little to no chance of becoming even a serviceable big league arm...From a statistical standpoint, all of the 1st round hs pitchers that went on to any level of 'success' at the major league level dominated single A competition in the initial seasons. The vast majority (82%) shared the common attribute of high strike out numbers at that level while the the few who had lower k #'s displayed elite whip/era rates. Ball has yet to show either and a rather large subset of players clearly shows that unless he is the rare, as in first time in over a decade, exception their is little chance that he will reach even a modest +5 Career WAR.
137 hs pitchers were drafted in the 1st round (including sandwich picks) in the 13 drafts from 1999-2011: and 22 (or just 16%) had/have a career war above 5.0. Of those 22 all but four averaged at least 1k per inning (>9.0 k/9) while in low A and or high A, all while maintaining a sub 4 era at the very least. While the following four did not average as many k's as the others in A/A+ ball, all made up for this with top-flight command, displayed in extremly low walk/whip rates...
- Sean Burnett - 19th pick of pit in 2000, had 96 ks in 156 ips in A+ in 2002 (5.06 k/9) but also top 3 in league in whip (0.971), era (1.80) and wins (13) despite being youngest (19) in car league that season.
- Zach Grienke - 6th pick of Kan in 2002, had 112 ks in 140 ips in A+/AA in 2003 (7.2 k/9) but also led A+ car league in whip (0.713) and era (1.14) as youngest player in league at 19...
- Rick Porcello - 27th by Det in 2007, had 72 ks in 125 ips in A+ in 2008 (5.2 k/9) but also among lowest starter whip (1.192) and era (2.66) as youngest (19) player in Florida League.
- Gavin Floyd - 4th by Phillies in 2001, had 140 ks in 166 ips (7.6 k/9) in A in 2002 but also top 10 in league whip (1.102) era (2.77).
Thus, the frustration of many fans is that with hs pitchers more than any other position/exp level, it is truly hit or miss, these pitchers either excel or fail very little in between. To this end, given the stastical realities now facing the rankers on this site I would like to know how you can still have ball ranked in the top 15? Are you assuming that he will be the "one" hs 1st round pitcher to not dominate low levels but turn it around?
|
|
|
Trey Ball
Jun 16, 2015 0:11:26 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Jun 16, 2015 0:11:26 GMT -5
Kind of my point, but there is a caveat to those numbers. In particular, WHIP only tells part of the story, and ERA tells even less of the story. The major concern with Ball has been underwhelming stuff and a very poor BB:K ratio. Every other pitcher in that analysis showed a clear ability, even at a young age, to miss bats. And, while some had similar WHIP/ERA results (e.g., Owens in 2012 vs. Ball in 2014 at Greenville), digging deeper showed a clear disparity in indicators of future success. That being said, I think the issue for Ball has been that he was easily the most raw of the group in terms of secondaries. He worked largely with his FB last year, and some with his CH, but as far as I've seen, did not use his CB much, focusing mostly on FB command and sequencing with the CH. Even low-level hitters, if they know a FB is coming, will hit it and hit it well, particularly if it's not commanded well. Pat Light is a perfect example: high-90s gas and he struggled to miss bats last year, getting lot up regularly and putting up terrible K/9 numbers. Introduce a swing-and-miss splitter, and suddenly he's got hitters guessing, and seeing FB on the splitter until it's too late. The result? His K/9 rate has almost DOUBLED, his BA against is 100 POINTS lower, and he's putting up those numbers against advanced hitters following two levels of promotion. True, he's also working out of the bullpen, but the difference is striking. Jmei makes a lot of good points re: Ball's worse-than-it-looks-on-the-surface performance. FIP is the main one, and it's a reasonable choice because, unlike ERA, it tends to show less stochastic variation. There's less "noise"...think Buchholz's 2.3 ERA season with 17 wins and his 2012 season...I don't have the FIPs in front of me, but they were surprisingly close, given the huge difference in ERA. Basically, FIP varies within a smaller range, so it's probably more useful to measure "true" performance than ERA. My issue with the use of FIP for low-level minor leaguers, particularly a FB-dependent one like Ball, is that their FIPs are a lot more variable...because they are learning. That article shows why simply looking at Ball's FIP for the whole season doesn't tell the whole story, in the same way that ERA doesn't. Ball went from absolutely overwhelmed, to pretty disastrous, to mediocre, to almost good, in a very clear linear progression throughout the year. A student who gets a "C" on ten straight quizzes is, I would argue, NOT a better student than one who has two or three zeros, a couple Fs, a couple Ds, then three or four Bs and maybe one A. The job of a student--and a minor league pitcher--is to learn, and Ball is doing that. Not only did Ball show linear progress last year, earning a promotion, but he's done it this year as well. On top of that, the **accelerating** rate of his progress is evident. At no point this season has he looked nearly as lost at Salem as he did in Greenville. The rough patch after his promotion was shorter and more "crummy" than truly catastrophic. To top it all off, he's started using a third pitch, he's STARTED MISSING BATS, reports of his FB command and his "stuff," particularly his secondaries, is improving, and his results have clearly been better. Despite being promoted after posting the worst FIP among SAL qualifiers last year, he's posted an FIP almost half a run better this season, an ERA about HALF of what it was this time last year, and a much lower WHIP and BA against. I would argue that, as Ball learns FB command and, more importantly, starts mixing in better secondaries, his swing-and-miss rate will jump, and his BB/9 will drop substantially, because he'll trust his stuff and stop nibbling. His WHIP will approach 1.10 or less, BA against will drop as batters are fooled more and make weaker contact, and his K rate will rise. On top of all of that, he'll have the benefit of having had the experience of **truly** struggling. I think it says a lot about who he is as a person that he's continued to improve AT AN ACCELERATING RATE, despite having one of the worst half-seasons of a Sox pitching prospect in recent memory...all while carrying the weight if expectations of being the 7th overall pick. I say, give the guy a break, he's earned it, and is continuing to earn it every time he's gone out there.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jun 16, 2015 6:52:19 GMT -5
See, this is what I mean (re: that "article"). I have no problem with people remaining optimistic and saying he's far from the point of being labeled a bust. I agree. But the bending over backwards to try and explain away his terrible performance track record is just that. It's spin.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jun 16, 2015 8:18:05 GMT -5
Hate to say it but a little research shows that Ball has little to no chance of becoming even a serviceable big league arm...From a statistical standpoint, all of the 1st round hs pitchers that went on to any level of 'success' at the major league level dominated single A competition in the initial seasons. [...] 22 (or just 16%) had/have a career war above 5.0. Of those 22 all but four averaged at least 1k per inning (>9.0 k/9) while in low A and or high A, all while maintaining a sub 4 era at the very least. I appreciate the research, but your sample isn't large enough to support your conclusion. That's only a universe of 22 people over a decade. Plus, the "first round draft pick" qualifier isn't really that relevant to future performance. The question really is, "among the pitchers with {same measure of success} over the last twenty years, how many had similar performance profile to Ball in A-ball?" That's probably the only way to get a sample size big enough to draw conclusions as firm as you drew.
|
|
|
Trey Ball
Jun 16, 2015 10:08:48 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by brnichols19873 on Jun 16, 2015 10:08:48 GMT -5
Hate to say it but a little research shows that Ball has little to no chance of becoming even a serviceable big league arm...From a statistical standpoint, all of the 1st round hs pitchers that went on to any level of 'success' at the major league level dominated single A competition in the initial seasons. [...] 22 (or just 16%) had/have a career war above 5.0. Of those 22 all but four averaged at least 1k per inning (>9.0 k/9) while in low A and or high A, all while maintaining a sub 4 era at the very least. I appreciate the research, but your sample isn't large enough to support your conclusion. That's only a universe of 22 people over a decade. Plus, the "first round draft pick" qualifier isn't really that relevant to future performance. The question really is, "among the pitchers with {same measure of success} over the last twenty years, how many had similar performance profile to Ball in A-ball?" That's probably the only way to get a sample size big enough to draw conclusions as firm as you drew. Well the total sample size is actually the 137 hs pitchers drafted in the 1st round which while not a statistically huge amount of data points it is a signifigant number. Obviously I would prefer mote concrete and in depth data but time/energy is limiting so this breif analysis will have to do (heres the link to the bb ref page if your interested in checking it out for yourself; www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?query_type=pos_round&pos=P&draft_round=1&draft_type=junreg&from_type_hs=1)but you cant tell me its not pretty eye opening that zero out of 137 hs pitchers drafted in the first round had remotely similar struggles as Ball in A and yet still went on to any level of success as an mlb pitcher. Also, i feel the "first round' qualifier is fair in this comparison given that the pressure/exposure faced by a hs 1st rnd pitcher greatly dwarfs that of those drafted later especially due to the large bonuses which also place pressure on them within orginization in addition, these players are also unique in that they all dominated completly at the hs level beyond that of later drafted peers and thus face even more mental anquish because they have never struggled before...
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jun 16, 2015 12:40:29 GMT -5
I appreciate the research, but your sample isn't large enough to support your conclusion. That's only a universe of 22 people over a decade. Plus, the "first round draft pick" qualifier isn't really that relevant to future performance. The question really is, "among the pitchers with {same measure of success} over the last twenty years, how many had similar performance profile to Ball in A-ball?" That's probably the only way to get a sample size big enough to draw conclusions as firm as you drew. Well the total sample size is actually the 137 hs pitchers drafted in the 1st round which while not a statistically huge amount of data points it is a signifigant number. Obviously I would prefer mote concrete and in depth data but time/energy is limiting so this breif analysis will have to do (heres the link to the bb ref page if your interested in checking it out for yourself; www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?query_type=pos_round&pos=P&draft_round=1&draft_type=junreg&from_type_hs=1)but you cant tell me its not pretty eye opening that zero out of 137 hs pitchers drafted in the first round had remotely similar struggles as Ball in A and yet still went on to any level of success as an mlb pitcher. Also, i feel the "first round' qualifier is fair in this comparison given that the pressure/exposure faced by a hs 1st rnd pitcher greatly dwarfs that of those drafted later especially due to the large bonuses which also place pressure on them within orginization in addition, these players are also unique in that they all dominated completly at the hs level beyond that of later drafted peers and thus face even more mental anquish because they have never struggled before... I dunno ... I'm not convinced that "1st round hs pitchers" is really a definable set of people in a way you can draw conclusions from; I don't think they share enough unique attributes to make them different from a wider set of pitchers. You could say "first two rounds" or "first three rounds," and it would be equally valid. It's a completely arbitrary cut-off, and it has very little to do with the second part of your parameters: >5WAR in MLB. And, on the original point, I don't think that's really your sample, that's the pool from which you drew the sample of guys who made it. It's like you were doing a poll of "Democrats in Utah who don't live in Salt Lake City," and called 22 out of the 137 people who meet that description. The 137 people would be your population, and the 22 would be your sample in your poll. I mean, sure, it would be better by far if Ball had been doing better (although he's had a decent run of success lately); I think it's a pretty safe bet that "guys who pitch well in A-Ball" tend to be more successful than "guys who pitch less well in A-Ball." And what you say is interesting in an anecdotal way (and I thank you for the work!), but I just don't think it merits the strength of your conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 16, 2015 13:14:37 GMT -5
I appreciate the research, but your sample isn't large enough to support your conclusion. That's only a universe of 22 people over a decade. Plus, the "first round draft pick" qualifier isn't really that relevant to future performance. The question really is, "among the pitchers with {same measure of success} over the last twenty years, how many had similar performance profile to Ball in A-ball?" That's probably the only way to get a sample size big enough to draw conclusions as firm as you drew. Well the total sample size is actually the 137 hs pitchers drafted in the 1st round which while not a statistically huge amount of data points it is a signifigant number. Obviously I would prefer mote concrete and in depth data but time/energy is limiting so this breif analysis will have to do (heres the link to the bb ref page if your interested in checking it out for yourself; www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?query_type=pos_round&pos=P&draft_round=1&draft_type=junreg&from_type_hs=1)but you cant tell me its not pretty eye opening that zero out of 137 hs pitchers drafted in the first round had remotely similar struggles as Ball in A and yet still went on to any level of success as an mlb pitcher. Also, i feel the "first round' qualifier is fair in this comparison given that the pressure/exposure faced by a hs 1st rnd pitcher greatly dwarfs that of those drafted later especially due to the large bonuses which also place pressure on them within orginization in addition, these players are also unique in that they all dominated completly at the hs level beyond that of later drafted peers and thus face even more mental anquish because they have never struggled before... No. Look at what you wrote. "out of 137 hs pitchers drafted in the first round... yet still went on to any level of success." Or even more clearly, in your first post "Of those 22...". So yeah, you're starting with 137 pitchers, but then you're just taking the 22 that "went on to any level of success" as your sample size. In addition to what's been written above by myself and others, I hate to put it this way, but you're also just not correct in your conclusions. Just looking at Roy Halladay's one season in High A (before he got demoted from the majors at least, and actually, he was worse there the second time), he was 8.6 H/9, 0.4 HR/9, 2.5 BB/9, 6.0 K/9, 2.37 K/BB. Ball is at 8.0, 1.0, 4.0, 5.7, 1.43. Are you really trying to say that the difference in the walk and HR rates (BTW, latter has come down to 0.57 for Ball since his third start) there is significant enough that Ball is obviously an enormous outlier if he has any MLB success? And Halladay was the first guy I looked at because I sorted by career WAR and he was at the top. The second pitcher I looked at was CC Sabathia, who had all of three starts in Low A before moving on to 18 starts in High A (which, not insignificantly, were split across two seasons, as he was, in fact, below 9 k/9 in his first 7 starts before having an offseason), where yes, he was at 10.0 K/9, but he had an ERA north of 4 (and his walk rate was worse than Ball's). I also don't get what Low A and/or High A is supposed to mean. Sorry, but there's just nothing to this at all. I like that you're trying to do some interesting research a lot, but this particular exercise shows me nothing.
|
|
wbcd
Rookie
Posts: 33
|
Post by wbcd on Jun 16, 2015 17:42:08 GMT -5
Hate to say it but a little research shows that Ball has little to no chance of becoming even a serviceable big league arm... 137 hs pitchers were drafted in the 1st round (including sandwich picks) in the 13 drafts from 1999-2011: and 22 (or just 16%) had/have a career war above 5.0. I think the most interesting fact that only 22 of the high school pitchers drafted in the first round had career WAR above 5.0. That's really unbelievable and suggests how much of a crap shoot that drafting is outside of he very top picks.
Just on velocity and athleticism alone I would think (barring injury) that Bell is going to get to the big leagues in some way shape or form. Obviously, we are hoping for much more than Brian Matsuz's career but there are always teams looking for hard-throwing LH pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jun 16, 2015 20:04:14 GMT -5
Hate to say it but a little research shows that Ball has little to no chance of becoming even a serviceable big league arm... 137 hs pitchers were drafted in the 1st round (including sandwich picks) in the 13 drafts from 1999-2011: and 22 (or just 16%) had/have a career war above 5.0. I think the most interesting fact that only 22 of the high school pitchers drafted in the first round had career WAR above 5.0. That's really unbelievable and suggests how much of a crap shoot that drafting is outside of he very top picks.
Just on velocity and athleticism alone I would think (barring injury) that Bell is going to get to the big leagues in some way shape or form. Obviously, we are hoping for much more than Brian Matsuz's career but there are always teams looking for hard-throwing LH pitchers.
This is where I will touch back on my point from the last page, if Trey Ball has any kind of success and reaches the majors for a sustained period of time the pick is a good pick. The idea that if he only turns out to be a middle reliever, then the pick was a waste is so ridiculous. The draft is such a crap shoot, if you get even just an "average" MLBer out of it, it is still a success, just not as big of a success as you hope for when you are drafting so high.
|
|
|
Trey Ball
Jun 17, 2015 8:50:21 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by brnichols19873 on Jun 17, 2015 8:50:21 GMT -5
Well the total sample size is actually the 137 hs pitchers drafted in the 1st round which while not a statistically huge amount of data points it is a signifigant number. Obviously I would prefer mote concrete and in depth data but time/energy is limiting so this breif analysis will have to do (heres the link to the bb ref page if your interested in checking it out for yourself; www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?query_type=pos_round&pos=P&draft_round=1&draft_type=junreg&from_type_hs=1)but you cant tell me its not pretty eye opening that zero out of 137 hs pitchers drafted in the first round had remotely similar struggles as Ball in A and yet still went on to any level of success as an mlb pitcher. Also, i feel the "first round' qualifier is fair in this comparison given that the pressure/exposure faced by a hs 1st rnd pitcher greatly dwarfs that of those drafted later especially due to the large bonuses which also place pressure on them within orginization in addition, these players are also unique in that they all dominated completly at the hs level beyond that of later drafted peers and thus face even more mental anquish because they have never struggled before... No. Look at what you wrote. "out of 137 hs pitchers drafted in the first round... yet still went on to any level of success." Or even more clearly, in your first post "Of those 22...". So yeah, you're starting with 137 pitchers, but then you're just taking the 22 that "went on to any level of success" as your sample size. In addition to what's been written above by myself and others, I hate to put it this way, but you're also just not correct in your conclusions. Just looking at Roy Halladay's one season in High A (before he got demoted from the majors at least, and actually, he was worse there the second time), he was 8.6 H/9, 0.4 HR/9, 2.5 BB/9, 6.0 K/9, 2.37 K/BB. Ball is at 8.0, 1.0, 4.0, 5.7, 1.43. Are you really trying to say that the difference in the walk and HR rates (BTW, latter has come down to 0.57 for Ball since his third start) there is significant enough that Ball is obviously an enormous outlier if he has any MLB success? And Halladay was the first guy I looked at because I sorted by career WAR and he was at the top. The second pitcher I looked at was CC Sabathia, who had all of three starts in Low A before moving on to 18 starts in High A (which, not insignificantly, were split across two seasons, as he was, in fact, below 9 k/9 in his first 7 starts before having an offseason), where yes, he was at 10.0 K/9, but he had an ERA north of 4 (and his walk rate was worse than Ball's). I also don't get what Low A and/or High A is supposed to mean. Sorry, but there's just nothing to this at all. I like that you're trying to do some interesting research a lot, but this particular exercise shows me nothing. Its really not that difficult to understand, Halladay did not fall within my years of analysis which you should have clearly noticed as I specifically said "hs drafted pitchers from 1999-2011". Going back to the mid 1990s picks provides little in terms of comparison due to the variety of changes seen in pitching/stats from that period... These changes include: -Greater Emphasis on strikeout numbers as well as a huge increase in avg pitch velo: For Rookie pitchers from 1995 to 2014 their k's per 9 innings figure rose an astounding 28.5% from 6.01 to 7.72. This is due in large part to a substantial rise in average velocity among all pitchers during this time period; pitch f/x data only dates back to 2002 but in these past 13 years (2002 - 2014) avg rookie velo saw the following jumps, FB +2.4 mph, SL +2.5 and changeup +2.9. To this end, it would stand to reason that average pitch velo saw decent upticks in the mid to late 90s, however, since no concrete data velo exists for these years I will have to assume that it increased at the same annual rate as the 2002 - 2014 data (which attributes the following average yearly velo increases to each pitch type: FB velocity +.185 mph, +.192 mph for the Slider and +.223 mph for the Change) (i realize this isnt a perfect comp but its the only verifiable velo data points available and should still give a good general idea of the total change) using these numbers I found that rookie FB velo increased a total of 3.7 mph in the 20 years from 1995 (Halladay's draft year) to 2014 while the avg rookie slider rose 3.84 mph and the avg rookie changeup rose a remarkable 4.46 mph. Put another way, using present day 2014 rookie velo one can clearly see the totality of mph increases over the past 20 seasons: avg FB went from 89.1 to 92.4, avg SL velo went from 78.8 to 82.6 and avg Change velo increased from 79.1 to 83.4... (Fangraphs has all your pitchfx Velo stats here: www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=4&season=2014&month=0&season1=1994&ind=2&team=0,ss&rost=0&age=18,57&filter=&players=0) -Also, there is the issue of the large BMI increases in pitchers since the mid 1990's: There is little doubt that this added velocity among pitchers is coorleted to a signifigant increase in pitcher body mass index during the past few decades. The average BMI for a starter (relievers had the same basic graph) went from the mid-24s from 1950 until the mid-1990s, and then rose sharply; from an average of 24.5 in 1996 to 27.6 in 2012. (Average pitcher went from, 73.9 inches to 75 inches in height and from 193 pounds to 214 pounds in weight) -In addition, their is the obvious problem of statistical inflation due to the PED/juiced ball era of the 1990's, this era produced an offensive surge of production unlike any before or since and thus comparing stats from now to then is rather pointless... -That said, I will indulge your CC contention which a quick glance at his bbf minors page clearly shows that he falls within the stated criteria, ie sub 4 era and K/9 greater than 9 during a full season of A ball.(http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=sabath001car) Year:1999, Age:18, AgeDiff: -3.8, Lev:A-/A/A+, ERA:3.29, IP:68.1, SO:76, WHIP :1.215 SO/9:10...keep in mind that he was 18, 2.5 years younger than Ball is this season. -My overarching point here is that recent history provides zero examples of hs first round pitchers who struggled even nearly as bad as Ball in any level of A ball and went on to have even a serviceable season or two in the majors (ie war 5+)... The sample size may not be extremly large but it is telling that all of these players were relatively dominant in A ball at Balls age. And not only was/is Ball not even close to dominant, he has been arguably one of the worst starters in A or A+ over the past 1+ seasons. -And just to indulge your absurd point that Ball's season is comparable to that of Halladays 1996 in A+ please take a look at the full stat line which was accomplished in his first full season ie the comp would be Ball last year as they each had just been drafted the year prior whatever they still dont compare...(per his bbref page: www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=hallad001har) Year-1996, Age-19, AgeDiff- -3.7, Lev- A+, W/L-15-7, ERA-2.73, IP-164, SO-109, WHIP:1.239, SO9:6 - As you can clearly see Hall had a dominant season despite being youngest in league as he led in era and wins in a total of 166 ips... Your throwing Balls current numbers out there as a comp to Halladay's full season despite the fact that he has pitched just 66.2 innings this season, you cant honestly believe he is going to approach a 2.7 era by seasons end can you? Although you may be in denial take a look at Balls FIP number and his BABIP both of which are astronomical and will undoubtedly lead him back to struggles, not to mention that exytremly poor groundball/flyball ratio which has remained during his past three "great" starts and will also contribute to his poor performance. -Everyone has kept on telling us to wait for his "progression" and were made to believe that huge early struggles are part of the process with hs pitchers yet, I have yet to see an example of one with his struggles who went on to be even a serviceable mlb arm...And making matters worse is that he is two weeks away from his 21st birthday and yet has gained no velocity on his fb as the bp report from may had him 88-91 and max of 92 in two starts, that may even be a decrease in velo since his draft as most predaft scouting reports had 90-92 and max of 93. All the present day reports keep mentioning that velo will come and that its key to his progression, however i am beginning to wonder if it will ever materialize due to the fact that he appears to have put on little to no weight since joining the club, still 185-190 as he was on draft night. To this end, he should be near or at his peak velo by 21 and will only see a slight decrease from 22 on, According to baseball prospectus, "Generally, pitchers see their velocity peak in their early 20s and steadily decline by a full mile per hour by age 26. After that, velocity drops more sharply and continues a steep decline into a pitcher’s 30s. On average, even a 22-24 year old is already losing a half tick on the gun every year, and it's hard for a modest improvement in command to undo that loss."
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 17, 2015 9:12:32 GMT -5
You're correct that I missed the time limitation you'd created. I disagree that it's of any significance. If anything, I think you're limiting your sample beyond meaning. Look at the pitchers per year who even fit your criteria of 5.0 career bWAR:
2011: 1 2010: 0 2009: 1 2008: 1 2007: 3 2006: 1 2005: 0 2004: 3 2003: 2 2002: 4 2001: 2 2000: 2 1999: 2
So what you're basically doing is looking at the top 2 or so HS pitchers to come from the first round from each draft in the older half of your sample and the top HS pitcher taken in the first round of the more recent half. Nobody here is going to argue that Trey Ball is Jose Fernandez or Clayton Kershaw, trust me.
Also, minor league ERA is not a statistic I'd use. I think you'd be better off looking at rate stats. Given how low MLB ERA correlates year-to-year, I'd bet that minor league ERA has even less correlation.
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, you're creating arbitrary parameters without meaning. We'll just have to agree to disagree. As Brian said, it's interesting anecdotally that Ball will need to be an outlier in this sense, but I think there would be a lot more meaning to this if you removed the "first round" criteria. HS pitchers are known to be a volatile commodity and for that reason there don't tend to be many drafted that high. Also consider that under the old draft rules you had things like signability guys who fell out of the first round even though talent suggested they go there, who were then popped later in the draft for an overslot bonus.
By the way, player weights typically aren't updated every year. They usually just weigh them when they're drafted and use that publicly (I'm sure they have updated internal numbers they don't bother sharing) until they reach the majors.
|
|
|