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 rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2015 15:49:24 GMT -5
I don't know why age matters when talked about anything but projection. His ability to pitch in the league he's in has nothing to do with age and his age shouldn't be discussed when talking a it if he should be promoted during the year.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 16, 2015 15:56:18 GMT -5
Do we know Espinoza can spot the fastball?
Just because you throw hard doesn't mean you're going to blow through the level. See Michael Kopech for that one. Command is arguably a better way to dominate, and why guys like Chris Balcom-Miller put up great stats at the level.
I just don't think it's a given that he's going to blow through Sally hitters the way some here think he will (not that it would surprise me if he did). He was "only" striking out a hitter per inning exactly in the GCL, although his K/BB was on an upswing at the end of the year.
If anything, I bet his line will be a bit underwhelming and that he's going to be a victim of bad BIP luck or something, and then it'll be all surprising when the scouting reports are still glowing.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,405
|
Post by radiohix on Dec 16, 2015 15:58:59 GMT -5
In low A ball, if you have a big fastball that you can throw at both sides of the plate, you can dominate (Matt Barnes as an example) and I think AE can do that so barring injuries, he won't be pitching in the SAL for too long. Matt Barnes was four years older when he hit the SAL than Espinoza will be in April. Espinoza throws harder and looks like he knows where his heater is going, age is not very important here.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 16, 2015 16:15:54 GMT -5
I don't know why age matters when talked about anything but projection. His ability to pitch in the league he's in has nothing to do with age and his age shouldn't be discussed when talking a it if he should be promoted during the year. You keep saying this and while I guess it's sort of true it's also so vague as to be essentially meaningless. Age, as a number of turns of the calendar a human has completed in his time on the planet, is relatively unimportant to a pitchers development. But physical and emotional maturity, experience, quality of competition, and completion of developmental benchmarks are all important. While none of them are tied to age inextricably, they are certainly highly correlated with it.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2015 16:33:06 GMT -5
I don't know why age matters when talked about anything but projection. His ability to pitch in the league he's in has nothing to do with age and his age shouldn't be discussed when talking a it if he should be promoted during the year. You keep saying this and while I guess it's sort of true it's also so vague as to be essentially meaningless. Age, as a number of turns of the calendar a human has completed in his time on the planet, is relatively unimportant to a pitchers development. But physical and emotional maturity, experience, quality of competition, and completion of developmental benchmarks are all important. While none of them are tied to age inextricably, they are certainly highly correlated with it. True but you responded to a post about a players ability to do something. If you were responding to something that had to do with anything you just mentioned then fine but that's not what it was. Chris questioned whether his scouting report is accurate which is fair. But when someone says his fastball will allow him to dominate there and you answer with his age, it's meaningless. Pretty sure his physical maturation won't make his fast ball any faster. Does he have trouble maintaining that velo during a game? During a season? Well then maybe physical maturation will help that.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 16, 2015 16:47:06 GMT -5
I did indeed. And as a polished college pitcher who was just a first-round pick, Barnes was at a totally different place in his development than Espinoza is. I used age as a shorthand to quickly illustrate how it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare their cases. Barnes didn't graduate Greenville quickly because his fastball was dominant. Kopech, who had a better fastball when he hit the SAL than Barnes did, was still at that circuit in July when he was suspended. And Kopech was pitching quite well.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 16, 2015 17:11:35 GMT -5
I wasn't doubting any scouting report. What scouting report were you referring to that says he can spot the fastball? The BA one certainly doesn't say that.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 31, 2015 18:55:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mookiemagicfan on Jan 1, 2016 11:09:05 GMT -5
I still think the reason he "only" struck out about a batter per inning is because he was so such an innings cap per start. Instead of 3-4 innings per start...can we infer that of given an opportunity to beg"let loose" he could strike out a fair amount more people? I think it's feasable personally. His command will be questioned until we have more data to either confirm the stuggle or diffuse it. Still having such a promising young arm in the system is huge for us considering Price's opt out clause in 3 years...having him potentially be a late season call-up in 2019 could be a big push for a potential playoff run.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 1, 2016 15:53:17 GMT -5
I still think the reason he "only" struck out about a batter per inning is because he was so such an innings cap per start. Instead of 3-4 innings per start...can we infer that of given an opportunity to beg"let loose" he could strike out a fair amount more people? I think it's feasable personally. I think the opposite is true. When you know you're only going to be pitching four innings a start, you know you don't have to pace yourself and can throw max effort on every pitch. You'll also only face guys twice through the order and avoid the third-time-through-the-order penalty. That's why relievers generally pitch better than starters even though starters are generally acknowledged to be more talented. Only throwing short stints probably helped Espinoza rather than hurting him. I think Alex Speier provided a more likely explanation for the lack of strikeouts in his BA chat-- that Espinoza was focusing on his fastball command and so threw a lot of fastballs even in two-strike counts. It's hard to strike guys out on fastballs, even high-velo ones. Once his secondary stuff improves and he uses it more, I suspect that strikeout rate will tick up.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jan 4, 2016 12:23:52 GMT -5
With only 58 IP last year, what is the RS goal for his IP this year? I don't think he pitched in winter ball.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jan 4, 2016 13:10:22 GMT -5
With only 58 IP last year, what is the RS goal for his IP this year? I don't think he pitched in winter ball. I would think 100 to 110 innings.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Jan 4, 2016 13:23:45 GMT -5
A year younger, but Urias went from 54 to 88. Budgeting 20 5 inning starts and letting him ease his way into the season seems right.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 4, 2016 14:00:19 GMT -5
With only 58 IP last year, what is the RS goal for his IP this year? I don't think he pitched in winter ball. I would think 100 to 110 innings. He didn't pitch in winter ball, but remember, it's not like the took him out of moth balls on the first day of the DSL season and put him back in the closet when it ended. He would've pitched in camp in the DR and he was at Instructs as well. I agree with Steve and soxscout that they'll probably let him throw 100-110 innings or so. Putting him on a five-inning limit and doing the typical regular rotation skips will get him there, so I don't think his season will end super early or anything. EDIT: Jeffry Fernandez was moved to the bullpen this year when he got to around 110, so that's probably a good comp: www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=fernan000jef&type=pgl&year=2015
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 4, 2016 14:05:53 GMT -5
I still think the reason he "only" struck out about a batter per inning is because he was so such an innings cap per start. Instead of 3-4 innings per start...can we infer that of given an opportunity to beg"let loose" he could strike out a fair amount more people? I think it's feasable personally. I think the opposite is true. When you know you're only going to be pitching four innings a start, you know you don't have to pace yourself and can throw max effort on every pitch. You'll also only face guys twice through the order and avoid the third-time-through-the-order penalty. That's why relievers generally pitch better than starters even though starters are generally acknowledged to be more talented. Only throwing short stints probably helped Espinoza rather than hurting him. I think Alex Speier provided a more likely explanation for the lack of strikeouts in his BA chat-- that Espinoza was focusing on his fastball command and so threw a lot of fastballs even in two-strike counts. It's hard to strike guys out on fastballs, even high-velo ones. Once his secondary stuff improves and he uses it more, I suspect that strikeout rate will tick up. Yeah, it seems like I've seen a few posts talking about the importance of velocity lately. It's nice and all, but it's much more the change of pace that hitters swing-and-miss on. Clayton Kershaw had 301 K last year, averaging over 11/9IP, but his FB averages "only" 92-93. It's the fact that he can go 95 with the FB and then 75 with the CB that has hitters missing. The biggest benefit of high velocity isn't less time to swing, because the difference in timing 90 vs 100 is still fairly small. It's the **separation** between the FB and off-speed stuff, which disrupts timing that fools hitters and makes adjusting to high velocity tougher. With the exception of Mo Rivera and Kenley Jensen, who both had/have crazy movement *and* velocity, it's not that different for relievers, either. Command, movement, and changing speeds are what get hitters out. If Espinoza can get his high-70s curve, mid-80s change, and high-90s FB all to the spots he wants, he'll have over 20 mph velocity separation in his repertoire and he'll really start racking up Ks. But just throwing 100 mph pitch after pitch, especially in the majors, is not very effective. Compare Nathan Eovaldi and Noah Syndergaard. Same FB velocity, but the latter changes speeds well. Huge difference in results.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 4, 2016 22:34:39 GMT -5
The fascination with velocity is over the top. Any major league hitter with the exception of someone like a 37 year old David Ross can hit a 100 mph fastball. Like telson said, it's all about changing speeds. Almost no one can hit a decent fastball if they're sitting on offspeed pitches though. Even Chapman would suck if he only ever threw 102 mph fastballs. But batters have to watch for the slider.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 5, 2016 2:21:16 GMT -5
One of the things that has me most excited about Espinoza is the velocity range of his repertoire. Never mind that his curve has plus potential...a bonus, really...but recognize that (provided he can command it) he'll have nearly 30 mph separation between velocity extremes on his best two pitches, and roughly 25 mph average. That's going to make for a **lot** of called strikes, embarrassingly late swings-and-miss, and off-balance out-in-front flailing. Throw in a quality change in the middle of that range, and he'll have a weak-contact, GB-inducing weapon as well. Put Vasquez behind the plate to call his games and frame pitches on the corners, and Espinoza has the potential to put up some ungodly numbers. FWIW, Ed Rodriguez's biggest deficiency is the small velocity range (84-97 or so) that he works in. He's an interesting case in that he has started adding FB variants to his repertoire to address movement (his is quite good across his FB-SL-CH mix, to begin with), and in doing so has still had success without large velocity shifts. So there's more than one way to skin a cat. I posted this in the FIP thread, but it's interesting to look at some of the names that come up as far as changing velocity goes...and the idea that those pitchers regularly out-perform their FIPs. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/wei-yin-chen-and-the-art-of-changing-speeds/
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jan 5, 2016 9:30:21 GMT -5
I think the opposite is true. When you know you're only going to be pitching four innings a start, you know you don't have to pace yourself and can throw max effort on every pitch. You'll also only face guys twice through the order and avoid the third-time-through-the-order penalty. That's why relievers generally pitch better than starters even though starters are generally acknowledged to be more talented. Only throwing short stints probably helped Espinoza rather than hurting him. I think Alex Speier provided a more likely explanation for the lack of strikeouts in his BA chat-- that Espinoza was focusing on his fastball command and so threw a lot of fastballs even in two-strike counts. It's hard to strike guys out on fastballs, even high-velo ones. Once his secondary stuff improves and he uses it more, I suspect that strikeout rate will tick up. Yeah, it seems like I've seen a few posts talking about the importance of velocity lately. It's nice and all, but it's much more the change of pace that hitters swing-and-miss on. Clayton Kershaw had 301 K last year, averaging over 11/9IP, but his FB averages "only" 92-93. It's the fact that he can go 95 with the FB and then 75 with the CB that has hitters missing. The biggest benefit of high velocity isn't less time to swing, because the difference in timing 90 vs 100 is still fairly small. It's the **separation** between the FB and off-speed stuff, which disrupts timing that fools hitters and makes adjusting to high velocity tougher. With the exception of Mo Rivera and Kenley Jensen, who both had/have crazy movement *and* velocity, it's not that different for relievers, either. Command, movement, and changing speeds are what get hitters out. If Espinoza can get his high-70s curve, mid-80s change, and high-90s FB all to the spots he wants, he'll have over 20 mph velocity separation in his repertoire and he'll really start racking up Ks. But just throwing 100 mph pitch after pitch, especially in the majors, is not very effective. Compare Nathan Eovaldi and Noah Syndergaard. Same FB velocity, but the latter changes speeds well. Huge difference in results. I'm one who prizes velocity...but never over command/control, or changing speeds. I am just saying that everything else being equal, it is a valued and sought after weapon by major league baseball. Beyond that we know that all fastballs at the same speed are not created equal. How often have I read scouting reports here that qualify a guy's fastball by saying "it's straight" or "lacks movement" or "doesn't miss many bats". Papelbon threw 95-96 on rested days with us. He had impeccable control but early on at least not the greatest off-speed stuff. As I recall Gossage, who threw high octane for his era, was feared for his fastball. Maybe he had them, but I don't recall a splitter or great off-speed otherwise. Why are the hardest throwers considered for the pen--Yes usually they are more two-pitch pitchers who would fatigue or get racked second-third time through, but they are dominant at the high-end at least in part because of their speed. How did DD re-construct our pen? No more 91-92 guys with good control. All that others say above has value. There are no absolutes. A guy like Kershaw who can change speeds off 92-93 or particularly a guy like Koji or Mariano all bring their own brand of value on the outside of the norm.
|
|
|
Post by beantown on Jan 5, 2016 10:37:15 GMT -5
I think one major dividing factor between a quality pitcher and an "ace" or "lights-out closer" is having a plus-plus offering in your arsenal. Velocity isn't essential IF you have that plus-plus pitch elsewhere... for example Kershaw's hammer curve is an absurdly good secondary offering -- which, as you say, keeps hitters on their toes and unable to key on the fastball. Velocity CAN give you a plus-plus offering however, in other cases, for example Chapman's unfair fastball which basically gives him a ++ just on the merit of its velo.
What excites me most about Anderson is that he has a chance at more than one of these ++ offerings, perhaps the separating factor between an "ace" and a "transcendent," ergo our old friend Pedro.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,405
|
Post by radiohix on Jan 5, 2016 11:20:38 GMT -5
Do we know Espinoza can spot the fastball? Just because you throw hard doesn't mean you're going to blow through the level. See Michael Kopech for that one. Command is arguably a better way to dominate, and why guys like Chris Balcom-Miller put up great stats at the level. I just don't think it's a given that he's going to blow through Sally hitters the way some here think he will (not that it would surprise me if he did). He was "only" striking out a hitter per inning exactly in the GCL, although his K/BB was on an upswing at the end of the year. If anything, I bet his line will be a bit underwhelming and that he's going to be a victim of bad BIP luck or something, and then it'll be all surprising when the scouting reports are still glowing. From Fangraphs Red Sox list: He won't last that long in the SAL, I think.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 5, 2016 12:13:43 GMT -5
Well this list full of crazy stuff confirms my preconceptions on this specific case, so I'll trust it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 5, 2016 12:38:01 GMT -5
Well this list full of crazy stuff confirms my preconceptions on this specific case, so I'll trust it. Seriously?? RHix is citing an article from a well-respected source, *in response to the claim that another respected source did not contain the exact wording to back up his claim**. Someone could come along and say "I'm going to exaggeratedly dismiss your valid point from a respected source because it's not universal and I'm upset with you for disagreeing with me." You're staff...as much as I generally enjoy your input and find it thoughtful, this was unfortunate. Just say "I don't put a lot of stock in one article," or "yeah, it's fangraphs, but I haven't seen that said anywhere else." The sarcasm looks bad.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 5, 2016 14:22:08 GMT -5
I don't think we should take it as a trusted source just because it was from Fangraphs, which has a pretty huge gap in terms of quality and knowledge of writers and has never really been a go-to for prospect evaluation with the exception of Kiley McDaniel. I don't know a whole lot about Dan Farnsworth. Maybe he is Florida-based and has seen enough of Espinoza to make that bold claim. But the problem here is just basic confirmation bias. People know that Espinoza needs command of his fastball to be the special pitcher they want him to be, and then an article was posted saying that he has it - an article that also says the Red Sox see Travis Lakins as potentially a top prospect in the organization at this time next year.
While I think it's more fun when people disregard groupthink and rank players based on their own info, it also requires a lot of caution. There are too many players for one person to see enough to get a full perspective on, so getting the input is necessary for really evaluating a whole system. Having Lakins, Taylor, and Shepherd in the Top 20 makes me take the entire article with a full shaker of salt.
For the record, I'm probably more bullish than some here that the Red Sox will be willing to promote Espinoza at mid-season. Dombrowski has tended to push pitchers pretty aggressively and there are some signs, both from a statistical and scouting perspective, that point to him being an extremely special pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jan 5, 2016 15:49:04 GMT -5
I can see 1st half in Greenville & second half in Salem as Chris said going 110 IP or so total. I don't think he'll see Portland till next year. He'd be insanely young for the Carolina League.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 5, 2016 16:00:25 GMT -5
I don't think we should take it as a trusted source just because it was from Fangraphs, which has a pretty huge gap in terms of quality and knowledge of writers and has never really been a go-to for prospect evaluation with the exception of Kiley McDaniel. I don't know a whole lot about Dan Farnsworth. Maybe he is Florida-based and has seen enough of Espinoza to make that bold claim. But the problem here is just basic confirmation bias. People know that Espinoza needs command of his fastball to be the special pitcher they want him to be, and then an article was posted saying that he has it - an article that also says the Red Sox see Travis Lakins as potentially a top prospect in the organization at this time next year. While I think it's more fun when people disregard groupthink and rank players based on their own info, it also requires a lot of caution. There are too many players for one person to see enough to get a full perspective on, so getting the input is necessary for really evaluating a whole system. Having Lakins, Taylor, and Shepherd in the Top 20 makes me take the entire article with a full shaker of salt. For the record, I'm probably more bullish than some here that the Red Sox will be willing to promote Espinoza at mid-season. Dombrowski has tended to push pitchers pretty aggressively and there are some signs, both from a statistical and scouting perspective, that point to him being an extremely special pitcher. Fair enough, although it's entirely possible that RHix saw that scouting assessment first and merely re-reported it. BA writers have previously had pretty glowing reports on Espinoza after in-person views. So the designation of confirmation bias is debatable (and yet somewhat unavoidable...statistically-based arguments aren't objective studies, so there's inherent bias involved). FWIW, I have never seen Espinoza in person, but the sum of what I've heard is that he has precocious command of his FB...which is likely still far behind what's needed for MLB success. I also agree with you that he's capable (perhaps even more likely than not) of forcing a high-A promotion this year, and possibly even a one-off AA appearance, simply based on his development path so far. I appreciate the thoughtful response, too.
|
|
|