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.
2015-16 Offseason Prospect Rankings
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Dec 23, 2015 14:10:05 GMT -5
I need some help folks! I'm coming up with some strange numbers for Anderson Espinoza's FIP for 2015. Can you please help me figure this out. Is it possible to get a negative number (that's good by the way)? Just copied this formula: FIP = ((13*HR)+(3*(BB+HBP))-(2*K))/IP + constant. I hear 2.9 and under is great. Love to see what you stat guys get. www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa872856&position=PThanks Chris. I guess he is a keeper! I did not have the HBP, and I have no idea what the constant is. I gather that changes year to year.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 23, 2015 14:51:01 GMT -5
They've consciously devoted a huge amount of time and effort to evaluating "makeup", which they regard as the key to identifying and developing amateur talent. It's possible that in fact they've either done an ordinary job of it, or that in fact it's not the key, and instead, they got really lucky, and, that furthermore, the fact that so many of the guys who outperformed expectations, like Pedroia, Betts, and Bogaerts, are regarded as having exceptional makeup, is either a confirmation bias illusion, or a coincidence. In which case, the success will not be predictive. What do you think? I think the short version is that when you significantly outperform your peers, and you essentially predicted that you would (in a long conversation I had with Jed Hoyer, where, among other things, he went on and on about Pedroia's makeup when he was still at Portland*), and you had detailed reasons why you would, a small sample size suffices. *Granted, Michael Bowden also had tremendous makeup. Lars Anderson had unique but really strange makeup which may well have proved to be his undoing. And sometimes you draft a guy with irresistible tools more or less in spite of his make up (which I think was true of Hansen). You don't win them all. But by doubling or tripling the weight you put on makeup in your total evaluation, it looks like you can cut you prospect bust rate, at least for position players, about in half. It's quite possible, BTW, that they have a better sense of what the ideal makeup is for position players than they do for pitchers. They are very different roles, psychologically. I'd guess they wouldn't have rated Buchholz too high on makeup, in regards to eating nothing but fast food and stealing laptops. I mean... they drafted him, didn't they? Seems possible to me that they talked to him and spent some time and determined the problem was more general immaturity than having an actual makeup problem and nabbed him where other teams were scared off. It's possible that he was just such a value talent-wise at 42 that they weren't going to pass him up makeup be damned, but there's nothing really to say either way. Hopefully Epstein or someone writes a memoir one day because that'd be fascinating to get a look into. Of course, Jason Place's makeup was something they were publicly very high on, and they missed there. There is a fine line between being hard-nosed and just being kind of a jerk. But again, the fact that there are misses doesn't mean a system doesn't work. No system is going to be perfect, there are always going to be misses along the way, a player who has a fatal flaw that is exposed against better competition, whatever. The key is being better than average, and at least regarding the development of position player prospects into quality major leaguers the Red Sox have clearly been that in the last dozen years or so.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 23, 2015 16:22:41 GMT -5
Thanks Chris. I guess he is a keeper! I did not have the HBP, and I have no idea what the constant is. I gather that changes year to year. The constant was 3.2 when created. Should change with the run environment. Edit: scale should match to your understanding of era. That was the point if it.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Dec 23, 2015 16:35:20 GMT -5
Thanks Chris. I guess he is a keeper! I did not have the HBP, and I have no idea what the constant is. I gather that changes year to year. The constant was 3.2 when created. Should change with the run environment. Edit: scale should match to your understanding of era. That was the point if it. Thanks Josh
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 23, 2015 16:52:37 GMT -5
I'd guess they wouldn't have rated Buchholz too high on makeup, in regards to eating nothing but fast food and stealing laptops. I mean... they drafted him, didn't they? Seems possible to me that they talked to him and spent some time and determined the problem was more general immaturity than having an actual makeup problem and nabbed him where other teams were scared off. It's possible that he was just such a value talent-wise at 42 that they weren't going to pass him up makeup be damned, but there's nothing really to say either way. Hopefully Epstein or someone writes a memoir one day because that'd be fascinating to get a look into. Of course, Jason Place's makeup was something they were publicly very high on, and they missed there. There is a fine line between being hard-nosed and just being kind of a jerk. But again, the fact that there are misses doesn't mean a system doesn't work. No system is going to be perfect, there are always going to be misses along the way, a player who has a fatal flaw that is exposed against better competition, whatever. The key is being better than average, and at least regarding the development of position player prospects into quality major leaguers the Red Sox have clearly been that in the last dozen years or so. It was just an example of drafting someone who didn't appear to have great makeup. I imagine when players fall enough, eventually you have to take him when there isn't anyone else on their draft list who has comparable talent. For the Red Sox, I'd argue that makeup probably doesn't supersede talent or obviously signability and that it's mainly a difference maker between somewhat equal prospects. But that's just a guess of course.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 23, 2015 22:57:21 GMT -5
The constant was 3.2 when created. For the majors. It needs to be league-specific. (What you do is average up all the ERAs in the league and all the unadjusted FIPs, the difference becomes your constant.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 24, 2015 1:08:28 GMT -5
I mean... they drafted him, didn't they? Seems possible to me that they talked to him and spent some time and determined the problem was more general immaturity than having an actual makeup problem and nabbed him where other teams were scared off. It's possible that he was just such a value talent-wise at 42 that they weren't going to pass him up makeup be damned, but there's nothing really to say either way. Hopefully Epstein or someone writes a memoir one day because that'd be fascinating to get a look into. Of course, Jason Place's makeup was something they were publicly very high on, and they missed there. There is a fine line between being hard-nosed and just being kind of a jerk. But again, the fact that there are misses doesn't mean a system doesn't work. No system is going to be perfect, there are always going to be misses along the way, a player who has a fatal flaw that is exposed against better competition, whatever. The key is being better than average, and at least regarding the development of position player prospects into quality major leaguers the Red Sox have clearly been that in the last dozen years or so. It was just an example of drafting someone who didn't appear to have great makeup. I imagine when players fall enough, eventually you have to take him when there isn't anyone else on their draft list who has comparable talent. For the Red Sox, I'd argue that makeup probably doesn't supersede talent or obviously signability and that it's mainly a difference maker between somewhat equal prospects. But that's just a guess of course. Actually, as reported at the time, they knew that teams would shy away from Buchholz because of the laptop incident. He would have been long gone otherwise. And it's actually legitimate to say, there are so many guys who are equally enticing when our pick comes around, why take a chance on a guy who might be a bad apple? They felt he might therefore still be on the board when they picked at 42, so they really looked into his character. They found that he was a good kid who had gone along with bad stuff that his friends were up to, and legitimately regretted it. So I believe they were actively hoping that no one picking, say, 30-41 was doing the same thing and would beat them to the prize. Jason Place is a great example. He apparently had half the equation, the ultra-competitiveness and stuff that tends to correlate with it (work ethic, passion for the game, etc.). Whether they knew he wouldn't make a good teammate (the other big half) is unknown. And ultimately, he reportedly proved to be a guy who was too resistant to change and advice. That's tough, because resistance to change tends to correlate pretty strongly with one of the most important traits of all: the ability to not doubt yourself when you hit a rough patch. Pedroia has that off the charts (and needed it, of course, at the start of his career). Now imagine that the rough patch is actually your career going down the tubes because you need to make an adjustment, but you're still not doubting yourself and your current approach. (Lars Anderson, as reported by Gabe Kapler so wonderfully a few years back, started doubting himself and never stopped.)
|
|
|
Post by bobrsox on Dec 31, 2015 12:05:40 GMT -5
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,664
|
Post by gerry on Jan 2, 2016 2:04:52 GMT -5
Jimed, james and eric, I remember at the time top FO brass went to TX and sat down with Clay, talked with parents, teachers. coach, etc., and came away quite certain that he was not a character problem, a little shy, and would do what it takes to succeed. They held his feet to the fire and he responded, because he was attentive and succeeded.
Perhaps a more comprehensive medical analysis which could, instead of character issues, determine potential for various medical issues which would influence stamina, etc. Although we tend to forget, with Clay, that the docs messed him up so badly he almost died, which carried over into two seasons. No way to anticipate something like that, and no way it should impact his reputation or stats. But, of course, in a linear society like fandom, it does.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jan 5, 2016 11:39:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Jan 5, 2016 12:05:44 GMT -5
They rank the best prospect in the Red Sox system as the #1 prospect.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 5, 2016 12:16:11 GMT -5
That list is pretty insane in wonderful and terrible ways.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 5, 2016 12:34:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 5, 2016 12:47:29 GMT -5
What do the three different grades mean for each value? Like for Devers, it's 40/60/70 Hit, 40/55/75 Power, etc. Am I right in thinking it's current/likely outcome/ceiling?
That's like a Cabrera/Harper/Trout hitter ceiling and he's the #4 prospect??? I'm skeptical about how high these ratings are. There's no way that Kiley would have these guys rated so high.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 5, 2016 13:17:03 GMT -5
That list is pretty insane in wonderful and terrible ways. Yeah its pretty insane indeed. I have to say, even if time proves this list to be inaccurate...I always enjoy reading a list that deviates from the norm. This is certainly one. Notable deviations from the sox prospects list: - High on Mauricio Dubon at #7 - High on Travis Lakins at #11 - High on Ben Taylor at #13 - Low on Sam Travis at #16 - High on Chandler Shepherd at #19 - Low on Nick Longhi at #21 - Low on Wendell Rijo at #22 Some tidbits that I thought were interesting: - Yoan Aybar with a potential 80 grade arm - With regard to Lakins...."Red Sox sources believe that, with a good year in Greenville, he gets in the conversation as one of the top prospects in the system." Thats just silly....I think. - Christopher Acosta up to 94 in instructs (although I imagine he comfortably sits a few ticks lower) - Brakeman up to 96 instructs with a potential 70 grade on his changeup
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jan 5, 2016 14:53:35 GMT -5
What do the three different grades mean for each value? Like for Devers, it's 40/60/70 Hit, 40/55/75 Power, etc. Am I right in thinking it's current/likely outcome/ceiling? That's like a Cabrera/Harper/Trout hitter ceiling and he's the #4 prospect??? I'm skeptical about how high these ratings are. There's no way that Kiley would have these guys rated so high. Below one of the charts, "One other difference for the way I’ll be communicating scouting grades to you is the presence of three numbers on each tool instead of just two. The first number is the current grade. The second number is the likely future grade; or, if you prefer percentiles, call this the 50th percentile projection. The third number is the ceiling grade, or 90th percentile projection, to help demonstrate the volatility and raw potential of a tool. I feel this gives readers a better sense of the possible outcomes a player could achieve, and more information to understand my thoughts on the likelihood of reaching those levels."
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 5, 2016 15:28:03 GMT -5
Thanks. The guy hands out 70 grades like candy. I've never seen any other publication do what was done in that article.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 5, 2016 15:41:45 GMT -5
Thanks. The guy hands out 70 grades like candy. I've never seen any other publication do what was done in that article. Indeed. If everyone has 70 upside then nobody does.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 5, 2016 16:11:11 GMT -5
The rating on Sam Travis shows how arbitrary this can be. He's a 21 year-old who's at .457 slugging after two years in the system. In a small sample of 109 PAs, down in Arizona, he absolutely raked slugging .505. Given his age, his contact skill, and the K/BB ratio which he pushed downward to just about 1 in AA, he has all the makings of a superior talent as the power continues to develop. You would hardly know that from this list. To each his own.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on Jan 5, 2016 16:57:37 GMT -5
The rating on Sam Travis shows how arbitrary this can be. He's a 21 year-old who's at .457 slugging after two years in the system. In a small sample of 109 PAs, down in Arizona, he absolutely raked slugging .505. Given his age, his contact skill, and the K/BB ratio which he pushed downward to just about 1 in AA, he has all the makings of a superior talent as the power continues to develop. You would hardly know that from this list. To each his own. You can't just use the raw slugging numbers in complete confidence though, because he's not going to hit for as high of an average in the MLB (being realistic). He'll likely need to add a bit more power at least. I don't agree with his placement, but I can understand the skepticism with him because that's how I used to think about Travis in his first year.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on Jan 5, 2016 16:59:00 GMT -5
Thanks. The guy hands out 70 grades like candy. I've never seen any other publication do what was done in that article. Indeed. If everyone has 70 upside then nobody does. I like the Floor/Projection/Ceiling thing in theory. "Ceiling is a tough term to nail down with consistency though.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 5, 2016 17:15:15 GMT -5
I concur with the general sentiment with this piece that's been raised. I will add that Lakins may be ranked super high, but not as high as he might seem. Alex is going to have him higher than we do currently, and we've tossed around bumping him up based on reports from Instructs. The things we've heard about the stuff are great. Heck, look at Chaz's writeup on him: news.soxprospects.com/2015/10/the-write-up-logan-allen-travis-lakins.html. That said, personally, I want to see him do that for more than 2 innings at a time before strapping a rocket to him. But I get why someone would rank him in the top 20 and I've gone back and forth on that myself after reading what Chaz wrote and speaking with Alex, who talked about it on the podcast I believe.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,968
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 5, 2016 17:35:15 GMT -5
The rating on Sam Travis shows how arbitrary this can be. He's a 21 year-old who's at .457 slugging after two years in the system. In a small sample of 109 PAs, down in Arizona, he absolutely raked slugging .505. Given his age, his contact skill, and the K/BB ratio which he pushed downward to just about 1 in AA, he has all the makings of a superior talent as the power continues to develop. You would hardly know that from this list. To each his own. You can't just use the raw slugging numbers in complete confidence though, because he's not going to hit for as high of an average in the MLB (being realistic). He'll likely need to add a bit more power at least. I don't agree with his placement, but I can understand the skepticism with him because that's how I used to think about Travis in his first year. Haven't we also been taught to be cautious about getting excited about Arizona Fall League hitting, since the best pitching prospects are at home resting their million-dollar arms rather than in the AFL? Deven Marerro .328 .443 .414 .857 in 70 PA.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 5, 2016 17:57:32 GMT -5
Thanks. The guy hands out 70 grades like candy. I've never seen any other publication do what was done in that article. ...and where would you disagree with his 70 grade ceilings? I mean isn't that the beautiful thing about our top 4 prospects? Their upside is immense. Can't say I really disagree with his 70 grades (as ceilings)....then again, I also can't say that I really care as much about ceiling grades as I do about median projections.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,968
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 5, 2016 19:03:00 GMT -5
Thanks. The guy hands out 70 grades like candy. I've never seen any other publication do what was done in that article. ...and where would you disagree with his 70 grade ceilings? I mean isn't that the beautiful thing about our top 4 prospects? Their upside is immense. Can't say I really disagree with his 70 grades (as ceilings)....then again, I also can't say that I really care as much about ceiling grades as I do about median projections. No 70 ceilings overall in his reports on the Braves, Orioles, D-Backs. But it's also interesting that he says Margot would have been #3, suggesting he's on a par with the top 4.
|
|
|