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.
2016 MLB Draft
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 26, 2015 13:38:28 GMT -5
www.baseballamerica.com/draft/2016-mlb-draft-order/Updated draft order after the signing of Daniel Murphy by the Nats. Sox at 12, 50, 88. 18th-highest bonus cap amount at $7,109,314. I hadn't realized that the Reds actually have the highest draft cap amount because in addition to picking second, they have the top Competitive Balance A pick. Of course, they wouldn't have the highest cap amount on a per-pick basis, but I wonder if this is going to be the first time that a team other than the team picking first has the highest bonus cap allotment.
|
|
|
Post by fourstripes on Dec 26, 2015 14:41:09 GMT -5
Didn't Houston have the largest pool last year when they picked #2 and #5?
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Dec 26, 2015 15:47:01 GMT -5
You my friend need to smell the post. Take a deep breathe. let me clarify, I don't think any team zero's in on anyone who is 12 years old playing in little league and say that is the guy in 5 years were going to draft. I didn't say that. I do believe it's starts with a strong scouting system where a strong scouting budget has players identified at a young age. Then teams watch the progression of those players and weed them out over time. You aren't even considering the fact that some prospects (or most), go way up or way down in the last 6 months prior to the year they are drafted. Some rise up out of nowhere and some get Tommy John, etc. That doesn't have anything to do with how teams were supposedly scouting them from when they were 12 or not. Hell some of the kids who get drafted aren't even playing baseball at the age when you expect teams to know exactly what they're going to be 5 years later at the draft and then 5 years later after that when they may be major league ready. Complaining about the Red Sox scouting is ridiculous. They have a top 5 system. What more do you want? Perfection isn't realistic in such a volatile 'science'. Who is complaining about Redsox scouting?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 26, 2015 17:29:02 GMT -5
You aren't even considering the fact that some prospects (or most), go way up or way down in the last 6 months prior to the year they are drafted. Some rise up out of nowhere and some get Tommy John, etc. That doesn't have anything to do with how teams were supposedly scouting them from when they were 12 or not. Hell some of the kids who get drafted aren't even playing baseball at the age when you expect teams to know exactly what they're going to be 5 years later at the draft and then 5 years later after that when they may be major league ready. Complaining about the Red Sox scouting is ridiculous. They have a top 5 system. What more do you want? Perfection isn't realistic in such a volatile 'science'. Who is complaining about Redsox scouting? You? Scouting is the biggest part of drafting.
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Dec 27, 2015 22:24:52 GMT -5
Who is complaining about Redsox scouting? You? Scouting is the biggest part of drafting. No Sh!t. You just invented the wheel
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 28, 2015 6:26:59 GMT -5
Didn't Houston have the largest pool last year when they picked #2 and #5? Bleh. Good point.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 28, 2015 7:43:39 GMT -5
You? Scouting is the biggest part of drafting. No Sh!t. You just invented the wheel You asked who was complaining about scouting and I answered. Why did you ask then?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 5, 2016 13:34:00 GMT -5
BA has their top College Draft prospects list up today: HereLots of pitching. It could go either way, a lot of them perform and make it a great draft or some get injured/under-perform and make it a muddle draft.
|
|
|
Post by proudtoserve on Jan 8, 2016 21:10:56 GMT -5
BA has their top College Draft prospects list up today: HereLots of pitching. It could go either way, a lot of them perform and make it a great draft or some get injured/under-perform and make it a muddle draft.
Nice to see several old Red Sox acquaintances (Boldt, J Sheffield) among those names, as probably could have been expected, but two other former '13 late round pics Thaiss (c, Virginia) and Morrisson (ss, Oregon State) also appear....must have been some good scouting to tab those late round picks back then.....do we have any color on either of those?
|
|
|
Post by proudtoserve on Jan 9, 2016 23:20:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by proudtoserve on Jan 9, 2016 23:51:02 GMT -5
Trever Morrisson (ss, Oregon State), previously Red Sox 38th round pick in '13 is now listed at #93 on BA top 100 College List.......as a sophomore, made the watch list for Brooks Wallace Award, given to the nation's top ss....he had 96.8% fielding percentage last year....not a bad swing for a light-hitting ss....
|
|
|
Post by proudtoserve on Jan 10, 2016 0:01:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 11, 2016 16:40:03 GMT -5
Fld% is a pretty useless measure of defensive ability, though. Imagine a SS who gets 600 chances in a season, about 4/game. He makes 15 errors, giving him a Fld% of .975. Then imagine another SS who plays in the same number of games but gets 750 chances. He makes 30 errors, for a Fld% of .960. BUT, he made 150 more plays...so he's partially or fully responsible for 150 (the difference in TC)-15 (the difference in E)=135 more outs. I'd rather have SS #2 on my team, all other things being equal.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 11, 2016 17:29:50 GMT -5
Fld% is a pretty useless measure of defensive ability, though. Imagine a SS who gets 600 chances in a season, about 4/game. He makes 15 errors, giving him a Fld% of .975. Then imagine another SS who plays in the same number of games but gets 750 chances. He makes 30 errors, for a Fld% of .960. BUT, he made 150 more plays...so he's partially or fully responsible for 150 (the difference in TC)-15 (the difference in E)=135 more outs. I'd rather have SS #2 on my team, all other things being equal. and are you saying that the extra 150 chances isn't random.....that SS created 150 more chances due to something like range?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 11, 2016 21:53:39 GMT -5
Fld% is a pretty useless measure of defensive ability, though. Imagine a SS who gets 600 chances in a season, about 4/game. He makes 15 errors, giving him a Fld% of .975. Then imagine another SS who plays in the same number of games but gets 750 chances. He makes 30 errors, for a Fld% of .960. BUT, he made 150 more plays...so he's partially or fully responsible for 150 (the difference in TC)-15 (the difference in E)=135 more outs. I'd rather have SS #2 on my team, all other things being equal. and are you saying that the extra 150 chances isn't random.....that SS created 150 more chances due to something like range? I can't speak for him, but I'm pretty certain that's the implication and I agree with telson 100%. That's especially true the lower the level where the range between a good shortstop and a poor one is just tremendous.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 12, 2016 0:45:37 GMT -5
Yeah, it's a simplistic way to look at it, because there are a lot of factors out of the SS's control (pitchers' tendencies, baserunners, shifts, etc), but at the basic level, range and positioning knowledge (understanding pitchers' sequencing and hitters' approaches) are a lot more important than just not making errors. Derek Jeter was the perfect example of SS#1: poor range and positioning, but very few errors. He still missed probably 100-200 chances a year that the best in the league were getting to, costing his team literally *thousands* of outs over a 20-year career. Interesting to note, Bogaerts was near the top of MLB in TC, but also had very few errors...his numbers in both categories were similar to Simmons (he's no Andrelton Simmons, I know)...and both were well behind the TC leader, Andrus. But Bogey had a pretty damn good year all-around.
My concern with high-Fld% collegiate SS is that they often end up shifting to 2b because they lack an MLB requisite like arm strength or range that only becomes apparent as the competition improves and the game speeds up.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 12, 2016 22:50:28 GMT -5
I'm really, really hoping the Sox get an arm "on the cheap"-either a guy like Puk or Hansen somehow falls due to relatively minor injury, or Krook comes back and pitches well but not quite well enough to go top-10. Obviously, I like their BPA approach, but I'm hoping that BPA is a high-upside pitcher with enough lingering (but minor) questions that he falls out of the top-10.
|
|
|
Post by proudtoserve on Jan 14, 2016 6:17:28 GMT -5
Fld% is a pretty useless measure of defensive ability, though. Imagine a SS who gets 600 chances in a season, about 4/game. He makes 15 errors, giving him a Fld% of .975. Then imagine another SS who plays in the same number of games but gets 750 chances. He makes 30 errors, for a Fld% of .960. BUT, he made 150 more plays...so he's partially or fully responsible for 150 (the difference in TC)-15 (the difference in E)=135 more outs. I'd rather have SS #2 on my team, all other things being equal.
I understand your point about Fld% as perhaps not being the best definitive metric for defensive ability, just hoping to get the thread going, yes, absolutely you are right, but I actually never intended that the metric I throw out would be taken as the definitive measure for a Sox 38th round pick in 2013 would result in a BA 93 on their top 100 Collegiate in 2016 and a candidate for the Brett Wallace award, comprende?.....that equates to you saying that ERA does not really confirm a great pitcher at college level right? Perhaps you can give us your URZ for him, to reflect your astuteness....
EDIT--Brooks Wallace Award not Brett Wallace, Brooks Robinson George Brett (albeit 3rd basemen) infielder mix up....
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 14, 2016 11:07:45 GMT -5
A Brett Wallace Award for defense makes me smile, though.
|
|
|
Post by proudtoserve on Jan 14, 2016 14:21:51 GMT -5
A Brett Wallace Award for defense makes me smile, though.
That's hilarious....
Not sure the dude can field very well, but at least he made it to the bigs....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Wallace
|
|
|
Post by proudtoserve on Jan 31, 2016 8:58:58 GMT -5
No Sh!t. You just invented the wheel You asked who was complaining about scouting and I answered. Why did you ask then? Dear Mod/Boss, I personally do not like cursing/swearing on this site, and if you allow this, I understand your decision to allow this and I respect your decision....
Perhaps we can all disrespect our fellow members?
Some members are totally disinterested.....forgive me for being a new member, but please, if this were me (I only have 30 posts) and your members are by far more experienced than me.......
I am personally offended .....
No conversation happening between myself and others about profanity if you check, its really between you and profanity.....
Many thanks, John
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 31, 2016 9:20:40 GMT -5
We do have a no profanity rule. If you read closely, you'll note that he did not actually use profanity (he swapped out an "i" for a "!"). I understand that might not be enough for you, but we have to draw the line somewhere, and this is where we've chosen to draw it. If you would like to discuss further, please feel free to send me a private message. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 4, 2016 17:26:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 4, 2016 22:45:47 GMT -5
Thanks, that was a good read. 6'5" as a SS...but hey, if he can field the position, keep him there until he can't. Really hoping the Sox get another shot at an up-the-middle high-upside player in this draft. Either that, or one of the elite pitchers has some injury issues and slides (preferably a lefty). I do like the seeming philosophy the Sox have, which is to draft "athletes" whose positions are fairly fluid, in a good way. They're not stretching to put guys in defensive positions that are a stretch for them...if anything, they're ending up with players generally more athletic than required for their positions, who are versatile enough to move around.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Feb 16, 2016 18:47:24 GMT -5
|
|
|