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 humanbeingbean on Feb 8, 2016 12:59:51 GMT -5
I couldn't find a thread on Josh already, so I made this to ask if anyone thinks Ockimey can climb the rankings a lot this season. He has an interesting power profile to me, and that's obviously a huge asset in today's game in particular. In your writeup, it says he has good athleticism at first, so he definitely seems like a decent-ceiling first baseman if the power develops accordingly. Any thoughts on him possibly rising enough to be part of the wave of talent we have in the near future?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,434
|
Post by nomar on Feb 8, 2016 14:04:28 GMT -5
He's a lottery ticket still in my opinion.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Feb 8, 2016 15:05:54 GMT -5
He's a lottery ticket still in my opinion. At Best!! He is REAL raw. Seen him a couple of times, and at the moment I don't see him developing into a top prospect. This season will certainly give us a better idea what we have.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 8, 2016 16:49:05 GMT -5
I couldn't find a thread on Josh already, so I made this to ask if anyone thinks Ockimey can climb the rankings a lot this season. He has an interesting power profile to me, and that's obviously a huge asset in today's game in particular. In your writeup, it says he has good athleticism at first, so he definitely seems like a decent-ceiling first baseman if the power develops accordingly. Any thoughts on him possibly rising enough to be part of the wave of talent we have in the near future? I like Ockimey but he won't be fast tracking anytime soon. As others have pointed out, he's pretty raw. If he does progress enough and he's got a long way to go, I'd be surprised if we saw him this decade. Guys like Moncada, Devers, Espinoza and Benintendi will be up before Ockimey ever would be - if he ever would be.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on May 13, 2016 11:42:03 GMT -5
wRC+ leaders in all of minor league baseball
1 Jake Cronenworth Rays (A) 216 2 Ryan Cordell Rangers (AA) 205 3 Austin Allen Padres (A) 205 4 Alex Bregman Astros (AA) 197 5 Brendan Rodgers Rockies (A) 195 6 Josh Ockimey Red Sox (A) 194
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 13, 2016 12:08:11 GMT -5
Ockimey is *clearly* the breakout player in the system so far (although my boy Mauricio Dubon seems to have taken a step forward, too). There's really nothing in his stats so far that's bad. K% is down, BB% is up, IsoP is great, still young ... what's not to like?
He could hit some kind of cold stretch for whatever reason, but there's nothing in his performance so far that seems like a fluke.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on May 13, 2016 13:23:29 GMT -5
Lots of analysis and discussion in the game threads on him, which the mods might want to move here if that's possible.
|
|
|
Post by SALNotes on May 13, 2016 14:16:09 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on May 13, 2016 14:57:20 GMT -5
I know there's an obvious comparison, but we should restrain ourselves. Is it really as close as advertised? Ockimey is not the same age as Mookie was three years ago; he's 11 days younger. They were both unheralded players drafted in the 5th round, but Mookie was the 172nd player taken overall while Ockimey went 164th. Mookie had a 104 wRC+ in 296 PA before he hit Greenville, but Doc Ock had a 104 wRC+ in 359 PA. We know for a fact that Mookie was a product of neuroscouting, while we're just guessing that this must be true of Ock, given that no one had heard of him and he's put up 68, 128, 194 wRC+ (so far) in his three seasons. Oh, and at this point in his Greenville season, Mookie was only hitting .229 / .409 / .417. Seriously, Mookie earned his July 8 promotion to Salem by hitting .331 / .424 / .508 from this point in the season until then. So Ock actually can cool off a bit and still earn a promotion mid-year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on May 13, 2016 15:30:49 GMT -5
He had a bad 9-game slump, where he hit .143 / .351 / .250. I said in the game threads that it's a really positive sign that he went back to killing it after just a 9 game funk. He was .323 / .447 / .645 beforehand, and in the 3 games since, he's a silly 6/9, 2 2B, 2 HR, 4 BB, 1 SO. His OBP is now higher than it was when the slump started, and the SA is within 30 points.
A breakdown of the 47 PA in the slump is informative:
11 K (9 swinging) 9 BB 8 GB (5 to 2B, 1 to SS, 1 to 1B, inf hit to 3rd -- all but 1 in the last 13 PA of the slump) 4 FB (1 to LF, 2 to CF, 1 to RF) and 2 popups (to 2B and SS --- all in the first 24 PA) 3 LD 2B (1 to each field; 2 in his FB phase and 1 in his GB phase)
That he went from 7 of 8 balls in the air in his first 5 bad games, to 6 of 7 balls on the ground in the last three, is remarkable, and certainly suggests some kind of attempted adjustment. That he continued to draw walks indicates that the problem was mechanical and not one that affected his pitch recognition. That he continued to use the whole field, except for pulling a lot of balls to 2B in his GB phase, is also, I think, a good sign.
The play-by-play:
W, Ks, Ks, 7 Kc, P4, 8, 2B (L7) Ks, W, Ks, W 9, W, 2B (L9), 3U, 8 W, Ks, Ks, Kc Ks, W, P6, 43 43, 1B (to 5), 43, W 43, 2B (L8), W, Ks 43, 63, W, Ks
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on May 13, 2016 15:45:21 GMT -5
Davenport Peak Translations leaders:
.333 Ockimey .317 Chavis .314 Moncada .303 Benintendi .290 Hernandez .284 Travis
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 14, 2016 3:41:05 GMT -5
BA Prospect Hot Sheet: 18. Josh Ockimey, 1b, Red Sox Team: low Class A Greenville (South Atlantic) Age: 20 Why He’s Here: .467/.619/1.067 (7-for-15), 4 R, 3 2B, 2 HR, 9 RBIs, 6 BB, 3 SO The Scoop: Put plainly, Ockimey hits the ball very, very hard. His power drew raves as a prep star in Philadelphia, and the 2014 fifth-rounder has continued to mash in his two seasons as a pro. His seven homers this year are tied for South Atlantic League lead, and he has improved his strikeout and walk rates dramatically this season. Ockimey leads the SAL in OPS, and he ranks among the top two in both on-base and slugging percentages. He still has to do some work to sharpen his defense, but his power will always be his trademark. (JN) Read more at www.baseballamerica.com/minors/prospect-hot-sheet-may-13/#9OyFyPxue0fmfeZJ.99
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on May 14, 2016 6:09:52 GMT -5
We know for a fact that Mookie was a product of neuroscouting, while we're just guessing that this must be true of Ock, given that no one had heard of him and he's put up 68, 128, 194 wRC+ (so far) in his three seasons Really interesting use of "we" here.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 14, 2016 6:44:41 GMT -5
We know for a fact that Mookie was a product of neuroscouting, while we're just guessing that this must be true of Ock, given that no one had heard of him and he's put up 68, 128, 194 wRC+ (so far) in his three seasons Really interesting use of "we" here. The neuroscouting aspect was pretty well documented a few years ago. There was a whole battery of tests done on Mookie. I agree with eric though that to project that to Ock is pretty much of a stretch if the projection is only based on his performance where no previous mention has been made. This of course assumes that we don't do that with all of our signings.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on May 14, 2016 8:24:44 GMT -5
We know for a fact that Mookie was a product of neuroscouting, while we're just guessing that this must be true of Ock, given that no one had heard of him and he's put up 68, 128, 194 wRC+ (so far) in his three seasons Really interesting use of "we" here. In the sense that everyone else was paying attention but you, sure, interesting to you (though of course not to anyone else). Glad to see you're man enough to admit it. Really interesting use of "we" here. The neuroscouting aspect was pretty well documented a few years ago. There was a whole battery of tests done on Mookie. I agree with eric though that to project that to Ock is pretty much of a stretch if the projection is only based on his performance where no previous mention has been made. This of course assumes that we don't do that with all of our signings. I actually was still being ironic. In fact, I think it's been implied that we do use neuroscouting on everyone. So now you have a case where the Sox were hugely higher on Ockimey than those who hadn't done neuroscouting, and what they would be high on is his innate ability to learn to hit, and so far they seem to be exceptionally correct. Which would be a more surprising story to read: that they also used neuroscouting on Ockimey, or that, despite their success with Mookie, they didn't give him any of those tests before giving him #116 slot money despite his being ranked by no scouting site?
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on May 14, 2016 8:46:37 GMT -5
Saying they did the neuroscouting thing with him (a reported fact) and saying he was a "product" of neuroscouting are two very different things. Did they draft everyone who tested well? Do we have any idea? Do you have any idea whatsoever if the neuroscouting thing is even legit (which Cherington himself wasn't willing to say)? I could just as easily say that Mookie is a product of basketball scouting.
But I was referring more to the "we're only guessing that Ockimey MUST also be." You are literally the first person I have ever seen bring it up. There is no we. And your reasoning is tenuous, at best. As if he's the first guy to ever be drafted relatively high without having much of a public profile pre-draft, or, even better, the first baseball prospect to ever learn to hit (because he cut his K-rate from awful to merely bad in A Ball) as he progressed up the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 14, 2016 9:19:44 GMT -5
I think that most rational posters who aren't just looking to be overly word picky treat neuroscouting as meaning a part of the total scouting procedure, not the only factor. . . . If I recall correctly, we did something or other that was unusual with specifically Mookie though but I might be wrong. I figure it's a valuable tool but not perfect either. For every Mookie, there's a Vitek.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on May 14, 2016 10:10:56 GMT -5
I think that most rational posters who aren't just looking to be overly word picky treat neuroscouting as meaning a part of the total scouting procedure, not the only factor. . . . If I recall correctly, we did something or other that was unusual with specifically Mookie though but I might be wrong. I figure it's a valuable tool but not perfect either. For every Mookie, there's a Vitek. Vitek was adored by conventional scouts, so he's not going to tell you much about the usefulness of the scouting tool. We want to look at guys that the Sox gave much bigger bonuses to than expected, based on conventional scouting. Those are the guys for whom you can make a very reasonable guess about neuroscouting making the difference, although we're not sure when that started. Here are guys not in BA's top 200 that we gave top 125-slot bonuses to: '07 Anthony Rizzo (104) '09 Brandon Jacobs (52) '09 Miles Head (99) '09 Jason Thompson (106) '10 Lucas LeBlanc (73) '11 Mookie Betts (50) '14 Josh Ockimey (116) Last time I looked at the MLB WAR leaders, there were only two young guys who were drafted after the first two rounds in all of MLB: Rizzo and Betts. Edit: IIRC, in the articles about Mookie it was mentioned that there have been guys who aced the test who were disappointments, that it's still a tool that they're learning to use. The thing is, if you can grab even one superstar in the fifth round, it's an amazing tool. You can add the $500K they wasted on LeBlanc, if he was another, to Mookie's bonus and still come out looking good.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 14, 2016 10:25:27 GMT -5
I don't think you can attribute just about every player the Red Sox were higher than BA on to neuroscouting, which is how I interpret your last post. I can believe that it's one factor among many, but I think it's jumping to conclusions to think that it played a significant role in their decision to draft Ockimey.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on May 14, 2016 10:36:42 GMT -5
Saying they did the neuroscouting thing with him (a reported fact) and saying he was a "product" of neuroscouting are two very different things. Did they draft everyone who tested well? Do we have any idea? Do you have any idea whatsoever if the neuroscouting thing is even legit (which Cherington himself wasn't willing to say)? I could just as easily say that Mookie is a product of basketball scouting. But I was referring more to the "we're only guessing that Ockimey MUST also be." You are literally the first person I have ever seen bring it up. There is no we. And your reasoning is tenuous, at best. As if he's the first guy to ever be drafted relatively high without having much of a public profile pre-draft, or, even better, the first baseball prospect to ever learn to hit (because he cut his K-rate from awful to merely bad in A Ball) as he progressed up the ladder. I mentioned it in the May 9 game thread. I plead guilty to thinking everyone here reads them! And nobody disagreed. As I argued with my "which would be more surprising" question, it's actually an incredibly safe bet to say that he tested well. The Sox are, right now, absolutely killing it in terms of amateur bang-for-buck. If you look at the ratio of value / talent to cost / pedigree of young players in MLB, I think it's true that Rizzo, Betts, and Bogaerts are the top three; there may be someone else I'm forgetting, but even so, there are 30 teams ... no one should have the top 3, or 3 of the top 4, under-the-radar superstar discoveries. So what might they be doing to get that edge? Well, I know personally that they placed an overwhelming emphasis on psych evaluation as far back as '05. First fruits of that? A guy who was the best player in the draft that they got with the 64 overall pick. All Jed Hoyer wanted to talk about in '05 was his makeup. Now, the other guy he raved about was Michael Bowden. So it's never a sure thing. But it can find you the superstars nobody else is aware of.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on May 14, 2016 10:48:48 GMT -5
I don't think you can attribute just about every player the Red Sox were higher than BA on to neuroscouting, which is how I interpret your last post. I can believe that it's one factor among many, but I think it's jumping to conclusions to think that it played a significant role in their decision to draft Ockimey. I did mean the list as one of possible candidates. Sorry if that was unclear. Nobody was unaware of Ockimey's existence, yet we had him much higher than people who had merely watched him hit. I think that points unquestionably at the one thing that you can't tell by watching a guy hit, which is also the one thing we know for a fact they place the greatest emphasis on: psychology and makeup. I agree, it may not have been the neuroscouting they fell in love with; he may have been just good there, but super on their work ethic and competitiveness measures, etc. ("I suspect this guy scored very high on their makeup and neuropsych evaluations" was my original claim.) But I think there's zero question that the whole psych package was really attractive, and that's why they grabbed him.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 14, 2016 11:09:04 GMT -5
There's a difference between "Jed Hoyer told me once that they care a lot about makeup" and "we know for a fact that this font office places the most emphasis on psychology and makeup" that I'm not sure you're appreciating.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 14, 2016 12:07:46 GMT -5
There's a difference between "Jed Hoyer told me once that they care a lot about makeup" and "we know for a fact that this font office places the most emphasis on psychology and makeup" that I'm not sure you're appreciating. It's not like as if that's the only reference we've seen to that emphasis. We've been pretty much hearing it since the start of Theo's tenure. Look, for example, at he meeting between Theo and Clay before he was drafted. It also seems like the Jon Denny's of the world happen a lot less frequently than to other teams.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 14, 2016 13:02:25 GMT -5
I dunno, Denney, Cody Kukuk, Drake Britton, even Michael Kopech. Again: I can believe that makeup is important to the front office, but every time a player outperforms expectations, I don't think it's fair to attribute it to makeup or psychology or neuroscouting or any other secret mojo.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on May 14, 2016 13:37:20 GMT -5
Honestly, I think the idea that "neuroscouting" is even a significant factor is a huge stretch. I'd hope that our scouts put more stock into watching Mookie barrel up a number of 90 mph baseballs rather than display some fast reaction times on computer task. As a cognitive scientist myself, I'm highly skeptical that these neuroscouting tools can do much more than say Lumosity can at improving general cognitive performance. The guys that sold their 'neuroscouting' brand are probably being paid nicely but it feels more like a marketing scheme at this point.
In other words: If you want to see if Player X has some off the charts reaction time that allows him to respond to 95 mph heat.....then see how he hits against 95 mph heat. I suppose there might be a case to make that its difficult to see high school players perform against that level of competition, and perhaps then, there could be a tool for players like Mookie and Ockimey that don't typically play at the highest level of HS tournaments. That said, I know Ockimey was evaluated at Fenway. I'm not convinced a computerized task provides any extra benefit than good scouting on a baseball field.
|
|
|