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.
Baseball America Rankings
|
Post by jmei on Feb 12, 2016 15:42:02 GMT -5
It's not just that he's short, it's that (a) velocity correlates with injury risk, regardless of quality of mechanics and (b) the farther you are from the majors, the more injury uncertainty there is because you've not yet demonstrated the ability to throw a full season's worth of innings. So would he be ranked higher if he threw less hard? I know that sounds like a ridiculous question because it's intentional. It means the fact that he throws hard comes with negatives as well as positives. It's a basic physiological connection-- the faster your arm speed, the more stress it puts on your ligaments and tendons. You see a similar dynamic with big men in the NBA-- size is a positive attribute, but it also puts more stresses on your lower half and makes you more injury-prone.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 12, 2016 15:54:03 GMT -5
It's not just that he's short, it's that (a) velocity correlates with injury risk, regardless of quality of mechanics and (b) the farther you are from the majors, the more injury uncertainty there is because you've not yet demonstrated the ability to throw a full season's worth of innings. So would he be ranked higher if he threw less hard? I know that sounds like a ridiculous question because it's intentional. No. It means he'd be ranked lower because his stuff was worse, but with less of a injury risk. Pitchers with insane stuff like Espinoza are injury risks, because of the inherent strain that stuff puts on arms. He's ranked very highly because of that stuff. Ranking 38th as a 17-year-old who just finished the GCL and got a Cup of Coffee in the SAL and most of the staff hasn't even seen yet is quite aggressive. If he goes through another year of dominance and stays healthy, he'll be in the Top 10. Given the risks for every single pitcher at his age and place in his development schedule, being a consensus Top-40 guy is outstanding. A publication pointing out the involved risks doesn't make them down on him.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 12, 2016 16:22:58 GMT -5
For the record, I have no problem withe Espinoza at 38. I just don't see the point in putting him at 38 and saying he'd be much higher if he didn't have the injury risk. All pitchers are always an injury risk. They give out contracts to pitchers that are about as long as position players now, so obviously they're worth more than they used to be, injury risk or not. Pitchers don't drop in the draft just because they're pitchers either. Why should they drop in prospect lists?
And this quote was from the article jmei posted:
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Feb 12, 2016 16:27:36 GMT -5
It would be cool if someone did their prospect ranking by trade value.
I don't really see prospects as trade chips, especially not primarily, but it'd be a new take on something that gets done every year. For example, there's no way there's 37 more valuable prospects than Espinoza despite the fact that I have no problem with him at 38.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 12, 2016 16:34:22 GMT -5
For the record, I have no problem withe Espinoza at 38. I just don't see the point in putting him at 38 and saying he'd be much higher if he didn't have the injury risk. All pitchers are always an injury risk. They give out contracts to pitchers that are about as long as position players now, so obviously they're worth more than they used to be, injury risk or not. Pitchers don't drop in the draft just because they're pitchers either. Why should they drop in prospect lists? I think his reference to injury risk is much less about the velocity contribution to risk (because those two factors are yoked, but it's the elite velocity that makes him a prospect) and more about the perception of distance from MLB. Since he's a relatively high injury risk (based on velocity), and several (or at least a couple) years away, Law is downgrading him on volatility. FWIW, I'm really tired of people (especially scouting professionals) citing a pitcher's size as an injury risk factor. I've seen at least a couple analyses, and the only statistically measurable effect is for under 6', and it's basically negligible. It's an urban legend.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 12, 2016 16:41:57 GMT -5
It would be cool if someone did their prospect ranking by trade value. I don't really see prospects as trade chips, especially not primarily, but it'd be a new take on something that gets done every year. For example, there's no way there's 37 more valuable prospects than Espinoza despite the fact that I have no problem with him at 38. Yeah and if there were a re-draft of every prospect, I bet he'd be taken in the top 10. It's strange to think about. I mean it's not like high school pitchers throwing 100 with an easy repeatable delivery with good command/control drop in the draft because they're injury risks.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 12, 2016 16:57:15 GMT -5
FWIW, I'm really tired of people (especially scouting professionals) citing a pitcher's size as an injury risk factor. I've seen at least a couple analyses, and the only statistically measurable effect is for under 6', and it's basically negligible. It's an urban legend. Selection bias-- short guys who can't stay healthy don't get drafted/make the majors/have success in the majors.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 12, 2016 17:05:25 GMT -5
It would be cool if someone did their prospect ranking by trade value. I don't really see prospects as trade chips, especially not primarily, but it'd be a new take on something that gets done every year. For example, there's no way there's 37 more valuable prospects than Espinoza despite the fact that I have no problem with him at 38. Yeah and if there were a re-draft of every prospect, I bet he'd be taken in the top 10. It's strange to think about. I mean it's not like high school pitchers throwing 100 with an easy repeatable delivery with good command/control drop in the draft because they're injury risks. In a draft of all prospects, you really think he cracks the top 10? over guys like Steven Matz or Alex Reyes or Jose Berrios? Even if you're really high on Espinoza, you have to admit that it's not unreasonable to prefer an MLB-ready guy with less ceiling. No right-handed high school pitcher has ever been taken first overall in the draft (and only a few lefties have been taken that high), and you can bet there have been some good ones over the years that are, at worst, comparable to Espinoza. Whether you buy it or not, most MLB teams do believe that young pitchers have real injury and developmental risks associated with them.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Feb 12, 2016 18:13:28 GMT -5
Yeah and if there were a re-draft of every prospect, I bet he'd be taken in the top 10. It's strange to think about. I mean it's not like high school pitchers throwing 100 with an easy repeatable delivery with good command/control drop in the draft because they're injury risks. In a draft of all prospects, you really think he cracks the top 10? over guys like Steven Matz or Alex Reyes or Jose Berrios? Even if you're really high on Espinoza, you have to admit that it's not unreasonable to prefer an MLB-ready guy with less ceiling. No right-handed high school pitcher has ever been taken first overall in the draft (and only a few lefties have been taken that high), and you can bet there have been some good ones over the years that are, at worst, comparable to Espinoza. Whether you buy it or not, most MLB teams do believe that young pitchers have real injury and developmental risks associated with them. ...or Gioloto, or Glasnow, or Urias, or Snell....and we're not even mentioning position players. Please, I hope (and believe but mainly because of BOS bias) that Espinoza will be as good as those other guys someday. But if we're drafting and I have to play the odds, I'm putting my money on the guys who have a longer track record (and whose raw stuff grades similarly) at this point.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 12, 2016 19:11:10 GMT -5
And using Urias as the obvious comparison, he was ranked 51st by BA when he was 17y, 6mo, while Espinoza is #38 at 17y, 11mo. At 17y, 10mo, Felix Hernandez was ranked #30- an he was a pretty spot-on comparison, as he'd closed the year with a Cup of Coffee in the Class A Midwest League. Espinoza is basically as high as BA will rank someone at that point on the development curve.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 12, 2016 20:19:19 GMT -5
It would be cool if someone did their prospect ranking by trade value. I don't really see prospects as trade chips, especially not primarily, but it'd be a new take on something that gets done every year. For example, there's no way there's 37 more valuable prospects than Espinoza despite the fact that I have no problem with him at 38. Yeah and if there were a re-draft of every prospect, I bet he'd be taken in the top 10. It's strange to think about. I mean it's not like high school pitchers throwing 100 with an easy repeatable delivery with good command/control drop in the draft because they're injury risks. There are no picks from the most recent draft in the top 10. Suppose Espinoza would have gone 4th. Law has Dillon Tate at #50. And yeah, there are a lot of teams who back off HS pitchers in general because they are such injury risks. They wrote a book about it and Brad Pitt starred in the movie based on it.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 12, 2016 21:29:02 GMT -5
Has show happened yet?
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Feb 12, 2016 21:35:47 GMT -5
It's on now. 19. Espinoza 18. Devers 15. Benintendi So far...
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 12, 2016 21:40:56 GMT -5
FWIW, I'm really tired of people (especially scouting professionals) citing a pitcher's size as an injury risk factor. I've seen at least a couple analyses, and the only statistically measurable effect is for under 6', and it's basically negligible. It's an urban legend. Selection bias-- short guys who can't stay healthy don't get drafted/make the majors/have success in the majors. Ehh, I don't know viable an explanation that is. Historically, injuries that are career-killers have happened later. There's no difference in MLB attrition rates historically. I'm not convinced that there's a difference in attrition prior, although it can't be ruled out without definitive study. One could likewise argue that shorter pitchers have less projection, have scouting stacked against them, and need to throw harder or have nastier stuff to get drafted/signed/developed. And since stuff pretty clearly correlates with injury risk, especially velocity, one could argue selection bias *for* higher injury risk among shorter pitchers. I've just never seen a compelling reason for the short-is-risky line of thinking. It's never been definitively **disproven**, it's true...but there's certainly more evidence to argue against the short=injury-prone than for it. Recognizing that the "it makes intuitive sense CW" is completely off is an arduous process for any institution. The medical field, for one, has been revolutionized (to an extent) by it, but there are still a ton of dinosaurs who treat dogmatically...and that's a field supposedly based on science. The difficulty is that it's chock full of huge egos too. I can imagine professional sports are, too.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 12, 2016 21:44:54 GMT -5
It's on now. 19. Espinoza 18. Devers 15. Benintendi So far... One more I think?
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Feb 12, 2016 21:45:35 GMT -5
It's on now. 19. Espinoza 18. Devers 15. Benintendi So far... One more I think? Yes. Moncada is top 3.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 12, 2016 21:47:34 GMT -5
#3, Yoan Moncada.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 12, 2016 22:40:32 GMT -5
History of our 4th best prospect, in the 14 years (out of 27) that we had four or more:
1990: 76, Mo Vaughn (68, 63, 61) 1991: 64, Greg Blosser (46, 20, 10) 1992, 86, Scott Cooper (71, 16, 9) 1995: 50, Jeff Suppan (46, 36, 22) 1996: 39 Trot Nixon (Garciaparra 36, Suppan 35, Sadler 28) 1997: 46 Chris Reistma (44, 17, 10) 2006: 77 Dustin Pedroia (54, 37, 22) 2007: 81, Daniel Bard (51, 33, 1) 2008: 64, Justin Masterson (Anderson 40, Ellsbury 13, Buchholz 4) 2010: 87, Lars Anderson (75, 24, 21) 2013: 49, Allen Webster (Barnes 40, Bradley 31, Bogaerts 8) 2014: 73, Blake Swihart (50, 40, 2) 2015: 59, Eduardo Rodriguez (44, 21, 17) 2016: 19, Anderson Espinoza (18, 15, 3)
How strong is this quartet? As listed above, only once have we ever had three guys in the top 30. And that year we had no one in the top 25. Only two other times did we have 3 in the top 40.
Four guys in the top 20? Insane.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 12, 2016 22:54:47 GMT -5
Our top 20 prospects, by year of first appearance there:
1991: Jeff McNeely (20; also 16 the next year) 1991: Mo Vaughn (10) 1992: Frankie Rodriuez (9) 1994: Trot Nixon (13) 1997: Carl Pavano (17) 1997: Nomar Garciaparra (10) 2003: Hanley Ramirez (19; also 10 in 2005) 2007: Diasuke Matsuzaka (1) 2008: Jacoby Ellsbury (13) 2008: Clay Buchholz (4) 2009: Lars Anderson (17) 2013: Xander Bogaerts (8; also 2 the next year) 2014: Blake Swihart (17)
So in 1991-1994 we had four guys in four years. In 2007 to 2009 we had four guys in three years, including at least one new guy in three straight years for the first time..
Four guys in one year. I almost typed them out just to see them on the list.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 13, 2016 1:09:01 GMT -5
And I'm going to go ahead accuse BA of Red Sox bias. They are way too high on the Red Sox top 4 prospects. Way too high.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Feb 13, 2016 5:15:49 GMT -5
Wow, 19? I think I'm gettin' the vapors.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 13, 2016 5:51:13 GMT -5
Tools and ETA.
Hit: 60. Power: 55. Speed: 65. Fielding: 60. Arm: 55. ETA: 2017. Moncada Hit: 70. Power: 55. Speed: 50. Fielding: 50. Arm: 50. ETA: 2017. Benintendi Hit: 60. Power: 60. Speed: 20. Fielding: 40. Arm: 60. ETA: 2018. Devers. Imagine if they agreed with Law on the defense (50 field and 65 or 70 arm).
Fastball: 80. Curveball: 60. Changeup: 60. Control: 60. ETA: 2018. Espinoza Fastball: 70. Curveball: 60. Changeup: 40. Control: 50. ETA: 2018. Kopech
Other pitchers with all grades 60 or better, or more than 260 total: Fastball: 60. Curveball: 60. Changeup: 60. Control: 70. ETA: 2017. Urias (4) Fastball: 80. Curveball: 70. Changeup: 55. Control: 60. ETA: 2016. Giolito (5)
Espinoza's projected tools are clearly better than Reyes, who was #7:
Fastball: 80. Curveball: 65. Changeup: 50. Control: 45. ETA: 2017. Reyes (7)
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 13, 2016 8:09:18 GMT -5
For reference, I could only find 3 pitchers in BA's history that pitched professionally in the USA at age 17 then got ranked by BA prior to their age 18 seasons.
King Felix 30 Our guy 19 Urias 10 (He was also ranked 59th after his age 16 season pitching in Mexico).
Rare turf here, not a lot of data points....
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 13, 2016 9:25:16 GMT -5
While I thought Espinoza would be lower, he's so extraordinary, I can certainly see being aggressive with him. But Benintendi is the bigger surprise to me; dropping a 70 on his hit tool is big. I didn't realize it was quite so well-regarded. That's a really high grade.
Screw it, let's shoot for 4 in the top 5 next year.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 13, 2016 9:44:41 GMT -5
While I thought Espinoza would be lower, he's so extraordinary, I can certainly see being aggressive with him. But Benintendi is the bigger surprise to me; dropping a 70 on his hit tool is big. I didn't realize it was quite so well-regarded. That's a really high grade. Screw it, let's shoot for 4 in the top 5 next year. No confidence in Kopech ? Look at the scouting grades, we've heard that his changeup was much improved at Fall Instrux.
|
|
|