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 sarasoxer on Dec 15, 2012 13:40:07 GMT -5
Certainly I understand that hitting a baseball at 93 mph and judging spin/location in less than .5 second are difficult. But you seem to be saying that there are limits to training techniques. In essence then, you feel that either a player has it or not..."the cream will rise". I find this to be the epitome of "old school" thinking. That's exactly what I'm saying. Just like no amount of weightlifting will transform Jose Iglesias into Barry Bonds, no amount of pitch charting will transform him into Kevin Youkilis. Yes, players can improve their plate discipline through training and practice, but it won't work for all players because many lack the necessary visual acuity and elite hand-eye coordination, and these are physical attributes like speed or strength that you can improve, but will find difficult to completely overhaul. You can bet the FO has spent lots of time drilling the importance of plate discipline to Iglesias and put him through many exercises meant to help him get there, and the fact that he hasn't improved much to date shouldn't be taken as an indictment on the competency of the development staff. My broader point is that given the lack of information about how the Red Sox player development staff does their work and the lack of research on how they ought to do their work, it's almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion on the subject. Moreover, the only reports we do hear are generally pretty complimentary of how the Red Sox develop players-- think about the shoulder-strengthening program and the emphasis on developing plate discipline. OK jmei good post. I think that we know that certain physical attributes are God-given and can only be modestly improved. Never a question there. We don't know what training methods the Sox use to maximize player potential, and probably this is ever evolving and proprietary in any case. But when I see the mountain of professional golf instruction and the breakdown of the swing frame by frame with analysis that (while not altering inherent physical abilities) allows a golfer to be taught and better hone skills, I am hopeful that the Sox are doing the same. Hopefully we have leapfrogged the era when coaching was a seeming retirement gig for ballplayers who wanted to maintain a good tan. Chris, the pitchers who made the negative comments about Sox coaching pre-dated new ownership and I tried to make that clear. jioh makes a very good point re Iglesias. He appears to have the physical attributes described above so it would seem that he would be an ideal candidate to develop at the plate. I just found the interesting below linked article by a ML hitting instructor citing pro baseball's difficulties teaching hitting skills: baseballtips.com/13reasons.htmlSorry for getting the discussion a bit off-target.
|
|
|
Post by pbgallag on Dec 15, 2012 13:48:49 GMT -5
So far this year the Red Sox haven't done anything to make this team competitive for a playoff spot so there is no reason to start anybody other then Iglesias at SS. I doubt he hits even 220 but what's it going to matter. Criticism is fair, but the idea that this team is incapable of competing for a wild card spot is absurd. And comments like this are somewhat pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 15, 2012 15:36:12 GMT -5
I referenced an article two posts above and thought I'd share the introduction to it. I think readers would find it very much of interest. Here is the opening.
"Prelude
Confirm the following with your player or players:
There is, for all practical purposes, no effective coaching in the minor leagues. None, nada. Yes, there is an exception here and there but generally it is hit-and mostly miss, well intentioned but off the mark, spotty, weak, and half-assed attempts at giving a player something correct that will make him better.
To fill the void of coaching in professional baseball, the "coaches" deliver management--rote drilling and evaluation reports.
The best coaching in baseball is done at the college level. Rarely, if ever, does professional coaching extend college coaching.
The player who signs out of high school will receive essentially no effective coaching for the duration of his career. Professional hitting coaches are not teachers. They are superior "talkers", i.e. bullshi**ers.
Much of the following information deals with minor league instruction. This is because the minor leagues is where all non-coaching begins. To extend the reasoning into the major leagues, simply upgrade the rank of the persons mentioned. "
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 15, 2012 17:09:33 GMT -5
... pitch recognition is actually visually recognizing the pitch and reacting, something akin to a physical skill that, sometimes, all the teaching in the world isn't going to help. This is pretty much the primary reason why you or I aren't major league baseball players... Exactly, though I'd go further and say that visual acuity is a real physical trait which, in baseball, translates clearly into a significant set of physical skills. I mentioned this a while back in the context of Jackie Bradley's seemingly mystical ability to judge a ball coming off a bat - something that I conjectured might just be related to his exceptional on-base skills. The guy may not just see the seams on a baseball coming at them, he may be able to count them. Visual acuity seems to be one of his strong suits, one that shows up both on the defensive and offensive side of his overall game. That's what gives me some hope for Iglesias. He has a few pieces of the puzzle in place. His very quick bat should allow him to drive the ball if he gets the timing down. You don't need to be a giant to get that part of it to work. Josh Reddick is a poster child for that end of it. I still can't believe a guy who's that thin can do what he does to a baseball but he does. No I don't expect Jose Iglesias to hit 32 home runs, but I do believe he could get to the point where he could drive a few balls around the park if the rest falls into place. Another part of it is reaction-time. How is he at reacting to balls off the bat? I've only watched him play a few times, and never in person so that I could focus on him and him alone. For those of you who have watched him, that should give us a clear indication about whether he has the fast-twitch stuff, a tool which he might be able to map onto his emerging pitch recognition to get the bat on the right part of the right pitch, at the right time. Given the obvious athleticism, the guy is nowhere near hopeless. It will be a matter of getting all the pieces to work together. This is still a very young player, after all. An anecdote to go with all this hot air... As long time posters are probably aware I lived in Las Vegas for quite a while, and we've re-visited the SW US many times over the years - easy to tell from my avatar. One of my co-workers retired a while back into a great gig, care-taking an old CCC camp in the mountains above Tuscon. My wife and i would visit them, hiking around the oak/pine forests that mark the margins of the Sonoran desert. Damned if she didn't see every tree lizard for ten miles around. I could have squated in those forest glades for the next thirty years and I'd still be looking for a few of them. We're not all built the same as Chris points out. I've got a feeling that Iglesias is built like a ballplayer and that his hitting skills will develop enough to make that glove shine like the desert sun.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 15, 2012 17:54:20 GMT -5
I referenced an article two posts above and thought I'd share the introduction to it. I think readers would find it very much of interest. Here is the opening. "Prelude Confirm the following with your player or players: There is, for all practical purposes, no effective coaching in the minor leagues. None, nada. Yes, there is an exception here and there but generally it is hit-and mostly miss, well intentioned but off the mark, spotty, weak, and half-assed attempts at giving a player something correct that will make him better. To fill the void of coaching in professional baseball, the "coaches" deliver management--rote drilling and evaluation reports. The best coaching in baseball is done at the college level. Rarely, if ever, does professional coaching extend college coaching. The player who signs out of high school will receive essentially no effective coaching for the duration of his career. Professional hitting coaches are not teachers. They are superior "talkers", i.e. bullshi**ers. Much of the following information deals with minor league instruction. This is because the minor leagues is where all non-coaching begins. To extend the reasoning into the major leagues, simply upgrade the rank of the persons mentioned. " So because a former coach and player said on this website advertising baseball instruction products that other methods of coaching are poor, this makes it true? Shouldn't we consider the source a bit here? Also, I don't get what his problem is with 95% of what he wrote. Of course an organization wants you to stick to the principles it is trying to run itself on. Would the Red Sox hire a guy that's going to ignore what they want him to teach and tell the players to do something completely different? That this guy doesn't get that reflects poorly on him more than anything, to me at least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 19:32:07 GMT -5
Omar Vizquel and Ozzie Smith were also bad offensively at the beginning of their careers. Vizquel hit .252 in the first five years of the bigs and Smith hit .234. I think Iglesias may be capable of putting up .230-.240 numbers at this point.
Vizquel and Smith both improved offensively and both have at least 2400 hits. Smith is a Hall of Famer and Vizquel is likely bound for the Hall as well. Smith is a career .262 batter. Vizquel is .272.
I think Iglesias will improve offensively to the point of hitting around .260-.270 with an OBP of around .330. With Gold Glove defense, that qualifies him as a starting SS. If he is durable enough and he steals a lot of bases, he could be a very good player. Probably never a Hall of Famer, but if his bat improves, a good player.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 15, 2012 21:46:23 GMT -5
I referenced an article two posts above and thought I'd share the introduction to it. I think readers would find it very much of interest. Here is the opening. "Prelude Confirm the following with your player or players: There is, for all practical purposes, no effective coaching in the minor leagues. None, nada. Yes, there is an exception here and there but generally it is hit-and mostly miss, well intentioned but off the mark, spotty, weak, and half-assed attempts at giving a player something correct that will make him better. To fill the void of coaching in professional baseball, the "coaches" deliver management--rote drilling and evaluation reports. The best coaching in baseball is done at the college level. Rarely, if ever, does professional coaching extend college coaching. The player who signs out of high school will receive essentially no effective coaching for the duration of his career. Professional hitting coaches are not teachers. They are superior "talkers", i.e. bullshi**ers. Much of the following information deals with minor league instruction. This is because the minor leagues is where all non-coaching begins. To extend the reasoning into the major leagues, simply upgrade the rank of the persons mentioned. " So because a former coach and player said on this website advertising baseball instruction products that other methods of coaching are poor, this makes it true? Shouldn't we consider the source a bit here? Also, I don't get what his problem is with 95% of what he wrote. Of course an organization wants you to stick to the principles it is trying to run itself on. Would the Red Sox hire a guy that's going to ignore what they want him to teach and tell the players to do something completely different? That this guy doesn't get that reflects poorly on him more than anything, to me at least. Chris you seem to have the mad on at the moment. I don't know what I have done to offend you but it is obviously something. I hope this doesn't come out wrong but I know that there is pressure when studying for very important exams...been there, done that, know that, felt that. I didn't offer this article as gospel but just as an interesting (to me) read. It happened to support my concerns re quality of hitting instruction. I don't know the author and am not related to him. He does speak explicitly tho and purports to have been in the trenches as a player and a coach at the ML level. Neither you or jmei have offered anything to the contrary except "faith" in the Sox system whatever that is.....which no one knows. I highlighted a sentence that you wrote that did not make any sense to me. I think that you may have written it in haste. I have done that more than once myself.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 15, 2012 22:03:57 GMT -5
Sorry about that: I'm not mad at all. Just saying that this source seems highly suspect, a guy who hasn't been involved in the game since 1999 trying to sell instructional materials, and that I didn't get what the point was that you were trying to make. I guess you weren't trying to make one, so I misunderstood. Apologies on that.
As for the sentence, my point is that he goes on throughout the whole thing that Major League farm systems only want coaches to teach their particular theories or modes of instruction, although he words it as something like "what the development coordinator wants" or something like that. Isn't that kind of the point? In reading most if it, the response in my head was almost always, "well, yeah, of course."
It's a guy on a website that's shilling instructional videos writing an article about how professional coaches are bad at instruction. Look at the intro - it's trying to appeal directly to agents of minor league players. It just reads to me as a guy who's bitter that he isn't coaching anymore trying to sell DVDs.
I'm not saying that professional baseball instruction is perfect. But if the Red Sox had a certain way they wanted to instruct their players, but then the hitting coach in, say, Greenville wanted to do something different, wouldn't you expect them to find a different hitting coach? That's basically this guy's argument about why professional baseball instruction is subpar.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 15, 2012 22:10:33 GMT -5
Neither you, nor I, nor some guy who wants to sell his coaching tips and wrote an article furthering that agenda in 1999 knows anything about how well the Boston Red Sox hitting instructors and other development staff do their jobs in 2012. As such, I think it's a pretty pointless subject to discuss. This is not something like roster construction or the draft or player promotions that we can have an intelligent debate about.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 15, 2012 22:12:04 GMT -5
So because a former coach and player said on this website advertising baseball instruction products that other methods of coaching are poor, this makes it true? Shouldn't we consider the source a bit here? The whole thing has a bit of a "your doctor is just being a tool of Big Pharma when she tells you to vaccinate your kids" vibe to it.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Dec 15, 2012 23:00:30 GMT -5
So far this year the Red Sox haven't done anything to make this team competitive for a playoff spot so there is no reason to start anybody other then Iglesias at SS. I doubt he hits even 220 but what's it going to matter. I don't see any reason to care, or worry, one bit about Iglesias offensively. Look at the other top 10 position prospects. They are all going to develop at a certain pace and see their first AAA action at age 23 or 24 (with one exception of course, who I will mention in a moment). Iglesias was forced by his elite defensive status into AAA when he was 21. The ONLY reason he was there was his defense. If he were just an average or moderately above-average SS, he'd have been allowed to develop along the same path as, say, a Marrero, and Iglesias has no better, probably slightly less, offensive tools overall than Marrero has. The comment comparing him to other elite SS who struggled offensively early in their careers is spot on -- we have no reason whatsoever to expect him to be able to hit major league pitching with any consistency until probably at least age 25. No reason to agonize over it -- it is what it is. The one exception to the offensive pace of the top position prospects is the guy at #1, of course, and Bogaerts is the exact opposite of Iglesias. His offensive tools will probably drive him to the highest level of the minors, and maybe even the majors, long before his eventual final status on the defensive side of the ball is clear. But nobody seems worried about that particular uncertainty with him, which is probably evidence #2477 that we place much more emphasis on offense than defense. Nobody that I know of is spending time agonizing about what Bogaerts is going to turn out to be defensively, but lots of people are agonizing about what Iglesias will turn out to be offensively.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Dec 16, 2012 9:41:12 GMT -5
So because a former coach and player said on this website advertising baseball instruction products that other methods of coaching are poor, this makes it true? Shouldn't we consider the source a bit here? Also, I don't get what his problem is with 95% of what he wrote. Of course an organization wants you to stick to the principles it is trying to run itself on. Would the Red Sox hire a guy that's going to ignore what they want him to teach and tell the players to do something completely different? That this guy doesn't get that reflects poorly on him more than anything, to me at least. Chris you seem to have the mad on at the moment. I don't know what I have done to offend you but it is obviously something. I hope this doesn't come out wrong but I know that there is pressure when studying for very important exams...been there, done that, know that, felt that. I didn't offer this article as gospel but just as an interesting (to me) read. It happened to support my concerns re quality of hitting instruction. I don't know the author and am not related to him. He does speak explicitly tho and purports to have been in the trenches as a player and a coach at the ML level. Neither you or jmei have offered anything to the contrary except "faith" in the Sox system whatever that is.....which no one knows. I highlighted a sentence that you wrote that did not make any sense to me. I think that you may have written it in haste. I have done that more than once myself. I agreed with what he said and had something similar to say myself but he beat me to it. The internet is full of people that can say whatever the hell they want. I always consider the souce and look for hidden agendas. That's why when I find a reliable source that I trust after checking and double checking his/her info its like gold to me.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 16, 2012 18:09:15 GMT -5
Jayson Stark @jaysonst #RedSox have some interest in Stephen Drew, sources say. Appear to see him mostly as a one-year stopgap as Iglesias & Bogaerts develop.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 16, 2012 18:28:43 GMT -5
If they can get Drew on a 1 year deal, then sure. Get Iglesias another half season + AB's in AAA, and hope to develop him into a .225+ MLB hitter. But if it's going to cost multiple years for Drew, then I'd rather bite the bullet on Iglesias as the starter, and hope he can hit .200, and try to get a mediocre backup
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2012 19:05:33 GMT -5
I'd be more concerned about the systems track record of developing pitching than offense. There is a pretty extensive list of offensive payers that this system developed or helped to develop over that last half decade or so.
I'm all about Drew on a 1 year deal. He's another guy that works the count well, has pop and grinds out ABs. When he hits the DL then you can workin Jose. Honestly, if money were right I'd give him 2 years. If it were really right then I'd go 3. But it'd have to be really tem friendy.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 16, 2012 19:13:31 GMT -5
I honestly think sending Iglesias to Triple-A again would do more hurt than good, but that's just one man's opinion. I certainly see the utility of Drew on a one-year deal.
Iglesias just strikes me as a player that's going to need the Hanley Ramirez "you're the man now" treatment to truly blossom. I'll admit the possibility that I'm dead wrong however.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 16, 2012 19:16:39 GMT -5
Stephen Drew has a two year line of .238/.313/.373. I know injuries have played a role, and some bad luck seems likely as well, but at that baseline, give me Iglesias, even hitting .190/.280/.280 or so, and his defense.
If Drew were signed as a complement to Iglesias, I'd be fine with that. He's a lefty and has some pop, after all, so he makes a more sensible backup than Ciriaco, who shares too many skills with Iglesias to be the right backup. I'm just not sure Drew's actually better than Iglesias right now, so I wouldn't want him as a "stopgap."
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 16, 2012 19:20:21 GMT -5
Jayson Stark @jaysonst #RedSox have some interest in Stephen Drew, sources say. Appear to see him mostly as a one-year stopgap as Iglesias & Bogaerts develop. Really makes sense to add another good stick to the lineup. He was coming around in September after he had recovered. Even if Iglesias takes baseball by storm in ST, good depth for a very young left side of the infield and a very injury-possible right.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 16, 2012 19:23:57 GMT -5
A 1-year deal favors both sides. He reestablishes his value and the Red Sox benefit during the season and perhaps even get a pick out of it depending on how he does since the SS market is so thin. If he does well he'll have a lot of suitors next off season.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2012 19:31:09 GMT -5
Drew at one year fits what they are trying to do. Before his injury Drew was pretty solid offensively and defensively. If you give him the year, assuming medicals check out then there is upside. I truly believe the ability is there for this team to win the division. If they don't have the balls to move on from him if its not there then don't get involved. I don't ave access to his medical reports but If the ankle is screwed then there s no point. Every year a free agent signing surprises and Drew is set up to be that guy. It's all about the ankle and he finished the year with a strong September. Worth a one year look.
I agree with Iglesias needing to be thrown into the fire at some point but I just don't think he's ready now and I bet Bogaerts catches him. If he had any real value, I'd trade him. I seriously hope they talked to Zona about him for Bauer because they gotta player back like him. I hope even more Zona wouldn't do it and it wasn't BC.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 16, 2012 19:31:51 GMT -5
If it's just one year, I'm OK with it. Iglesias probably doesn't need to spend any more time at AAA, but he'll only be 23 next season and he might need to show that he can stay healthy for a full season before the FO officially hands over the reigns.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 16, 2012 19:56:46 GMT -5
I'd rather them give Iglesias a shot at the MLB job in spring training. I don't think the SS position, whether it's Iglesias or Drew, is what is going to make the difference between the sox being a playoff contender or not. The SS bat is so far down the list of things that are going to define this season that you might as well try to assemble the best defense possible to help the pitching staff
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Dec 16, 2012 20:39:58 GMT -5
I'd rather see Igesias get a shot. I just think his glove would help the staff more than Drews hitting upgrade would help the lineup.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 16, 2012 21:05:50 GMT -5
If it's just one year, I'm OK with it. Iglesias probably doesn't need to spend any more time at AAA, but he'll only be 23 next season and he might need to show that he can stay healthy for a full season before the FO officially hands over the reigns. 23 is basically the prime of a defense-only player's career. He's only getting slower and less agile at this point. If the Red Sox get Drew, I suspect it means that they've given up on Iglesias.
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Dec 17, 2012 7:10:59 GMT -5
|
|
|