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 JackieWilsonsaid on Feb 27, 2013 9:15:31 GMT -5
The point I was trying to make is not about predicting what exact measuring tool would be used to protect rubby but the validity of innings use at all.
In the Rany Jazayerli extremely well researched grantland article, he completely rebuked innings as a tool. He mocked the Verducci effect.
Already, speculation has begun that to best utilize limited Rubby availability he may even move to the bullpen, again to limit innings.
I'm not sure what the best way would be ultimately for all pitchers to be protected from bad management but the case made in grantland is the best I've seen to date.
Simply put, if a strict pitch count of say 100 per game pitches was maintained, couldn't Rubby stay as a starter for the entire season with his performance dictating his address?
|
|
|
Post by leo on Feb 27, 2013 9:32:42 GMT -5
Personally, Barnes would come in 3rd on my list, but we are talking about 3 good prospects. The control issues don't lower their ceilings, it lowers their likelihood of getting there. Give me the two guys with better stuff (i.e. better movement and secondary pitches especially good change ups ) who've reached the upper minors over the guy with good fastball command, but no real change up. To me it's no real contest as to which guys have greater upside and probably higher floors considering where they are in the system. Right now Barnes throws a relatively flat fastball with good velocity which he commands well; a curve that has great action but isn't thrown with the same movement as his fastball and a fairly lousy change up. That's a guy who screams bust potential at AA and up. We really need to see how he does in the upper levels before putting him above Ruby and Webster and where he is now his ceiling is lower. Well said. Here's a quote by Pedro talking about Rubby: “Anything you want to do in baseball, as far as pitching, that kid has a chance,” Martinez said. “He has an opportunity to be someone special. Not just a regular player, but special. When you see someone like De La Rosa you think someone special, like a [Roger] Clemens, a Juan Marichal. You think about elite players. That’s the type of stuff he has.”And Rubby's former pitching coach: “Very few guys have that arm speed that Rubby has and still are able to start, carry innings and have a tremendous out-pitch,” said Crim. “I would say a guy like maybe Pedro Martinez.fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2013/02/23/pedro-martinez-rubby-de-la-rosa-has-chance-to-be-someone-special/Sounds like an 8 as a ceiling, not a 6. What has Barnes done/shown to warrant a higher ceiling than Rubby/Webster? In Webster's case, don't forget that he has a sick arsenal of pitches, and he started pitching in late HS. That his control isn't perfectly refined is more than understandable and part of a normal development. He has to find himself as a pitcher. Here's what Speier has to say about Webster: No one in the organization, save perhaps for Rubby De La Rosa, can match his ceiling, given the combination of a power sinker that hitters either swing and miss or smash into the ground, his outstanding changeup and two usable breaking balls (a curveball and, most notably, a slider that also can get swings and misses)And again, his former pitching coach "The type of pitcher he reminds me of -- but with better secondaries and better stuff -- is probably Derek Lowe. Just kind of imagine Derek Lowe with sharper, harder and gnarlier secondaries," said Chuck Crim, Webster's minor league pitching coach for parts of four straight years in the Dodgers system. "The sink is insane. Granted, Derek could control that sink and start it and end it where he wanted to. That takes years of experience with that type of a pitch. But there's not too many, if you look at hard sinker guys, there's not too many to compare it to. Normally guys don't throw sinkers with that kind of movement that hard. The only thing I can really compare it to is D-Lowe with better secondaries and a harder fastball.
"He's got the full mix," added Crim. "Sometimes we ran into trouble because he had so many weapons. He kind of messes himself up in games. He almost gets dizzy on what to throw at times because he has so many weapons."www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2013/02/26/unexpected-prospect-how-red-sox-pitcher-allen-
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 27, 2013 10:22:32 GMT -5
Sounds like an 8 as a ceiling, not a 6. What has Barnes done/shown to warrant a higher ceiling than Rubby/Webster? In Webster's case, don't forget that he has a sick arsenal of pitches, and he started pitching in late HS. That his control isn't perfectly refined is more than understandable and part of a normal development. He has to find himself as a pitcher. Again, specific discussion of SoxProspects grades or rankings should go in the Meta Forum, not here. We don't want to junk up these boards with semantic debates about what exactly is an '8' and what is a '6'. But please feel free to continue to discuss De La Rosa v. Webster v. Barnes. My thoughts: De La Rosa has the highest ceiling, Barnes has the highest floor, and Webster is somewhere in between. I think a lot of posters are underrating Barnes' fastball control and command. Being able to throw your fastball downhill, work the edges of the strike zone, and get swings-and-misses is a valuable skill, and having a fastball with plus velocity and good control alone guarantees most pitchers a shot at the major leagues.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Feb 27, 2013 10:35:33 GMT -5
My thoughts: De La Rosa has the highest ceiling, Barnes has the highest floor, and Webster is somewhere in between. I think a lot of posters are underrating Barnes' fastball control and command. Being able to throw your fastball downhill, work the edges of the strike zone, and get swings-and-misses is a valuable skill, and having a fastball with plus velocity and good control alone guarantees most pitchers a shot at the major leagues. I forget which pitching legend said this, but: "The best pitch is a well-located fastball."
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 27, 2013 11:19:25 GMT -5
Well, I think De La Rosa might be slightly underrated is because he is no longer RoY eligible. Since he is no longer RoY eligible, Baseball America does not care about him. Since Baseball America has set the standard on prospect analysis, no other national prospect evaluators care about him. RoY eligibility is extremely arbitrary, but once a player hits that IP or at bats cut off, he is "no longer prospect" even if he still really is a prospect. I do not think he is underrated here, just in general.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 27, 2013 12:16:05 GMT -5
IMO, there's a "shiny new toy" gloss to Webster and RDLR. Let's not forget here that every outlet outside of Keith Law (including us here on the site) has Barnes ranked higher.
The stuff for Webster and RDLR is neat, but both have had command issues that Barnes does not have at all. I don't care how good the stuff is - if you don't know where it's going, it limits your ceiling significantly.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Feb 27, 2013 13:14:28 GMT -5
I think there's something to what Chris is saying, but I think there is also some underestimating of just how good Barnes' stuff is as well. I mentioned in the Matt Barnes thread that I saw him Pitch in Norwich CT when he was with UCONN. His fastball is not just good, it's tremendous and it's more than just velocity, it has that weight to it that is hard to describe. It jumps on the hitters and as I said in the other thread, it reminded me of Papelbon's fastball in that it looks like it's 100mph and you look up at the MPH reading and it's 94mph. I thought when I was seeing him live that his curve-ball was also a dominant pitch, it was tight with a deep break and hey located it to both sides of the plate. He struck out a South Florida #4 hitter with a text book back door curve. Maybe it was the competition he was facing, but Barnes looked like a major leaguer in that college game. I think people also forget how good Barnes was in Greenville... Yes he was a college pitcher and the placing wasn't exactly conservative, but he was untouchable. He did tire towards the end of the year, but remember it was his first full year as a pro.
Webster and RDLR really are turning heads, but they also have had a more time in the pro's to polish their respective games. They're a little bit closer to being able to reach their ceilings which might make their ceilings appear higher. Basically what I am saying is that all things are not exactly equal. Maybe Barnes scouts well with the naked eye? Maybe he projects better then even his numbers indicate.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 27, 2013 13:40:00 GMT -5
... The stuff for Webster and RDLR is neat, but both have had command issues that Barnes does not have at all. I don't care how good the stuff is - if you don't know where it's going, it limits your ceiling significantly. That's the key. It's understandable that we're excited about these guys but it needs to be tempered given we're just a few days into the pre-season. It's a long time till October. Let's just see how the rest of spring-training shakes out. It's obvious that, at the very least, the Sox have re-stocked the upper levels of the system with some significant talent. An arm like De La Rosa's comes along only once in a while. Whether that arm belongs to someone who can stay healthy, learn to command the stuff, and have the stamina to pitch into later innings is going to be the issue. Webster is a different beast entirely. Lots of takeaways from the Speier story. Here are some that got my attention: "He's probably one of the best shortstops I've ever seen at the high school level," said Hall. "Of course he had arm strength. There were so many times I saw him go in the hole, catch it, be on a knee and he'd throw people out at first from his knee. He had that ability. As a hitter, he had some good power, hit it in the gaps and he was a great baserunner. He'd make all the plays. He was so valuable to us there that we didn't really like to take him off of there." He's a bit more than a pitcher. Then there's this: "He's got the full mix," added Crim. "Sometimes we ran into trouble because he had so many weapons. He kind of messes himself up in games. He almost gets dizzy on what to throw at times because he has so many weapons." That should get your attention, it certainly did mine. How many times will you read that someone has too much stuff? Given his age and his pitching maturity - he's only been at it a few years - I'm amazed he's in AAA and knocking on the ML door. That's how far that stuff has carried him. Again, gaining full control of the killer sinker will be key. That's not a given but it's sure better to have too much stuff than too little. Finally there's this: Multiple talent evaluators have identified retired six-time All-Star and 211-game winner Kevin Brown as a point of comparison for Webster, suggesting that if his command sharpens, such a dominant starter could represent the ceiling for the young pitcher. For those of you who never watched Brown, or who only remember him from the last years of his career - when he was trying to punch holes in dugout walls - let me give you my take on the guy. He was the most dominant pitcher I saw when he was in his prime, the kind of guy who brought on unexplained illness in opposing lineups. To call him over-powering doesn't begin to do justice to his stuff. Batters shaking their heads, pounding bats into the ground. That's if they were lucky enough to strikeout. Otherwise they simply dug up the infield grass, his sinker was so filthy. He was amazing. He was also a pain in the ass, and that's the biggest difference. This kid, Webster, sounds like a very nice guy, a bit shy, and somewhat taken aback by the sudden interest. He also sounds like he has a very even temperament, a real plus. All that stuff is going to have to be harnessed, and it's going to start with that sinker. I can understand Farrell's excitement, and I'm glad he, Nieves, and Pedro are around for finishing school. This should be fun.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Feb 27, 2013 13:47:26 GMT -5
De La Rosa has great stuff and already has had major league success. If he had shown last season that he was back to form after surgery (of course that didn't happen) I can't imagine ranking him below any A-ball pitcher like Barnes. It wouldn't take much for him to vault over Barnes some time this spring.
For what it's worth, SoxProspects says Barnes has average command and De La Rosa fringe-average.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Feb 27, 2013 13:57:43 GMT -5
So Ben Cherington traded a bunch of Salary and got back two main prospects, one of them has the ceiling and closest comp. of Kevin Brown? The other has the ceiling and closest comp. of Pedro Martinez? Uhh, doesn't this say a lot about the way we're thinking 6 games into spring training? I guess Barnes's ceiling is Roger Clemens and Xander's ceiling is A-rod then! And I forgot that Jackie Bradley's ceiling is probably Willy Mayes, Maggie in the globe had it right... This system is stacked!
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 27, 2013 15:32:43 GMT -5
In other news Spring Training is underway.
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Feb 27, 2013 15:40:29 GMT -5
So Ben Cherington traded a bunch of Salary and got back two main prospects, one of them has the ceiling and closest comp. of Kevin Brown? The other has the ceiling and closest comp. of Pedro Martinez? Uhh, doesn't this say a lot about the way we're thinking 6 games into spring training? I guess Barnes's ceiling is Roger Clemens and Xander's ceiling is A-rod then! And I forgot that Jackie Bradley's ceiling is probably Willy Mayes, Maggie in the globe had it right... This system is stacked! Yeah , but none of these guys makes up for the loss of Michael Olmsted! TIC
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 27, 2013 17:14:02 GMT -5
The other has the ceiling and closest comp. of Pedro Martinez? Pedro has to be on the official Do Not Comp list, right?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 27, 2013 17:34:27 GMT -5
The other has the ceiling and closest comp. of Pedro Martinez? Pedro has to be on the official Do Not Comp list, right? Along with Greg Maddux, Jamie Moyer , and Randy Johnson.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 27, 2013 17:49:49 GMT -5
Nah if you are short, Latin American and throw hard you are the next Pedro.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 27, 2013 18:43:04 GMT -5
Speaking of Juan Nieves, this may be the De La Rosa thread but it's as good a place as any to post this ESPN piece about the man who will probably be his ML pitching coach and mentor. Thoughtful guy, someone who's had a lot of what-ifs, but he seems to look forward not backward. And he has New England ties which I didn't know about.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 27, 2013 18:49:08 GMT -5
I have Rubby a bit ahead of Barnes, with Webster a shade behind Barnes, but there's really not all that much to choose from there. Barnes has really good stuff, and he commands it well. That's a great combo and overlooked by the "wow, look at that radar gun!" hysteria that pops up around really big throwers. A guy who sits 94-95 with a heavy fastball that he commands (which is Barnes) has a great foundation to build from. Hell, Mike Timlin had a quality career with basically nothing but that. And most reports indicate that Barnes's secondary stuff is developing and has a lot of promise to be solid-average to plus.
So, basically, woohoo Sox, rah rah, good pitching prospects.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 27, 2013 19:29:12 GMT -5
The only issue I really I have with Barnes has nothing to do with him. He needs to do well in AA before anyone should get too excited. Jmei, it's hard to buy his floor is higher then Ruby's when Ruby has already proved he can get major league hitters out.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 27, 2013 19:47:15 GMT -5
IMO, there's a "shiny new toy" gloss to Webster and RDLR. Let's not forget here that every outlet outside of Keith Law (including us here on the site) has Barnes ranked higher. Chris I actually think the same of prospect rankers with regards to Barnes. He's the new toy and his results are sexy, but they are against weak competition. Happens regularly. All of us did it with Stolmy and Britton just recently.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Mellen on Feb 27, 2013 21:50:56 GMT -5
For what it's worth, SoxProspects says Barnes has average command and De La Rosa fringe-average. Barnes' fastball command has scouted as solid-average, or a 55, and is written up as that. The average command you're referencing is of his curveball. Very reliable and very familiar scouting info on De La Rosa's fastball command graded it as fringe-average, or a 45. Barnes' is a full grade above De La Rosa's. That's huge. Barnes' fastball has strong arm-side movement and downward finish. It gets on the flat side when at the belt or above, but it has strong movement and life overall. Webster's fastball is very heavy and has the pure sinker rotation. His fastball moves wherever it is, but is very fat when above the top of the thighs. Neither Barnes or Webster are going to be able to consistently pitch elevated in the zone at the major league level, but most pitchers can't anyway. De La Rosa's fastball on pure velocity grades the highest. Very explosive, with hop and late life. His fastball can flat out beat hitters elevated. The need has been to throw more quality strikes with it and spot it to both sides of the plate consistently. That grades it down a bit because even a guy with excellent velocity pitching behind in the count to good big league hitters will get tagged around as a starter over the long-haul.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Feb 27, 2013 23:32:11 GMT -5
My thoughts: De La Rosa has the highest ceiling, Barnes has the highest floor, and Webster is somewhere in between. I think a lot of posters are underrating Barnes' fastball control and command. Being able to throw your fastball downhill, work the edges of the strike zone, and get swings-and-misses is a valuable skill, and having a fastball with plus velocity and good control alone guarantees most pitchers a shot at the major leagues. An example not a comparison but remember that game against us where David Price wiped the floor with us using about 98% fastballs?
|
|
|
Post by leo on Feb 27, 2013 23:49:39 GMT -5
IMO, there's a "shiny new toy" gloss to Webster and RDLR. Let's not forget here that every outlet outside of Keith Law (including us here on the site) has Barnes ranked higher. The stuff for Webster and RDLR is neat, but both have had command issues that Barnes does not have at all. I don't care how good the stuff is - if you don't know where it's going, it limits your ceiling significantly. In reply to the shiny new toy comment, I feel like that's exactly what has hyped Barnes (a high A pitcher) above Rubby and Webster. And while I can see that lack of command can limit a projection, how can it limit the ceiling when everything else is there? I would argue that learning to command an existing arsenal is easier than learning to command two new pitches, which Barnes needs to do to become a 7.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 28, 2013 7:32:55 GMT -5
But Barnes doesn't need two new pitches. His curve is good but inconsistent, and his change ... well, I've heard a bit conflicting reports on his change, ranging from "fringe-average but better than I thought" to "surprisingly solid with a change to be good." I didn't see his change, so I can't really add anything.
The point is that he needs to get consistent with his curve and improve his change. That's really not unusual for a young pitcher and is probably more likely than big improvements in overall command.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 28, 2013 8:17:16 GMT -5
The good news is we can have this discussion about 3 different guys.
Barnes just has to prove he can get more advanced hitters out. If and when he does that, then maybe I can consider him a better prospect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, Barnes just hasn't had a chance versus good competition. Fastball command may be the best attribute a pitcher can have, but its hard to tell just how effective a fastball will play when it hasn't faced appropriate competition. To Be Determined in 2013
Very important year (aren't they all though?)
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 28, 2013 14:55:38 GMT -5
IMO, there's a "shiny new toy" gloss to Webster and RDLR. Let's not forget here that every outlet outside of Keith Law (including us here on the site) has Barnes ranked higher. Chris I actually think the same of prospect rankers with regards to Barnes. He's the new toy and his results are sexy, but they are against weak competition. Happens regularly. All of us did it with Stolmy and Britton just recently. Pimentel and Britton were never Top 100 prospects. Barnes is a Top 50 prospect. Totally different situation. And as for the "ceiling" comment, I probably worded that poorly. I didn't mean their ceiling is limited, period, I meant that lacking FB command limits their ceiling more than lacking plus secondary pitches does. At least that's my opinion.
|
|
|