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 raftsox on Mar 4, 2013 9:03:55 GMT -5
It appears in some people's opinion it is approaching average. That's great and encouraging. I'm pretty sure this is still a subjective opinion. If that's the case, then in my opinion I'm not at be point of there being enough evidence for me to being comfortable calling it an average pitch. We can only draw our opinions off of the evidence we have plus past experience in reading scouting reports. Here is some reading between the lines that past with it. In his own words he called it fringe-average to average. On the BP they cumulatively gave it a grade of average. Those collaboration grades are a group consensus and whether intentional or not his grade is probably bumped slightly because of some projection due to his trend. Those grades get done infrequently so they need to last a bit. The day he saw it in Salem it was average in his opinion. Again, great news. The way the report was written makes me feel the average result is more a product of his improvement rather than major league average. I'm not trying to be difficult but sorry for not being sold on the pitch, I'm extremely happy it's improved and during this conversation Chris and some others give me higher hopes on it. However, taking the next step with the pitch is huge for what he'll become as a pitcher at the next level. The Red Sox seem to agree as they are making it the point of emphasis for his development. Who knows maybe he's made great progress this offseason and by the end of April it can be considered a consistent pitch. Perhaps I'm just off on what average means and I should just refer to it as a weakness in his arsenal that needs to be improved before I can see a high level of success for him as a starter at the upper levels. Any ranking of a pitch is subjective. The only way to be objective about it is to compare it to other similar pitches in terms of velocity, horizontal and vertical movement, Zone% and oZone%, etc. And, usually with these tools rankings you're going with projection that's tempered by current limitations. In Barnes' case a 70 4F, 50-55 CV and 45-50 CH is pretty damned good. Let's compare that with new binky Webster: 60-65 4F(2F?), 60-65 CH and 5 SL. There really isn't any significant difference especially when you consider that 50+% of pitches are fastballs. Let's not forget that Barnes could start the season still in High A with a June move to AA, he has plenty of time to refine his CH and CV to be solid average pitches. (Also, a 7 fastball with command is a powerful weapon; Beckett lived off of it for a long time)
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 4, 2013 19:52:34 GMT -5
Right, and once the kid is given the chance to show his stuff in AA then we'll see how good it actually is. This discussion started off about who we prefer out of the three and I put Barnes 3rd because of the level of competition he's pitched against. Not his fault. His stuff makes him a good prospect. It's not a knock on him to feel Webster or Ruby are ahead of him. It's actually a great thing we have 3 nice young arms, two of which who seem they may be able to help at some point this year.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 4, 2013 19:54:40 GMT -5
Raft where did you get those pitch grades from?
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Mar 4, 2013 22:13:13 GMT -5
I watched on TV the most recent game in which De La Rosa pitched. His FB topped out at 96 with most FB pitches 93-95. That is, of course, still very good velocity but not the other worldly100+ plus that had been advertised and reported for his prior outing (5 pitches at 100+). Perhaps the NESN gun was aberrant from that used in the prior readings. Or maybe his arm was in recovery and in building/re-building stage. In any case, a viewer could see that he had some difficulty locating that pitch consistently....in sync with SP and other reports. His change appeared to be, on that occasion, his best offering. He did appear to throw one breaking ball at 82 mph (curve?) that froze the hitter for a strikeout. In sum, on that occasion, his secondary pitches were the key, not his FB or its velocity.
I don't know if this has significance but for all the references/comparisons to Pedro, RDLR's physique IMO resembles that of Montras or, outside of the organization, Colon, as does his delivery. He is very stocky and does not, to me, have a long, languid, smooth arm action ala Pedro. His is more of a short-armed muscled delivery. On that basis alone, I see him, at this early stage, as a power reliever rather than an innings eater/dominant SP.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 5, 2013 8:25:22 GMT -5
Sara,not saying you are wrong to project him as a reliever, but your comps are suspect in supporting your reasoning. Colon was a premier starter from 98-2005 (ages 25-32), which is the age Ruby is entering next year.
Pedro on the other hand was the opposite of the body type for a starter. In fact, th Dodgers traded him because they felt his size wouldn't allow him to start. Guys with his frame get that reliever question mark put on them almost immediately.
Ruby's secondary offerings are the key to his success as they are both excellent, especially the change. Im not sure how to wrd this but im goingo try and illistrate a point. Obviously, a fastball is the most important pitch, when determining if a guy can succeed to any degree at the major league level. A great change up is probably the bet weapons starter can have to make him reach the next level of his personal effectiveness. There are plenty of pitchers who's fastball have some flaws but theyl who it with a great change up and are really effective. Then there area lot of guys with great fastballs but no real change up who struggle as a starter. I think Beckett is a good example of this. If his curve isn't dropping in for strikes, he's screwed because he has a lousy change up. When his velocity was mid 90s+ with great command of it and te curve he more then got away with it, but everything had o be perfect.
The change up can make the margin of error much greater.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Mar 5, 2013 8:48:59 GMT -5
Raft where did you get those pitch grades from? Baseball Prospectus. Honestly, I prefer Barnes to the other two because command of a plus fastball is key for the entire game. Right now, I look at Webster and RDLR as Diasuke-esque pitchers: good to great stuff but too inconsistent to be a reliable starter.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 5, 2013 9:43:57 GMT -5
Then there area lot of guys with great fastballs but no real change up who struggle as a starter. I think Beckett is a good example of this. If his curve isn't dropping in for strikes, he's screwed because he has a lousy change up. When his velocity was mid 90s+ with great command of it and te curve he more then got away with it, but everything had o be perfect. The change up can make the margin of error much greater. There are also plenty of pitchers who don't have a great changeup but succeed with an excellent fastball, an excellent breaking ball, and another non-changeup pitch. Anecdotal examples about: Clayton Kershaw, Randy Johnson, Homer Bailey, Dan Haren, etc. All you're really saying is that a good starting pitcher really needs two good pitches and at least a fringe-average third pitch.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Mar 5, 2013 9:58:12 GMT -5
Right, and once the kid is given the chance to show his stuff in AA then we'll see how good it actually is. This discussion started off about who we prefer out of the three and I put Barnes 3rd because of the level of competition he's pitched against. Not his fault. His stuff makes him a good prospect. It's not a knock on him to feel Webster or Ruby are ahead of him. It's actually a great thing we have 3 nice young arms, two of which who seem they may be able to help at some point this year. Not to jump all over you, but You're basing your impression of Barnes off of nothing other than what you've read...correct? If you've never seen Barnes pitch all you're basing your opinion on is what you've read, and it's not even that, it's reading between the lines of what you've read. Your saying you'd place Bard 3rd of the three based on what? I don't get it?? There's a reason that Bard is so high on the soxprospects list and just about every other prospect list out there. You've never seen him pitch, but you've seen Rubby pitch... Maybe that is why you rate Rubby/Webster higher? And Saying secondary pitches are the most important thing in a pitcher's career is really really wrong. There is a reason it's called secondary stuff. Tons of pitcher's have succeeded without a change-up. I don't get where this is coming from. Fastball command is simply the most important aspect of any pitching repetoire, especially when you are talking about top/mid rotation starters and High end relievers. Unless of course you have knuckleballer.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Mar 5, 2013 14:17:35 GMT -5
I still think he could be our closer this year.Watching Bailey and Hanrahan is not very inspiring even for spring training.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 5, 2013 15:00:49 GMT -5
I'd like to start off saying, I hope no one is taking this real personal and getting fired up about this discussion.
I'm hardly the only person in the universe who likes Ruby and Webster over Barnes and those of us who feel that way are not incorrect. The same way you are not incorrect for feeling opposite. I think it's vital that we can all at least agree on that fact. I also think it's important to at least understand that preferring 2 players over Barnes is by no means an inference that there is something wrong with Barnes or that he's not a highly thought of prospect in my mind.
Hammer, you misread my post. I never said I haven't seen Barnes pitch so no that's not correct. I said a fastball is the most important pitch. I acknowledge my point was going to be hard to illustrate so I'm going to leave it at that and maybe if you re-read my post understanding that the fastball is the most important pitch then you'll feel differently about what I wrote. Perhaps you won't. All good either way, but turning the argument along the lines of I'm wrong because he's so highly rated on all the lists is ridiculous because I've acknowledged he's a very highly valued prospect. You may have them ranked 2, 3 and 4 and I have them ranked the same, but in a different order. We're talking small differences that make one prefer another. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand. There are lists out there who have Webster ahead of Barnes and Ruby isn't on most lists because he's post prospect status so it's pure speculation where he'd fall.
jmei, I am basically saying what you are stated, but Barnes doesn't have that wipe out other pitch either and to me his change-up development is the key to how good he becomes. A part of that is because I favor that pitch as a secondary offering. If he had a plus slider right now or a plus curve would I feel differently? For sure, but he doesn't.
The other piece to this is it seems the discussion has taken a turn that assumes Barnes has Greg Maddux command of his fastball. Per the Sox Prospect scouting report his command is average. It appears his control is above average, but his command is still average. Command and Control are two very different things. If you are relying on your fastball at the major league level without other plus pitches control without command can be tough.
I'll feel a lot differently about Barnes one way or another after I see him face stiffer competition. Also, I feel pretty damn good about him right now.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Mar 6, 2013 9:44:50 GMT -5
I'm just trying to understand your logic for evaluating these pitchers and more importantly their pitches. It seems to me you're looking at Barnes scouting reports and saying his change is "not close to average" based on "reading between the lines" yet taking Rubby and Webster's scouting reports (and ST hype) as gospel. It just seems like you're not being very consistent even when questioned about it.
Even here you are agreeing that fastball command is more important then change-up command, yet you are rating the pitcher with better fastball command lower based on his change-up. Your also completely dismissing Barnes' curveball simply because you think a change is a more important pitch. Most scouting reports have Barnes' curve as either already a plus pitch or a pitch that is close to rounding into a plus pitch. In fact you seem to be saying that a change-up is more important to Barnes' success then his above-average curve is. I think most scouts seem to think that Barnes' fastball/curveball combo is pretty good already and that any progress with the change is gravy.
I think when you are rating these 3 pitchers you are simply forgetting projectability when that's really all they are at this point anyway.
Don't get me wrong I love Rubby and Webster, but I think their stunning ST has glossed over a lot of the weaknesses they do have.
By the way, I don't think anyone is taking this "personally" or "getting fired-up" over prospect rating conversations.... That's exactly what this board is for.
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Jun 21, 2013 5:44:22 GMT -5
With the Closer problems that the Sox have been having. Would it make sense to try Rubby in that role? I have seen a lot of projections that is where he fits anyways. Rather than trade a ton of prospects I would like to see them try this first. It worked for Tampa with Price and he was starting again the next year.
|
|
|
Post by knuckledown on Jun 21, 2013 7:01:39 GMT -5
Long term, you could be right. But right this minute, I want something of a proven commodity, like Tazawa or Uehara. If RDLR was in the major league bullpen and already pitching in meaningful situations, I'd bite, but I think right now, this idea is a little premature.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jun 21, 2013 7:19:03 GMT -5
I know RDLR is on an innings limit so if he could hypothetically fill a role with the MLB team this year the Bullpen might make sense if he could help the team. However I (and this may be the Bard experiment still lingering in my head) just want to see them give him every chance to start.
I also think they should look within for a closer. I keep on hearing about how the Sox can't use Uehara because he needs to be used sparingly but it feels like he practically pitches all the time regardless. Either way I hope the Sox look within before trading away prospects. I'd like to see Tazawa given the chance. He hasn't had the most unhittable stuff in the pen but he has been very good and had even better control.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 21, 2013 8:07:50 GMT -5
With the Closer problems that the Sox have been having. Would it make sense to try Rubby in that role? I have seen a lot of projections that is where he fits anyways. Rather than trade a ton of prospects I would like to see them try this first. It worked for Tampa with Price and he was starting again the next year.Yeah, it also DOESN'T work for a ton of guys. Chapman, Feliz, Ogando... when you're training a guy to throw max-effort for 15 pitches, you're hurting his development as a starter. Price was in the bullpen for about 15 minutes, and even then, Madden was using him for multi-inning saves half the time. If the Sox want to bring RDLR up to pitch two and three innings out of the bullpen, that'd be great, but that would require creativity and god knows we can't allow that in a major league dugout.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 21, 2013 9:00:14 GMT -5
Long term, you could be right. But right this minute, I want something of a proven commodity, like Tazawa or Uehara. If RDLR was in the major league bullpen and already pitching in meaningful situations, I'd bite, but I think right now, this idea is a little premature. I agree with this for the moment. They don't want to work Uehara on consecutive days. I would actually try Miller in the role, then Taz. If they are still competing for a playoff spot later in the year and Bailey is not "right", I might try Rubby but I also might look for a proven closer in the trade market.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jun 21, 2013 9:20:46 GMT -5
We have 5-6 weeks until the deadline and in that time I hope Rubby will get some innings out of the pen to see what he can do. I agree that we should look at Tazawa and Miller for closer but guys like Rubby or Workman should be looked at before the deadline to decide if we need to add a bullpen arm.
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Jun 21, 2013 9:30:19 GMT -5
Trying Miller works for me I just worry about his command. Taz I thought would be an excellent choice but I did not think he looked comfortable in the closer role earlier in the year. If they tried Rubby and it worked out that would save them from losing him in the trade that they make for a proven closer anyways. If Rubby's stuff plays up in short stints you could have someone like Chapman. With Boston and Detroit both looking like they need to get a closer the price will be high to get a proven commodity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2013 9:55:52 GMT -5
Chapman is obviously a poor example. They just don't want to use him as a starter for obvious reasons, and there is no way of knowing how he would do.
Feliz and Ogando got hurt. I guess it's possible that both injuries were related to their move from the bullpen to the rotation. Do you have a logical explanation as to why such a move would increase injury risk?
As far as putting RDLR in the pen, there are some who believe that he belongs there anyways. He has a great fastball and slider, but the delivery looks very high effort. He's already torn apart his elbow once, so maybe the idea of him pitching fewer innings isn't the worst idea.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 21, 2013 10:07:13 GMT -5
You're not going to just slot Rubby into the closer role. This is a team with a number of relievers who are pitching well. Have him come up and work middle relief in late July or something if you need him, and maybe he dominates and takes the role over. But there's no reason to rush him. This isn't like a 2003, "HOLY CRAP ALL OF OUR RELIEVERS SUCK" situation for the team. They can get it figured out with who they have first.
For everyone clamoring for RDLR, but is worried about Miller putting baserunners on, I note that in Rubby's last six starts, he's walked 17 guys in 27 innings.
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Jun 21, 2013 10:49:56 GMT -5
What a disaster last years failed experiment with Bard was, sure would be nice to have him as our closer, or at the very least premier setup man right now.
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Jun 21, 2013 11:01:39 GMT -5
I agree that a number of relievers are pitching well. If Miller works fine but I think he is the last option for closer in the existing bullpen. Unless you do a closer by committee and I for one do not think that works. What I want is an "INTERNAL OPTION" to close rather than trading 2 or 3 guys to get a closer. RDLR has the stuff to close but if he has the mindset I do not know. What I do know is that getting 3 outs in the 9th is different than getting 3 outs in the 7th and that some guys can do it and some cannot.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 21, 2013 11:03:04 GMT -5
You're not going to just slot Rubby into the closer role. This is a team with a number of relievers who are pitching well. Have him come up and work middle relief in late July or something if you need him, and maybe he dominates and takes the role over. But there's no reason to rush him. This isn't like a 2003, "HOLY CRAP ALL OF OUR RELIEVERS SUCK" situation for the team. They can get it figured out with who they have first. For everyone clamoring for RDLR, but is worried about Miller putting baserunners on, I note that in Rubby's last six starts, he's walked 17 guys in 27 innings. This is why I suggested bringing him up and giving him lower leverage innings, to see how he responds. If they ultimately see him in the pen later this year, why not get the feet wet now, especially the getting up and down in consecutive nights. As great as the stuff looks, the consistency/control issues make me think the pen may be his ultimate destination. Sure there's more value in a starter, but if Bailey is hurt (or suddenly "becomes injured" with "tired arm" so he can get right on a DL stint), then why not bring RDLR up for two weeks and see how he handles it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2013 11:55:41 GMT -5
I like that idea.
It's not uncommon for TJ cases to struggle with command in their first season back. I think that will change especially if he's just airing it out for an inning. One interesting wrinkle in his statistics is that when he gets ahead of hitters, he's struck out 38% of batters faced which is something you'd expect from a guy who throws 99.
By the way Chris can you discuss Chris Martin as a possible bullpen option this year? Pros Cons etc?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 21, 2013 12:35:40 GMT -5
I think that De La Rosa can be an asset in the bullpen by the end of the season, but I think calling him now would hamper his growth as a starter which in my opinion should be the #1 priority in his development.
Of course when Pawtucket's schedule ends and as he approaches his innings limit, short stints in the bullpen - perhaps even the 8th inning if he earns it - could be a possibility.
But making him a closer right now? No, and for the reason somebody stated earlier - his control is unreliable. The thought of Andrew Miller high wire act saves makes me very queasy. At the moment I don't think it would be much better with De La Rosa.
That said, as he gets further away from TJ surgery and gains better command, I can see him one day being an effective Red Sox closer - if he doesn't cut it as a starter. But I think he needs that opportunity to start.
|
|
|