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.
Fangraphs Top 15 Red Sox Prospects
|
Post by dewey1972 on Apr 3, 2017 13:16:23 GMT -5
Eric Longenhagen's list is up. If you looked at his top 100, you know that he has Benintendi as a 65 future value and Devers as a 55.
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Apr 3, 2017 13:23:15 GMT -5
I know we all know that the system is very thin after all of Dombrowski's trades, but this list gives a way to measure just how thin it is. Longenhagen still has the Blue Jays and the AL West to do, but from the first 24 teams, the Sox, tied with the Diamondbacks, have the least number of prospects (four) with future values of 45 or higher. For comparison, 18 of the 24 teams he's done so far have 10 or more such players. And the Sox have just 15 prospects that he sees as 40 future value or higher. Again, 18 of the 24 teams have 20 or more.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 4, 2017 11:18:12 GMT -5
He actually said he would have Marco Hernandez ranked over Travis were Hernandez still rookie eligible. Also calls Travis "fringe to average-regular" at best. the 55/50 future hit/power tool range does not immediately scream "first baseman," that's for sure.
Bottom like: Huge drop after Groome in this system right now.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Apr 4, 2017 21:25:45 GMT -5
I like what I've read from soxprospects and fangraphs of Travis. I do like Hernandez too. Can't have superstars at all positions.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 4, 2017 21:57:41 GMT -5
He actually said he would have Marco Hernandez ranked over Travis were Hernandez still rookie eligible. Also calls Travis "fringe to average-regular" at best. the 55/50 future hit/power tool range does not immediately scream "first baseman," that's for sure. Bottom like: Huge drop after Groome in this system right now. He never says he'd have Hernandez over Travis. I take his note at bottom to mean that after Travis he would have Hernandez as a 45 FV player. He calls Travis a starter that will have long career and Hernandez as a super utility player.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 5, 2017 14:40:46 GMT -5
He actually said he would have Marco Hernandez ranked over Travis were Hernandez still rookie eligible. Also calls Travis "fringe to average-regular" at best. the 55/50 future hit/power tool range does not immediately scream "first baseman," that's for sure. Bottom like: Huge drop after Groome in this system right now. He never says he'd have Hernandez over Travis. I take his note at bottom to mean that after Travis he would have Hernandez as a 45 FV player. He calls Travis a starter that will have long career and Hernandez as a super utility player. Do you want a fringe to average starter to man 1st? That's is what he said. I am pretty good with an average MLB 1st baseman profile if that's what he becomes, but that's the ceiling in this evaluation, not the floor. My bad if I mis-read the Hernandez reference. It was the end of Travis' profile and not within the next one so I assumed he meant in that spot. Here is the exact excerpt: (Author’s note: This is where I’d have Marco Hernandez were he still rookie-eligible. I consider him a high-end utility man that can put the bat on the ball and play all over the place, including a fine shortstop.)
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 5, 2017 14:57:58 GMT -5
The thing about the note is he didn't put it before Travis, he put it after Travis.
You don't need an all star at every position, so yes I'm fine with Travis playing 1B. I also like Travis a lot more than he does. Have for years now. He is the exact type of player that surprises people because he's seen to have a low ceiling. All the guy does is hit, every where he has played. He has also made big strides on D. With our lineup we don't need a ton of HRs. A guy that can have a good average, get on base and hit a ton of doubles is better in my opinion than a guy with a low average that can hit some HRs.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 6, 2017 8:29:01 GMT -5
Do you want a fringe to average starter to man 1st? Why would you want a fringe-average starter to be at first base more or less than any of the other positions? If having an average to fringe-average first baseman on the cheap allows them the money to, say, keep Xander Bogaerts then yeah I'm cool with it. Brian Daubach was a fringe-average to average first baseman and they won a lot of games in 1999 and 2002 because they had the money to spend on other positions.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 6, 2017 11:34:57 GMT -5
Have people actually looked at the first baseman around baseball the last couple of years?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 6, 2017 14:00:30 GMT -5
Do you want a fringe to average starter to man 1st? Why would you want a fringe-average starter to be at first base more or less than any of the other positions? If having an average to fringe-average first baseman on the cheap allows them the money to, say, keep Xander Bogaerts then yeah I'm cool with it. Brian Daubach was a fringe-average to average first baseman and they won a lot of games in 1999 and 2002 because they had the money to spend on other positions. Strive for excellence in all things. And I did say MLB average 1st baseman is ok with me. Fringe I am not so ok with. If I'm getting fringe offense and superlative defense, let it be at catcher. Travis appears at this point to be an average defender. Remains to be seen if he can be an average offensive player. The Fangraphs evaluator posited "average" as best case. The organization seems higher on him than that.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 6, 2017 18:12:43 GMT -5
Have people actually looked at the first baseman around baseball the last couple of years? Yeah, other than Votto, Cabrera, Freeman, Rizzo, Belt, Carpenter, Encarnacion, Goldschmidt, Santana, Ramirez, Abreu, Myers, Davis, and Gonzalez, there's hardly any good hitters at the position anymore.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 6, 2017 18:16:46 GMT -5
Have people actually looked at the first baseman around baseball the last couple of years? Yeah, other than Votto, Cabrera, Freeman, Rizzo, Belt, Carpenter, Encarnacion, Goldschmidt, Santana, Ramirez, Abreu, Myers, Davis, and Gonzalez, there's hardly any good hitters at the position anymore. No sure if you're being sarcastic or not but around half the league has a pretty bad to terrible offensive first-baseman. Which kind of begs the question of what's an average regular... A handful of the guys you mentioned don't exactly light the world on fire.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 6, 2017 18:34:07 GMT -5
Yeah, other than Votto, Cabrera, Freeman, Rizzo, Belt, Carpenter, Encarnacion, Goldschmidt, Santana, Ramirez, Abreu, Myers, Davis, and Gonzalez, there's hardly any good hitters at the position anymore. No sure if you're being sarcastic or not but around half the league has a pretty bad to terrible offensive first-baseman. Which kind of begs the question of what's an average regular... A handful of the guys you mentioned don't exactly light the world on fire. You could look it up. Spoiler alert, first basemen still outhit everyone besides DHs.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 6, 2017 18:41:49 GMT -5
The point is having anything above junk at that position puts you in the top half of baseball. There are a handful of great hitting and slugging first basemen then a group of solid to good hitters followed by a bunch of crap.
Some people act like the only way to win is to have a top hitting first baseman, which just isn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 6, 2017 18:56:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 6, 2017 21:48:41 GMT -5
"We don't need great players" is an interesting coping mechanism for a weak farm system.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 6, 2017 22:01:23 GMT -5
"We don't need great players" is an interesting coping mechanism for a weak farm system. Have you looked up the war totals of the players you listed?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 6, 2017 22:28:43 GMT -5
I don't want to sound harsh here but it seems like you have something of a misunderstanding of what WAR measures. An average first baseman and an average second baseman are going to have the same WAR, but that first baseman is going to outhit the second baseman. Replacement-value offense is position adjusted. Having a 2.0 WAR 1B and a 4.0 2B is the same, value-wise as having a 4.0 WAR 1B and a 2.0 2B. Like, Adrian Gonzalez has been a better hitter in recent years than Dustin Pedroia, but Pedroia has been the superior player because the gap between him and the replacement-level second baseman is greater. This all means that the offensive bar for Travis is higher than it is for a player at another position. BUT, that also means that, if someone rates Travis as average, they mean average for a first baseman. No scout would ever rate a first baseman as potentially average if they thought he was going to hit like an average major league baseball player.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Apr 6, 2017 22:39:09 GMT -5
The point is having anything above junk at that position puts you in the top half of baseball. There are a handful of great hitting and slugging first basemen then a group of solid to good hitters followed by a bunch of crap. Some people act like the only way to win is to have a top hitting first baseman, which just isn't the case. Most first basemen can at least hit -better- than crap at other positions, so if you're gonna have fungibility at a position, it might as well be a position where it'll be easier to upgrade with 'solid to good' and where you can hide most DH-type hitters who need to move out of the outfield. An average 1B bat is still better than the average position bat at other positions. A fungible bat at 1B will still be better than at most other positions, and it's also probably easier to upgrade one way or another at any time and to 'fix' in the case of injury.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 6, 2017 22:56:35 GMT -5
"We don't need great players" is an interesting coping mechanism for a weak farm system. Have you looked up the war totals of the players you listed? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 7, 2017 0:48:53 GMT -5
I don't want to sound harsh here but it seems like you have something of a misunderstanding of what WAR measures. An average first baseman and an average second baseman are going to have the same WAR, but that first baseman is going to outhit the second baseman. Replacement-value offense is position adjusted. Having a 2.0 WAR 1B and a 4.0 2B is the same, value-wise as having a 4.0 WAR 1B and a 2.0 2B. Like, Adrian Gonzalez has been a better hitter in recent years than Dustin Pedroia, but Pedroia has been the superior player because the gap between him and the replacement-level second baseman is greater. This all means that the offensive bar for Travis is higher than it is for a player at another position. BUT, that also means that, if someone rates Travis as average, they mean average for a first baseman. No scout would ever rate a first baseman as potentially average if they thought he was going to hit like an average major league baseball player. I fully understand that. I was just trying to show an average 1B isn't what it used to be, like 10 years ago. I shouldn't have used war, but I couldn't find a list comparing 1B stats on Baseball-Reference using stats.
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on Apr 7, 2017 1:55:27 GMT -5
Its not about this "WAR" stat, it should be more about who you go to War with!
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Apr 7, 2017 2:54:27 GMT -5
I don't want to sound harsh here but it seems like you have something of a misunderstanding of what WAR measures. An average first baseman and an average second baseman are going to have the same WAR, but that first baseman is going to outhit the second baseman. Replacement-value offense is position adjusted. Having a 2.0 WAR 1B and a 4.0 2B is the same, value-wise as having a 4.0 WAR 1B and a 2.0 2B. Like, Adrian Gonzalez has been a better hitter in recent years than Dustin Pedroia, but Pedroia has been the superior player because the gap between him and the replacement-level second baseman is greater. This all means that the offensive bar for Travis is higher than it is for a player at another position. BUT, that also means that, if someone rates Travis as average, they mean average for a first baseman. No scout would ever rate a first baseman as potentially average if they thought he was going to hit like an average major league baseball player. Although I agree with your overall point, the part in bold is untrue. www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Apr 7, 2017 5:06:52 GMT -5
Its not about this "WAR" stat, it should be more about who you go to War with! Thanks Steve Lyons for chiming into the conversation. Lol
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 7, 2017 7:09:59 GMT -5
Although I agree with your overall point, the part in bold is untrue. In terms of calculations, that's right - WAR is derived based on a comparison to replacement level rather than average. In a practical sense though an "average" player at a position is going to have a WAR in the high 1's or low 2's. That will cycle through at times - there are a lot of good ones right now so there are more 2.0 WAR third baseman than there are first basemen. So yeah, on me for not communicating that quite correctly but my overall point stands.
|
|
|