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 thelavarnwayguy on Aug 4, 2014 12:41:16 GMT -5
I think it's way past time for Barnes to have a more positive thread title, i.e. a traditional thread for a guy who is still a top 6-7 prospect to me and probably higher. How can we look at this guy's last outing and not get excited? www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=35030533
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Aug 4, 2014 13:57:51 GMT -5
The last outing he had was awesome, no question, and he has some really exciting stuff, but one start doesn't wipe away a half-season of mediocrity. He'll be fine and it would be nice if he could turn a corner with this start.
Add: Thread title: only Mookie has a cool thread name
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 4, 2014 14:00:53 GMT -5
He has had several decent starts. It's just that his bad ones were pretty bad. He has given up more than 3 runs 5 times out of 18 starts this season.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 4, 2014 14:15:12 GMT -5
He may be putting it together as a starter. The FB still looked kind of flat in that video from his most recent start, but if he can locate away and in, it that won't matter too much. But at least with Barnes I've seen enough to know he can very likely be a very good back end of the bullpen guy if all else fails. Not really what you hope for from a mid-level first round pick but still a floor with upside.
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Aug 4, 2014 14:25:53 GMT -5
Consistency is one of the more important attributes for an upper-minors pitcher. He has had three consecutive strong outings (possible evidence of turning a corner), but before that (in reverse order) he went 4.2 and 6 ER, 5.0 and 1 ER, 3.1 and 4 ER, 5.2 and 2 ER, and 5.0 and 4 ER. He hasn't really been consistently bad or good so far.
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Aug 4, 2014 15:04:24 GMT -5
I remember before the season a couple of scouts and prospect list-compilers saying they would take Barnes out of the Ranaudo/Webster/RDLR bunch because his fastball will play the best in the majors. The occasional implosions by RDLR and Webster are mostly because of fastball command.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Aug 4, 2014 20:47:12 GMT -5
At the beginning of the year I thought there was a good chance the Sox would bring him up as a reliever if they were in the playoff hunt by year end. Then things went south for a while. Now he seems to be coming back some. To me, he has the potential to be the type of Ace pitcher we need. Yes, even a #1 or 2. That was a "Jake Peavey in the early years" curveball he was throwing the other day and he does get a decent downward plane and movement on his fastball. And the control isn't bad on his fastball. He has the raw material to learn a cutter or refine his curveball even if his change never really develops well. And he's a horse like Lester was a horse. A big strong guy who should have decent durability. My bet is he only gets better.
I think he is a lot closer to a stud than we are giving him credit for. It's only a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 7, 2014 17:47:55 GMT -5
I'm giving him another year of starting, before I think about moving him to the pen.
|
|
|
Post by caseytins on Aug 8, 2014 9:31:06 GMT -5
I think it will be quite interesting to see how Barnes finishes out this year. I saw him in Harrisburg last year where his fastball totally overpowered hitters the first time through the lineup. If he can show more consistency with his offspeed stuff, he will become a mid-rotation starter or better. If not, I see him being the first in line to replace Koji.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Aug 15, 2014 23:55:59 GMT -5
I couldn't find a forum for this but, Matt Barnes has been pretty good in his last 5 starts: 2-1 W-L 32.1 IP 18 H 7 R 10 BB 25 SO 1.95 ERA. They're only hitting .161/.234/.223/.457 with a .195 BAbip. He was hurt in ST and got of to a terrible start by as of late he's been pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 16, 2014 21:05:38 GMT -5
By shortening up, his ball looks like it is hitting the catchers glove.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 21, 2014 4:28:38 GMT -5
Folks may have forgotten it, but Barnes' first four starts this year were quite good. He was then awful for 10 starts (plus a good 3 IP piggybacking on a Doubront rehab start), then back to quite good for two starts, and has been been tremendous over his last four.
The numbers for the first four starts, and for his last two starts in July, are extremely similar to one another (and totally different from the awful 10 or great 4. HOC = Hardness of Contact, which is a weighted average of HR/Contact, BABIP, and XBH/Hits in Play aka XB%).
What ERA BA OBP SLG TAv GSc K% BB% HRC BABIP XB% HOC First 4 2.35 .208 .284 .273 .207 58 .174 .105 .000 .250 .313 .206 Last 2 July 3.18 .175 .277 .250 .199 57 .174 .109 .000 .212 .429 .191 This is enough to suggest that he finally fixed a mechanical flaw that had been plaguing him and killing his FB command. It seems as if the difference in the last four starts is that his curveball has suddenly become a weapon.
So, in this breakdown, I'm combining the first four starts with the two at the end of July.
First, the results:
Date G IP ERA BA OBP SLG TAv GSc 4/25 to 5/11, 7/22, 7/27 6 34.3 2.62 .197 .281 .265 .204 58 5/16 to 7/12 11 51.7 6.27 .329 .395 .475 .304 39 8/2 to 8/19 4 27.3 0.99 .140 .208 .183 .152 71 Now, much more interestingly, the components and ball-in-play percentages:
Date BFP K% BB% HRC BABIP XB% HOC GB% LD% PU% OFFB% as above 132 .174 .106 .000 .237 .348 .200 .429 .163 .082 .327 5/16 to 7/12 243 .173 .091 .034 .386 .182 .329 .453 .173 .039 .335 8/2 to 8/19 101 .238 .079 .014 .176 .083 .149 .448 .179 .179 .194 The "quite good" Barnes gave up a very high percentage of 2B and 3B, but not a lot of hits and no homers. When he went south, his K rate stayed the same and his walk rate actually improved a bit, as did his GB%. But he stopped getting popups, some of the 2Bs turned to HRs, and his BABIP skyrocketed. This is not bad luck; this is the sort of inability to prevent hard contact that is selected out, so that you don't see it in MLB.
Over the last four games he has goosed his K rate, lowered his BB rate, started getting an outrageous number of popups (almost one in five guys making contact!) and in general allowed very weak contact.
Sabermetric aside:
Note that his weakness of contact is not reflected in line drive rates -- consistent with our understanding that it is the hardness of various types of balls in play that underlies real and unexpected variations in BABIP allowed. Guys with BABIP skills don't accomplish it by limiting LD%; they limit it by getting weak line drives, weak grounders, and lazy fly balls rather than solid or hard ones.
IOW, a pitcher has a tendency to get grounders or fly balls, and we call the balls in between "line drives" regardless of how hard they are hit, although they do tend to be hit harder. And when you look at the typical distribution of launch angles for a groundball pitcher versus a flyball pitcher, the percentage of balls launched in between, the ones we call liners, just happens to be roughly the same. A guy getting hit hard is not changing the launch angles allowed, he's simply giving up harder contact at all his usual launch angles. That usually results in a slight rise in LD% simply because balls at an angle in between liner and fly ball are more likely to be subjectively scored as liners if they are hit harder. But that's a small effect that can be drowned by random noise.
So LD% is, at best, only slightly indicative of the overall hardness of contact allowed. But pitchers do have a lot of ability to affect the hardness of balls hit, at all launch angles. Those who lack this ability don't make it to MLB, resulting in a very narrow range in the skill of those who do.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 21, 2014 5:02:48 GMT -5
Folks may have forgotten it, but Barnes' first four starts this year were quite good. He was then awful for 10 starts (plus a good 3 IP piggybacking on a Doubront rehab start), then back to quite good for two starts, and has been been tremendous over his last four. The numbers for the first four starts, and for his last two starts in July, are extremely similar to one another (and totally different from the awful 10 or great 4. HOC = Hardness of Contact, which is a weighted average of HR/Contact, BABIP, and XBH/Hits in Play aka XB%). What ERA BA OBP SLG TAv GSc K% BB% HRC BABIP XB% HOC First 4 2.35 .208 .284 .273 .207 58 .174 .105 .000 .250 .313 .206 Last 2 July 3.18 .175 .277 .250 .199 57 .174 .109 .000 .212 .429 .191 This is enough to suggest that he finally fixed a mechanical flaw that had been plaguing him and killing his FB command. It seems as if the difference in the last four starts is that his curveball has suddenly become a weapon. So, in this breakdown, I'm combining the first four starts with the two at the end of July. First, the results: Date G IP ERA BA OBP SLG TAv GSc 4/25 to 5/11, 7/22, 7/27 6 34.3 2.62 .197 .281 .265 .204 58 5/16 to 7/12 11 51.7 6.27 .329 .395 .475 .304 39 8/2 to 8/19 4 27.3 0.99 .140 .208 .183 .152 71 Now, much more interestingly, the components and ball-in-play percentages: Date BFP K% BB% HRC BABIP XB% HOC GB% LD% PU% OFFB% as above 132 .174 .106 .000 .237 .348 .200 .429 .163 .082 .327 5/16 to 7/12 243 .173 .091 .034 .386 .182 .329 .453 .173 .039 .335 8/2 to 8/19 101 .238 .079 .014 .176 .083 .149 .448 .179 .179 .194 The "quite good" Barnes gave up a very high percentage of 2B and 3B, but not a lot of hits and no homers. When he went south, his K rate stayed the same and his walk rate actually improved a bit, as did his GB%. But he stopped getting popups, some of the 2Bs turned to HRs, and his BABIP skyrocketed. This is not bad luck; this is the sort of inability to prevent hard contact that is selected out, so that you don't see it in MLB. Over the last four games he has goosed his K rate, lowered his BB rate, started getting an outrageous number of popups (almost one in five guys making contact!) and in general allowed very weak contact. Sabermetric aside:
Note that his weakness of contact is not reflected in line drive rates -- consistent with our understanding that it is the hardness of various types of balls in play that underlies real and unexpected variations in BABIP allowed. Guys with BABIP skills don't accomplish it by limiting LD%; they limit it by getting weak line drives, weak grounders, and lazy fly balls rather than solid or hard ones. IOW, a pitcher has a tendency to get grounders or fly balls, and we call the balls in between "line drives" regardless of how hard they are hit, although they do tend to be hit harder. And when you look at the typical distribution of launch angles for a groundball pitcher versus a flyball pitcher, the percentage of balls launched in between, the ones we call liners, just happens to be roughly the same. A guy getting hit hard is not changing the launch angles allowed, he's simply giving up harder contact at all his usual launch angles. That usually results in a slight rise in LD% simply because balls at an angle in between liner and fly ball are more likely to be subjectively scored as liners if they are hit harder. But that's a small effect that can be drowned by random noise. So LD% is, at best, only slightly indicative of the overall hardness of contact allowed. But pitchers do have a lot of ability to affect the hardness of balls hit, at all launch angles. Those who lack this ability don't make it to MLB, resulting in a very narrow range in the skill of those who do. Are we now "Sabermetics asiding ?". That exact point was made in the Ranaudo thread but apparently the saberguys are calling it BS. Meanwhile Ranaudo keeps cruising along making DIPS and SIERA look like what it is for developing minor league pitchers. "Advanced" metrics really aren't looking good here.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 21, 2014 12:45:57 GMT -5
Look he went to UConn so let's just say he's a Boss and leave it at that.
Seriously, even though I personally think he's a closer long term, if he can continue to command the secondary pitches and keep that FB down he could match-up to that Wacha comp people were tossing around last year. Just need to see him do this consistently for another dozen-plus starts in AAA then see how it translates to the big boy league. Certainly encouraging, especially with reports that he held his FB velo and has commanded the other two pitches over his last 6 starts (for the most part).
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 23, 2014 17:26:43 GMT -5
Look he went to UConn so let's just say he's a Boss and leave it at that. Seriously, even though I personally think he's a closer long term, if he can continue to command the secondary pitches and keep that FB down he could match-up to that Wacha comp people were tossing around last year. Just need to see him do this consistently for another dozen-plus starts in AAA then see how it translates to the big boy league. Certainly encouraging, especially with reports that he held his FB velo and has commanded the other two pitches over his last 6 starts (for the most part). Excellent post. In my mind It all comes down to the secondary pitches and the last couple of starts, he did a great job of snapping off some nasty curves.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 10, 2014 3:55:45 GMT -5
Barnes threw 20 fastballs in his debut, averaging 94.6 mph with 12.3" of movement.
Were he to sustain that much movement, he would rank in the top 3% or so of MLB pitchers. Of the 466 guys I have in my spreadsheet studying FB effectiveness (totals 2013-14), only 12 have more, and all but Jake McGee throw less hard.
In terms of the combination with velocity, in my regression model for effectiveness, he'd rank 30th for the combo. But only three of the 29 guys ahead of him are SP: Nathan Eovaldi, Matt Harvey, and Gerrit Cole. All 29 guys ahead of him throw at least 96.0 (including McGee, who's second to Aroldis Chapman in this metric. The full regression model includes overall zone percentage as well; Barnes was a low 40.0%).
Oh, and of course I'm not saying his fastball is this good in terms of velocity and movement: I'm saying that if he threw this way all the time, on average, it would be this good. It's an evaluation of how good his fastball looked, in his debut. You wouldn't necessarily expect regression to the mean because scouting reports label his FB as excellent, but we don't know if this was a good night or an off night or an average one, and his velocity may have been pumped up a bit on adrenaline.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 10, 2014 4:50:33 GMT -5
I loved what I saw from Barnes last night. I always had him ranked highest of all the pitching prospects and I'm still sticking to that.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Sept 10, 2014 10:22:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by caseytins on Sept 10, 2014 11:28:35 GMT -5
Barnes threw 20 fastballs in his debut, averaging 94.6 mph with 12.3" of movement. Were he to sustain that much movement, he would rank in the top 3% or so of MLB pitchers. Of the 466 guys I have in my spreadsheet studying FB effectiveness (totals 2013-14), only 12 have more, and all but Jake McGee throw less hard. In terms of the combination with velocity, in my regression model for effectiveness, he'd rank 30th for the combo. But only three of the 29 guys ahead of him are SP: Nathan Eovaldi, Matt Harvey, and Gerrit Cole. All 29 guys ahead of him throw at least 96.0 (including McGee, who's second to Aroldis Chapman in this metric. The full regression model includes overall zone percentage as well; Barnes was a low 40.0%). Oh, and of course I'm not saying his fastball is this good in terms of velocity and movement: I'm saying that if he threw this way all the time, on average, it would be this good. It's an evaluation of how good his fastball looked, in his debut. You wouldn't necessarily expect regression to the mean because scouting reports label his FB as excellent, but we don't know if this was a good night or an off night or an average one, and his velocity may have been pumped up a bit on adrenaline. Eric, I've seen him throw a few times. The fastball he was throwing last night is not an aberration. He can dominate batters alone with that pitch (think Papelbon). I have been quite impressed with his secondary stuff of late. I made a post previously, but I think he is at worst a decent closer, with a strong #2 upside.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 10, 2014 12:47:03 GMT -5
I know there's been some comparison between Ranaudo and Barnes, but to my mind they're very different pitchers. Ranaudo is all stand-up, using his arm more than his body. The former means he leaves a lot of stuff up in the zone, the latter that he's not much of a power-pitcher. Barnes is very different, a classic drop and drive guy with a very live fastball. I'm good with casey's assessment above. He can be a top-of-the-rotation starter with additional refinement of the secondary stuff. Finally got a chance to see the changeup and it looks like it might develop into a plus pitch. He'll need better command and a better feel for the curveball going forward, however, with a tighter break and better location. The hole he dug was from just that, a lazy curve that was easy to time, one that dropped inside in relation to Vazquez' glove placement which was away from the batter. But overall this guy is the power-pitcher that Ranaudo is not, and with a lot of upside.
All this just echoes what Mellen told us when he first got a look at Barnes in the Sox' minor league system, of course. That guy is a really good scout.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Sept 10, 2014 13:57:09 GMT -5
I'd certainly like to see Barnes get a start or two over Workman, but maybe they want to just give Barnes a quick taste of potential success out of the bullpen moving into next year where he could be at the head of the line for a rotation spot if someone goes down early. He is past his innings high much like every other prospect, but he's also gotten better as the season has moved along, unlike some of the guys who are past their max and currently starting in Boston
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Sept 10, 2014 15:01:29 GMT -5
Give him a feel for things in the majors this year and shut him down over the winter ( of course ). He will go into next spring with renewed incentive to keep developing that curveball and change and maybe eventually a cutter. I'd rather see him develop a cutter as it should be easier to learn and give him enough of an overall mix to be able to start ( with his existing change and curve hopefully improving some ).
And they can give him the time he needs hopefully to keep developing. If they give him enough time, I think he will be an animal.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 10, 2014 15:39:32 GMT -5
Barnes' curve is very close to Lackey's in terms of movement and velocity: about 3 mph harder compared to most curves we've seen of late, but without about 2.5" less break. Obviously, that sort of curve can be very effective. It probably deserves its own name ("hard curve" for the time being).
Barnes, -12.8 mph relative to FB, 7.1" break. Lackey, -12.4 mph, 6.9" break. Others*, -15.6 mph, 9.5" break.
*Average of Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, Ranaudo, Workman, and Kelly.
His change is 8.6 mph slower than his FB, which is perfectly workable (a bit harder would be a bit better, much slower, like Buchholz, would be much better). I can't make any sense of change-up movement relative to effectiveness, yet. His 4.1" of drop relative to his four-seamer is average, while his 2.5" of extra armside run is a bit below average compared to the above guys with RDLR substituted for Clay (whose changeup has backwards relative run to go along with its great -12.5 mph velocity differential). My study of changeup effectiveness strongly indicated that command is a huge factor (well, duh).
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Sept 11, 2014 18:13:50 GMT -5
I'm in line with the above posts..Barnes is everything Ranaudo is not- very impressed with his stuff and ceiling. (I like Joe Kelly's stuff and Delarosa and Webster's too, if he ever commands). I've been very underwhelmed by Ranaudo in all his starts, perhaps earlier next year there is a bit more in the tank. Eric, wonderful work as always- you have statistically quantified what I've always observed- it's fun, almost artistry to observe a pitchers individual curve shape. I don't know how far you go back, but I would have been curious to know what Burt Blylevens (one of the best) curveball charted like. Mark Clear a reliever on the Redsox had a very hard looking curve, and even Goose Gossage threw a rare curveball (in between his 100 mph fastball) that looked really hard with nice shape.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Sept 11, 2014 18:43:10 GMT -5
I posted this link earlier but if you look at this game, his curveball was unhittable. And it was a great supplement to a real decent fastball the opposing team was just waving at. They weren't even fouling off these pitches. This guy can be a stud with a little more time. He has the command already, possibly the best fastball / command of the fastball situation in the system. At this point, I rather have him than Owens or any of our other pitchers. www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=35030533
|
|
|