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 redsox04071318champs on Sept 11, 2014 21:18:59 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. Mark Clear - yeesh - that's a name that sends shivers down my spine. He had practically no control. He had a very good 1982 season but was as bad as a reliever could be in 1983. For the younger posters think of Heathcliff Slocumb at his worst. I agree with your overall assessment of the younger pitchers. I think Owens will be head of the class and I think Barnes and De La Rosa are next in the line as far as having a shot at being a top (solid #3) of the rotation starter, although either could wind up as a closer. Beyond that I would guess that Rodriguez has the next best shot at it. Ranaudo is probably a #4. Workman should be a reliever as should Escobar. Wright is somebody that perhaps I've mistreated as an afterthought, but he could wind up an innings eater. I don't have much faith in Webster command or control and I think he'll wind up in the pen.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 12, 2014 9:03:40 GMT -5
Mark Clear's curve was ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by polarbear91 on Sept 12, 2014 10:20:27 GMT -5
The "Cleaver" it was called. Seemed to break 9 feet. No idea where it was going. Good memories.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 22, 2014 8:10:13 GMT -5
Damn! According to Nick Cafardo, Barnes is supposed to have a plus fastball, but hasn't flashed it.
It's true that his average FB velocity has dropped from 94.6 to 94.4 since I analyzed his first outing, and his movement from 12.3" to 12.2". That combination is no longer the 30th most effective out of 466 MLB pitchers; it's plummeted all the way to 41st, with all 40 still throwing harder and none having as much movement.
The only starters with better fastballs are the aforementioned Nathan Eovaldi, Matt Harvey, and Gerrit Cole; Yordani Ventura, whom I missed last time; and Garrett Richards and Steven Strasburg, who he has just slipped behind.
Of course, to cut Cafardo some slack, 94.4 mph would only rank 52nd out of the 466 pitchers in velocity, and it's hard to see actual movement.
Seriously, it is true that Bares has gotten below average results with the FB (.389 SA allowed) and has managed his 3.00 ERA, 1.96 FIP, and 3.31 SIERA because his changeup has been deadly. But is that really cause for skepticism?
|
|
|
Post by huskies15 on Sept 22, 2014 23:12:11 GMT -5
I would say the fact that his changeup has been so good is cause for excitement. We have long heard that the fastball is plus and the curve has shown plus on occassion, but the change always graded as average. I think that we may just be seeing another young guy beginning to hit the wall a bit. I think come next year if that curve finds consistency and the change looks as good as it has been in his brief look, Barnes will be a pretty damn good young guy in the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 16, 2015 20:38:52 GMT -5
Kiley isn't too high on Matt Barnes Comment From Doug Was Matt Barnes turnaround last season enough to consider him a potential 2 or 3 starter? 1:04 Kiley McDaniel: More 4/5 or setup, but most think he can start. no plus secondary is reason people don’t say 3 www.fangraphs.com/blogs/kiley-mcdaniel-fangraphs-chat-11615/
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Jan 16, 2015 21:52:42 GMT -5
Kiley isn't too high on Matt Barnes Comment From Doug Was Matt Barnes turnaround last season enough to consider him a potential 2 or 3 starter? 1:04 Kiley McDaniel: More 4/5 or setup, but most think he can start. no plus secondary is reason people don’t say 3 www.fangraphs.com/blogs/kiley-mcdaniel-fangraphs-chat-11615/I agree with Kiley. Barnes' curve is still average due to lack of consistency or command even though it improved of late.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Mar 10, 2015 10:52:36 GMT -5
Could he be a possible Closer in the making? I think he has the make up.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 10, 2015 10:57:22 GMT -5
Looks great so far in spring training, and in his short MLB stint last year. Personally I don't consider moving him to the bullpen till it's apparent he is better suited for a bullpen job, similar to what they did with Workman.
Let's not forget about the Webster past spring training scouting report that he is the best pitcher in camp when he came out throwing 99.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on Mar 10, 2015 11:02:11 GMT -5
I think he's better off starting in AAA and serving as our 6th starter for the time being. He'll definitely have the opportunity to impress via spot starts/injuries.
If he ever figured out his change, he could be a beast. I would definitely give him time. I always liked him more than Webster and certainly Workman.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Mar 10, 2015 18:14:13 GMT -5
Could he be a closer? Yes. He has the stuff.
But he also has a chance to be a very successful starter in the bigs. I hope they give him at least 2 more seasons as a starter to see if he could actually be a good starter with the big club. We've got plenty of pen arms, there is no rush to move him there.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Mar 10, 2015 21:48:48 GMT -5
Could he be a closer? Yes. He has the stuff. But he also has a chance to be a very successful starter in the bigs. I hope they give him at least 2 more seasons as a starter to see if he could actually be a good starter with the big club. We've got plenty of pen arms, there is no rush to move him there. I would give him only this year to stick as a starter, and in fact, unless he looks like our 6th starter by June/July, I'd seriously consider converting him to the Boston bullpen if the situation should arise. Although I agree with parts of the Sox philosophy to keep our prospects as starters for the long term, I also think they are resistant to a point where we aren't developing any homegrown bullpen guys. Tazawa is only current homegrown player in the bullpen, and perhaps Workman will make that cut too. Does anyone wonder if Ranaudo had been converted to the bullpen, if he may have been an equally effective option as Robbie Ross but cheaper with more years of control? Looking ahead to next year we have Miley, Kelly, and potentially Buchholz under contract. I would wager that at most there is an opportunity for two of the current Pawsox six (Barnes, Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson, Wright, & Escobar) to join the starting rotation. With Mujica coming off the books after this year, and Uehara and Tazawa after 2016, I'd really like to see some of our guys develop into late inning relief. I'm not a fan of paying a premium for a closer. If Barnes appears to be the guy who might benefit the most from moving to the 'pen, then so be it. I'd be all for it honestly. I'm not necessarily saying Barnes needs to be that guy, but I think the sox need to evaluate the Pawsox six and consider which two might see better results as relief options in the longterm.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Mar 11, 2015 0:51:27 GMT -5
Given that Barnes was just recently put on the 40 man, I'd tend to give him 1.5-2 years as a starter before a transition to the pen if necessary. Obviously if he craps the bed as a starter this year, they probably flip him sooner, but I don't really think that's going to happen. I've always been really high on him, and think he would have gotten more opportunities in Boston if he hadn't run into an injury right near the start of ST.
It could also be interesting how they handle it based ont he fact that Owens and Rodriguez are in similar positions with similar ceilings. Then guys like Johnson who probably have a higher floor
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 11, 2015 7:59:10 GMT -5
Could he be a closer? Yes. He has the stuff. But he also has a chance to be a very successful starter in the bigs. I hope they give him at least 2 more seasons as a starter to see if he could actually be a good starter with the big club. We've got plenty of pen arms, there is no rush to move him there. I would give him only this year to stick as a starter, and in fact, unless he looks like our 6th starter by June/July, I'd seriously consider converting him to the Boston bullpen if the situation should arise. Although I agree with parts of the Sox philosophy to keep our prospects as starters for the long term, I also think they are resistant to a point where we aren't developing any homegrown bullpen guys. Tazawa is only current homegrown player in the bullpen, and perhaps Workman will make that cut too. Does anyone wonder if Ranaudo had been converted to the bullpen, if he may have been an equally effective option as Robbie Ross but cheaper with more years of control? Looking ahead to next year we have Miley, Kelly, and potentially Buchholz under contract. I would wager that at most there is an opportunity for two of the current Pawsox six (Barnes, Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson, Wright, & Escobar) to join the starting rotation. With Mujica coming off the books after this year, and Uehara and Tazawa after 2016, I'd really like to see some of our guys develop into late inning relief. I'm not a fan of paying a premium for a closer. If Barnes appears to be the guy who might benefit the most from moving to the 'pen, then so be it. I'd be all for it honestly. I'm not necessarily saying Barnes needs to be that guy, but I think the sox need to evaluate the Pawsox six and consider which two might see better results as relief options in the longterm. Given the difference in cost between a starting pitcher and a reliever, it makes perfect sense. We don't need homegrown relief pitchers. We need homegrown starters. So does every other team. Any team in the league who values one of these prospects as a potential starter will value them more than we would as a relief pitcher. That's why we traded RDLR and Webster, who both would have been decent and possibly elite in the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 11, 2015 8:42:28 GMT -5
You can do both. He can start for the first 4 months or so and if the need arises in he rotation in Boston and he can fill it great. If not, then he can be s reliever in August/September/October then start again next year.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Mar 11, 2015 11:46:55 GMT -5
I would give him only this year to stick as a starter, and in fact, unless he looks like our 6th starter by June/July, I'd seriously consider converting him to the Boston bullpen if the situation should arise. Although I agree with parts of the Sox philosophy to keep our prospects as starters for the long term, I also think they are resistant to a point where we aren't developing any homegrown bullpen guys. Tazawa is only current homegrown player in the bullpen, and perhaps Workman will make that cut too. Does anyone wonder if Ranaudo had been converted to the bullpen, if he may have been an equally effective option as Robbie Ross but cheaper with more years of control? Looking ahead to next year we have Miley, Kelly, and potentially Buchholz under contract. I would wager that at most there is an opportunity for two of the current Pawsox six (Barnes, Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson, Wright, & Escobar) to join the starting rotation. With Mujica coming off the books after this year, and Uehara and Tazawa after 2016, I'd really like to see some of our guys develop into late inning relief. I'm not a fan of paying a premium for a closer. If Barnes appears to be the guy who might benefit the most from moving to the 'pen, then so be it. I'd be all for it honestly. I'm not necessarily saying Barnes needs to be that guy, but I think the sox need to evaluate the Pawsox six and consider which two might see better results as relief options in the longterm. Given the difference in cost between a starting pitcher and a reliever, it makes perfect sense. We don't need homegrown relief pitchers. We need homegrown starters. So does every other team. Any team in the league who values one of these prospects as a potential starter will value them more than we would as a relief pitcher. That's why we traded RDLR and Webster, who both would have been decent and possibly elite in the bullpen. I'd argue that we need both homegrown starters and relief pitchers though. I think hitting the free agent and trade market for your 6th and 7th inning options is affordable, but I'm not a fan of paying top dollar for backend help, especially paying the premium for guys with "closer experience." I don't think thats the best use of financial resources. My overall point is that given the glut of talented pitching prospects at Triple-A, it would be beneficial if these guys eventually contributed to both the rotation and the bullpen (I'm not suggesting immediately, but maybe as early as midseason or certainly next year). I also agree with the last poster's point that this can be done in combination, for example perhaps Barnes helps the Boston bullpen down the stretch this season while getting another chance to start next year. This will depend on the scenarios that emerge. I see your point that if other teams value our players as potential starters then we should be able to get that value back in a trade. I think thats rarely the case though. If Ranaudo is valued as a starter, why did we get back fewer and more expensive seasons of a relief pitcher? I understand De La Rosa and Webster are starting for AZ, but it took both of them to bring back only three controlled seasons of mid-tier although relatively proven starter. I'm not entirely convinced the value being brought from these players is greater than the potential value they could bring to our own team as cost-controlled relievers. Its debatable though for sure.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Mar 11, 2015 20:20:26 GMT -5
Barnes fastball can sometimes be flat and grab too much white. That is when I have seen him get whacked.
So far this spring he has looked pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 12, 2015 19:29:56 GMT -5
Barnes fastball can sometimes be flat and grab too much white. That is when I have seen him get whacked. So far this spring he has looked pretty good. He definitely seems to have outings where his fastball doesn't change planes much. I think that's his major issue: while both his curve and change can flash plus, they're not consistent enough to be fall-back pitches. So when his FB isn't spinning and missing bats, he has nowhere else to go. And when he can't command it, he gets rocked. Still, both the curve and change have improved a good bit. He's always gotten a lot of whiffs with the FB, which bodes well especially if the curve improves. High-spin FBs by Pitch F/X data (4-seam) tend to generate a lot of misses, and combined with a good CB spin make the CB very hard to differentiate. I have a hard time getting behind Barnes moving to the 'pen (at least permanently) so soon. As a NE pitcher, you've gotta figure his development is running a little slow, and the improvement in his secondaries seems to reflect that. You def can't teach 95-97 like he was hitting his last outing. Inconsistency is the only thing keeping him from having two plus- secondaries to go with a FB that's looking plus-plus when he commands it. His movement/velocity combo when the FB is on is nasty.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Mar 12, 2015 21:00:27 GMT -5
Barnes fastball can sometimes be flat and grab too much white. That is when I have seen him get whacked. So far this spring he has looked pretty good. He definitely seems to have outings where his fastball doesn't change planes much. I think that's his major issue: while both his curve and change can flash plus, they're not consistent enough to be fall-back pitches. So when his FB isn't spinning and missing bats, he has nowhere else to go. And when he can't command it, he gets rocked. Still, both the curve and change have improved a good bit. He's always gotten a lot of whiffs with the FB, which bodes well especially if the curve improves. High-spin FBs by Pitch F/X data (4-seam) tend to generate a lot of misses, and combined with a good CB spin make the CB very hard to differentiate. I have a hard time getting behind Barnes moving to the 'pen (at least permanently) so soon. As a NE pitcher, you've gotta figure his development is running a little slow, and the improvement in his secondaries seems to reflect that. You def can't teach 95-97 like he was hitting his last outing. Inconsistency is the only thing keeping him from having two plus- secondaries to go with a FB that's looking plus-plus when he commands it. His movement/velocity combo when the FB is on is nasty. I can not wait to see if his secondary pitches have improved. But I agree, we should not be so quick to send him to the pen, he could be a very valuable asset as a starting pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 12, 2015 22:49:02 GMT -5
He definitely seems to have outings where his fastball doesn't change planes much. I think that's his major issue: while both his curve and change can flash plus, they're not consistent enough to be fall-back pitches. So when his FB isn't spinning and missing bats, he has nowhere else to go. And when he can't command it, he gets rocked. Still, both the curve and change have improved a good bit. He's always gotten a lot of whiffs with the FB, which bodes well especially if the curve improves. High-spin FBs by Pitch F/X data (4-seam) tend to generate a lot of misses, and combined with a good CB spin make the CB very hard to differentiate. I have a hard time getting behind Barnes moving to the 'pen (at least permanently) so soon. As a NE pitcher, you've gotta figure his development is running a little slow, and the improvement in his secondaries seems to reflect that. You def can't teach 95-97 like he was hitting his last outing. Inconsistency is the only thing keeping him from having two plus- secondaries to go with a FB that's looking plus-plus when he commands it. His movement/velocity combo when the FB is on is nasty. I can not wait to see if his secondary pitches have improved. But I agree, we should not be so quick to send him to the pen, he could be a very valuable asset as a starting pitcher. Agreed. I think the most encouraging thing is that he basically spent each of the last two years working on each of those two pitches ('13-CB, '14-CH), at least as far as what I've read re: the Sox' coaching goals for him, and they've both improved significantly. There's an earlier post with a video link that shows a *nasty* 11-7 hard curve, and his CH looked good at the end of last season. He clearly has a ways to go in terms of consistency, but everything I've read and seen shows a smooth, relatively compact delivery, which bodes well for improved command. Given that he put together a clinic for kids in Newtown, CT after the horrible shooting there, he seems like a really stand-up guy too. That says a lot about his potential to succeed in the long run. He's fairly tall, and he's a plant-and-drive guy, so his release point is close to the plate, making his FB appear a little faster. And again, he has an *excellent* FB in terms of velocity-movement...which you really can't teach. His high swing-and-miss rates throughout his career on the FB really leave me feeling that, at this point, command (reps, reps, and more reps) is the only thing keeping him from being a successful MLB starter. I think he's a guy who will really benefit from pitching to Vazquez...he can trust his stuff (natural movement) and know he'll still get a fair number of borderline pitches. If he can learn to work the edges without trying to be too fine, I think he's a #3 with 2 or even 1a potential. His FB is legitimately ace-caliber when he commands it. I'm excited to see him pitch this year...certainly he's a guy who will get called on early if anyone in the rotation gets injured or flounders.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 15, 2015 21:14:07 GMT -5
Barnes fastball can sometimes be flat and grab too much white. That is when I have seen him get whacked. So far this spring he has looked pretty good. Fixed it for you. Barnes had the most FB movement last year on 9/13 at KC (10.9") and gave up 2 LD on 3 balls in play, easily his worst outing in that regard. His next outing, he had his least movement (10.0") and it was the only one where he didn't give up a line drive. Human eyes can't see "flat," and the minor variations in FB movement from outing to outing that do happen are essentially meaningless.
|
|
|