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 Smittyw on Sept 23, 2020 13:28:29 GMT -5
Is it not completely crazy to liken Noah Song to a #1 overall draft pick? That throws every other claim there into doubt for me; I'm just not sure Gammons is a reliable narrator here. Someone pop Gammo with the nerf gun.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 23, 2020 14:28:06 GMT -5
Is it not completely crazy to liken Noah Song to a #1 overall draft pick? That throws every other claim there into doubt for me; I'm just not sure Gammons is a reliable narrator here. I think he's saying if you know Song is back and pitching and he has retained all of his stuff, he's the equivalent of bringing in a top 5 or 10 pick. I think that's a bit aggressive but it's not crazy. Song is ranked as the 5th-best prospect in the system here despite the fact that he's in the middle of missing two years entirely. We don't even know if he's throwing a baseball at all. When he comes back, if he's dealing like he showed he's potentially able in say, High A, it's not out of the question for his stock to absolutely skyrocket overnight. Hm. So if he pitches at his near-term ceiling after two years off, then it wouldn't be crazy to call that equivalent to what you could get in the 5-10 range, which is almost what Gammons said when he compared him to an overall #1 pick. I guess I wouldn't object to that conditional statement... for whatever it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Sept 23, 2020 14:43:17 GMT -5
Or to simplify, the talent level discrepancy between Noah Song and Kumar Rocker/Jack Leiter is marginal based on current industry evaluations.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 23, 2020 14:48:59 GMT -5
Yeah, basically that.
Song would've been a late first-round, early second-round pick if not for the service commitment and related uncertainty. Then he came out and looked phenomenal, including showing a changeup that is potentially above average that he barely threw in college because he didn't need it. It's very aggressive to compare him to Rocker and Leiter if he were to come back the same, but I don't think it's crazy.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 23, 2020 15:04:45 GMT -5
Yeah, basically that. Song would've been a late first-round, early second-round pick if not for the service commitment and related uncertainty. Then he came out and looked phenomenal, including showing a changeup that is potentially above average that he barely threw in college because he didn't need it. It's very aggressive to compare him to Rocker and Leiter if he were to come back the same, but I don't think it's crazy. Chris is on a tear today with info rich answers. Zoom meeting? Asking cause I am getting through one reading them!
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 23, 2020 15:14:14 GMT -5
Yeah, basically that. Song would've been a late first-round, early second-round pick if not for the service commitment and related uncertainty. Then he came out and looked phenomenal, including showing a changeup that is potentially above average that he barely threw in college because he didn't need it. It's very aggressive to compare him to Rocker and Leiter if he were to come back the same, but I don't think it's crazy. Okay, I'll relent. But out of curiosity, where (roughly speaking) would Rocker/Leiter rank in the system if the Sox drafted them tomorrow? Where would they rank nationally? I would think higher than #5 and in the 100-200 range, respectively.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 23, 2020 16:09:56 GMT -5
Just for the sake of comparison Sox Prospects currently has:
Song: "Has the potential to develop into a number three or four starter." That to me is not very exciting. His ceiling is a #3 or #4 starter. How good is the MLB average #3 or #4 starter ? I'd guess something like a 4.30 ERA with 12 wins.
Groome: "Potential back-end starter with the ceiling of a high-end number two" High end #2 is a nice thought.
Mata: "Projects as a back-end starter, but delivery and command profile could ultimately push him to the bullpen" That's almost depressing. His ceiling is a back end starter. He'd be another Brian Johnson or Jordon Montgomery. But a good chance he isn't even that good.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 23, 2020 16:36:10 GMT -5
Just for the sake of comparison Sox Prospects currently has: Song: "Has the potential to develop into a number three or four starter." That to me is not very exciting. His ceiling is a #3 or #4 starter. How good is the MLB average #3 or #4 starter ? I'd guess something like a 4.30 ERA with 12 wins. Groome: "Potential back-end starter with the ceiling of a high-end number two" High end #2 is a nice thought. Mata: "Projects as a back-end starter, but delivery and command profile could ultimately push him to the bullpen" That's almost depressing. His ceiling is a back end starter. He'd be another Brian Johnson or Jordon Montgomery. But a good chance he isn't even that good. Thanks. That's what I recall reading about Song. So when I hear potential mid-rotation starter versus Kumar who could be top of the rotation - he's a concensus #1 draft pick - that's why thinking of them as near equals seemed incongruous to me. And that's why I also had thought of Groome as having a higher ceiling than Song although I think you can make an argument for Song being more likely to reach his ceiling than Groome although that's a different argument.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 23, 2020 16:48:08 GMT -5
Yeah, basically that. Song would've been a late first-round, early second-round pick if not for the service commitment and related uncertainty. Then he came out and looked phenomenal, including showing a changeup that is potentially above average that he barely threw in college because he didn't need it. It's very aggressive to compare him to Rocker and Leiter if he were to come back the same, but I don't think it's crazy. Okay, I'll relent. But out of curiosity, where (roughly speaking) would Rocker/Leiter rank in the system if the Sox drafted them tomorrow? Where would they rank nationally? I would think higher than #5 and in the 100-200 range, respectively. Either would be the top prospect in the system and a top 50 prospect. To be clear, I'm not agreeing with Gammons at all! Sorry if I gave that impression. I do think the point is overly aggressive. I just don't think it's "Edgar Martinez is a future all-star closer" crazy, which is probably the point I was trying to make. Again, sorry for the confusion. I agree that the point is wrong. Just trying to explain what I take him as trying to say and point out that Song is still a huge question mark with an incredibly wide range of incomes for a guy who looked so good in Lowell.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 23, 2020 16:49:10 GMT -5
Just for the sake of comparison Sox Prospects currently has: Song: "Has the potential to develop into a number three or four starter." That to me is not very exciting. His ceiling is a #3 or #4 starter. How good is the MLB average #3 or #4 starter ? I'd guess something like a 4.30 ERA with 12 wins. Groome: "Potential back-end starter with the ceiling of a high-end number two" High end #2 is a nice thought. Mata: "Projects as a back-end starter, but delivery and command profile could ultimately push him to the bullpen" That's almost depressing. His ceiling is a back end starter. He'd be another Brian Johnson or Jordon Montgomery. But a good chance he isn't even that good. Thanks. That's what I recall reading about Song. So when I hear potential mid-rotation starter versus Kumar who could be top of the rotation - he's a concensus #1 draft pick - that's why thinking of them as near equals seemed incongruous to me. And that's why I also had thought of Groome as having a higher ceiling than Song although I think you can make an argument for Song being more likely to reach his ceiling than Groome although that's a different argument. Again, I am not as up on this but is *projects* the same as ceiling? In Mata’s case, I am happy if he is a 4th starter (at least to a degree).. Hey, we made a real starter! But I dream on him being a bit better. I guess I wonder to the writers if we can take “projects” as a realistic, as-things-stand-with-some-reasonable-development positioning. And ceiling would be, wow, everythibg worked out as well as can be? I guess I bet there are a number of pitchers who could have ceilings of 1 or 2, but everything would have to break so right it is barely worth talking about? If Mata throws 98, has a great breaking ball and great change with above average command... that is special. But I take it that is so many “if”s at the moment that it is more productive to talk about what is likely? I may be off on this, but this is how I’ve tended to read some of these.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Sept 23, 2020 17:05:22 GMT -5
I don't think anyone should be discouraged when they see projected ceilings as third, fourth or fifth starters. Many of these projections will be accurate but there will be some players who outperform them, just as they have outperformed where they were taken in the draft. I think of the Mookie Betts projections from many scouting people, none of whom said he would ever hit for power.
I see a lot of hope for Sox starters in the future and I wouldn't limit their final accomplishments.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 23, 2020 18:11:03 GMT -5
Maybe we need some clarification as to whether "projects...but" is a ceiling or floor. Because the "but" is kind of a monkey wrench. If there was no "but" then I'd see "projects" as a floor. With the "but" I see bullpen as the floor and not even as a closer.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 23, 2020 19:35:18 GMT -5
I look it as project is the most likely outcome if you had 100 similar prospects. Ceiling the best reasonable outcome but not necessarily a limiting outcome and floor as basically the opposite of ceiling.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 23, 2020 19:59:20 GMT -5
I look it as project is the most likely outcome if you had 100 similar prospects. Ceiling the best reasonable outcome but not necessarily a limiting outcome and floor as basically the opposite of ceiling. Sure, but what is, "projects...but."
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 23, 2020 20:04:16 GMT -5
I look it as project is the most likely outcome if you had 100 similar prospects. Ceiling the best reasonable outcome but not necessarily a limiting outcome and floor as basically the opposite of ceiling. Sure, but what is, "projects...but."
A key variable in the most likely outcome. Example: Jason Place projects to have plus game power but needs to learn to hit a curveball first.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 23, 2020 20:28:27 GMT -5
I think pretty much everybody views things in their own way even if they viewed players exactly the same. An example for me is that I likely look at Seabold, Pivetta, Groome & Mata individually similar to most but I prefer Groome and Seabold to Mata and Pivetta because I view their current stage of development as being the difference between pitchers and throwers. There's nothing wrong with that anymore than there's nothing wrong with rating pitchers on velocity. It's all pretty much subjective.
|
|
|
Post by soxfaninnj on Sept 23, 2020 21:48:39 GMT -5
Okay, I'll relent. But out of curiosity, where (roughly speaking) would Rocker/Leiter rank in the system if the Sox drafted them tomorrow? Where would they rank nationally? I would think higher than #5 and in the 100-200 range, respectively. Either would be the top prospect in the system and a top 50 prospect. To be clear, I'm not agreeing with Gammons at all! Sorry if I gave that impression. I do think the point is overly aggressive. I just don't think it's "Edgar Martinez is a future all-star closer" crazy, which is probably the point I was trying to make. Again, sorry for the confusion. I agree that the point is wrong. Just trying to explain what I take him as trying to say and point out that Song is still a huge question mark with an incredibly wide range of incomes for a guy who looked so good in Lowell. Isn’t a hall of fame DH worth more than an all star Closer ?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 23, 2020 21:57:05 GMT -5
Nice story on Yorke:
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 24, 2020 12:28:21 GMT -5
I think pretty much everybody views things in their own way even if they viewed players exactly the same. An example for me is that I likely look at Seabold, Pivetta, Groome & Mata individually similar to most but I prefer Groome and Seabold to Mata and Pivetta because I view their current stage of development as being the difference between pitchers and throwers. There's nothing wrong with that anymore than there's nothing wrong with rating pitchers on velocity. It's all pretty much subjective. The whole point of acquiring Pivetta was that he was a thrower who had never been taught anything about pitching.
When we got him, it was clear to me that he literally had less than zero idea how to pitch; his approach was backwards. I wrote: Maybe the Phillies have tried to get him to change his approach and he can't or wont. But figuring how many millions of $$ he can make if he gives it a shot, you have to wonder whether they've just missed this. Well, I was right about the latter. The Sox worked with him for less than a month and he's already turned into a pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Sept 24, 2020 14:22:52 GMT -5
I think what he is doing there is pretty remarkable. Has there ever been someone drafted out of high school hit advanced pitching like this in any spring training for the Sox? Although the entire scouting industry criticized this pick, I will remember the Vanderbilt coach who recruited him say he thought he was the best high school hitter in the country. This will be an interesting follow the next few years comparing him to PCA and others drafted after him.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 24, 2020 15:02:01 GMT -5
I think what he is doing there is pretty remarkable. Has there ever been someone drafted out of high school hit advanced pitching like this in any spring training for the Sox? Although the entire scouting industry criticized this pick, I will remember the Vanderbilt coach who recruited him say he thought he was the best high school hitter in the country. This will be an interesting follow the next few years comparing him to PCA and others drafted after him. I would imagine Tony Conigliaro would qualify as a distinct possibility.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 24, 2020 19:44:27 GMT -5
I think pretty much everybody views things in their own way even if they viewed players exactly the same. An example for me is that I likely look at Seabold, Pivetta, Groome & Mata individually similar to most but I prefer Groome and Seabold to Mata and Pivetta because I view their current stage of development as being the difference between pitchers and throwers. There's nothing wrong with that anymore than there's nothing wrong with rating pitchers on velocity. It's all pretty much subjective. The whole point of acquiring Pivetta was that he was a thrower who had never been taught anything about pitching.
When we got him, it was clear to me that he literally had less than zero idea how to pitch; his approach was backwards. I wrote: Maybe the Phillies have tried to get him to change his approach and he can't or wont. But figuring how many millions of $$ he can make if he gives it a shot, you have to wonder whether they've just missed this. Well, I was right about the latter. The Sox worked with him for less than a month and he's already turned into a pitcher.
[/b] [/quote] He's turned into a pitcher, based on one start ? What sequencing did you observe to come to that conclusion ? The difference between a pitcher and a thrower really has little to do with total pitches in a game or strikes and balls, it when, where and how each pitch is sequenced. This Trevor Bauer video is excellent in that he breaks down every pitch in a "famous" AB and why he threw it, complete with old video. Bauer is a pitcher.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,989
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 24, 2020 20:37:19 GMT -5
I think what he is doing there is pretty remarkable. Has there ever been someone drafted out of high school hit advanced pitching like this in any spring training for the Sox? Although the entire scouting industry criticized this pick, I will remember the Vanderbilt coach who recruited him say he thought he was the best high school hitter in the country. This will be an interesting follow the next few years comparing him to PCA and others drafted after him. I would imagine Tony Conigliaro would qualify as a distinct possibility. .290 .354 .530 .883 as a 19YO in an era with much less offense. Led the league with 32 hrs at 20 He was Ken Griffey Jr.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 24, 2020 20:45:26 GMT -5
Hopefully we aren't setting our bars that high.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 24, 2020 23:24:06 GMT -5
I think pretty much everybody views things in their own way even if they viewed players exactly the same. An example for me is that I likely look at Seabold, Pivetta, Groome & Mata individually similar to most but I prefer Groome and Seabold to Mata and Pivetta because I view their current stage of development as being the difference between pitchers and throwers. There's nothing wrong with that anymore than there's nothing wrong with rating pitchers on velocity. It's all pretty much subjective. The whole point of acquiring Pivetta was that he was a thrower who had never been taught anything about pitching.
When we got him, it was clear to me that he literally had less than zero idea how to pitch; his approach was backwards. I wrote: Maybe the Phillies have tried to get him to change his approach and he can't or wont. But figuring how many millions of $$ he can make if he gives it a shot, you have to wonder whether they've just missed this. Well, I was right about the latter. The Sox worked with him for less than a month and he's already turned into a pitcher.
I'd slow down with the chest-thumping there, EV. Pivetta has pitched one game against a crap team and needed 96 pitches to get through five innings. We saw some nice things, but this is a guy with an ERA-plus of 79 and WHIP of 1.43 over 93 games. In general, I think Gammons and some posters on here are exhibiting serious irrational exhuberance over the showing of some of the players on the ML team and at the alt. site.
|
|
|