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.
2023 National Rankings (in season)
|
Post by majikthise on Aug 16, 2023 14:07:09 GMT -5
I have 2 hands. One hand says I can't disagree with MLB or Law that our prospects are pitching poor and that in a black box would reduce our systems comparative ranking. The other hand says that out of the black box, we have Whitlock, Bello, Pivetta, Houck, Crawford, Winckowski, Schreiber, Walter, Murphy, Rodriguez and now Bernardino under control. If a prospect system's main priority is feeding the major league team, we not only have done well but less pitching depth is not a major concern in the near horizon. None of those can really be considered successful just yet. I would have to see sustained health/success. In my view, the only one that we drafted/signed and developed that qualifies is Jon Lester. E-Rod if you want to include trades before making their big league debut., Let me know if I'm missing anyone.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Aug 16, 2023 14:07:24 GMT -5
Put me down for wanting hitters over pitchers if we have to choose one. The reason being that hitters are more likely to work out then pitchers. Especially when you have a weaker system like Bloom took over, it's smart to concentrate on a demographic that has a higher probability of succeeding. A team like Detroit that has concentrated on pitching to rebuild with Matt Manning, Casey Mize, Tarik Skubal among others have been a collective disappointment, injuries being a big reason why. Also, it seems like we get dinged for Peralas and W. Gonzalez being our top pitching prospects. Both are relative unknowns coming out of the international signing system and don't have the pedigree that a high bonus baby 1st or 2nd round pick has. I think if they were both 2 million bonus 2nd rounders, they would get respected more from prospect analysts. Right. But you can't bring up Perales or Gonzalez when pitchers go down with injuries (which they do now more than ever). I've mentioned it in a previous post, but teams like the Dodgers almost always have 4-5 guys that are ready to come up and deal when needed, and those guys weren't drafted in the 1st round like Matt Manning, or Tarik Skubal (who was a 9th round pick, by the way..) Bloom went with the right strategy upon his arrival for the reasons you stated, and it is paying dividends, in terms of how many of those positional draft picks are meeting/exceeding expectations. I don't believe that using a 1st Round pick on a pitcher who is going to get a $5-8 million signing bonus is necessary or wise. But as I said previously, I feel it is time for a little more focus in the earlier rounds (2-6) on pitchers, when it comes to the draft. Bloom made his name with the Rays scouting/drafting/developing pitchers. I think shifting the strategy back in that direction will be a key next phase in making the Sox farm system one of the truly best in MLB. This is more an argument against investing in pitchers early than it is one for, IMO. If you're better at scouting and developing, then you should inherently need less capital to get similar results. I would also quibble with the idea that Bloom was the guy who "made his name" doing that for the Rays, I think he was just part of what is clearly a larger machine that has made them successful down there (not that institutional knowledge is a bad thing, though).
|
|
|
Post by remmartin34 on Aug 16, 2023 14:09:19 GMT -5
Pitchers, as a class of player and in the aggregate, are just less valuable across baseball now. Starting pitchers are throwing fewer innings and every team (Boston included) is tilting towards throwing a bunch of relievers (of both the one-inning and bulk varieties) at the wall rather than having a steady five-man rotation. In that world, are the remaining traditional starting pitcher prospects more or less valuable? I tend to think less. If I can cobble together decent bulk innings out of the Crawfords and Pivettas of the world, I'd rather just do that than draft a bunch of high-risk high-reward domestic pitching prospects. Again, I could not agree more in the aggregate.. I believe at this point it has even been objectively proven. That being said, do you have a list of the teams that have gone with the "throw a bunch of relievers at the wall rather than a steady 4-5 man rotation" and won a World Series? The Tampa Bay Rays made that formula work for the better part of 15 years. And they have not won a World Series, and have won the AL Pennant once since 2008. It makes complete sense why they went that direction (they are a below mid-market team, spending-wise). As in, I don't know if they've ever crossed the $80 million threshold in any season, in terms of active payroll... But the Dodgers and Astros are more in line with Red Sox spending, and their formula with drafting/international signing pitchers seems to be working tremendously for them. And they essentially stick with 4-5 man rotations. And they have 3 World Series and about 10-11 Pennants between them in the last 6 years.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 16, 2023 14:24:05 GMT -5
Pitchers, as a class of player and in the aggregate, are just less valuable across baseball now. Starting pitchers are throwing fewer innings and every team (Boston included) is tilting towards throwing a bunch of relievers (of both the one-inning and bulk varieties) at the wall rather than having a steady five-man rotation. In that world, are the remaining traditional starting pitcher prospects more or less valuable? I tend to think less. If I can cobble together decent bulk innings out of the Crawfords and Pivettas of the world, I'd rather just do that than draft a bunch of high-risk high-reward domestic pitching prospects. Again, I could not agree more in the aggregate.. I believe at this point it has even been objectively proven. That being said, do you have a list of the teams that have gone with the "throw a bunch of relievers at the wall rather than a steady 4-5 man rotation" and won a World Series? The Tampa Bay Rays made that formula work for the better part of 15 years. And they have not won a World Series, and have won the AL Pennant once since 2008. It makes complete sense why they went that direction (they are a below mid-market team, spending-wise). As in, I don't know if they've ever crossed the $80 million threshold in any season, in terms of active payroll... But the Dodgers and Astros are more in line with Red Sox spending, and their formula with drafting/international signing pitchers seems to be working tremendously for them. And they essentially stick with 4-5 man rotations. And they have 3 World Series and about 10-11 Pennants between them in the last 6 years. The Astros' homegrown starters (Javier, Garcia, and Valdez) had fangraphs prospect grades of 45+, 45, and 40 respectively. They did a really good job of developing those guys, but it's not a case of drafting/signing a bunch of blue chippers.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 16, 2023 14:43:05 GMT -5
Pitchers, as a class of player and in the aggregate, are just less valuable across baseball now. Starting pitchers are throwing fewer innings and every team (Boston included) is tilting towards throwing a bunch of relievers (of both the one-inning and bulk varieties) at the wall rather than having a steady five-man rotation. In that world, are the remaining traditional starting pitcher prospects more or less valuable? I tend to think less. If I can cobble together decent bulk innings out of the Crawfords and Pivettas of the world, I'd rather just do that than draft a bunch of high-risk high-reward domestic pitching prospects. Again, I could not agree more in the aggregate.. I believe at this point it has even been objectively proven. That being said, do you have a list of the teams that have gone with the "throw a bunch of relievers at the wall rather than a steady 4-5 man rotation" and won a World Series? The Tampa Bay Rays made that formula work for the better part of 15 years. And they have not won a World Series, and have won the AL Pennant once since 2008. It makes complete sense why they went that direction (they are a below mid-market team, spending-wise). As in, I don't know if they've ever crossed the $80 million threshold in any season, in terms of active payroll... But the Dodgers and Astros are more in line with Red Sox spending, and their formula with drafting/international signing pitchers seems to be working tremendously for them. And they essentially stick with 4-5 man rotations. And they have 3 World Series and about 10-11 Pennants between them in the last 6 years. It's pretty self-evident? Of the top five teams in World Series odds this season, none of them have more than three starting pitchers who qualify for the ERA title. Starting pitchers are throwing a smaller percentage of innings league-wide than ever this year, a trend that seems unlikely to change going forward. Your vaunted Dodgers have zero starting pitchers who qualify for the ERA title and their starting pitchers have averaged 5.0 innings per start this year. If you object to characterizing it as the demise of the five-man rotation, than fine, we can call it the demise of the starting pitcher instead, but my point is that starting pitchers are responsible for a smaller proportion of team success than ever. In that context, I think it's a perfectly reasonable decision to focus on position players in the early rounds of the draft, and I don't see it as a problem if the Red Sox farm system is systematically tilted towards position players for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by remmartin34 on Aug 16, 2023 14:44:59 GMT -5
Again, I could not agree more in the aggregate.. I believe at this point it has even been objectively proven. That being said, do you have a list of the teams that have gone with the "throw a bunch of relievers at the wall rather than a steady 4-5 man rotation" and won a World Series? The Tampa Bay Rays made that formula work for the better part of 15 years. And they have not won a World Series, and have won the AL Pennant once since 2008. It makes complete sense why they went that direction (they are a below mid-market team, spending-wise). As in, I don't know if they've ever crossed the $80 million threshold in any season, in terms of active payroll... But the Dodgers and Astros are more in line with Red Sox spending, and their formula with drafting/international signing pitchers seems to be working tremendously for them. And they essentially stick with 4-5 man rotations. And they have 3 World Series and about 10-11 Pennants between them in the last 6 years. The Astros' homegrown starters (Javier, Garcia, and Valdez) had fangraphs prospect grades of 45+, 45, and 40 respectively. They did a really good job of developing those guys, but it's not a case of drafting/signing a bunch of blue chippers. If you had read any of my prior posts, you would know I did not say anything about drafting or signing "blue chippers." "I do think the knocks about pitching are valid. We have some guys with potential to set the world on fire if they make it to the majors (Perales/Gonzalez are my favorites) down the road. But we do lack medium-to-high level REPLENISHABLE starting pitching in the upper levels..... I think it's fair to question if it is time for a little more focus in the earlier rounds (2-6) on pitchers, when it comes to the draft. Bloom has nailed it so far in every draft on the hitting prospects, but he made his career on scouting/drafting/developing pitchers. I have confidence he'd be able to work some magic if he decided to gear the strategy back in that direction at least somewhat."
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Aug 16, 2023 14:46:16 GMT -5
Again, I could not agree more in the aggregate.. I believe at this point it has even been objectively proven. That being said, do you have a list of the teams that have gone with the "throw a bunch of relievers at the wall rather than a steady 4-5 man rotation" and won a World Series? The Tampa Bay Rays made that formula work for the better part of 15 years. And they have not won a World Series, and have won the AL Pennant once since 2008. It makes complete sense why they went that direction (they are a below mid-market team, spending-wise). As in, I don't know if they've ever crossed the $80 million threshold in any season, in terms of active payroll... But the Dodgers and Astros are more in line with Red Sox spending, and their formula with drafting/international signing pitchers seems to be working tremendously for them. And they essentially stick with 4-5 man rotations. And they have 3 World Series and about 10-11 Pennants between them in the last 6 years. The Astros' homegrown starters ( Javier, Garcia, and Valdez) had fangraphs prospect grades of 45+, 45, and 40 respectively. They did a really good job of developing those guys, but it's not a case of drafting/signing a bunch of blue chippers. And Javier has been meh this year + his vFA is over a full MPH slower than 2022. (mostly) Just never know with pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by remmartin34 on Aug 16, 2023 15:13:54 GMT -5
Again, I could not agree more in the aggregate.. I believe at this point it has even been objectively proven. That being said, do you have a list of the teams that have gone with the "throw a bunch of relievers at the wall rather than a steady 4-5 man rotation" and won a World Series? The Tampa Bay Rays made that formula work for the better part of 15 years. And they have not won a World Series, and have won the AL Pennant once since 2008. It makes complete sense why they went that direction (they are a below mid-market team, spending-wise). As in, I don't know if they've ever crossed the $80 million threshold in any season, in terms of active payroll... But the Dodgers and Astros are more in line with Red Sox spending, and their formula with drafting/international signing pitchers seems to be working tremendously for them. And they essentially stick with 4-5 man rotations. And they have 3 World Series and about 10-11 Pennants between them in the last 6 years. It's pretty self-evident? Of the top five teams in World Series odds this season, none of them have more than three starting pitchers who qualify for the ERA title. Starting pitchers are throwing a smaller percentage of innings league-wide than ever this year, a trend that seems unlikely to change going forward. Your vaunted Dodgers have zero starting pitchers who qualify for the ERA title and their starting pitchers have averaged 5.0 innings per start this year. If you object to characterizing it as the demise of the five-man rotation, than fine, we can call it the demise of the starting pitcher instead, but my point is that starting pitchers are responsible for a smaller proportion of team success than ever. Hahah alright, imma just leave it there before I get myself overly frustrated and in trouble... You're right, starting pitchers are responsible for a smaller proportion of team success than ever.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 16, 2023 15:17:07 GMT -5
Pitchers, as a class of player and in the aggregate, are just less valuable across baseball now. Starting pitchers are throwing fewer innings and every team (Boston included) is tilting towards throwing a bunch of relievers (of both the one-inning and bulk varieties) at the wall rather than having a steady five-man rotation. In that world, are the remaining traditional starting pitcher prospects more or less valuable? I tend to think less. If I can cobble together decent bulk innings out of the Crawfords and Pivettas of the world, I'd rather just do that than draft a bunch of high-risk high-reward domestic pitching prospects. Again, I could not agree more in the aggregate.. I believe at this point it has even been objectively proven. That being said, do you have a list of the teams that have gone with the "throw a bunch of relievers at the wall rather than a steady 4-5 man rotation" and won a World Series? The Tampa Bay Rays made that formula work for the better part of 15 years. And they have not won a World Series, and have won the AL Pennant once since 2008. It makes complete sense why they went that direction (they are a below mid-market team, spending-wise). As in, I don't know if they've ever crossed the $80 million threshold in any season, in terms of active payroll... But the Dodgers and Astros are more in line with Red Sox spending, and their formula with drafting/international signing pitchers seems to be working tremendously for them. And they essentially stick with 4-5 man rotations. And they have 3 World Series and about 10-11 Pennants between them in the last 6 years. I don't get the bolded statement. No teams do this? Not the Red Sox, not the Rays, no teams go with a 3 man rotation and multiple bullpen days during the regular season other than when injuries require.
|
|
|
Post by remmartin34 on Aug 16, 2023 15:24:06 GMT -5
Again, I could not agree more in the aggregate.. I believe at this point it has even been objectively proven. That being said, do you have a list of the teams that have gone with the "throw a bunch of relievers at the wall rather than a steady 4-5 man rotation" and won a World Series? The Tampa Bay Rays made that formula work for the better part of 15 years. And they have not won a World Series, and have won the AL Pennant once since 2008. It makes complete sense why they went that direction (they are a below mid-market team, spending-wise). As in, I don't know if they've ever crossed the $80 million threshold in any season, in terms of active payroll... But the Dodgers and Astros are more in line with Red Sox spending, and their formula with drafting/international signing pitchers seems to be working tremendously for them. And they essentially stick with 4-5 man rotations. And they have 3 World Series and about 10-11 Pennants between them in the last 6 years. I don't get the bolded statement. No teams do this? Not the Red Sox, not the Rays, no teams go with a 3 man rotation and multiple bullpen days during the regular season other than when injuries require. I would wager that there are few, if any, successful ones over the course of a large sample size (meaning multiple seasons), other than the Rays. And certainly not any that have gone on to win a World Series.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Aug 16, 2023 15:30:58 GMT -5
Pitchers, as a class of player and in the aggregate, are just less valuable across baseball now. Starting pitchers are throwing fewer innings and every team (Boston included) is tilting towards throwing a bunch of relievers (of both the one-inning and bulk varieties) at the wall rather than having a steady five-man rotation. In that world, are the remaining traditional starting pitcher prospects more or less valuable? I tend to think less. If I can cobble together decent bulk innings out of the Crawfords and Pivettas of the world, I'd rather just do that than draft a bunch of high-risk high-reward domestic pitching prospects. I respectfully disagree with this. No matter the distribution of innings, the pitching side of baseball is and always will be a huge part of team success. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the absolute trash of the MLB this year (royals, Rays, As, Mets, Rockies) are all bottom 5 in pitching WAR. If good young cost controlled pitchers come at a large premium like cease, Gilbert, Kirby, Bello, Valdez, etc) then logically good pitching prospects should come a bit of a premium as well. It makes sense because young cost controlled SPs are the most efficient thing for overall roster construction I’m not saying we should have all pitchers and no hitters. But a system that consistently spits out quality SPs will give the MLB team a competitive advantage for sure
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 16, 2023 15:31:17 GMT -5
I don't get the bolded statement. No teams do this? Not the Red Sox, not the Rays, no teams go with a 3 man rotation and multiple bullpen days during the regular season other than when injuries require. I would wager that there are few, if any, successful ones over the course of a large sample size (meaning multiple seasons), other than the Rays. And certainly not any that have gone on to win a World Series. My point is that there are no examples of the case you're describing. No teams intentionally try to run with a 3 man rotation for a long period of time.
|
|
|
Post by remmartin34 on Aug 16, 2023 15:35:58 GMT -5
I would wager that there are few, if any, successful ones over the course of a large sample size (meaning multiple seasons), other than the Rays. And certainly not any that have gone on to win a World Series. My point is that there are no examples of the case you're describing. No teams intentionally try to run with a 3 man rotation for a long period of time. Precisely
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 16, 2023 15:43:16 GMT -5
So where is the Sox minor league org in the major rankings? I am reading back a few (OK, more than a few) pages and I see:
MLB: 16 Fangraphs: 4 The Athletic/Law: 20 Baseball (North)America: ?
Anyone know what BA has the Sox as? And any other org rankings we'd consider major?
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 16, 2023 16:17:59 GMT -5
So where is the Sox minor league org in the major rankings? I am reading back a few (OK, more than a few) pages and I see: MLB: 16 Fangraphs: 4 The Athletic/Law: 20 Baseball (North)America: ? Anyone know what BA has the Sox as? And any other org rankings we'd consider major? Before the season BA had them 10th and Kiley/ESPN had them 14th. Though I don't know that listing preseason rankings next to midseason ones makes a ton of sense, things can move a lot.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,777
Member is Online
|
Post by cdj on Aug 16, 2023 16:20:06 GMT -5
I think their system ranking almost entirely depends on what you think of their Latin American arms and also where you rank Rafaela
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 16, 2023 16:50:25 GMT -5
So where is the Sox minor league org in the major rankings? I am reading back a few (OK, more than a few) pages and I see: MLB: 16 Fangraphs: 4 The Athletic/Law: 20 Baseball (North)America: ? Anyone know what BA has the Sox as? And any other org rankings we'd consider major? Before the season BA had them 10th and Kiley/ESPN had them 14th. Though I don't know that listing preseason rankings next to midseason ones makes a ton of sense, things can move a lot. MLB: 16 Fangraphs: 4 The Athletic/Law: 20 Baseball America: 10 ESPN/Kiley: 14I agree these can change given when they're done within a 6 month period, who graduates and regresses, etc. But, given what we have, one is definitely an outlier. The big caveat here is, all are subjective and the outlier predicates everything on perceived FV. That, and we're all pretty biased on this website.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 16, 2023 17:00:34 GMT -5
I think their system ranking almost entirely depends on what you think of their Latin American arms and also where you rank Rafaela Well, this site only has two Latino arms in its own top 20, both with floors of 3 and ceilings of 6. That is a massive range to begin with. That said, Gonzalez is closer to MLB and has made a big statistical leap in AA (although it was reported that the org discounted a bad early start in High A and his peripherals were better than the traditionals). Either way, he's throwing peas. I've not seen him live but I am of the mind that, if he has the velo, stuff and decent to good control (and his BB % shows it's at least good), all these guys will eventually break, so get him to MLB sooner rather than later. Maybe next year 4-6 weeks into the season if he still looks sharp, even if it's a AA to MLB jump. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 16, 2023 17:03:58 GMT -5
Before the season BA had them 10th and Kiley/ESPN had them 14th. Though I don't know that listing preseason rankings next to midseason ones makes a ton of sense, things can move a lot. MLB: 16 Fangraphs: 4 The Athletic/Law: 20 Baseball America: 10 ESPN/Kiley: 14I agree these can change given when they're done within a 6 month period, who graduates and regresses, etc. But, given what we have, one is definitely an outlier. The big caveat here is, all are subjective and the outlier predicates everything on perceived FV. That, and we're all pretty biased on this website. BA is closer to FG than it is to Law. It's an extra half std. deviation from the mean. 6 points lower than the next lowest vs. Law being 4 pts higher than the next highest. More looks like a big range to me than one outlier. I'd also contend that for the most part they all predicate everything on perceived FV, Fangraphs just uses a formula to add it all up. The others also take into account system balance to varying extents. They're all also not equally high caliber (I don't know which is off by the most, but I know they all don't have equal time to study all the farms/equal abilities to score prospects).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 16, 2023 17:30:54 GMT -5
Good starting pitchers have tons of value, I think what some people are adding in is bust rate with TJ surgery. So it's not that we don't need them and if they have crazy value. It's more how do you get them and how you run a farm system. I'd take hitters first, then focus on a volume approach to pitchers, especially international guys. The one problem being, if you're not good at that, you'll have to sign or trade for guys. I'm fine with that.
That being said I'd dock a system if everything else equal, one is balanced and one isn't. One of the best parts of the Dodgers great system for years is it produced both hitters and pitchers. That's certainly ideal.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Aug 16, 2023 17:36:21 GMT -5
It's pretty self-evident? Of the top five teams in World Series odds this season, none of them have more than three starting pitchers who qualify for the ERA title. Starting pitchers are throwing a smaller percentage of innings league-wide than ever this year, a trend that seems unlikely to change going forward. Your vaunted Dodgers have zero starting pitchers who qualify for the ERA title and their starting pitchers have averaged 5.0 innings per start this year. If you object to characterizing it as the demise of the five-man rotation, than fine, we can call it the demise of the starting pitcher instead, but my point is that starting pitchers are responsible for a smaller proportion of team success than ever. In that context, I think it's a perfectly reasonable decision to focus on position players in the early rounds of the draft, and I don't see it as a problem if the Red Sox farm system is systematically tilted towards position players for the foreseeable future. Basic supply and demand would use all of your points as reasons for starters to be more valuable than ever. Demand is the axis that's collapsing
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 16, 2023 18:37:54 GMT -5
Demand is the axis that's collapsing Disagree. If the the demand decreased while supply remained constant there would be an excess of starters which is 100% not the case. The supply axis collapsed and teams are doing what they have to in order to cover innings. This is empirically false. Teams are asking guys who would have gone 6+ innings in the past to throw 5 innings instead and asking guys who would have been mediocre starters to be bulk bullpen weapons. They aren’t trying to stretch out relievers into starters.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Aug 17, 2023 9:14:31 GMT -5
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 6,642
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 17, 2023 9:26:28 GMT -5
I get there will always be some variances in the rankings on each of the ranking sites but it's kind of fascinating right now that FG and BA have the Sox top 5 while Law has them at 20 and MLB 16. That's more than just a tiny variance. Let's hope BA and FG are more on the money than the others who are more down.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Aug 17, 2023 9:27:07 GMT -5
Is it ok if Kennedy references this one, or does he still have to use the lowest ranking list?
|
|
|