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.
The Big Bad Mookie Betts Thread
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 24, 2014 17:16:58 GMT -5
Good analysis. Most impressive to me has been his rapid adjustment to each level. Those levels differentiate by how the pitching grades out. AA is a big jump, with lots of guys who have control of their stuff, including their secondary pitches, and even a few who can command their repertoire. It's only a clue, but the way he's started out in the Eastern League against that pitching argues for the point you're making: he has the vision, reflexes, and coordination to identify and react to hitable pitches, and stay away from the others. That's a big deal in any league.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Apr 24, 2014 18:00:56 GMT -5
To be less snarky for a second, there are real reasons to be optimistic about Betts. For one thing, he's a far better athlete than Xander ever was, and he has the sort of frame that projects to remain athletic as he gets older. Moreover, he appears to have rare hand-eye coordination as well as excellent vision, two critically important hitting traits that also help a player on the defensive side. Here's minor league hitting coordinator Tim Hyers: We know that the Red Sox are one of the teams that use neurological tests to evaluate players, something that first began during the Epstein era. Here's John Farrell elaborating on what this entails and specifically mentioning Betts as one player who tests out well:
[/b][/font][/b]It's not different than some of the baseline testing for concussions, where you've got to really think back and remember different schematics that are thrown up in front of your eyes." Farrell cited minor league prospect Mookie Betts, a second baseman, as an example of a player whose evaluation relied to an extent on such testing. "Mookie Betts, that's how he was identified. He was a bowler," Farrell said. "It wasn't like there were a whole of games to witness and watch but then there's follow up work when guys come into the system at the minor league level to always try to train and enhance that reaction time. I think that would just continue to grow. "Whether it helps focus and concentration and enhance all that, I just think that we're scratching the surface on what kind of electronic tools can come into play to help players." [/quote]If Betts is one of those guys with elite hand-eye coordination, that bodes well for his defensive future. It would suggest that he might be one of those rare athletes with preternatural ability to read the ball off the bat correctly and make the right split-second first step. He might be able to track batted balls off the bat as well as he tracks them out of a pitcher's hand. Pedroia is the obvious comp here-- a guy whose hand-eye coordination was good enough to max out his limited natural tools. Now, imagine we're talking about a guy in Betts who is a much better raw athlete but has the same otherworldly hand-eye coordination. That's pretty exciting. Unfortunately, similar to Pedroia, Betts' middling arm may ultimately hold him back. Arm strength is just one of those things that is difficult to improve much, and that's pretty much the only reason why Pedroia ended up at 2B as opposed to SS. Maybe you live with a fringy arm at SS to get Betts on the field, but that's the main reason I think moving him there is not quite a slam dunk. (It should be noted that infield coordinator Andy Fox said Betts had the arm strength for SS, but that's what you'd expect him to say in that situation and I'm not sure it tells us anything useful.) Similarly, while CF (and LF) are definitely an option, RF might be out of the cards. [/quote] Yet again, I stated something logical, and essentially restated even by Farrell, and I get a C'mon Man. Mookie has ADAPTED quickly and appropriately to every level. His trend line is acutely up and from interviews he certainly appears to me to have excellent mental intangibles. It was even specifically cited in his neorological testing, as you noted above, out of all the guys they could have cited no less, and I get a c'mon man? It is part of the deal here. I keep being RIGHT in my analysis, and I get zip respect. I'm not infallible. I'm sure anyone can find some errors in judgement I've made but I don't see anyone here with more insight or a better track record. And it's about time you guys would just shut up about the c'mon BS, and your ruining the thread BS etc. Mookie is extremely impressive in his interviews. My only concern at this point is that he might get hurt. I think he's as close to a slam dunk mlb star in the making as anyone we have not named Bogaerts, and I don't hesitate a second to say it.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Apr 24, 2014 18:31:21 GMT -5
Yankee announcers just said the Sox don't have anyone in their system who might replace Ellsbury's bat in the leadoff role....I guess these guys never heard of Mookie Betts...I know I know Pump the brakes.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 24, 2014 19:09:02 GMT -5
It is part of the deal here. I keep being RIGHT in my analysis, and I get zip respect. I'm not infallible. I'm sure anyone can find some errors in judgement I've made but I don't see anyone here with more insight or a better track record. And it's about time you guys would just shut up about the c'mon BS, and your ruining the thread BS etc. Dude why are you even on this board when you're clearly so much better than it? (By the way, I love your name is "The Lavarnway Guy" and you want to brag about the accuracy of your track record. It's like a guy with a bumper full of Ron Paul stickers lecturing me on likely electoral outcomes...)
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Apr 24, 2014 20:22:13 GMT -5
You guys are the ones constantly crapping on me, even when I'm right. Look at the posts above. Farrell said the same damm thing and I get crapped on over it. Ridiculed over it.
Is it impossible that maybe a few of you guys could up your game once in a while? Why the ridicule? Over nothing? It's as if you are looking to ridicule. Trying to find fault. For example above. I was right for God's sake. Even Farrell brought up very much the same thing. I didn't know what Farrell said earlier but my impression of Betts was a guy with way above average intangibles and it turns out that the Redsox test for such things, such as the ability to process information, and Betts was the guy they cited from that test as exceptional. I said "this guy is coachable as hell and a quick learner". Isn't that effectively what Farrell just said also?
Do you guys still things as intelligence are a completely worthless intangible? If so, then why are the Redsox testing for such things? Explain that geniuses.
All I'm asking for is a modicum of respect. I don't go out of my way to crap on any of you, but some of you can't wait to nit pick and find some sort of fault with me.
And when it happens, I'm not letting it pass when it's unjustified. and this is yet another instance when it is unjustified. Be crabby against someone else.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 24, 2014 21:07:56 GMT -5
Honestly I have no idea what your argument even is at this point. You want Mookie to be the new Ben Zobrist, and you think that can happen because he's really smart or something?
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Apr 24, 2014 21:24:20 GMT -5
I've stated a lot of data why I think Mookie might be an appropriate candidate for multiple positions, and I've done it twice on this thread in the last 48 hours. And my recommendation was for 2-3 positions at most rather than a full Zobrist type. If I repeat it again, someone will criticize me for repeating it again.
I'm just saying if he is blocked, and he is eventually ready, bring him up as a super sub or at least as a sub, potentially at one or 2 positions. Chances are if they bring him up as a sub he would have to cover more than one position. He has great attributes for a sub. He can steal bases, get on base, play good defense, is coachable and apparently a quick learner. He's shown proficiency in multiple sports ( bowling...etc ). If anyone in AA is capable of becoming a multiple position sub, it may well be Mookie.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 24, 2014 21:36:07 GMT -5
I've stated a lot of data why I think Mookie might be an appropriate candidate for multiple positions, and I've done it twice on this thread in the last 48 hours. And my recommendation was for 2-3 positions at most rather than a full Zobrist type. If I repeat it again, someone will criticize me for repeating it again. I'm just saying if he is blocked, and he is eventually ready, bring him up as a super sub or at least as a sub, potentially at one or 2 positions. Chances are if they bring him up as a sub he would have to cover more than one position. He has great attributes for a sub. He can steal bases, get on base, play good defense, is coachable and apparently a quick learner. He's shown proficiency in multiple sports ( bowling...etc ). If anyone in AA is capable of becoming a multiple position sub, it may well be Mookie. No, if anyone can do it, it's someone with the arm for SS/3B/RF. It's really not a utility skillset, regardless of how coachable he is or how good of a bowler he is. On top of that, the Red Sox have extremely little need for a replacement second baseman for the foreseeable future. Basically, he's going to move to shortstop and play there, move to the outfield and play there, or be traded. There are no 2B/CF utility guys.
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Apr 25, 2014 6:38:41 GMT -5
I've stated a lot of data why I think Mookie might be an appropriate candidate for multiple positions, and I've done it twice on this thread in the last 48 hours. And my recommendation was for 2-3 positions at most rather than a full Zobrist type. If I repeat it again, someone will criticize me for repeating it again. I'm just saying if he is blocked, and he is eventually ready, bring him up as a super sub or at least as a sub, potentially at one or 2 positions. Chances are if they bring him up as a sub he would have to cover more than one position. He has great attributes for a sub. He can steal bases, get on base, play good defense, is coachable and apparently a quick learner. He's shown proficiency in multiple sports ( bowling...etc ). If anyone in AA is capable of becoming a multiple position sub, it may well be Mookie. No, if anyone can do it, it's someone with the arm for SS/3B/RF. It's really not a utility skillset, regardless of how coachable he is or how good of a bowler he is. On top of that, the Red Sox have extremely little need for a replacement second baseman for the foreseeable future. Basically, he's going to move to shortstop and play there, move to the outfield and play there, or be traded. There are no 2B/CF utility guys. There is at least one. Emilio Bonifacio is a 2b/cf guy. He is also a speed guy. He can play SS/3b in a pinch but his primary positions are 2nd and cf.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 25, 2014 7:30:09 GMT -5
Fair point, but again, that guy is pretty much just a fourth outfielder on team with Dustin Pedroia.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 25, 2014 9:10:04 GMT -5
Yet again, I stated something logical, and essentially restated even by Farrell, and I get a C'mon Man. Mookie has ADAPTED quickly and appropriately to every level. His trend line is acutely up and from interviews he certainly appears to me to have excellent mental intangibles. It was even specifically cited in his neorological testing, as you noted above, out of all the guys they could have cited no less, and I get a c'mon man? It is part of the deal here. I keep being RIGHT in my analysis, and I get zip respect. I'm not infallible. I'm sure anyone can find some errors in judgement I've made but I don't see anyone here with more insight or a better track record. And it's about time you guys would just shut up about the c'mon BS, and your ruining the thread BS etc. Mookie is extremely impressive in his interviews. My only concern at this point is that he might get hurt. I think he's as close to a slam dunk mlb star in the making as anyone we have not named Bogaerts, and I don't hesitate a second to say it. We are talking about completely and utterly different things. I cited multiple published reports identifying Mookie Betts as a player with above-average hand-eye coordination, which is a physical attribute like footspeed or visual acuity or arm strength. You argued, apparently based solely on interviews that you had read, that Mookie had mental intangibles like "situational awareness" and "thoughtful self examination." These are not remotely similar concepts. I'm talking about neurological pathways (i.e., the physical nerves in his body) that go from his eyes to his brain to his quick-twitch muscles that allow him to instinctively and unconsciously process visual cues and translate them into action faster than the average professional athlete. You're talking about, what, the fact that he works hard and is smart? Again: not even close to the same thing. Mookie could be dumb as a rock and incredibly lazy, but if he has elite hand-eye coordination, he'll still be able to pick up the ball better and make the split-second decision to swing faster than someone like Will Middlebrooks, whose central nervous system just doesn't work as fast and never will no matter how hard he works at improving it. The "ability to process information" that Farrell is talking about there is not the conscious ability of an intelligent and thoughtful person to take instruction and replicate it on the field. The neurological testing that the article discusses is not a test of intelligence or work ethic or other so-called intangibles. They are testing very tangible physical traits like visual acuity and reaction time and hand-eye coordination. These are not tests where being intelligent (as we normally define it-- e.g., logic, abstract thought, problem solving, communication, etc.) helps you in any way. These are tests like this or this where the sole attribute being tested is how fast you react to something you see and translate it into physical action. In short: your post was second-hand speculation based on intangibles like intelligence and hard work that, in my opinion, help a baseball player much less than you think they do. My post cited multiple sources discussing a physical attribute that might be the most important skill a position player can have.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 25, 2014 9:17:04 GMT -5
Fair point, but again, that guy is pretty much just a fourth outfielder on team with Dustin Pedroia. I've been advocating Mookie as a regular LF (or CF) who backs up 2B and SS, allowing you to fill the Herrera roster spot with someone like Carp, thus eliminating a thread on this board. To be able to replace Pedroia or Bogaerts / Marrero in the lineup with an OF bat rather than a backup SS bat would be a big help, especially in the case of a major injury.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 25, 2014 9:19:02 GMT -5
No, if anyone can do it, it's someone with the arm for SS/3B/RF. It's really not a utility skillset, regardless of how coachable he is or how good of a bowler he is. On top of that, the Red Sox have extremely little need for a replacement second baseman for the foreseeable future. Basically, he's going to move to shortstop and play there, move to the outfield and play there, or be traded. There are no 2B/CF utility guys. There is at least one. Emilio Bonifacio is a 2b/cf guy. He is also a speed guy. He can play SS/3b in a pinch but his primary positions are 2nd and cf. There are actually a fair number of 2B/OF guys. Just off the top of my head, there's Dustin Ackley, Skip Schumaker, Eric Young, and Daniel Murphy. It's what happens to second baseman who can't lock down a starting spot at second and aren't good enough defensively to play SS.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 26, 2014 2:23:13 GMT -5
copied from my posts in the game thread today:
Two epic upper level minors season starts compared:
Ellsbury: 17G 73AB 16R 33H 10D 2T 0HR 13RBI 8SB 1CS 6BB 7K .452AVG .518OBP .644SLG 1.162OPS Mookie: 17G 72AB 23R 31H 08D 1T 2HR 07RBI 8SB 1CS 7BB 7K .431AVG .469OBP .653SLG 1.122OPS
Both players started the year at Portland. Ellsbury was 23 years old, 2 years and a month older than Mookie. Ellsbury also had gotten 198 ABs at Portland the year before, this is Mookie's first year at Portland.
Ellsbury was then promoted to Pawtucket because he needed more of a challenge. The year was 2007, I'm assuming you can fill in the blanks and how that year ended for Ellsbury.
Two constant skills displayed, base running and batting eye:
2012 Lowell (19) AB 251 K 30 BB 32 SB 20 CS 4
2013 Greenville (20) AB 277 K 40 BB 58 SB 18 CS 2
2013 Salem (20) AB 185 K 17 BB 23 SB 20 CS 2
2014 Portland (21) AB 72 K 7 BB 7 SB 8 CS 1
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 26, 2014 9:29:35 GMT -5
So I was thinking more, after responding to PBSF/LCBF's post in the gameday thread (which is copied above). After seeing that the only Red Sox position player to debut in Portland and debut in the majors in the same season under the Epsterington front office regime was Tim Federowicz, who did so only after being traded, I wondered - has anyone debuted in LOW A then made it to the majors within two seasons (which is what Mookie would do if he made it up this season)?
Given that I figured this was pretty rare (and that I'm not at work) I opened it up for pitchers too.
The only position player is Jackie Bradley, who made his Low A debut on 9/1/11, and debuted in the majors on 4/1/13. Pitchers: (Technically) Daniel Bard, who made his Low A debut after getting sent down from High A on 6/5/07 and made his MLB debut on 5/13/09. But like I said, that's getting, perhaps, overly technical, since his "A-Ball" debut had come at the beginning of 2007 out in Lancaster. Clay Buchholz, who made his Low A debut at the start of the 2006 season and his MLB debut on 8/17/07. Cla Meredith, who made his Low A debut at the start of the 2004 season and his (disaster of a) MLB debut on 5/8/05.
Also should mention that Jonathan Papelbon skipped Low A. He opened 2004 in High A and made his MLB debut on 7/31/05. (Please folks, let me know if you can think of other guys who may have done this, as my method of doing this was to go back through the Low A rosters, so I could have missed others.)
So I think the only true analogue for Betts making it to the majors this year would be Buchholz, given that Bradley had two offseasons between and the opportunity to win a job in Spring Training, and Bard and Meredith sped up as relievers. Papelbon could probably be thrown in too, but I note that he was 23 in 2004, whereas Mookie was 20 last year.
Buchholz was just over a year older. He was also ranked as the #4 prospect in baseball during the 07-08 offseason. If Mookie destroys Double- and Triple-A enough to make it to the bigs this year, then yes, he's a top 10-ish prospect.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 26, 2014 10:12:44 GMT -5
It's early yet, but he hasn't slowed down even a bit. He will - I think - but slow down to what? He is just killing it at this point. After a half-season at Portland if he's still in the .300/.400/.500 ballpark - and that almost seems a joke given the video game numbers he's been putting up for almost a year now - what does the team do with him?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 26, 2014 10:23:46 GMT -5
It's early yet, but he hasn't slowed down even a bit. He will - I think - but slow down to what? He is just killing it at this point. After a half-season at Portland if he's still in the .300/.400/.500 ballpark - and that almost seems a joke given the video game numbers he's been putting up for almost a year now - what does the team do with him? Uhm, well, uh, I hear they have a AAA affiliate in the International League.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Apr 26, 2014 10:26:32 GMT -5
It's early yet, but he hasn't slowed down even a bit. He will - I think - but slow down to what? He is just killing it at this point. After a half-season at Portland if he's still in the .300/.400/.500 ballpark - and that almost seems a joke given the video game numbers he's been putting up for almost a year now - what does the team do with him? For some perspective, Betts would have to go something like .250/.375/.470 between now and the halfway point of the season to be at .300/.400/.500.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Apr 26, 2014 10:37:39 GMT -5
Jmei, I also said "this guy is coachable as hell and a quick learner" in the context of this discussion. I stated at least 5 or 6 characteristics of Mookie, which MIGHT help him become a good candidate to become a multi positional player. ONE of which was my impression of him from seeing an interview in terms of his ""situational awareness" and "thoughtful self examination." The guy has been adjusting to each level extremely well, and seems to be adapting the Redsox method quickly and the batting approach etc… needed to make it in mlb. There are a LOT of indications that Mr. Betts is a quick learner, INCLUDING my impressions of him from an interview. And to me the ability to "process information" is an indicator of a form of intelligence. His brain works quickly. Is that not intelligence?
It didn't warrant a "C'mon Man" and the Lavarnway discussion didn't either. And the tests you cited indicates that the Redsox agree with me. I never said if a guy is intelligent he is highly likely to make it. I simply said it's a factor. A positive indicator, as is a positive track record in life in general.
I don't see how anyone can disagree with that assessment but many of you do disagree. So be it. Mookie is yet another example that such things are a significant factor. And maybe 10% of you guys thought Lavarnway would make it this far so he proves my point as well. Which was only that his intangibles might help him survive as a catcher, as a significant mlb resource rather than as the complete washout most of you thought he would become.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 26, 2014 10:42:27 GMT -5
So I was thinking more, after responding to PBSF/LCBF's post in the gameday thread (which is copied above). After seeing that the only Red Sox position player to debut in Portland and debut in the majors in the same season under the Epsterington front office regime was Tim Federowicz, who did so only after being traded, I wondered - has anyone debuted in LOW A then made it to the majors within two seasons (which is what Mookie would do if he made it up this season)? Given that I figured this was pretty rare (and that I'm not at work) I opened it up for pitchers too. The only position player is Jackie Bradley, who made his Low A debut on 9/1/11, and debuted in the majors on 4/1/13. Pitchers: (Technically) Daniel Bard, who made his Low A debut after getting sent down from High A on 6/5/07 and made his MLB debut on 5/13/09. But like I said, that's getting, perhaps, overly technical, since his "A-Ball" debut had come at the beginning of 2007 out in Lancaster. Clay Buchholz, who made his Low A debut at the start of the 2006 season and his MLB debut on 8/17/07. Cla Meredith, who made his Low A debut at the start of the 2004 season and his (disaster of a) MLB debut on 5/8/05. Also should mention that Jonathan Papelbon skipped Low A. He opened 2004 in High A and made his MLB debut on 7/31/05. (Please folks, let me know if you can think of other guys who may have done this, as my method of doing this was to go back through the Low A rosters, so I could have missed others.) So I think the only true analogue for Betts making it to the majors this year would be Buchholz, given that Bradley had two offseasons between and the opportunity to win a job in Spring Training, and Bard and Meredith sped up as relievers. Papelbon could probably be thrown in too, but I note that he was 23 in 2004, whereas Mookie was 20 last year. Buchholz was just over a year older. He was also ranked as the #4 prospect in baseball during the 07-08 offseason. If Mookie destroys Double- and Triple-A enough to make it to the bigs this year, then yes, he's a top 10-ish prospect. There are three players I can think of, but they are earlier: Tony Conigliaro, Yaz and Fred Lynn. Conigliaro had only one season in the minors. Yaz and Lynn had two. Ted Williams had three years, but his first year was brief. Garciaparra had three but was called up in the third year. Once upon a time it was not unusual for players showing phenomenal talent in the minors to reach the majors rather quickly. Is Betts the same caliber player? If he keeps going at anywhere near the level he is at now, he certainly may be, and then he probably will not have to spend a lot of time in the minors.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Apr 26, 2014 10:49:34 GMT -5
Betts is only 3 for his last 10....he's slumping.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 26, 2014 10:56:27 GMT -5
Jmei, I also said "this guy is coachable as hell and a quick learner" in the context of this discussion. I stated at least 5 or 6 characteristics of Mookie, which MIGHT help him become a good candidate to become a multi positional player. ONE of which was my impression of him from seeing an interview in terms of his ""situational awareness" and "thoughtful self examination." The guy has been adjusting to each level extremely well, and seems to be adapting the Redsox method quickly and the batting approach etc… needed to make it in mlb. There are a LOT of indications that Mr. Betts is a quick learner, INCLUDING my impressions of him from an interview. And to me the ability to "process information" is an indicator of a form of intelligence. His brain works quickly. Is that not intelligence? It didn't warrant a "C'mon Man" and the Lavarnway discussion didn't either. And the tests you cited indicates that the Redsox agree with me. I never said if a guy is intelligent he is highly likely to make it. I simply said it's a factor. A positive indicator, as is a positive track record in life in general. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that assessment but many of you do disagree. So be it. Mookie is yet another example that such things are a significant factor. And maybe 10% of you guys thought Lavarnway would make it this far so he proves my point as well. Which was only that his intangibles might help him survive as a catcher, as a significant mlb resource rather than as the complete washout most of you thought he would become. You mean well, and I'm being a little bit of a jerk, so I'll just say this: I think you exaggerate intangibles too much. We don't know anything about Mookie other than the fact that he's really good at baseball and doesn't come off poorly in interviews. This isn't the first time you have focused on the intangibles rather than physical skills, and there's no point in having this same argument every time it comes up, so I'll try to let it go from now on. But remember, all the intelligence and hard work in the world won't help Mookie if he doesn't have the arm strength for shortstop, just like it didn't help Lavarnway stick at catcher (noone predicted that he'd wash out before he reached Pawtucket, by the way, just that he wouldn't stick at catcher because he lacked the physical tools to do so. And guess what-- that's exactly what happened, as he's played 17 games at 1B/DH and just 4 at catcher this year).
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 26, 2014 11:17:54 GMT -5
There was a time when baseball was considered a blue collar sport. Most of the players did not attend college at all, and many came from rural areas where the school systems were not very good. So, consequently, baseball players had the reputation of not being very smart - or at least fairly ignorant. Shoeless Joe Jackson, one of the greatest players ever, also was one of the most ignorant and naive, at least according to contemporary accounts of the Black Sox scandal. Some of the sports writing, especially baseball fiction, in the early part of the 20th Century provided accounts of the poor education and ignorance of many players.
That does not mean they were not intelligent, but they didn't get much credit for it. No one linked intelligence to good ball playing. That is a much later development, and it really came after the draft became so important and scouting became much more scientific. Still, you don't see any 40-80 scale for intelligence in scouting reports.
I think the Orioles were the first team to start giving personality tests to prospective draftees. I believe, but I am not sure, that some other teams do it now. Intelligence and personality have become factors in assessing a player, but not, as far as I know, controlling ones. The major factors still are skills and raw talent. But they aren't everything, and great skills and talent don't always produce a great player if the player is lacking in some other traits. That kid with the Nationals is a great example of this.
|
|
|
Post by quintanariffic on Apr 26, 2014 11:23:24 GMT -5
In short: your post was second-hand speculation based on intangibles like intelligence and hard work that, in my opinion, help a baseball player much less than you think they do. My post cited multiple sources discussing a physical attribute that might be the most important skill a position player can have. And this, children, is how you lay the smack down.
|
|
|
Post by quintanariffic on Apr 26, 2014 11:28:14 GMT -5
So I was thinking more, after responding to PBSF/LCBF's post in the gameday thread (which is copied above). After seeing that the only Red Sox position player to debut in Portland and debut in the majors in the same season under the Epsterington front office regime was Tim Federowicz, who did so only after being traded, I wondered - has anyone debuted in LOW A then made it to the majors within two seasons (which is what Mookie would do if he made it up this season)? Given that I figured this was pretty rare (and that I'm not at work) I opened it up for pitchers too. The only position player is Jackie Bradley, who made his Low A debut on 9/1/11, and debuted in the majors on 4/1/13. Pitchers: (Technically) Daniel Bard, who made his Low A debut after getting sent down from High A on 6/5/07 and made his MLB debut on 5/13/09. But like I said, that's getting, perhaps, overly technical, since his "A-Ball" debut had come at the beginning of 2007 out in Lancaster. Clay Buchholz, who made his Low A debut at the start of the 2006 season and his MLB debut on 8/17/07. Cla Meredith, who made his Low A debut at the start of the 2004 season and his (disaster of a) MLB debut on 5/8/05. Also should mention that Jonathan Papelbon skipped Low A. He opened 2004 in High A and made his MLB debut on 7/31/05. (Please folks, let me know if you can think of other guys who may have done this, as my method of doing this was to go back through the Low A rosters, so I could have missed others.) So I think the only true analogue for Betts making it to the majors this year would be Buchholz, given that Bradley had two offseasons between and the opportunity to win a job in Spring Training, and Bard and Meredith sped up as relievers. Papelbon could probably be thrown in too, but I note that he was 23 in 2004, whereas Mookie was 20 last year. Buchholz was just over a year older. He was also ranked as the #4 prospect in baseball during the 07-08 offseason. If Mookie destroys Double- and Triple-A enough to make it to the bigs this year, then yes, he's a top 10-ish prospect. This guy says hi.
|
|
|