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 philsbosoxfan on Aug 24, 2013 21:18:02 GMT -5
There have been various studies regarding career and probability but none that I've seen are capable of giving probability career ranges for a given individual because there are so many factors that the exact match sample size would be close to nil.
Gut feeling, given his current situation:
Probability that he has a career where he reaches his ceiling 5% Probability that he achieves an above average regular or super utility player 10% probability that he makes the majors but has a short career 15% probability that he only gets a few cups of coffee 20% probability that he never reaches the majors 50%
Those are definitely enthusiasm killing numbers but I'm guessing they somewhat realistic and if anything, might be liberal.
And to me, the biggest checkpoint comes when he makes it to Portland. His plate discipline and batting eye will get a much better test.It will also be interesting to see how the Sox feel and I think those feelings will be shown when we see how they handle the Mookie/Sean same position, same advancement level situation next year. This year wasn't a tell because of Sean's injuries.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Aug 24, 2013 21:43:12 GMT -5
A feeling? Based on seeing him play many times or statistics and opinions of others? What is the factual foundation and the methodology for projecting those percentages of likely success?
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Aug 24, 2013 22:21:56 GMT -5
There's far too much face=palmery in this thread for me to respond to all of it. Any position change at this point seems crazy.
However, given Betts' very good defense and history at SS, I do think they should consider some reps at SS this year. They've got Coyle to get reps at 2B, and now real SS to worry about. I don't think he should take anything away from Marrero next year in Portland whenever he gets there. There's enough times that we have a guy filling in at a position he hasn't played since high school or ever (WMB at 2B, or Mauro at 3B type of situation), if there's no real harm, give him a week of run at SS.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Aug 24, 2013 22:29:58 GMT -5
"Probability he never reaches the majors = 50%"
Seems high, but considering you the thought put into it (like suggesting that an above average regular = a super utility player, it fits. I don't see how he can't hit .240 in AAA and get a call-up as an injury replacement. I was never high on him from reports, but I'm coming around, and can't see his floor as odds-on never play in a MLB game, and greater than 2/3 he never makes a 25 man roster out of Spring.
Hell, a 5'7" guy with plate discipline alone should be able to draw walks in the majors every now and then.
And to say you can't get exact matches seem silly. Pick a year. Take every player in the minors. Then see how many MLB games they played. Considering 95% of your projection categories is basically just based on games/seasons played, that can't be very hard, except computationally.
You are basically saying (you choose the exact numbers)
50% chance of 0 games 20% chance of 1-100 games 15% chance of 101-500 games 15% chance of 500+ games, the exact quality of which is unknown
Considering there are approximately 8 MiLB levels per team, and ~25 players per roster, would be 200*30=6000 players in the minors at any one time. I think that should be an adequate 'sample size'
(I dislike the now too-mainstream use of 'small sample size'. Not all sample sizes are too small just because they are small... if you don't have a goal or a power calculation for an effect size, you really have no idea if a sample is big or small)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 25, 2013 9:40:05 GMT -5
So far we've got him changing position like you change your underwear, traded off multiple times, and a perennial all-star. Might be good to keep expectations in check. Even the equivalency projections are based on a very small sample size. It's a full season in the minors. This took me 90 minutes, and even though I'll be repeating the work in a couple of weeks when the season ends, it was worth it to satisfy my curiosity ... Davenport Peak Projected Leaders, Position Adjusted, all of minors, minimum 400 PA With BA's pre-season rankings. 1. Miguel Sano, .322 (BA #9) 2. Javier Baez, .321 (BA #16)3. Marcus Semien, .318 (ChW #14) (as a SS; .310 as a 2B) 4. George Springer, .316 (BA #37) 5. Xander Bogaerts, .313 (BA #8) t6. Byron Buxton, .307 (BA #10) t6. Carlos Correa, .307 (BA #13)t8. Maikel Franco, .305 (Phi #8) t8. Rossell Herrera, .305 (Col depth chart) 10. Garin Cecchini, .302 (Bos #7)11. Addison Russell, .301 (BA #48) 12. Mookie Betts, .300 (Bos #31) Considering that the five bold guys are five of the six highest-ranked position players who haven't graduated yet (the sixth, Oscar Taveras, didn't qualify) and that two other top 50 guys rank 4 and 11, this certainly passes the smell test. So as of now he's had one of the dozen best seasons at the plate in all of the minors, relative to his position. Now, I happen to think that it's an over-reaction to put too much stock in a single breakout season. Brandon Moss once had a .289, but his three-year weighted averages ranged from .262 to .267. That's why we need to wait a year before going overboard. But this is still something. To give some perspective, the best ml seasons of: .287 Jacoby Ellsbury .286 Hanley Ramirez .286 Lars Anderson .285 Dustin Pedroia .280 Kevin Youkilis .280 Ryan Kalish .277 Anthony Rizzo
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Aug 25, 2013 14:33:36 GMT -5
Remember this is A+, no more no less, and streaks, including very hot streaks come and go. It's easy to find players who kill at that level and who experience real growing pains moving forward. I didn't find it that easy when searching for equivalent performances to Mookie's Greenville stats. Perhaps you could share this long list of players, who, let's say, have more walks than K's, with an OPS above .850 and an isoP above .150, at age 20? Preferably at a skill position. I do agree that it's easy to find players who have success and then struggle later, which can happen to nearly every prospect, but that's just a little too easy, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 25, 2013 15:33:00 GMT -5
Anderson, Place, Kalish, Westmoreland, Daegas, Lomasney, Still, Weeden, Vitek, Lin, Navarro, Diaz, Exposito, Renfroe, and on and on.
* In reference to why I don't think reaching a ceiling is a very high probability event.
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Aug 25, 2013 15:59:38 GMT -5
Anderson, Place, Kalish, Westmoreland, Daegas, Lomasney, Still, Weeden, Vitek, Lin, Navarro, Diaz, Exposito, Renfroe, and on and on. * In reference to why I don't think reaching a ceiling is a very high probability event. I started to break these down one by one, but, really, it doesn't take much mental effort to look at these names and see that none of the are actually comparable, right? Half of them were never prospects, many never performed at any level, a good number were derailed by injuries... what are you trying to prove? That not every player who signs with the Red Sox makes it to the majors?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 25, 2013 17:06:00 GMT -5
A quick note: the Sox have had eight BA Top 50 prospects in the Henry era. Ryan Westmoreland suffered a career-ending non-baseball injury, while the book is still out on Casey Kelly. That leaves six guys. Throw that number at any intelligent baseball fan and ask them how many of the six have been legitimate All-Stars, and they'll tell you one, two if you're lucky.
Yes: Ellsbury, Ramirez, Lester, Buchholz, Papelelbon.
No: Anderson.
That's insane. But it's not mysterious. The Red Sox value makeup as much as anyone, and seem to evaluate it better than anyone. Even Lars Anderson isn't a counter-example: he had unique and intriguing makeup that appeared to be his undoing. That they developed an MVP with off-the-charts makeup who wasn't even a Top 100 prospect immediately before his ROY season just adds to the argument.
That we need to be cautious about Betts because of the phenomenon of one-season flukes is absolutely true. But career projections should not be based on the average flameout rate of top prospects, because the standard caveats about prospect success rate do not seem to apply to the current Sox.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 25, 2013 18:12:39 GMT -5
Remember this is A+, no more no less, and streaks, including very hot streaks come and go. It's easy to find players who kill at that level and who experience real growing pains moving forward. I didn't find it that easy when searching for equivalent performances to Mookie's Greenville stats. Perhaps you could share this long list of players, who, let's say, have more walks than K's, with an OPS above .850 and an isoP above .150, at age 20? Preferably at a skill position. I do agree that it's easy to find players who have success and then struggle later, which can happen to nearly every prospect, but that's just a little too easy, don't you think?No.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 25, 2013 19:13:18 GMT -5
But career projections should not be based on the average flameout rate of top prospects, because the standard caveats about prospect success rate do not seem to apply to the current Sox. This is the kind of stuff that I would caution drawing too strong a conclusion from, especially when you near-arbitrarily rule out the two of the three most recent cases (prospects suffer fluke injuries all the time, and Casey Kelly looks unlikely to be an All-Star caliber player anytime soon). Even if you dismiss the standard small sample size and correlation/causation questions, the three most recent top 100 prospects also happen to be the three who do not appear to be All-Star caliber players.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Aug 25, 2013 21:40:28 GMT -5
I do agree that it's easy to find players who have success and then struggle later, which can happen to nearly every prospect, but that's just a little too easy, don't you think?No. I hoped we could discuss something more complex than "most prospects have ups and downs = yes", but don't fret, I'm not counting on you to contribute.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 26, 2013 2:19:14 GMT -5
But career projections should not be based on the average flameout rate of top prospects, because the standard caveats about prospect success rate do not seem to apply to the current Sox. This is the kind of stuff that I would caution drawing too strong a conclusion from, especially when you near-arbitrarily rule out the two of the three most recent cases (prospects suffer fluke injuries all the time, and Casey Kelly looks unlikely to be an All-Star caliber player anytime soon). Even if you dismiss the standard small sample size and correlation/causation questions, the three most recent top 100 prospects also happen to be the three who do not appear to be All-Star caliber players. I said top 50 prospects, not top 100. (For 51-100 prospects, you are of course setting the bar lower, e.g., useful player. I have little doubt that the Sox 51-100 prospects have also been outperforming the norm.*) I'm fairly certain that if I determined the percentage of top 50 prospects who become All-Stars, the odds of hitting on even five out of eight (instead of six) at random would be so low and obviously statistically significant as to be silly. It strikes me as so obvious that it's not worth doing the study. (I'd welcome someone else doing the work if they want to prove me wrong!) In terms of causation (by exceptional assessment of makeup), I'm coming from the POV of having an a priori expectation of the possibility of such an effect, based on hours of phone conversations with Jed Hoyer in 2005. Not that we spent the whole time talking about makeup and how much the organization stressed it, obviously, but it's a topic that came up a lot. So my reply would be "this is the kind of skepticism (of what might seem, at too superficial a glance, to be a SSS fluke) that I would caution stating too strongly." And my other reply is that if this isn't what's happening, you need another explanation as to why BA's 23rd ranked farm system in 2004 ended up cleaning everyone else's clock in WAR produced -- not to mention the subsequent success. *Let's compare the Sox 51-100 prospects (excluding the guys still prospects, i.e., Ranaudo, Swihart, Owens, and Britton), to the Braves' list -- picking an organization noted for its prospect development. I'll bold guys who became MLB starters or the equivalent, and put the washouts in italics, underlining them if they never even made the majors. Sox: Middlebrooks, Iglesias, Hansen, Masterson, Moss, Lowrie, Reddick, Pedroia, Shoppach, Bard, Bowden, Kalish. Braves: Kyle Davies (but -0.1 career bWAR) , Bubba Nelson, Gorkys Hernandez, Macay McBride (but -0.2 bWAR), Brandon Jones, Adam LaRoche, Craig Kimbrel, Matt Harrison, Jake Stevens, Andrelton Simmons, Anthony Lerew, Brent Lillibridge (but -0.7 bWAR), Chuck James. The Braves got positive WAR from 5 of their 13 prospects (and one, James, is done with 3.0 bWAR total). I bet that's typical. We've gotten positive WAR from 9 of our 12 (one of whom may be done with 4.3). That's extraordinary.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 26, 2013 10:34:05 GMT -5
I'm fairly certain that if I determined the percentage of top 50 prospects who become All-Stars, the odds of hitting on even five out of eight (instead of six) at random would be so low and obviously statistically significant as to be silly. It strikes me as so obvious that it's not worth doing the study. (I'd welcome someone else doing the work if they want to prove me wrong!) It helps that the list of top 50 Red Sox prospects contains more guys towards the front end of the top 50. For instance: Ellsbury, 13th, 2008 Hanley, 10th, 2005 Lester, 22nd, 2006 Buchholz, 4th, 2008 Papelbon, 37th, 2006 You're right that the Red Sox front office has done an excellent job of developing impact major league players-- indeed, that has been the driving force behind the success of the team between 2007-2011. But drawing such firm conclusions when there are so, so many variables involved and suggesting that future Red Sox prospects are more likely to succeed than prospect from other organizations because of that past success is far too bold. For instance, two of the players on that list entered the organization under a very different front office, while the next three examples under the current regime busted. You can't just point to an unusual occurrence and say "what are the odds?" and then start drawing conclusions from that.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 26, 2013 10:47:22 GMT -5
That said, I do find the 51-100 bit quite interesting. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Aug 26, 2013 12:52:10 GMT -5
I think this is an interesting discussion. Well, it's tailored to a long-held belief of mine, so of course it's interesting to me, but still ... I've long had the belief that the Sox have had a very high hit rate on its prospects once those prospects establish themselves. I'm with Eric, I think the Braves output is probably more typical, and the Sox would be way on the positive end of the bell curve on this one. The methodology isn't bad, either, probably be a fun thing for someone to do at Fangraphs or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by rismith on Aug 26, 2013 17:16:21 GMT -5
Dumb question....but did Mookie play ss in high school? Any chance he can play ss?
Hypothetical I know but if Mookie were to keep improving and looks like a 15-20 hr guy with a great eye and solid defense in two years....could Xander play 3B and Mookie play SS? Just asking because he is already playing 2B in the minors and wasn't sure if that was because of a weak arm or other issue.
Sorry if this is a far reaching hypo but was just curious if it was arm strength related as he has been described as a great, quick athlete.
Thanks
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,405
|
Post by ianrs on Aug 26, 2013 20:36:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 26, 2013 23:40:24 GMT -5
Dumb question....but did Mookie play ss in high school? Any chance he can play ss? Hypothetical I know but if Mookie were to keep improving and looks like a 15-20 hr guy with a great eye and solid defense in two years....could Xander play 3B and Mookie play SS? Just asking because he is already playing 2B in the minors and wasn't sure if that was because of a weak arm or other issue. Sorry if this is a far reaching hypo but was just curious if it was arm strength related as he has been described as a great, quick athlete. Thanks He played SS in HS. He's been projected to play 2B since before he got drafted based on his all-around defensive toolset. He played SS for a little bit for the Sox and looked terrible. When they moved him to 2B, he started to settle in. Good defensive 2B (which Betts is) does not mean potential SS. See Pedroia, Dustin. (I note that at one point I suggested they might play him at SS to get both him and Coyle into the lineup, but it looks like Coyle will be DH'ing the rest of the season due to his injuries, so that problem's solved. Anyway, point is that I wasn't suggesting it long-term, lest anyone get confused.)
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,948
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 28, 2013 13:32:26 GMT -5
www.minorleagueball.com/2013/8/27/4666036/mets-trade-john-buck-marlon-byrd-to-pirates-dilson-herreraPirates trade Dilson Hererra, the poor man's Mookie, for two useful parts, one of whom will start in RF despite being terrible for us a year or two ago. " In 2013 he's hit .265/.330/.421 for Low-A West Virginia in the South Atlantic League, with 11 homers, 11 steals, 37 walks, and 110 strikeouts in 427 at-bats. ... Herrera is a right-handed hitter and thrower, born March 3, 1994 [= 19 in low-A] . He's not very tall at 5-10 [[and 150. i.e. skinnier than Mookie]], but he is physically strong and generates good power given his size. His eye for the strike zone is uneven and he's a rather aggressive hitter at this point, with a high strikeout rate. He is primarily a pull hitter at this stage of his career; he also has a strong platoon split, with an .829 OPS against southpaw pitchers but just .730 against right-handed moundsmen. Defensively, he has good range around the bag at second base, but a mediocre arm precludes usage at shortstop and he's never played a pro inning there." Mets could have done better before the deadline
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Aug 28, 2013 14:11:13 GMT -5
Pirates trade Dilson Hererra, the poor man's Mookie, Does he have any similarities with Mookie Betts aside from playing second base in ithe minors? Sounds closer to a poor man's Sean Coyle.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,948
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 28, 2013 14:25:27 GMT -5
Pirates trade Dilson Hererra, the poor man's Mookie, Does he have any similarities with Mookie Betts aside from playing second base in ithe minors? Sounds closer to a poor man's Sean Coyle. Herrera is more *like* Sean Coyle, than "a poor man's Sean Coyle." My point was just that if Dilson Herrera can bring useful pieces, Mookie can bring more someday.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 29, 2013 0:15:58 GMT -5
After the explosion last week, it was a foregone conclusion that pitchers would be very careful. The question was whether his pitch recognition and plate discipline would mean more walks. The returns are coming in and he's been doing just that, with his OBP crawling up to .400, to go with that .500+ slugging. Betts is already a mature hitter it appears. If they won't pitch to him, he recognizes it, and he's good enough to take the walks. He's going to end up with quite a year over two levels.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Aug 29, 2013 8:58:57 GMT -5
After the explosion last week, it was a foregone conclusion that pitchers would be very careful. The question was whether his pitch recognition and plate discipline would mean more walks. The returns are coming in and he's been doing just that, with his OBP crawling up to .400, to go with that .500+ slugging. Betts is already a mature hitter it appears. If they won't pitch to him, he recognizes it, and he's good enough to take the walks. He's going to end up with quite a year over two levels. Can we just change this thread title to the 2014 Promotion Watch List? I'm only half kidding. If Coyle isn't healthy for the AFL, maybe it'll be this guy instead.
|
|
|
Post by feez732 on Aug 29, 2013 13:52:44 GMT -5
From Keith Law's chat today: link
|
|
|