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 oilcansman on May 30, 2014 15:46:09 GMT -5
Beb (Leland Grove) Trey Ball seems lost thus far. Any chance the Sox convert him back to a hitter if he keeps this up over the coming year? Klaw (2:41 PM) I see these questions and I want to believe they're just trolls, but I know there are actually fans whose myopia extends to giving up on a teenaged player ten months after he signed. I feel a little ashamed.
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Jun 2, 2014 12:39:59 GMT -5
The crap is not the player, its the picking another P at #7. The Sox have enough Pitching depth in the minor League system and we all now who they are. Where the organization needs depth is OF prospects who can hit for power. I understand the MLB draft is not an exact science nor where a player is picked determines how good he will be (see MTrout). At 7 the pick should have been AMeadows in my book, thats all.. I see, so the Sox should start drafting for perceived needs at the ml or ML levels? Great advice. Shocked you have time to post here given what surely must be a busy day in the front office of a major league team. If I had all the answers, yes, I would be in a front office. I don't. It's an opinion, relax!
I'll say again, Picking that high for the first time in many years, you would think with the pitching depth already in the system they would have taken a shot at a Hitter with projectable power? Ball could have Koufax stats and I would say the same thing. Its not the Player, its the position drafted that high, where you may never pick that high again.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 2, 2014 12:53:29 GMT -5
I see, so the Sox should start drafting for perceived needs at the ml or ML levels? Great advice. Shocked you have time to post here given what surely must be a busy day in the front office of a major league team. If I had all the answers, yes, I would be in a front office. I don't. It's an opinion, relax!
I'll say again, Picking that high for the first time in many years, you would think with the pitching depth already in the system they would have taken a shot at a Hitter with projectable power? Ball could have Koufax stats and I would say the same thing. Its not the Player, its the position drafted that high, where you may never pick that high again. That's kind of what I think, too as I think Meadows might have been a better bet, but what do I know? You'd hope the Sox wouldn't pick that high again. Ball seems like a boom or bust scenario. Way too soon to give up him, though, but if the Sox walk away from that high a pick with nothing to show for it.....not good. Hopefully the kid stays healthy, takes well to instruction as it seems that he would given the glowing report about his makeup, and hopefully in time he becomes the strong starting pitching prospect they think he can be.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jun 2, 2014 13:15:09 GMT -5
My understanding is that there were 6 clear choices, they were gone. Next came a group of uncertain ranking from high floor but not so high ceiling to high ceiling but risky picks. With the expectation that we will most often be picking from the 20+ spots, the high ceiling picks are usually gone, while there are still high floor guys. So while there may have been better picks instead of Ball at #7, the thought was that we could get such players in subsequent drafts at pick #20 or higher.
|
|
|
Post by ibsmith85 on Jun 2, 2014 13:30:21 GMT -5
Just for a little perspective, Clint Frazier, who just about all of us wanted, is slugging all of .363 (173AB) on the season (and thats including 5-8 w/HR over his last 2 games).
These players need time before we just write them off, do Ball's numbers look terrible, yes, of course they do. Raw HS talents need some time to establish themselves.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jun 2, 2014 14:51:29 GMT -5
There was no clear cut pick at the time that was better than the other. I had Shipley as the next best player, but I figured the Sox did their research so anyone from the Shipley, Meadows, Ball group was going to be the best pick. It is way to early to tell if it was a good pick or not, and as Law says above, you are basically trolling if you are labeling him a bust right now. This is typical. Even if we move out 5 years from now and Ball is a bust and Meadows is crushing MLB, there was still nothing at the time that suggested Meadows was a clear cut better pick than Ball.
I would agree pick the best player available, if you feel it's a wash I would go with team need as the tiebreaker, but that probably wasn't the case between Ball/Meadows. IIRC Meadows took a hit in his scouting report during the season. I recall him being average-slightly above average at everything but not having a high ceiling, where as Ball has the ace ceiling with development.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,989
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 2, 2014 15:37:20 GMT -5
There was no clear cut pick at the time that was better than the other. ... No one saw this at the time, but the Phillies pick several picks lower has looked very good so far: true SS J.P. Crawford is hitting .322 .417 .452 .869 at 19 in the Sally league, and KLaw just ranked him higher than Mookie.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 2, 2014 17:38:11 GMT -5
I completely agree that we need to give Ball time, and plenty of time, before we can make any conclusions regarding this pick. Don't get it twisted. That being said, the only negative thing I will say is this: At the #7 pick, you would think you would be able to grab a guy who not only projects well but also has enough present talent to handle an assignment in low-A. I can understand the disappointment, but I'm definitely holding hope that the Sox saw enough in his arsenal coupled with his makeup and athleticism to turn into something special in a year or two.
|
|
|
Post by quintanariffic on Jun 2, 2014 23:12:03 GMT -5
I see, so the Sox should start drafting for perceived needs at the ml or ML levels? Great advice. Shocked you have time to post here given what surely must be a busy day in the front office of a major league team. If I had all the answers, yes, I would be in a front office. I don't. It's an opinion, relax!
I'll say again, Picking that high for the first time in many years, you would think with the pitching depth already in the system they would have taken a shot at a Hitter with projectable power? Ball could have Koufax stats and I would say the same thing. Its not the Player, its the position drafted that high, where you may never pick that high again. OK then. Well your opinion is worthless and unfounded. You don't need all the answers, or even 10% of the answers, to know that you shouldn't be drafting for need relative to perceived gaps in your ml system. Anyone who has a passing interest in baseball should know this - does not require rocket science. There are few things more pathetic than "it's just my opinion" - that's the last/standard refuge for the ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 2, 2014 23:43:12 GMT -5
Not to be a broken record, but I wonder how much of the disappointment has to do with the "out of left field" nature of the pick when it was made. We had spent months talking about the likes of Meadows and the guys who went 4-5-6, but Ball, even though he was projected to go just barely after the Sox picked, was a surprise.
Granted, on one hand, if it were Moran and he were hitting .266/.310/.348 in Salem, I'm sure people would be losing their minds, but I think folks would have a lot more patience with Frazier's .249/.343/.353 in Low A given that we'd talked ourselves into him.
Of course, Frazier also had a great complex league showing last year, while we got 10 innings of Ball, so that factors in.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jun 3, 2014 4:43:49 GMT -5
Kinda silly to get upset over guys that went before 7. Does anyone know why Austin Meadows hasn't played yet this year? He was terrific in rookie ball last year.
|
|
|
Trey Ball
Jun 3, 2014 6:56:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 3, 2014 6:56:13 GMT -5
If I had all the answers, yes, I would be in a front office. I don't. It's an opinion, relax!
I'll say again, Picking that high for the first time in many years, you would think with the pitching depth already in the system they would have taken a shot at a Hitter with projectable power? Ball could have Koufax stats and I would say the same thing. Its not the Player, its the position drafted that high, where you may never pick that high again. OK then. Well your opinion is worthless and unfounded. You don't need all the answers, or even 10% of the answers, to know that you shouldn't be drafting for need relative to perceived gaps in your ml system. Anyone who has a passing interest in baseball should know this - does not require rocket science. There are few things more pathetic than "it's just my opinion" - that's the last/standard refuge for the ignorant. Okay then how does a team draft if they have two or more players ranked similarly. Shouldn't they then consider the needs of the organization? In this case the Red Sox had a system with a lot of arms but no high end arms. I think it's likely that the Sox thought they needed a player who had #2 potential and were willing to take on some additional risk to do that. Myself I wanted the Sox to make sure the Sox got a good player in the system given how high the pick was. The best guy for that would have been Shipley.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,989
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 3, 2014 8:08:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jun 3, 2014 10:49:18 GMT -5
Thanks. And thank god Sox Prospects doesn't have the design of that site. Yikes.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jun 3, 2014 11:51:42 GMT -5
A strong case could be made for at least being able to pick a guy with a strong college performance record with a # 7 but we have seen that has not always worked either. For example Shipley hasn't been setting the world on fire either. Still, to me, it would seem that we should be able to pick a guy at that level who is a relatively proven commodity. Instead of a definite project. It seems very likely that they should have known Mr. Ball was a definite project.
In the final analysis it comes down to scouting and to me it sure helps if they know enough about the player to be able to foresee issues before they come up. In today's world though, how do you anticipate how a guy will do against a good forkball? Even proven college guys like Moran struggle sometimes. It is definitely a crap shoot but any edge can help. Such as seeing the kid play basketball (Mookie and Ellsbury)! Seeing them interact with others. Getting to know their social circle some. And yes checking their police record.
Personally I like drafting for speed and eyesight, proven skills like defense. And for pitchers tall guys with long fingers!
I'm only kidding to a degree. Yes I would even consider such things. I think the Sox liked Ball because he was tall, athletic, a positive and maleable young man who they thought they might be able to see grow into a little more mph. A guy that had the raw material to maybe become a #2 level pitcher.
He probably has better raw material to work with than they had with Doubront early on even when he was tearing up Venezuelan baeball at 17 years old. Just saying at #7 one would think more probability analysis would be appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jun 3, 2014 12:10:43 GMT -5
This is getting ridiculous. They scouted Ball. They scouted Shipley and Meadows. They scouted Fraizer, Stewart, Moran, Bryant and Gray. They paid people to go to his games, and they paid other people to cross those people and other people to cross check those people. They cross checked all that against other industry sources. They picked Ball because they thought with the information they had he was the best pick for the organization. Could be a bad pick. Could be the worst pick of the draft. Could be the best. All I really know for certain is that we have no idea after 20 ip at Greenville.
Look I read scouting reports on every of the top 15 guys, I looked for every source I could get. I thought I knew everything risks/rewards of pitchers/hitters, college/hs, age/experience, ceiling/floor. But in reality the data at my fingertips was miniscule compared to what the Red Sox had. We are sitting here nit picking a pick less than a year later when it was widely accepted as a good pick. NFL and MLB are different you are not going to be able to judge a draft the year after. If that was the case we should have already written off Johnson and Marrerro. We don't know the process, but I can assure you Ben didn't just wake up hung over, throw a dart at a board, and write a 2.75M check to Ball. They get paid to do this, they are not going to get it right every time but they are going to follow the process. And for the last time IT IS TOO EARLY TO TELL
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 3, 2014 19:30:23 GMT -5
5IP, 4H, 0R, BB, 3K
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jun 3, 2014 19:38:22 GMT -5
There's two different things here. One is declaring him a bust already or even being overly concerned about his performance, which I agree is over the top ridiculous. But there's nothing wrong with simply pointing out that he has been really bad so far (tonight notwithstanding). He has (or, I should say, his box scores have), but some people seem to disagree with even that or don't like it when people say it. It may not matter at all in the end, but it is what it is.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jun 3, 2014 19:53:30 GMT -5
Love the one walk! Probably could have gone one more inning, but they wanted him to feel good about this performance. Nice game....lets build on it Trey!
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 3, 2014 20:14:19 GMT -5
5.0-4-0-0-1-3 for First-Round Bust Trey Ball.
Three swinging strikes, all in the third. It looks like he's stuck somewhere between being able to generate swings and misses and generating bad contact, as he had another crazy-high number of foul balls: 18 total, but 14 through two innings.
I have absolutely no idea if this is normal or not, but his foul balls in each of his last four outings:
5/9: 75 pitches, 7 fouls (9%) 5/19: 36 pitches, 2 fouls (6%) 5/24: 77 pitches, 9 fouls (12%) So this all seems normal, then it gets weird: 5/29: 41 pitches, 16 fouls (39%) 6/3: 69 pitches, 18 fouls (26%)
No idea what that even means, but ... strange.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 3, 2014 20:15:37 GMT -5
Love the one walk! Probably could have gone one more inning, but they wanted him to feel good about this performance. Nice game....lets build on it Trey! He was at 69 pitches. Looks like they're capping him around 70-75, so he was at his limit.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 3, 2014 20:40:22 GMT -5
5.0-4-0-0-1-3 for First-Round Bust Trey Ball. Three swinging strikes, all in the third. It looks like he's stuck somewhere between being able to generate swings and misses and generating bad contact, as he had another crazy-high number of foul balls: 18 total, but 14 through two innings. I have absolutely no idea if this is normal or not, but his foul balls in each of his last four outings: 5/9: 75 pitches, 7 fouls (9%) 5/19: 36 pitches, 2 fouls (6%) 5/24: 77 pitches, 9 fouls (12%) So this all seems normal, then it gets weird: 5/29: 41 pitches, 16 fouls (39%) 6/3: 69 pitches, 18 fouls (26%) No idea what that even means, but ... strange. For what it's worth, the league-average foul ball rate is roughly 17.5%. Russell Carleton did some research back in the day on what a high foul ball rate means for a pitcher; here is his conclusion:
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 3, 2014 20:43:22 GMT -5
They should look at 2-strike foul ball rates because that's where it doesn't help the pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 3, 2014 20:48:59 GMT -5
They should look at 2-strike foul ball rates because that's where it doesn't help the pitcher. You should read the full article, where he does exactly that:
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 4, 2014 9:08:11 GMT -5
thinking out loud here......we're pretty obsessed with the Trey Ball stat lines early on, and admittedly its hard not to be. That said, I'd love to hear from Ball or a coach regarding his objectives for the year. Given how raw he is, I'd imagine his short term goals are fairly rudimentary: Build strength, acclimate to the 5 day routine, establish fastball command. Perhaps he wants to throw his secondary pitches here and there as to not become completely rusty, but how many swinging strikes should we expect if Ball is predominantly trying to repeat his mechanics and command his fastball? I'm probably more interested in % strikes and BB rate right now than I am about stats used to gauge dominance. Like I said though, I'm only assuming what his short-term objectives might be, so I'd be interested to hear any reports on this.
|
|
|