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 sammo420 on Aug 7, 2014 16:15:23 GMT -5
I assume he thinks the Herald is the second rate paper... you know, the one that (on its front page) today put a picture of the current secretary of state on a bicycle under the heading "pink bike diplomacy" (and yesterday had a full length picture of Giselle in a bikini)? Anybody have yesterdays Herald?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 7, 2014 16:37:08 GMT -5
The Red Sox already have a top rated farm system and that is including recent graduations of JBJ and Xander. The Red Sox have a slew of #3 pitchers with potentially one 1/2 in the making (still not calling Ownes an ace. Lester is a 1 and isn't an ace) and good defensive players with a solid hit-tool but average-to-below power potential. Granted there are some other budding potential stars with power in the making, but they're 17 and 19. Unless the Red Sox were going to get a more polished power-hitter with an elite ceiling or someone we can over-rate as the next Kershaw/Verlander/Hernandez who has the project-ability I don't have a problem with the Red Sox taking on a project if said project has the upside to be an elite talent. I would rather take a guy who has the upside of an ace and the floor of a flame out then to waste the 7th overall pick with something this system already has, good to better prospects. Then again, Swihart appears to be an elite talent and Owens appears to be a highly-regarded prospect whose teetering on the line. Not to mention Margot and Devers have the potential to be a potentially elite prospect. It just gives the Red Sox even more of a reason to take some gambles. What the hell do you consider an Ace? Lester may not be Cy Young or Pedro Martinez out there, but he is without a doubt an ace. One of the 5-10 best pitchers in the league and a guy who you know you can count on to be lights out in the playoffs? Absolutely an ace. (Including this year) Career ERA: 3.64 Career FIP: 3.60 Career ERA+: 120 Contract year: 2014 ERA: 2.59 ERA 2014 FIP: 2.63 FIP 2014 ERA+: 151 Sure, he's an ace. That is, if you think James Shields is an ace. When I think of aces, I think of HOF level talent who are among the best pitchers in the league. For example, is he Felix Hernandez, Clayton Kershaw, Sonny Gray (maybe too early, but the kid is GOOD), Chris Sale, Johnny Cueto, Adam Wainwright, do I need to continue? I said he was GOOD and a top of the rotation starter, just not an ACE. Not that awards are the end all, be all, but he's only once in his career been considered for the Cy Young and that was 4th place in 2010 (though that will obviously change after this year). He's not even the most sought after free agent starting pitcher and he doesn't even cost a draft pick. Again, he can anchor a rotation and be a number 1, but he's moving back a spot if any of the above pitchers are on the same team.
|
|
|
Trey Ball
Aug 7, 2014 16:53:03 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by moonstone2 on Aug 7, 2014 16:53:03 GMT -5
I think that there were possibilities that likely had similar value though less risk and less ceiling. I just think with a top ten pick you need to take less risk and you shouldn't take a high school pitcher unless it's a guy who already has premium stuff and some polish. The great athlete with the projectable stuff is a guy you pick later not seventh. Aren't you always saying the Sox can't get by with a raft of pitchers with "#3 ceilings" and need some prospects with elite ceiling? They do but I would much rather have a good prospect than a player with such a high chance of being a zero with the seventh pick. I am sorry but I don't buy that because we have a lot of pitching at the upper levels we couldn't take Shipley. Taking a huge amount of risk for ceiling because you need high ceiling in your system is the definition of dtafting for need. Which we have been lectured over and over that you aren't supposed to do.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 8, 2014 11:01:20 GMT -5
Aren't you always saying the Sox can't get by with a raft of pitchers with "#3 ceilings" and need some prospects with elite ceiling? They do but I would much rather have a good prospect than a player with such a high chance of being a zero with the seventh pick. I am sorry but I don't buy that because we have a lot of pitching at the upper levels we couldn't take Shipley. Taking a huge amount of risk for ceiling because you need high ceiling in your system is the definition of dtafting for need. Which we have been lectured over and over that you aren't supposed to do. That's absurd. What team doesn't need high ceiling prospects? You may as well say that we shouldn't draft anyone because we'd be drafting for the need of more prospects.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 8, 2014 11:50:05 GMT -5
They do but I would much rather have a good prospect than a player with such a high chance of being a zero with the seventh pick. I am sorry but I don't buy that because we have a lot of pitching at the upper levels we couldn't take Shipley. Taking a huge amount of risk for ceiling because you need high ceiling in your system is the definition of dtafting for need. Which we have been lectured over and over that you aren't supposed to do. That's absurd. What team doesn't need high ceiling prospects? You may as well say that we shouldn't draft anyone because we'd be drafting for the need of more prospects. I have to agree with this. High-risk, high-reward to me doesn't exactly scream drafting for a need. If anything, if you're drafting a kid with a limited ceiling, but a high floor then you're probably taking a look at what your system has and what you need to fill it.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Aug 8, 2014 12:30:10 GMT -5
Aren't you always saying the Sox can't get by with a raft of pitchers with "#3 ceilings" and need some prospects with elite ceiling? They do but I would much rather have a good prospect than a player with such a high chance of being a zero with the seventh pick. I am sorry but I don't buy that because we have a lot of pitching at the upper levels we couldn't take Shipley. Taking a huge amount of risk for ceiling because you need high ceiling in your system is the definition of dtafting for need. Which we have been lectured over and over that you aren't supposed to do. This doesn't make much sense to me. We are talking about drafting "high upside" talent because ultimately the goal, no matter who or what you are drafting is to bring talent into your system. It's not like drafting a catcher, or a first baseman or a center fielder because you don't have one, it's drafting a pitcher. Pitchers, give or take, are half of your roster, you need a lot more pitchers than you do left fielders or 2nd baseman. Lets not pretend that drafting a pitcher with upside is the same thing as drafting for need. I could see you making the point that the Sox stretched for the pick when there were other pitchers ranked right where he was. But it's not like Ball was this huge stretch, he was mocked going in the top 10 by most people out there in the industry. Even if Ball ends up being a complete bust that doesn't equate to a bad strategy trying to bring in a talented pitcher and taking a chance of getting an impact player. And if Ball was striking out 14 batters per nine and had an era of 0.50 I don't think ANYONE would complain about him, which leads me to assume (know really) that this is a hindsight opinion. And again, if hindsight is your only argument you have to choose to ignore the fact that Ball was drafted right around where everyone thought he was drafted.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 10, 2014 21:51:36 GMT -5
Last 5 starts:
28.2IP, 17H, 8R, 5ER, 17/10 K/BB, no HRA
|
|
|
Post by njsox on Aug 11, 2014 8:52:01 GMT -5
Last 5 starts: 28.2IP, 17H, 8R, 5ER, 17/10 K/BB, no HRA Using stats from his last 10 starts he is still very solid. For a 6'6" projectable 20 y.o. lefty from a cold weather state, I think we should be very happy with the year he is having in Greenville. He has shown the ability to make adjustments and compete, if the arsenal reaches it's potential he could justify his draft slot.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Aug 11, 2014 8:55:18 GMT -5
Great to see Ball starting to put it together. I still think he is a long term project. I'm thinking he burns an option or two before he is called up, but that is a long way away.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 11, 2014 9:07:38 GMT -5
When BFP K% BB% HRC BABIP GB% LD% PU% Apr-Jun 213 .136 .080 .030 .413 .329 .251 .084 Jul-Aug 170 .171 .094 .008 .211 .402 .197 .139
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 11, 2014 9:58:33 GMT -5
I think it's also worth reminding everyone that Owens' year in Greenville ended with some pretty ugly numbers too, even if he was racking up strikeouts. I think its wise to assume that all high school pitchers will likely struggle with their first pro assignments. Which renders most of the discussion here kind of irrelevant
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Aug 11, 2014 10:15:26 GMT -5
there was a consistent pattern to Owens starts in Greenville in the first several games. he would get strikeouts in the first 3 innings, then get hit in the fourth. after that, he had a pretty good run on starts with 5+ IP. So you could immediately see that there was something to build on. Ball had two 5IP games at the begining, then 0.2 IP in starts #4 and 6. Perhaps people panicked because Ball was a #7 pick versus #36 for Owens
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Aug 11, 2014 10:43:01 GMT -5
Well, a #7 pick should have higher expectations attached to him than the #36 pick. I continue to believe there is a middle ground between the people saying we should make him and outfielder and saying we should be "very happy" with his season as someone above did.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Aug 11, 2014 12:12:34 GMT -5
I'd say that Ball had a successful year, overall. I'm optimistic but not excited. He didn't take the world by storm, and when you have the #7 pick, it'd be nice if they're a Top-100 prospect right away. And, you know, he wasn't. But he progressed through the year, clearly got better, and, in the end, we're comparing him to our expectations rather than the reality ... it could be that the Sox consider his year a bigger success than we do (or less of one). We really don't know their goals for him for the year or what he was working on. Doesn't mean we shouldn't form some tentative opinions, but we should be aware of the limitations of our views and information when we're talking about a raw HS pitcher in low-A.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 11, 2014 14:21:56 GMT -5
What I want to see are updated scouting reports during his run of success here. The thing that did worry me earlier in the year, far more than the numbers, was that the scouting reports were apparently abysmal. Quoth Josh Norris at BA on July 11, "Every scouting report we've gotten here has been very bad, to say the least. It's obviously good that he wasn't bombed (in his last couple of starts at that point, the start of his turnaround). But evaluators aren't terribly optimistic about his future." And I think it was Norris who had expounded elsewhere that the reports said bad stuff, bad armspeed, etc.
Obviously, one could place those bad reports in a number of lights. If, for example, he has actually turned things around as its seems, you could chalk up how awful he looked to a negative spiral - he gets his brains beat in, loses confidence, starts losing his mechanics over thinking things, then gets hit worse, etc. It could also be that he's just bad, although I sincerely doubt that.
Just as I was reserving judgment when he was sucking, so will I reserve judgment now that he's straightened out until I hear more. This run is certainly very encouraging.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 11, 2014 14:33:10 GMT -5
What I want to see are updated scouting reports during his run of success here. The thing that did worry me earlier in the year, far more than the numbers, was that the scouting reports were apparently abysmal. Quoth Josh Norris at BA on July 11, "Every scouting report we've gotten here has been very bad, to say the least. It's obviously good that he wasn't bombed (in his last couple of starts at that point, the start of his turnaround). But evaluators aren't terribly optimistic about his future." And I think it was Norris who had expounded elsewhere that the reports said bad stuff, bad armspeed, etc. Obviously, one could place those bad reports in a number of lights. If, for example, he has actually turned things around as its seems, you could chalk up how awful he looked to a negative spiral - he gets his brains beat in, loses confidence, starts losing his mechanics over thinking things, then gets hit worse, etc. It could also be that he's just bad, although I sincerely doubt that. Just as I was reserving judgment when he was sucking, so will I reserve judgment now that he's straightened out until I hear more. This run is certainly very encouraging. Either one of two things is true. He wasn't as bad as he appeared originally or he has improved quite a bit. Either way that's good news. I hope it's the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 11, 2014 15:55:20 GMT -5
Either one of two things is true. He wasn't as bad as he appeared originally or he has improved quite a bit. Either way that's good news. I hope it's the latter. Well, you're ignoring the possibility that he isn't as good as he appears now. You can't just assume the good results are his true current talent level. Not necessarily what I think, but just saying, it's not really the dichotomy you present.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Aug 11, 2014 16:20:22 GMT -5
What I want to see are updated scouting reports during his run of success here. The thing that did worry me earlier in the year, far more than the numbers, was that the scouting reports were apparently abysmal. Quoth Josh Norris at BA on July 11, "Every scouting report we've gotten here has been very bad, to say the least. It's obviously good that he wasn't bombed (in his last couple of starts at that point, the start of his turnaround). But evaluators aren't terribly optimistic about his future." And I think it was Norris who had expounded elsewhere that the reports said bad stuff, bad armspeed, etc. Obviously, one could place those bad reports in a number of lights. If, for example, he has actually turned things around as its seems, you could chalk up how awful he looked to a negative spiral - he gets his brains beat in, loses confidence, starts losing his mechanics over thinking things, then gets hit worse, etc. It could also be that he's just bad, although I sincerely doubt that. Just as I was reserving judgment when he was sucking, so will I reserve judgment now that he's straightened out until I hear more. This run is certainly very encouraging. My personal optimistic theory: the Sox identified a few mechanical flaws and gave him some fixes to work on. He spent the early part of the year struggling to incorporate those fixes, throwing his overall mechanics out of whack. But, as the year progressed, he started to get everything working together a lot better and saw improvements. Total bs, admittedly. But, you know, could be true. It fits all of the available evidence pretty well ... leaving aside the results, it doesn't make any sense to me that his scouting could go from "top 10 pick" exciting to putrid like that. And if there's a story soon supporting this theory, I'm gonna link back to this comment triumphantly. If there isn't, I'll let it fade away, unremembered...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 11, 2014 16:26:52 GMT -5
Either one of two things is true. He wasn't as bad as he appeared originally or he has improved quite a bit. Either way that's good news. I hope it's the latter. Well, you're ignoring the possibility that he isn't as good as he appears now. You can't just assume the good results are his true current talent level. Not necessarily what I think, but just saying, it's not really the dichotomy you present. I suppose, but looking at the BABIP, it's hard to imagine. It was absurdly high before, now it's reasonable and not too low.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 11, 2014 17:11:46 GMT -5
Well, you're ignoring the possibility that he isn't as good as he appears now. You can't just assume the good results are his true current talent level. Not necessarily what I think, but just saying, it's not really the dichotomy you present. I suppose, but looking at the BABIP, it's hard to imagine. It was absurdly high before, now it's reasonable and not too low. You probably shouldn't cite the one stat that has the highest variance and lowest correlation to pitcher true talent level to conclude that Ball has improved significantly. Yes, pitcher BABIP in the lower minors has more of a skill component to it than pitcher BABIP in the majors, but it also still includes a ton of random noise, especially in samples as small as the ones we're looking at. It's certainly still a positive sign, and many of his other indicators have started pointing in the right direction. But I wouldn't say that this stretch convincingly demonstrates that Ball has turned a corner and that he'll pitch to his pedigree going forward. You'd still like his peripherals to improve, and I have a very hard time saying that this was a net positive year for him. But baby steps are better than no baby steps.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 11, 2014 17:33:30 GMT -5
...]My personal optimistic theory: the Sox identified a few mechanical flaws and gave him some fixes to work on. He spent the early part of the year struggling to incorporate those fixes, throwing his overall mechanics out of whack. But, as the year progressed, he started to get everything working together a lot better and saw improvements. Total bs, admittedly. But, you know, could be true. It fits all of the available evidence pretty well ... leaving aside the results, it doesn't make any sense to me that his scouting could go from "top 10 pick" exciting to putrid like that. And if there's a story soon supporting this theory, I'm gonna link back to this comment triumphantly. If there isn't, I'll let it fade away, unremembered... This is the same as my mental narrative. More circumstantial evidence: He comes out of high school, has five games in the GCL, and they jump him to Low A. It would be foolish to think there isn't a learning curve associated with that trajectory, and I mean one that includes mechanical changes and a conditioning regime. That's a bit new stuff for any kid fresh from the senior prom. Like Chris says, it would be great to fill in the details in my narrative with some actual scouting now that there appears to be some good pitching involved.
|
|
|
Post by quintanariffic on Aug 11, 2014 20:01:22 GMT -5
FWIW, I wouldn't be at all surprised if, as Ball begins to tire out from the increased work load of his first full professional season, his results begin to tail off over the rest of the month. Will be really important to get eyes on him during Instrux re: scouting opinions of his then current mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Aug 11, 2014 21:03:46 GMT -5
What I want to see are updated scouting reports during his run of success here. The thing that did worry me earlier in the year, far more than the numbers, was that the scouting reports were apparently abysmal. Quoth Josh Norris at BA on July 11, "Every scouting report we've gotten here has been very bad, to say the least. It's obviously good that he wasn't bombed (in his last couple of starts at that point, the start of his turnaround). But evaluators aren't terribly optimistic about his future." And I think it was Norris who had expounded elsewhere that the reports said bad stuff, bad armspeed, etc. Obviously, one could place those bad reports in a number of lights. If, for example, he has actually turned things around as its seems, you could chalk up how awful he looked to a negative spiral - he gets his brains beat in, loses confidence, starts losing his mechanics over thinking things, then gets hit worse, etc. It could also be that he's just bad, although I sincerely doubt that. Just as I was reserving judgment when he was sucking, so will I reserve judgment now that he's straightened out until I hear more. This run is certainly very encouraging. I am almost positive that this Josh Norris comment (from a BA Hot Sheet chat) was a direct result of JJ Cooper's report two weeks or so earlier. Specifically, he tweeted on June 26: JJ Cooper ?@jjcoop36 Keep searching for a scout who has seen Red Sox LHP Trey Ball good this year. It's a tough quest. No luck yet. JJ Cooper @jjcoop36 Scouts aren't liking the delivery or the stuff with Trey Ball. Showing nothing plus, worries about his delivery and arm action. My guess is the scout probably saw Trey while he was scuffling through his 6ER outings. Since then his results have been much better, at least statistically. Would love to hear a new scouting report.
|
|
brendan98
Veteran
Posts: 750
Member is Online
|
Post by brendan98 on Aug 25, 2014 9:23:13 GMT -5
Another good outing for Ball yesterday, I agree it would be nice to hear a scouting report on one of his more recent outings to get an idea how how his stuff has developed, but I have to imagine that the Sox feel very good about the way his season has turned around, and likely view it as an extremely successful season in terms of his development. Salem will likely be a pretty big challenge for Ball next year, and I'd guess there will likely be some more rough patches, but with his age and inexperience I think the fact that he has shown the ability to handle some struggles and make adjustments bodes well for his future.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Aug 25, 2014 13:09:48 GMT -5
...]My personal optimistic theory: the Sox identified a few mechanical flaws and gave him some fixes to work on. He spent the early part of the year struggling to incorporate those fixes, throwing his overall mechanics out of whack. But, as the year progressed, he started to get everything working together a lot better and saw improvements. Total bs, admittedly. But, you know, could be true. It fits all of the available evidence pretty well ... leaving aside the results, it doesn't make any sense to me that his scouting could go from "top 10 pick" exciting to putrid like that. And if there's a story soon supporting this theory, I'm gonna link back to this comment triumphantly. If there isn't, I'll let it fade away, unremembered... This is the same as my mental narrative. More circumstantial evidence: He comes out of high school, has five games in the GCL, and they jump him to Low A. It would be foolish to think there isn't a learning curve associated with that trajectory, and I mean one that includes mechanical changes and a conditioning regime. That's a bit new stuff for any kid fresh from the senior prom. Like Chris says, it would be great to fill in the details in my narrative with some actual scouting now that there appears to be some good pitching involved. I also agree. I don't think this is total bs but a very common occurrence.
|
|
|