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 wskeleton76 on Apr 24, 2014 1:21:54 GMT -5
Owens and Bowden.
|
|
|
Post by njsox on Apr 24, 2014 10:25:06 GMT -5
Owens started in Greeville. There is no precedent (They haven't drafted many HS arms of this level) of how they do things, everyone is different with different development plans. They may have felt he needed to stay back for a couple of weeks or wanted to get Light off to a good start before moving him up a level. There are a million ways to spin this unless there is concrete information as to their thinking. OK, that's actually more to my point, Owens saw no time at all in any short season ball (though he was a California kid with tons more innings under his belt). Was the reason he jumped straight to Greenville because the Sox saw something in him that said he could handle it? They seemed to have been right. With Ball all we have heard is raw, raw, raw and that the stuff hasn't even shown up yet. So it's more curiosity than anything, did he really start to come on and show something in XST?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 24, 2014 10:51:10 GMT -5
Per Alex Speier, why Ball started the year in extended and why he is being moved to Greenville:
|
|
|
Post by njsox on Apr 24, 2014 11:23:14 GMT -5
Per Alex Speier, why Ball started the year in extended and why he is being moved to Greenville: Exactly what I was looking for, thanks Jmei.
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on May 10, 2014 13:50:13 GMT -5
Should Ball revert back to CF? Stats are not good....
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on May 10, 2014 14:18:13 GMT -5
Looking at Speier's report, I still have a hard time figuring out what he (Ball) is good at. I thought maybe he has very good stuff but because of his size he has trouble repeating and therefore lacks command. Speier states that. But from the results (is it 28 hits in 13 innings) it doesn't appear that his stuff is all that great when it is in the zone. A 92 MPH fastball doesn't sound too daunting, even if one can dream on him increasing it to 94.
Is is just command that we are looking for, or is it him developing "better" stuff (or worse yet, both)?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 10, 2014 14:23:51 GMT -5
Geez, he is fresh out of high school, has just made 3 starts in full-season ball, and only 2 of them were good results-wise. Overreact much?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 10, 2014 14:44:10 GMT -5
Looking at Speier's report, I still have a hard time figuring out what he (Ball) is good at. I thought maybe he has very good stuff but because of his size he has trouble repeating and therefore lacks command. Speier states that. But from the results (is it 28 hits in 13 innings) it doesn't appear that his stuff is all that great when it is in the zone. A 92 MPH fastball doesn't sound too daunting, even if one can dream on him increasing it to 94. Is is just command that we are looking for, or is it him developing "better" stuff (or worse yet, both)? Um, "stuff" is a lot more than just fastball velocity, and you certainly can't tell how good his stuff is by scouting the box score of his first three outings. I know it's hard to accept that we just have no idea how good Ball is or will be based on the publicly-available information available so far, but that's really where things are at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on May 10, 2014 15:01:26 GMT -5
I've decided to cut the kid some slack for at least 1-2 years. Some people a hell of a lot more knowledgeable that I am saw something in him, for example Callis and the Sox org, and rated him highly. Following his every faux paux in A ball is not going to help his confidence. We need to just give him some slack. He is supposed to be an absolutely great young man. I am 100% on his bandwagon rooting for him going forward. He deserves a shot and some patience.
He's on our team. We need to have his back.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on May 10, 2014 15:46:41 GMT -5
Looking at Speier's report, I still have a hard time figuring out what he (Ball) is good at. I thought maybe he has very good stuff but because of his size he has trouble repeating and therefore lacks command. Speier states that. But from the results (is it 28 hits in 13 innings) it doesn't appear that his stuff is all that great when it is in the zone. A 92 MPH fastball doesn't sound too daunting, even if one can dream on him increasing it to 94. Is is just command that we are looking for, or is it him developing "better" stuff (or worse yet, both)? Um, "stuff" is a lot more than just fastball velocity, and you certainly can't tell how good his stuff is by scouting the box score of his first three outings. I know it's hard to accept that we just have no idea how good Ball is or will be based on the publicly-available information available so far, but that's really where things are at the moment. I though I was clear not to suggest that stuff is only velo. My question was what -- other than velo improvement -- is expected to improve in his stuff. Are you suggesting that his current stuff is good? If so, why is he being hit so hard. I am not trying to slag him, but I can envision a guy like a young Randy Johnson who has great stuff but can't harness it until he gets his delivery down. In that case, control is the issue, but his hits per inning was good because his stuff was good (when it was around the plate). But here his whip of 2 seems to suggest that his stuff is hittable when he is around the plate. So, if his stuff is hittable, what is projected to change that? Increase velo, or command within the zone?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 10, 2014 16:11:44 GMT -5
But here his whip of 2 seems to suggest absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 10, 2014 16:29:57 GMT -5
Um, "stuff" is a lot more than just fastball velocity, and you certainly can't tell how good his stuff is by scouting the box score of his first three outings. I know it's hard to accept that we just have no idea how good Ball is or will be based on the publicly-available information available so far, but that's really where things are at the moment. I though I was clear not to suggest that stuff is only velo. My question was what -- other than velo improvement -- is expected to improve in his stuff. Are you suggesting that his current stuff is good? If so, why is he being hit so hard. I am not trying to slag him, but I can envision a guy like a young Randy Johnson who has great stuff but can't harness it until he gets his delivery down. In that case, control is the issue, but his hits per inning was good because his stuff was good (when it was around the plate). But here his whip of 2 seems to suggest that his stuff is hittable when he is around the plate. So, if his stuff is hittable, what is projected to change that? Increase velo, or command within the zone? Again, you're trying to scout a box score, which just cannot and should not be done. You can't draw any conclusions about his stuff based on how many hits he gave up in his first three starts in professional baseball. Pitchers with great stuff get hit hard all the time in the low minors. For instance, the very example you cite (Randy Johnson) gave up 9.5 H/9 and a 1.939 WHIP in his first 27.1 IP in the New York-Penn League in 1985, and he was a 21-year-old college draftee (Ball is 19 and pitching one level higher). I'm not saying that Ball is the next Randy Johnson, but I am saying that trying to draw any conclusions based on his first three professional starts is incredibly impetuous. He's a high school draftee-- everything is supposed to improve, from his velocity to his command/control to the crispness of his secondary stuff to his pitchability. If you want more details on what kind of pitcher he is and where he needs to improve, our own Ian Cundall got a good look at him in Spring Training and published this scouting report, which should answer most of your questions. His latest start was a disaster, but this is the same guy who our front office thought highly enough to draft seventh overall in the draft less than a year ago (and the same guy who got thirteen swings-and-misses on his fastball in his previous start, not that we should read too much into that, either)-- an incredibly projectable left-handed pitcher with a fluid delivery, tons of athleticism, two secondary pitches with potential, and upside for days. The statistical results of his first three starts do nothing to change that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 11, 2014 17:21:37 GMT -5
Should Ball revert back to CF? Stats are not good.... Is this going to be the crap we read after every one of his bad starts?
|
|
|
Post by azblue on May 11, 2014 18:55:22 GMT -5
Of course it is. Remember the posts about Brian Johnson being a wasted pick and so many other SSS critiques of draftees who are playing well after shaky starts (or seasons).
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 12, 2014 8:59:56 GMT -5
Should Ball revert back to CF? Stats are not good.... Is this going to be the crap we read after every one of his bad starts? How do we know that your opinions aren't "crap". You probably have never seen him play and have no background in scouting, yet you are suddenly have an "informed" opinion on Trey's development? It seems to me when it comes to "crap", you have more of it than arziake. Whether Ball's a bust is absolutely a fair question. His results have been lousy. Since signing the kid has been unable to get kids out that are his own age or a single year older. This is a problem.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 12, 2014 9:08:48 GMT -5
I though I was clear not to suggest that stuff is only velo. My question was what -- other than velo improvement -- is expected to improve in his stuff. Are you suggesting that his current stuff is good? If so, why is he being hit so hard. I am not trying to slag him, but I can envision a guy like a young Randy Johnson who has great stuff but can't harness it until he gets his delivery down. In that case, control is the issue, but his hits per inning was good because his stuff was good (when it was around the plate). But here his whip of 2 seems to suggest that his stuff is hittable when he is around the plate. So, if his stuff is hittable, what is projected to change that? Increase velo, or command within the zone? Again, you're trying to scout a box score, which just cannot and should not be done. You can't draw any conclusions about his stuff based on how many hits he gave up in his first three starts in professional baseball. Pitchers with great stuff get hit hard all the time in the low minors. For instance, the very example you cite (Randy Johnson) gave up 9.5 H/9 and a 1.939 WHIP in his first 27.1 IP in the New York-Penn League in 1985, and he was a 21-year-old college draftee (Ball is 19 and pitching one level higher). I'm not saying that Ball is the next Randy Johnson, but I am saying that trying to draw any conclusions based on his first three professional starts is incredibly impetuous. He's a high school draftee-- everything is supposed to improve, from his velocity to his command/control to the crispness of his secondary stuff to his pitchability. If you want more details on what kind of pitcher he is and where he needs to improve, our own Ian Cundall got a good look at him in Spring Training and published this scouting report, which should answer most of your questions. His latest start was a disaster, but this is the same guy who our front office thought highly enough to draft seventh overall in the draft less than a year ago (and the same guy who got thirteen swings-and-misses on his fastball in his previous start, not that we should read too much into that, either)-- an incredibly projectable left-handed pitcher with a fluid delivery, tons of athleticism, two secondary pitches with potential, and upside for days. The statistical results of his first three starts do nothing to change that. A few notes: 1. So since Randy Johnson started off slow that means Trey Ball's heading to the Hall of Fame. I know it's not your point, but you follow similar logic. Why not mention that thousands of other kids that got off to slow starts and never made it, which is probably a better comparison. 2. Why should a scouting report from Ian Cundall tell us anything really important here? What are his scouting bona fides? It's perfectly fair to ask this question if you are suggesting we should defer to him, which is what you are doing here. 3. I've never heard a high school pitcher's velocity is supposed to improve as a pro. Command, etc... Ok. But velocity. Not necessarily.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 12, 2014 9:23:55 GMT -5
I know a college coach who scouted Ball extensively and thinks Sox are making a big mistake developing this guy as a pitcher. Said he probably would've been better developed as a position player/OF and he and others really thought Ball will be a reliever at best at the MLB level, whereas he could potentially be a league average OF with 20 or better HR power. Was a good enough athlete and had decent strike zone recognition. Needed his swing cleaned up, but what HS kids don't?
I think I shared this around the draft, but for those who weren't here, etc.
FWIW
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 12, 2014 9:44:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on May 12, 2014 9:58:26 GMT -5
Dude it's been less then 6 starts for him. Relax. You are insane to call him a bust. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on May 12, 2014 10:03:23 GMT -5
Again, you're trying to scout a box score, which just cannot and should not be done. You can't draw any conclusions about his stuff based on how many hits he gave up in his first three starts in professional baseball. Pitchers with great stuff get hit hard all the time in the low minors. For instance, the very example you cite (Randy Johnson) gave up 9.5 H/9 and a 1.939 WHIP in his first 27.1 IP in the New York-Penn League in 1985, and he was a 21-year-old college draftee (Ball is 19 and pitching one level higher). I'm not saying that Ball is the next Randy Johnson, but I am saying that trying to draw any conclusions based on his first three professional starts is incredibly impetuous. He's a high school draftee-- everything is supposed to improve, from his velocity to his command/control to the crispness of his secondary stuff to his pitchability. If you want more details on what kind of pitcher he is and where he needs to improve, our own Ian Cundall got a good look at him in Spring Training and published this scouting report, which should answer most of your questions. His latest start was a disaster, but this is the same guy who our front office thought highly enough to draft seventh overall in the draft less than a year ago (and the same guy who got thirteen swings-and-misses on his fastball in his previous start, not that we should read too much into that, either)-- an incredibly projectable left-handed pitcher with a fluid delivery, tons of athleticism, two secondary pitches with potential, and upside for days. The statistical results of his first three starts do nothing to change that. A few notes: 1. So since Randy Johnson started off slow that means Trey Ball's heading to the Hall of Fame. I know it's not your point, but you follow similar logic. Why not mention that thousands of other kids that got off to slow starts and never made it, which is probably a better comparison. 2. Why should a scouting report from Ian Cundall tell us anything really important here? What are his scouting bona fides? It's perfectly fair to ask this question if you are suggesting we should defer to him, which is what you are doing here. 3. I've never heard a high school pitcher's velocity is supposed to improve as a pro. Command, etc... Ok. But velocity. Not necessarily. You've never heard that a high school pitcher might gain 2-3 mph on his fastball as his body matures and begins a major league strength and conditioning program? This especially applies to someone as lanky as Ball? Not guaranteeing this will happen, but you've never heard of that happening? Thats essentially a big component of the term "projectable."
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 12, 2014 10:05:27 GMT -5
1. So since Randy Johnson started off slow that means Trey Ball's heading to the Hall of Fame. I know it's not your point, but you follow similar logic. Why not mention that thousands of other kids that got off to slow starts and never made it, which is probably a better comparison. You're not following the logic here. The claim was made above that pitchers who give up lots of hits at the low minors necessarily do not have good stuff ("Are you suggesting that his current stuff is good? If so, why is he being hit so hard"). I provided an example of a pitcher who gave up lots of hits at the low minors who did have good stuff, and there are lots more examples if you care to look. While you're right that many (probably most) pitchers who gave up lots of hits in the low minors never amount to anything, the point is that the fact that he is giving up lots of hits does not suggest with any real likelihood that he has bad present stuff or is destined to be a bust. This is especially true since we have more meaningful indicators available (i.e., his scouting reports and his draft pedigree, which are much more predictive than his statistical results in the low minors). 2. Why should a scouting report from Ian Cundall tell us anything really important here? What are his scouting bona fides? It's perfectly fair to ask this question if you are suggesting we should defer to him, which is what you are doing here. 3. I've never heard a high school pitcher's velocity is supposed to improve as a pro. Command, etc... Ok. But velocity. Not necessarily. Ian Cundall is director of scouting at SoxProspects, and has been scouting for the site for three and a half years. He is a trained scout (having learned under the wings of Chris Mellen) and is, as far as I know, the only individual who (a) has actually seen Ball pitch and (b) has the qualifications and experience to make an informed evaluation of his present ability and future projection. Again, this is a much, much more reliable report than trying to guess how good Ball is by his H/9 in his first four starts or reading too much into a fluff article in the Globe. It is pretty well-established that some high school pitchers (usually the tall and skinny guys) project to add a tic or two of velocity as they physically mature. This is particularly true with regards to Ball, which was noted in pretty much every single pre-draft scouting report of Ball (see here or here, for instance).
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 12, 2014 10:12:45 GMT -5
1. So since Randy Johnson started off slow that means Trey Ball's heading to the Hall of Fame. I know it's not your point, but you follow similar logic. Why not mention that thousands of other kids that got off to slow starts and never made it, which is probably a better comparison. 2. Why should a scouting report from Ian Cundall tell us anything really important here? What are his scouting bona fides? It's perfectly fair to ask this question if you are suggesting we should defer to him, which is what you are doing here. 3. I've never heard a high school pitcher's velocity is supposed to improve as a pro. Command, etc... Ok. But velocity. Not necessarily. There is no comparison with Randy Johnson, or kids who struggled and never made it. Because they both exist in the set of "pitchers who had slow starts," that shows that slow starts are meaningless. It doesn't mean he's going to be an ace; it doesn't mean that he's going to be a bust. It doesn't mean anything. And high school pitchers increase their velocity all the time. Jon Lester's just one example ... he was a 90-92 pitcher in his first seasons, by the time he was in the big leagues, he was 93-94 consistently.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 12, 2014 10:23:10 GMT -5
I'll add this-- I think it's fair to say that the early signs don't look good. The early indicators are pretty much all negative-- his Spring Training scouting report suggested that his present stuff was inconsistent and his command was fringy, he started the season in XST (though he was promoted a few weeks into the season), and his statistical results have been pretty bad to date.
But it's way, way too early to be calling him a bust already, and I think a lot of the comments suggesting as much are due to unrealistic expectations. We should have all understood that Ball, as a high-risk/high-reward projectable HS pitcher, was not the kind of guy who would dominate coming out of the gate. As such, the fact that he has struggled this year should not lead us to believe that he's "not the real deal" or whatever. Maybe the odds of his reaching his ceiling are a little lower, because he's still all projection and no results so far, but that ceiling is still there and he definitely still has a decent shot of reaching it.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on May 12, 2014 10:30:42 GMT -5
1. So since Randy Johnson started off slow that means Trey Ball's heading to the Hall of Fame. I know it's not your point, but you follow similar logic. Why not mention that thousands of other kids that got off to slow starts and never made it, which is probably a better comparison. 2. Why should a scouting report from Ian Cundall tell us anything really important here? What are his scouting bona fides? It's perfectly fair to ask this question if you are suggesting we should defer to him, which is what you are doing here. 3. I've never heard a high school pitcher's velocity is supposed to improve as a pro. Command, etc... Ok. But velocity. Not necessarily. There is no comparison with Randy Johnson, or kids who struggled and never made it. Because they both exist in the set of "pitchers who had slow starts," that shows that slow starts are meaningless. It doesn't mean he's going to be an ace; it doesn't mean that he's going to be a bust. It doesn't mean anything. I guess I "started" this renewed debate with my questions, so let me try and control it. I am not claiming he is a bust after 3 starts. I am noting the red flags against him, including that he performed poorly in his 5 games last year, and now in 3 games this year, and that the Sox did not see him ready to start the year in full season. NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT THESE ITEMS MAKE HIM A BUST. I am asking what his stuff is that projects well, because command is noted, but nobody has said that the pitches he has (that he is trying to command) are above average. (Not to digress, but Randy Johnson had +1.0 hits per inning his first year in the minors, but thereafter was <1.0 his remaining years. That was even as he was working on his release point and command, with about a walk an inning. That suggested that his stuff was still very good even as he was working through his command issues.) Lets face it, the road to the majors is difficult for all. If Ball had a better track record (even in college) we could identify the failures as SSS, and he could project back to his baseline. However, he has a blank slate, so the only baseline datapoints we have are what we are seeing and what the boxscores say. I am scouting the boxscores and not liking the results. That is why I ask about the actual scouting, and Ian's article uses words like raw, and about command (missing on the inside part of the plate). But there is nothing in the report about his stuff being good. Nothing about a great curve, a great changeup, or great velocity. For other guys, returning to Johnson, we could easily write the velocity, the big frame allowing him to come more sidearm and therefore having deception, etc. What is it in Ball that we can look forward to seeing?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 12, 2014 10:54:48 GMT -5
I am asking what his stuff is that projects well, because command is noted, but nobody has said that the pitches he has (that he is trying to command) are above average. [...] That is why I ask about the actual scouting, and Ian's article uses words like raw, and about command (missing on the inside part of the plate). But there is nothing in the report about his stuff being good. Nothing about a great curve, a great changeup, or great velocity. For other guys, returning to Johnson, we could easily write the velocity, the big frame allowing him to come more sidearm and therefore having deception, etc. What is it in Ball that we can look forward to seeing? I think these are absolutely fair questions to ask. Here are the things I like about Ball: -Great athleticism and a smooth delivery with a clean arm action, which suggests the future ability to improve his command. -His present sitting velocity of 90-92 grades as 55-60/average-to-plus, with possible velocity increases pushing him into the 93-94 (70-75/plus-to-better) category. -Solid movement on the fastball ("showed some late arm-side run away from righties"). -Reports of an above-average changeup, though he didn't have it the day that Ian saw him. Even though he couldn't command it, he throws the pitch with the same slot and arm speed as his fastball and it has some late fade, suggesting potential for it to become a deceptive swing-and-miss option as he improves his feel for it. -The beginnings of a curveball, which still needs a ton of work but which he did not start throwing until his senior year in high school. Again: tons of projectability, still a lot of stuff to work on. But you can dream on a pitcher with two plus pitches (a fastball with plus velocity and good movement, an changeup with great deception and movement) and a third pitch (a curveball that he works to become a solid-average offering), and the sort of athleticism and clean delivery that leads him to establish plus command of his fastball. The ceiling of a number two pitcher-- think Henry Owens with better command.
|
|
|