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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 24, 2014 22:29:12 GMT -5
Nice honest post, Guidas. Perhaps this is more feeling/hope than logic, but I'm getting that Owens will surprise us based on some combo of 1. West coast fan's assessment of his movement, and as a pitcher with an elite attitude, will continue to learn different ways to effectively spin pitches as he advances- be it tighter curves, cutters or sinkers (I can remember the amount of movement when Derek Lowe generated when he began pitching with the sox, granted sinkers, but other pitches too- and he was topping out in the upper 80's at that point- similar build to Owens). 2. The next few years his metabolism will slow, enabling him to put on a bit more weight and slightly increase the velocity.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 24, 2014 19:18:45 GMT -5
Moon,
I agree with you- as soon as I typed the word "great" likelyhood, it didn't sit right, but I'd personally go with Chav's around 55% likelyhood that with 5 or so mid-rotation prospects, one may become a 1 or 2.
Regarding Juan Pena, check out these stats, carefully considering the age related progression: Age Level ERA Whip 19 A 2.96 0.97 20 A+ 2.96 0.98 20 AA 4.73 1.33 21 AAA 4.38 1.37 22 AAA 4.12 1.188 22 Boston 2-0 0.69 13IP 9H 3BB 15K The point here is that there are some instructive parallels to Henry Owens- Juan was almost identical in size, 6'5" 210 and on an age related basis was ahead of him, but on a similar track. He was brought up and pitched two games brilliantly dominant. His arm was then toast, finishing his career other than some poor minor league games. As you pointed out he probably would not have made a top 100 prospect list- in fact note that he was drafted in the 27th round- And this is the parallel. The sox scouts through his progression were noting that he did not have good velocity and was surprising everyone and performing more like a first round pick. When he came up and blew away major league batters, and before as well, scouts were saying "do not look at the radar gun with him, they are not getting good looks... pay more attention to the poor swings and weak contact the batters are getting."
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 23, 2014 19:02:58 GMT -5
Moonstone,
While I agree with your whirlpool principle of the downside likelyhood of prospects being greater, to state that given a large pool of midrotation starters will not greatly increase the likelyhood of an unexpected upside surprise runs in the face not only of Chavez earlier probability comment but an article earlier in the year by Alex Speir which reflected Ben Cherrington's strategy being based upon this very outcome as a result of those prospect numbers. Of course you cannot individually prognosticate these unlikely upswings, but they occur all the time.
Juan Pena was a parallel to Owens. For those who remember him, he was drafted late and outpitched his ceiling the whole way. He was Owens size, but a righty without much velocity, but good deception and began brilliantly in the majors before, yes succumbing to the injury downside.
The overall point here is that within the context of prognosticating an entire pitching staff I believe it is too easy to get stuck into "forecasting hubris"- the tools used here are as fine as any ever, but pitchers have great variability on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 23, 2014 12:31:04 GMT -5
I agree with both of you. I don't believe the improvement the Sox have recently shown is an outlier, however the odds are greatly in favor of them falling short, and Gammons is usually a good prognosticator, so I favor getting something more substantial for Lester this month. However, particularly being in Boston, how much does public pressure motivate the decision to not do that- to not go all out when there is a chance at the playoffs, and also to be the ones to "bail' out on Lester when he said the right words about interest in coming back, and lastly to bail on the veteran core of this team, which granted will be replaced soon enough by the young players. However, as we've read players are increasingly unified and appearances of how an organization treats it's players, and goes for it, ect. do have an effect on how likely prospective free agents are to sign on.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 23, 2014 11:50:24 GMT -5
Also, I'd keep a closer eye on the divisonal race, since a longshot to get a one game playoff to get into the playoffs is in baseball a real crapshoot, not to me worthy of missing out on future assets- unless we wouldn't get much.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 23, 2014 11:30:47 GMT -5
And I omitted Alan Webster, who has made great progress every year, and does have perhaps the best stuff of them all already in place.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 23, 2014 11:22:55 GMT -5
I don't necessarily buy that this crop of pitchers won't produce a number one or two. As astute as Chris and the staff of sox prospects are remember that this is all a still shot of how their projection appears at this moment. Pitchers, even older ones are tremendously variable- look at how Josh Beckett has appeard nearly done for years and suddenly has picked it up, younger pitchers are much more erratic- on the upside as well. Remember a year ago when it seemed quite likely that Rubby D. "projected" quite likely as a reliever, and now has the greatest ceiling as a starter of any young Sox currently in the rotation. Henry Owens could pick up a slider, or put on 15 more pounds and add to his sitting velocity. Anthony Renaudo could perfect his slider, perhaps add a cutter, Matt Barnes could tighten up his secondaries; perhaps Wright, given his progression- and it has been consistent since he's converted to knuckleball- may surprise and have an excellent career, and Brian Johnson has some potential. I've read here for many years, but even given the exquisite sabermetric skill of staff and posters, to think that an accurate- as opposed to relatively accurate portrayal of exactly what these starters will all be is hubris, and I'm optimistic that given the numbers of potential starting prospects here, we will have some nice surprises!
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 15, 2014 19:21:40 GMT -5
When was the last time the sox retained an about to be free agent star at the deadline of his walk year? Similarly, when was the last time (other than Manny, diffferent circumstance) that they dumped them in time for picking up value? Not often.. for a change I would, like the rest of you love to see them get value for him in the next two weeks if they can't sign him.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 15, 2014 19:05:13 GMT -5
On John Tudor's velocity, mentioned here before, I was sitting next to the guy with the radar gun in Yankee stadium, and he was often hitting 92-94 that inning with the Redsox
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 10, 2014 16:41:41 GMT -5
While the knuckleball oftentimes is not as reliable as a traditional pitchers repertoire, there are of course some hall of fame exceptions whom I saw pitch- Hoyt Wilhelm, Phil Niekro, as well as solid pitchers- Wilbur Wood, Joe Niekro, Charlie Hough and our own Tim Wakefield. As you all know many of them pitched into their 40's (Hoyt until 49), so forget age. Wright showed a nice progression from the time he gave up pitching traditionally, jumping multiple levels, improving to a very fine AA year in 2012, an okay AAA year last year and is showing continued improvement this year. I would love to know what we have here and would hate to give someone else a bargain. Remember, with his traditional background, he can still add in a better fastball than most of the above. I recall Wakefield started really taking off when he developed his curve and was able to baffle people with a three pitch mix. Good thread here, and both his ceiling and floor is hard to quantify, let's keep an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 1, 2014 16:33:15 GMT -5
Buster Olney, though well informed (and sharper than a much earlier ESPN analyst Ray Knight who "loved the deal of Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson") still suffers from that same short term bias these analysts usually do and does not have the same knowledge of our farm system as Alex Speir. His analysis of this as a blunder runs counter to that of the more knowledgable- GMs earlier this year posited that the Redsox absolutely could not make a long term deal with Lester without first seeing what they have in their young pitchers for the first half of the season. We all know that the development of Workman, Delarosa, Webster, Owens Renaudo, and Johnson have all taken positive steps, only Barnes has been (perhaps temporarily) stalled- a fantastic outcome. In the context of the out of hand market for top flight pitchers and Lesters somewhat mixed desire- to give a home town discount, but show loyalty to other players/agents in terms of the size of his contract- and his age, this may all turn out fairly good- granted with a blip next year but beyond that we have a shot at enough solid answers to field a very solid rotation. Also, given that the wildcard is no longer an entry to the playoffs but merely grants a one game lottery to qualify for them, I'd highly favor trading Lester (unless there's some miracle in the next month) which would make this whole scenario even better. Cherington is sharp and knew exactly what he was doing when he underoffered Lester- he was biding his time to get the information the GM's said he needed, his answer and Lester's departure probably bodes well for our longer term future.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 1, 2014 11:09:28 GMT -5
I sense a parallel in the conversations regarding Renaudo, Owens, and previously Workman, where there have been some doubts as whether, with Workman he was a true starter, and with Renaudo and Owens if they will excell in a rotation at the highest level, and at this early stage all are somewhat exceeding expectations. Could there be an X-factor, which has been raised but not all that often with tall pitchers- that they will outperform their physical stuff (assuming they can overcome their added mechanics/command issues) by virtue that the plane of the ball coming with additional tilt will stay in a hitters zone for a shorter amount of time?
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 30, 2014 16:29:30 GMT -5
Interestingly in his article, Alex Speir offered the tremendous start Coyle had in 2013 as evidence of the possiblity of a flash in the pan, wheras I view that as a possible precursor to the potential he is starting to exploit. A longtime GM premise quoted is that if you've been good before you can do so again.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 24, 2014 11:04:32 GMT -5
Right on, as nearly always jmei. I would personally have a strong preference to keep Rubby in the rotation for now if choosing for two reasons. He has a higher ceiling than Workman, but additionally Workman has shown not only more command, but an ability to be shuttled in roles without having a setback. Delarosa, while now at a more advanced stage than Webster a year ago, might be a bit closer to him on the vulnerability spectrum than Workman, and I'd hate to see the momentum he has generated towards actualizing his full potential interupted. Let him further reinforce this concept of working primarily off his fastball, work on adding more breaking stuff, and then when his innings need more limitation act accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 12, 2014 12:22:43 GMT -5
Hey, can any of you folks give me an opinion about Rubby's start? From my perspective he made a nice recovery- it seemed that his changeup early on was left up and sometimes didn't have life, but later was darting more sharply downward. He seemed to also increasingly incorporate his slider (as opposed to his previous start) as he went along, and held velocity, still touching 96-7 close to 100 pitches. I think he's coming along nicely and hope if he is sent down soon he'll come up later.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 11, 2014 13:28:15 GMT -5
James,
In a sense you are correct in that the Bagwell trade was his lone disaster. However, Lou Gorman's priorities left me uncomfortable in that he was not beyond trading high ceiling talent for shorter term gain. Although he didn't amount to anything, Jeff Sellers who was traded for Nick Esasky had tremendous stuff- people may recall his near no-hitter in his last game for the Sox- and then his arm burnt out after the trade ending his career. Gorman came within a hair of dumping a young Mo Vaugn for a close to washed up Sid Fernandez.. his mindset made it inevitable that he'd be burned big-time, which of course he was. I rejoiced when the Sox brought on Duquette, and both he and his predecessors have been obviously highly intelligent and have an excellent track record in terms of rarely having the young talent they traded to persue post-season coming back to bite them. In fairness to Gorman, he was a wonderful person and only after retiring admitted the pressure of the 'sox nation drought creating this motivation to win EVERY Year.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 9, 2014 17:21:26 GMT -5
Jakovos,
There was another example of a redsox swing reform igniting far greater power than Kevin Youkilis- that was batting coach Mike Easler reworking a downward line drive swing of a player who had just 4 homers in his first 1/2 season, then 13 the following year- into a loft swing- resulting in 5 consecutive years of 30 homers and two of 40+ for Mo Vaugn! For those of you who were sox fans back then, you may recall that Phil Plantier was the greater prospect coming up, but between this grand reform and Plantier's injury issues they had a major reversal.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 5, 2014 18:12:55 GMT -5
Loved those 70's Sox teams- until Ortiz, I still thought the most clutch atbat for Sox was Bernie fouling off unhittable gas from Rawley Eastwick until he smoked a game tieing 3 run homer in game 6 of 1975 series in the eight inning. Again, I'll mention for those of you who go back to that era, or those interested, an amazing book on tape about the whole '75 season and world series, with lots of Sox emphasis- The Long Ball by adelman (sp?)- great dramatic actors, lots of inside stories, including the close relationship Carbo still had with Sparky Anderson at the time, and Luis Tiant's parents from Cuba over at his home.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 4, 2014 11:07:57 GMT -5
I'll attempt to quantify- 1. 6'2" 220 2. Power usually comes later 3. Fenway left field, but then again remember Bob Zupcic- built even bigger, but 7 homeruns lifetime
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 4, 2014 9:22:38 GMT -5
Is it about Dominican players phils? The movie "Sugar" is about those players difficult transition to the States, living with a host family in small towns in Iowa i.e, often not knowing our language and culture. It is so realistic that in the special features at the end Pedro and Ortiz and Sosa appear and affirm that it is exactly how it was. Either Roger Ebert or Siskel called it the best baseball movie in 20 years and I quite agree.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 3, 2014 18:03:24 GMT -5
Amfox,
You're so right on, a year ago people wanted the sox to "swing for the fences", and there is now so much laughable skepticism. Sure Ball could burn out, but I love the pick.. just as I have always loved Allan Webster's potential- there were posts last year to "sell high" on him! This is all much akin to the skepticism about any of our top 6 pitchers becoming one's or twos- pitchers just have great fluctuation, even once in the majors- we could have none- or 3-4.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on May 31, 2014 11:45:57 GMT -5
I compare him to Juan Pena. He was not drafted high, a 6'5" pitcher who did not throw hard, and was therefore never rated highly, but kept advancing through the minors with fine stats. One scout said don't look at the velocity but at the batters swings. He had two absolutely kick ass starts as a youngster around twenty two, then unfortunately his arm went for good.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on May 30, 2014 22:48:00 GMT -5
Much analysis has been done at this site with a conclusion that the 5 starting prospects at Pawtucket, and the two at Portland will likely lack the ceiling of a first or second starter. I beg to differ on the basis that firstly, they have 7 starting candidates who have big league starter potential, and there are odds that one or two may exceed their current projection. Secondly, as highly tuned as the posters and maintainers of this site are- hence my reading here for years but posting infrequently- the fact is that with prognosticating pitching, as opposed to hitting- you will be much more inaccurate than you are assuming. It's analogous to comparing a fairly tight science, physics, to psychology, which lacks a single paradigm holding it together. The fact is that year to year consistency in pitchers, let alone prospects is so vulnerable to health on the upside, and can be so augmented by changes in pitchers arsenal year to year- adding a cutter, a splitter, etc, that predicting it with accuracy become relatively- though not absolutely difficult. A caveat is with someone like Abe Alvarez there was an absolute ceiling. However, once you have 7 starters with the overall talent and stuff which those prospects have, it's too probable for Webster and Owens to learn to pitch to contact, for Delarosa to gain endurance and velocity post TJ, for Renaudo and Barnes to sharpen their breaking pitches- I"m optimistic that one or more of these will come through.
The other person who feels the same way is Ben Cherrington. He's sharp and did not coincidentally under offer Lester- he did so to buy time to see if indeed one or more of these prospects shines sufficiently to let him go or trade him (and yes also to be sure if Lester shows consistency and make him that 4-5 year offer). This is a great, exciting time to be a sox fan, with Workman having gone tonight and De La Rosa tomorrow!
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on May 29, 2014 15:26:18 GMT -5
Could it be coincidence/timinng in the various pitchers development, or is there an increased emphasis on pitching to contact? Webster and Owens could be turning a corner right now, and other starters may be doing it as well.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on May 28, 2014 15:20:48 GMT -5
Brian,
Without having studied it either, intuitively I would agree with you for the following reason. I believe there is inherently more variability in pitchers performance than hitters. On the downside their performance is more sensitive and vulnerable to injuries, and on the upside they are more able to make changes- add a cutter, learn a splitter, wheras a hitter cannot do too much about their batspeed and can attempt to change their approach, but will usually do so within some limits.
|
|
|