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 FenwayFanatic on Sept 2, 2013 21:04:37 GMT -5
Umm ... that's what's technically called a "fact." They've been massively better. The odds of this being random are remote, and may well have something to do with emphasizing makeup in drafting and signing, and in the quality of ml instruction.Whether all that is predictive for this crop of prospects is a different question. You know, if the Red Sox are so damn smart when it comes to developing pitchers, you'd think they'd be smart enough to not have traded so many of the better ones away. Massively unlikely? Sure. So winning the lottery. But it happens to someone every day. They traded Sanchez for another Ace though in Beckett. We don't win in 2007 without that trade. We can probably package some of our SP prospects and a guy like Betts who is blocked for a SP on a team that can't afford to pay their Ace in the future. On the other hand, I don't think pitching is necessarily our top need. Buchholz is an Ace and just had a fluke injury. I'd like to see us get Abreu at 1B to protect Ortiz.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 2, 2013 21:11:43 GMT -5
There are enough variables involved that I'm not comfortable making that jump. From hoarding draft picks through the old Elias system (Bard, Buchholz, Bowden) to routinely giving out overslot bonuses to just being lucky with injuries (none of those guys blew out a shoulder or an elbow at an early age) there are lots of non-predictive factors at work. And there are a ton of recent busts, too-- Brian Price, Caleb Clay, Kris Johnson, Craig Hansen, etc. Hell, it could just be that the Red Sox get superior prospect coverage and so the industry highly rates the right guys.
And of course the front office is going to tell you that they have some secret mojo for the success- in this industry, like in many others, it pays to self-promote.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 2, 2013 22:13:05 GMT -5
Yes, because the lottery is designed so that someone does win. The MLB draft and development system is not designed so that one team at random will inevitably have about three or four times the success rate that virtually every other team does. The extremes of a somewhat normal distribution can often be explained as the lucky or unlucky end of a random distribution. Crazy outliers ... no. I think the only point you've made here is that every day someone on the Internet makes an idiotic analogy. (As an aside, the notion here is that the reason why we've been so much better than everyone else in baseball at drafting and developing talent over the last decade is that we're the best at it, rather than we've been lucky. I find the widespread resistance to this notion to be completely baffling, especially since how we're supposedly accomplishing this -- emphasizing makeup and its evaluation more than anyone -- is entirely credible. How many overachievers with widely reported off-the-charts makeup does one farm system need to produce before people start to see, you know, an explanatory pattern?) I'd actually argue that if it's genuinely true that the Red Sox been "three to four times as successful as virtually every other team in baseball" (and I'm not really sure what that statement means or how it's defined), there HAS to be some measure of luck and/or other factors (jmei points out several) at work, because I'm sorry, the Red Sox are not three to four times as good at identifying amateur talent as other organizations. There's just no way. It doesn't even remotely pass any kind of smell test. Especially when your justification for all this is that the Red Sox value makeup? As if no other clubs know about the importance of makeup? I can entertain the idea the Red Sox are doing a better job valuing it than the rest of the industry. But THAT much better? To the point where it's making them three to four times better at developing talent than other clubs?
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Sept 2, 2013 22:29:20 GMT -5
Lackey going into 2015 making the MLB minimum will have tremendous trade value, especially to a small-market contender. In fact, if you think about the logic of the abstract economics, trading him becomes theoretically irresistible. Dealing him for another guy a year from free agency who had the same excess value would be trading for a much better pitcher, because that guy would be making a third-year arbitration salary. Put another way, swapping him for an equal pitcher would save the other team a lot of money, and in theory they'd throw in a good prospect to square the deal. No matter how you slice it, you should be able to get back more in talent than you give up. How this plays out in practice will depend on the quantity and quality of the young starting pitching. One likely scenario is that from Owens, Webster, Ranaudo, De La Rosa, Barnes, Workman, and Wright, two or three project to be solid MLB starters in 2015. In that case, it would make sense to deal Lackey, essentially opening up a spot to sign or trade for someone you thought was even better. If three or four guys project to be solid, to that we appear to have excess pitching SP depth, Cherington's phone will be ringing off the hook. This will be a unique situation -- a guy in consideration for a qualifying offer the following year who is making the MLB minimum -- and it will be interesting to see if the Sox exploit it in a unique way. In any case, I think it makes it more likely that they'll be shopping for some kind of SP addition for 2015. Considering the lack of top starting pitching talent out there, and the fact that we might get a pick out of Lackey when he leaves 2 years from now, I think we may have opportunities to spend that cash saved in the last year of his contract on maybe a young stud pitcher from Japan or Abreu from Cuba. Lackey has shown he can handle the pressure of a playoff race and he's been doing very well. I have no problem holding onto him and even potentially giving him a QO at the end. We need pitchers like Lackey and they are hard to find. I get the concept that it might save some other team money and we end up with an even better pitcher but a more likely scenario to me is that we throw some cash at someone like Halladay in the hopes that he comes back strong. I don't see us waiting. We also might make a run at guys like Abreu and Ervin Santana and not have cash available to spend in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Sept 2, 2013 22:32:03 GMT -5
Admittedly Halladay is a huge risk and not worth a lot of cash. Severe injury to overcome. Just saying there are lots of opportunities to roll the dice on other guys and we do have cash to spend. I hope they stay with high upside opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 2, 2013 22:47:03 GMT -5
I agree with you, but there's no need to belittle the other guy. I thought was trying to make it as simple and easy as possible, poster could have made a dagger thrust.. Like the Sparky Lyle for Danny Cater fiasco you know that went down to the NYY of all teams... I think that Boston is on the right course ATM and many fans are incorrect. Hold firm on ALL the SP prospects (top ones) over the next year, maybe year and a half and see which ones will develop into #2-5's. Yes, none are likely to be aces and several will be busts.. Better than shelling out 100m++ in multiple deals for FA SP, of which several years will be for seasons past their prime and "dead weight". So what if a couple could have been flipped? Yes, RDLR can be switched to reliever right now, maybe Webster also. Hold onto Workman, Owens, Ranaudo and Britton and Barnes. 2 of those should almost certainly wind up as middle of the rotation starters, maybe even 3. I get so tired of seeing talented young pitchers getting tossed away for half a season of nothingness veteran ballplayers and many teams do this.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Sept 3, 2013 0:10:59 GMT -5
A few quick thoughts: First and foremost prospect evaluation is never simple and nothing is ever absolute. This holds true when we discuss the importance of milb stats, age advancement, ceiling's, etc. etc. This entire debate whether the Sox's good fortune in developing players is superior scouting or luck falls into this category. The Red Sox are a well run organization, one that is reputedly ran better than most. However luck certainly plays a part in that yeah Xander may have had some neat tools as a 16 year old in Aruba, but there is no fracking way anyone anywhere would have said yeah that kid will be the second best prospect in baseball four years from now. Conversely teams get unlucky and scout and draft players aggressively who fail because of injuries or illness (eg Westmorland or possibly Dylan Bundy)
Second: most of the guys who we are discussing (in regards to the actual topic of the thread) will be resigned well before next November. Making plans on who "might" be available over a year from now is almost always a fools errand.
Thirdly: Really Eric, Clay Buccholz is an ace because of the fact he posted a 5.6 BWAR (3.5FWAR) in 2010? Ervin Santana posted a 5.0 BWAR (6.0) FWAR in 2008 and John Burkett posted a 4.8 BWAR 5.2 (FWAR) in 2001. Yearly performance fluctuations of that sort are not entirely rare (uncommon yes).
|
|
|
Post by levity on Sept 3, 2013 2:02:46 GMT -5
Hello ericmvan, what are your thoughts on why Jon Lester's performance has declined the past few years. Why couldn't he sustain his performance levels from '08-'10, especially when these past few years should have been, theoretically speaking, "prime" years age-wise? I've always wondered if the drastic innings increase in 2008 from the previous year, was a factor - perhaps it was prematurely taxing on his arm. Of course, I don't know that much about baseball, really. Can you pinpoint a reason why Lester's faltered?
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Sept 3, 2013 8:19:52 GMT -5
I do see that Lester is overly reliant on his fastball now. He barely even used other pitches against Baltimore.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Sept 3, 2013 9:36:07 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, why doesn't Ownes have the upside of a number 1, let alone the ceiling of "only" being a 3? I keep hearing that he has control issues and this and that, but the kid has done nothing but dominate this year and continues to do so at AA at the age of 21. He had a horrific start in which he walked 7 batters, but other than that he has a pretty good line. I mean, 46K to 15BB in 30.1 IP is pretty good. Again, he had horrendous control issues in one start. Take that out of the equation and his numbers look MUCH better. As long as he continues to progress I would assume he has the stuff to be a borderline one much like Jon Lester was early in his career. Again, not saying he's going to be Kershaw, but a very solid 2 seems possible as long as he maintains his current trajectory. The same can be said about Ranaudo who was dominate in AA and continues to pitch well for AAA (though this was indeed a break out season for him this year). Throw in a rebound from Barnes and you have another 2/3 starter in your rotation. If Ownes, Barnes, and Ranaudo hit their ceilings, there is no need to worry about 2015 SP. I'm not impressed with those FA pitchers either between durability, age, cost, and aberration years. Show me the potential positional free agents instead.
Edit: Not to mention the potential of Trey Ball and how fast he progresses through the system.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Sept 3, 2013 9:44:38 GMT -5
Engrish is not my strong suite today.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Sept 3, 2013 11:20:10 GMT -5
Engrish is not my strong suite today. Oh, for the love of all that is holy; please tell me that this too is an error.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Sept 3, 2013 11:24:44 GMT -5
Only because it was for the love of all that is holy. Anything less would be unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Sept 3, 2013 11:53:24 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, why doesn't Ownes have the upside of a number 1, let alone the ceiling of "only" being a 3? I keep hearing that he has control issues and this and that, but the kid has done nothing but dominate this year and continues to do so at AA at the age of 21. He had a horrific start in which he walked 7 batters, but other than that he has a pretty good line. I mean, 46K to 15BB in 30.1 IP is pretty good. Again, he had horrendous control issues in one start. Take that out of the equation and his numbers look MUCH better. As long as he continues to progress I would assume he has the stuff to be a borderline one much like Jon Lester was early in his career. Again, not saying he's going to be Kershaw, but a very solid 2 seems possible as long as he maintains his current trajectory. The same can be said about Ranaudo who was dominate in AA and continues to pitch well for AAA (though this was indeed a break out season for him this year). Throw in a rebound from Barnes and you have another 2/3 starter in your rotation. If Ownes, Barnes, and Ranaudo hit their ceilings, there is no need to worry about 2015 SP. I'm not impressed with those FA pitchers either between durability, age, cost, and aberration years. Show me the potential positional free agents instead. I don't disagree with this line of thought in general. There are many intriguing arms in the mid-high minors whom the Sox can throw out there. At least 2 should stick as serviceable starters; for anecdotal "proof" no one was all that high on Doubront in the minors; I think everyone is much higher on the liklihood of Webster, Barnes, Ranaudo and Owens sticking as successful starters. However, I have some comments about Owens' success. It mostly hinges on his ability to reduce his walk rate. He's never had a full season below 4bb/9. I looked at the last 20 seasons for starting pitching performances at an ERA- between 80 and 90 (rough approximation for a #2) and a walk rate 3.5+/9. There have been 71 such performances and most of them are of the "single season" variety; ie, few pitchers live in this realm with consistent success. However, if you change the ERA- window to 90-105 (average pitcher) then you have 149 such performances, but many more repeat performances. Finally, if you reduce the ERA- window to less than or equal to 80 you wind up with 53 performances which generally fall into three categories: young and elite pitcher "figuring things out", established elite pitcher having an off year, or anomalous season by an otherwise unremarkable pitcher.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 16,484
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 3, 2013 12:51:32 GMT -5
Owens could be an ace - IF he gets his control squared away. You can't be an ace in the majors walking 4 - 4.5 batters/9 IP. He'd more likely be a pitcher with 100 pitches by the 5th inning. Those guys aren't aces.
I am bullish on him and if through time his control becomes more pinpoint, anything's possible. I wouldn't think ace, but I'd certainly think #2 type starter. Right now I'd think decent #3 starter who has some good starts where he looks like an ace balanced out by starts where he's walking the park and is gone by the 5th inning.
I think he can get away with a low ERA and a high walk ratio in the minors, but will find that tougher to do in the majors.
And as somebody else pointed out, I think the Sox would be wise to hang onto Webster, Barnes, Ranaudo, Owens, and De La Rosa and see how things shake out. I doubt there's a real ace there, but there could be some valuable #2 or still valuable #3 starters. That said if they could be packaged for an ace, you make the move, but as I see it De La Rosa is bullpen material, Webster still needs to improve his command or he'll wind up in the pen, too, while Barnes and Ranaudo are more likely to stick as starters, but neither project as an ace. I'd say their true value is that they prevent you from signing the Ryan Dempsters of the world as apparently the price of mediocre pitching is around $13 million/year.
The other point I wanted to bring up is that I disagree with Eric Van's take on the Sox' drafting fortunes. I think the Sox are a bright organization, but to say they are much, much better than everybody else is ridiculous. If they're so good on judging a player's makeup, then how did they wind up signing Carl Crawford to a $140 million contract?
I'm sure the Sox have passed on players who have gone on to be good major leaguers while the Sox signed a bust instead. It happens to all teams, I would think. It's not like they don't whiff on big picks - Vitek comes to mind immediately. I do think the Sox are on the right track, though, and I do think the farm system is in pretty good shape although I think it lacks a true ace or a power hitting OF. Hey, no system is perfect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 15:12:43 GMT -5
Oh yeah. Because that's totally how it works with young pitching. Just ask the Royals. Based on what I've read from scouts here and elsewhere, none of those guys will be an ace. Webster & RDLR project to the pen; Barnes & Ranaudo project to be 3s; Owens ceiling is a 3, though some are now saying could flirt with being a #2. Next year will be interesting, but I still think MLB hitters figure him out enough to keep him in the #3 starter range. Aces are very rare. There is one in the 2015 FA class - Clayton Kershaw (27 in 2015). His price will be prohibitive - around $200M, if he reaches the market. Unless you want to pay that, you won't be able to buy a true ace. Are these the latest projections? I'm not sure, but when we acquired Webster and RDLR, both were projected as 2/3 starters and bullpen without improvement. Both are young and can still improve. Ranaudo, Barnes, and Owens have a ceiling of 2/3. Number 1 starters are extremely rare and only a few exist in baseball. The Red Sox will have to use a #2 starter as their #1. A lot of teams are like that. I may be wrong about the projections. Maybe they have changed from when I last read them.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 3, 2013 16:11:46 GMT -5
One other thing on necessity of having a #1.. Team hasn't had one at all this year (other than Buch before 1st week of June) and no other #2, except for Lackey the team has not supported run wise with his 8-12 record. The best Lester and Doubront have been, overall this year is #3-4 SP and Dempster a #5, yet Boston has had the 1st-5th best record in the game all season.
Got to question the need therefore of needing/paying for top SP if they can develop 2-3 more solid #2-3's here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 16:17:04 GMT -5
I agree with you, but there's no need to belittle the other guy. In this case the "other guy" has done his fair share of belittling others who disagree with him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 16:35:31 GMT -5
That's not what he said though. He said that they have been three to four times more successful at turning top 100 pitching prospects into major league talents than any other club and I think he's demonstrated that.
This doesn't mean that they are three to four times better at developing talent. It just means that the chances of the events observed happening randomly are remote. In statistical parlance, we can reject the null hypothesis that the Red Sox have had equal success in the past.
If an event occurs that has a .005% chance of happening randomly, you can either put your money on the .005% or offer an alternative explanation. I suspect that the actual explanation is more complex than what Eric is offering, but either way it is pretty clear that the Red Sox have done a very good job at turning their pitching prospects into value.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 16:46:08 GMT -5
Other than Hansen, none of these guys fit in the criteria for the study. To be clear the criteria was reaching AA, and being a top ten prospect in the system. Clay, Price, and Johnson were NOT top ten organizational prospects by the time they reached AA.
Other than Ball, every one of the Red Sox top pitching prospects has at least reached AA and performed well there. Hence I am not sure why Clay, Price and Johnson would be relevant to how Ranaudo, Workman, DeLaRosa, Britton, Webster, and Owens will perform in the majors. Ever single one of these pitching prospects has passed already passed a threshold never passed by those three prospects.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 3, 2013 19:58:06 GMT -5
Other than Hansen, none of these guys fit in the criteria for the study. To be clear the criteria was reaching AA, and being a top ten prospect in the system. Clay, Price, and Johnson were NOT top ten organizational prospects by the time they reached AA. Other than Ball, every one of the Red Sox top pitching prospects has at least reached AA and performed well there. Hence I am not sure why Clay, Price and Johnson would be relevant to how Ranaudo, Workman, DeLaRosa, Britton, Webster, and Owens will perform in the majors. Ever single one of these pitching prospects has passed already passed a threshold never passed by those three prospects. Right, but that criteria (reached AA and in top 10) is totally cherry-picked, likely precisely because it produces the desired result. If the argument is that the Red Sox FO is great at drafting and developing pitching prospects because of the organizational focus on makeup, you have to look at all the draftees, and not just the ones that (a) are on the cusp of the majors and (b) are highly rated prospects. Or does makeup only start to show up when a guy arrives in Portland? To elaborate on why I think the criteria chosen is improperly cherry-picked-- the two factors chosen (extreme proximity to the major leagues and ranked high in what is almost always a deep farm system) should produce average-to-better major league players. I'd be willing to bet that the hit rate league-wide on pitchers who fit that criteria (i.e. AA or above and would have ranked in the Red Sox top 10) is very high because those prospects are almost definitionally elite pitching prospects. Guys who bust generally start busting early enough that they won't be highly regarded by the time they reach AA. (Sidenote: De La Rosa and Webster were not drafted or developed by the FO, so Eric's thesis wouldn't even really apply to them.)
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 3, 2013 20:32:06 GMT -5
(Sidenote: De La Rosa and Webster were not drafted or developed by the FO, so Eric's thesis wouldn't even really apply to them.) Lester is also kinda borderline in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Sept 3, 2013 20:41:18 GMT -5
Did I miss the analysis of all the other teams in baseball? How can we say the Sox are better, post information about some of their guys, then offer nothing on all the other teams in baseball. Tampa Bay, St Louis and Atlanta may have something to say about developing starters. Maybe San Fran too...
Lester was also listed as an Ace with no one questioning it. He's never been an Ace. He was always "going to take that step", but never did, just continued his high pitch counts.
The assertion that it's a "Fact" that the Sox have been better than the other teams when it's a subjective statement is one of the dumbest arguments that been made on this board and taken seriously by people that I can recall.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 20:56:31 GMT -5
The criteria was NOT cherry picked because it happens to fit the description of ALL of the Red Sox top pitching prospects other than Ball. Hence if we want to know how well this current crop of pitchers will do it's instructive to know how well they have done with similar players in the past. The evidence shows that they have done a very good job of creating value out of such prospects. I appreciate your sarcasm, but I don't understand why a better makeup wouldn't increase a AA pitchers chance of eventually becoming a good major league player.
I'd be willing to bet that it isn't as good as you think it is. The Royals, as was alluded to by Fenway, had Duffy, Montgomery, Dwyer, and Lamb in their top ten a couple of years ago and it looks like they may very well get nothing out of that. Getting 6 starters, a top closer and a top setup guy out of the ten AA starting pitching prospects they have had since 2002 is a very very good yield.
Why? The thesis is that the Red Sox are very good at taking AA or better pitching prospects and converting them to major league value. Both fit the criteria.
NOTE: Bard and Hansen wouldn't apply because neither were starters.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Sept 3, 2013 20:59:04 GMT -5
Lester was also listed as an Ace with no one questioning it. He's never been an Ace. From 2008 to 2011, Lester threw 813.1 innings of 3.33 ERA. I dare you to find 30 better pitchers in the majors during that same time. Heck, I dare you to find 10 better pitchers. He was an ace, it shouldn't even be debatable.
|
|
|