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.
The Anthony Ranaudo Thread: A Tale of Two Seasons
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jul 4, 2014 20:44:49 GMT -5
It appears that there is once again a difference of opinion between those that watch games vs those that analyze stats. espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/38509/ranaudo-making-a-case-to-be-called-up "The fastball was explosive out of his hand, and he was able to utilize a mix," Pawtucket manager Kevin Boles said after the outing. "He left some pitches up, but then he was able to execute. When he was behind in the count, he showed some good execution and was able to get back into the count. He threw some decent breaking balls. I thought the hand speed with the changeup was good. [He was] aggressive. He's really come a long ways." chavylope does that make Boles ignorant ? Wait - what? Boles is his manager. He gave a summary of his start that lines up pretty closely with what we already know. Explosive fastball that he occasionally leaves up in the zone. Decent control, but can fall behind in counts. And according to Boles a "Decent" curveball. I actually think Ranaudo's curve is better than decent. Do I think that because I analyze the stats or because I watch the games? Because if you read the very first post in this thread you'll see that I do enjoy looking at the stats. Or do I think that because I've seen him live three times and on TV more than once - including in the future's game last year? That is what is ignorant Ray. This entire schtick you've been tirelessly pushing lately that tries to undermine using statistics to analyze a player's performance. This idea that there are those that watch the games and those that don't and if you're a stats guy it means you don't watch the games. That is ignorant. Stats and scouting play off each other and each is necessary to formulate the most accurate possible opinion of a player. Check my first post in this thread analyzing Ranaudo's performance from last year. I LOVED Ranaudo from the first half last year. I felt that if he could get back to missing bats at that rate again he could be a 2/3 starter. If he didn't I thought he would even have trouble making it as a late innings reliever. He's settled in nicely this year and shown that he can pitch effectively without missing bats like he did at the start of last year. That leaves me hopeful that he will settle in as a 4/5 (as I have already stated in this thread), but I don't see the 2/3 upside anymore. I also think there is some sustainability risk simply because he hasn't been able to pitch well for a full season yet. So leave it alone. I called you out because you tried to sarcastically take a dig when it wasn't appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 4, 2014 21:08:27 GMT -5
I think we both know who's comment came first and only one of us has the ability to delete posts that we don't agree with.
That being said, there's a clear difference of opinion between the people that make their judgements based on statistics and those that make their judgements based on scouting. It's not just with Ranaudo, there's also differences of opinions with Owens, Johnson and Diaz although the gap there isn't as wide.
Based of the perceived saber view of Ranaudo then I have to assume the stats guys either think our relative rankings are off or that our pitching has a dismal future. Ranaudo is the third rated pitcher and is a 3-7 6. On what planet is a 7 a back of the rotation starter or relief pitcher ?
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jul 4, 2014 21:16:28 GMT -5
Again, it is a false narrative to say that people who look at stats view him one way and people who use scouting view him another way. You can consider all pieces of information: scouting, stats, and first hand accounts and have different opinions of a player. Just because someone sites statistics doesn't mean they aren't considering the scouting.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 4, 2014 21:42:13 GMT -5
This is true and I believe that's exactly what major league teams do however, read the thread, in general, the arguments against appear to be almost completely statistical and the arguments for appear to be scouting.
If teams were primarily stats oriented, there would be no way to justify things like the promotion of Weems over Romanski. Try making a saber argument for that. I think teams use stats to assist in what they are having their prospects work on but the player evaluations are done based on the prospect meeting whatever the stated goal is. I'll be the first to admit that's unfounded speculation though but I still find it difficult to believe that for minor league evaluations the stats are going to override what they are seeing with their eyes. No prospect is a finished prospect or they wouldn't be prospects.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Jul 4, 2014 21:51:23 GMT -5
Again, it is a false narrative to say that people who look at stats view him one way and people who use scouting view him another way. You can consider all pieces of information: scouting, stats, and first hand accounts and have different opinions of a player. Just because someone sites statistics doesn't mean they aren't considering the scouting. "Just because someone sites(sic) statistics doesn't mean they(sic) aren't considering the scouting". Reminds me of a chapter in Shaughnessy's book on Francona that I'm reading. In it he talks about Terry's frustration in dealing with FO anointed geeks who barrage Terry with statistics to the point where he's being told what the lineup should be against a particular pitcher. Terry, of course, informed Theo that the stats don't tell him what the heart and character of the player are and that he will use his best judgement in filling out his daily roster
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 5, 2014 3:00:55 GMT -5
Ranaudo is currently 4th in th IL in ERA.
Hill 1.90 Hendricks 2.19 Sadler 2.31 Ranaudo 2.35 Maya 2.60.
I agree that ERA isn't the be all end all stat, nonetheless, it does point out that there is a significant gap between what I'll refer to, for lack of a better term, as his 'performance' stats vs what I'll refer to as his 'projection' stats. Much more so than what I perceive to be the usual case.
Maybe there's a lot more to a low HR/FB ratio and a spray chart that screams pops and flairs than meets the eye. Maybe it's a skill rather than luck.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 5, 2014 8:54:47 GMT -5
It would be one thing if this actually was a stats versus scouting argument. If the scouting consensus was that Ranaudo was a third starter because he gets guys to consistently swing at fastballs up in the zone and pop them up, I'd happily defer to their expertise. But that's not really the scouting consensus; if anything, the consensus seems to be that he lacks fastball command and won't be able to get major league hitters to chase those high pitches. His velocity has also dipped this season, and his slider and changeup still grade as below-average (though maybe the slider has potential).
Instead, this is an ERA versus advanced metrics argument. You think he's great because of a half-season of a great ERA. I've discussed here and in the DIPS thread why I think that's a bad way to evaluate a player, and I won't rehash those arguments again. But this is more of a question of "which stat better evaluates his potential" than a "stats versus scouting" one.
Oh, and our mods have never deleted posts we disagree with. That is an entirely unfounded accusation. You might disagree with our opinions, but I think our actual moderation of the forums is pretty good, especially as compared to most of the other Red Sox forums out there. Threads are mostly on-topic, discussions are interesting and informative, and the noise is kept at a minimum. If you have actual substantive criticism of the moderation, I invite you to send me a PM with your thoughts.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 5, 2014 9:19:41 GMT -5
Again, it is a false narrative to say that people who look at stats view him one way and people who use scouting view him another way. You can consider all pieces of information: scouting, stats, and first hand accounts and have different opinions of a player. Just because someone sites statistics doesn't mean they aren't considering the scouting. "Just because someone sites(sic) statistics doesn't mean they(sic) aren't considering the scouting". Reminds me of a chapter in Shaughnessy's book on Francona that I'm reading. In it he talks about Terry's frustration in dealing with FO anointed geeks who barrage Terry with statistics to the point where he's being told what the lineup should be against a particular pitcher. Terry, of course, informed Theo that the stats don't tell him what the heart and character of the player are and that he will use his best judgement in filling out his daily roster There's a lot in that chapter that's not wholly accurate, starting with the fact that Francona finally rejecting the series-by-series line-up advice happened a year later than it says. I can only speak of a portion of the advice given to him, but it was always presented as "here's some information to use in your decision" as opposed to "here's who to play." And in 2005, the guy gathering all such information from differing sources and relaying it to Francona was the "Assistant to the GM" Jed Hoyer (not to be confused with Assistant GM Josh Byrnes -- they've since changed that nomenclature.) Jed did a great job of conveying the info to Francona, and, in particular, Alex Cora and Doug Mirabelli had great numbers in games where they matched up well with the starting pitcher according to an advanced stat model -- much better than you could explain by chance. That winter Josh Byrnes got the Diamondbacks GM job, Jed was promoted to his job, and Jed's job as "Asst. to" and wrangler of the lineup advice passed on to Zack Scott. For whatever reason, Zack was less successful than Jed at conveying the lineup advice in a way that both persuaded Francona to follow it, and (according to the book) sat well with him. The book talks about a specific incident where Zack suggested to Francona that Mike Lowell sit against Chien-Ming Wang. The statistical advice that Zack had for that series discussed platooning at C and SS and then said "I don't think anyone else wants to sit against the Yankees." So there's some irony here in that the guy who (if that part of the narrative is accurate) didn't get that the players are people was not a sabermetric consultant, but the Assistant to the GM.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 5, 2014 10:42:06 GMT -5
It would be one thing if this actually was a stats versus scouting argument. If the scouting consensus was that Ranaudo was a third starter because he gets guys to consistently swing at fastballs up in the zone and pop them up, I'd happily defer to their expertise. But that's not really the scouting consensus; if anything, the consensus seems to be that he lacks fastball command and won't be able to get major league hitters to chase those high pitches. His velocity has also dipped this season, and his slider and changeup still grade as below-average (though maybe the slider has potential). Instead, this is an ERA versus advanced metrics argument. You think he's great because of a half-season of a great ERA. I've discussed here and in the DIPS thread why I think that's a bad way to evaluate a player, and I won't rehash those arguments again. But this is more of a question of "which stat better evaluates his potential" than a "stats versus scouting" one. Oh, and our mods have never deleted posts we disagree with. That is an entirely unfounded accusation. You might disagree with our opinions, but I think our actual moderation of the forums is pretty good, especially as compared to most of the other Red Sox forums out there. Threads are mostly on-topic, discussions are interesting and informative, and the noise is kept at a minimum. If you have actual substantive criticism of the moderation, I invite you to send me a PM with your thoughts. Why do you assume that he generally pitches high in the zone ? You've said that more than once and it's not something that I've either seen or read. He generally attempts to spot his fastball low but isn't perfect yet and periodically throws one too high. I also have no clue where you are getting the lost velocity. The report that Ian and Matt just wrote "Ranaudo's fastball sat between 92 and 94 mph and topped out at 95 mph." Because he gets pop outs this is what you assume ? No I do not think he's great because he has a half season of great ERA. I think he's a top 5 SP prospect because he's been dominating the opposition. I really don't see what it is that you don't understand about the 3-7 6 score on his bio. Is that your real issue ?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 5, 2014 12:17:58 GMT -5
I'm really curious here, who has the better DIPS and SIERA, Ranaudo or Barnes ?
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jul 5, 2014 14:26:22 GMT -5
It would be one thing if this actually was a stats versus scouting argument. If the scouting consensus was that Ranaudo was a third starter because he gets guys to consistently swing at fastballs up in the zone and pop them up, I'd happily defer to their expertise. But that's not really the scouting consensus; if anything, the consensus seems to be that he lacks fastball command and won't be able to get major league hitters to chase those high pitches. His velocity has also dipped this season, and his slider and changeup still grade as below-average (though maybe the slider has potential). Instead, this is an ERA versus advanced metrics argument. You think he's great because of a half-season of a great ERA. I've discussed here and in the DIPS thread why I think that's a bad way to evaluate a player, and I won't rehash those arguments again. But this is more of a question of "which stat better evaluates his potential" than a "stats versus scouting" one. Oh, and our mods have never deleted posts we disagree with. That is an entirely unfounded accusation. You might disagree with our opinions, but I think our actual moderation of the forums is pretty good, especially as compared to most of the other Red Sox forums out there. Threads are mostly on-topic, discussions are interesting and informative, and the noise is kept at a minimum. If you have actual substantive criticism of the moderation, I invite you to send me a PM with your thoughts. Why do you assume that he generally pitches high in the zone ? You've said that more than once and it's not something that I've either seen or read. He generally attempts to spot his fastball low but isn't perfect yet and periodically throws one too high. I also have no clue where you are getting the lost velocity. The report that Ian and Matt just wrote "Ranaudo's fastball sat between 92 and 94 mph and topped out at 95 mph." Because he gets pop outs this is what you assume ? No I do not think he's great because he has a half season of great ERA. I think he's a top 5 SP prospect because he's been dominating the opposition. I really don't see what it is that you don't understand about the 3-7 6 score on his bio. Is that your real issue ? Every time I've seen Ranaudo pitch he's been up in the zone too often. My observation is that this is caused from him opening up too soon and this confirmed in his soxprospects profile: "Can open shoulder early, which leads to reduced command in spells." Even in the article you just posted Boles observed that he left some pitches up: ""He left some pitches up..." Other observations of him leaving the ball up: March 28, 2013 Scouting Scratch: "He gave up only two hits off his fastball, but one was a wind-aided grand slam that he left up in the zone." "In the second inning, Ranaudo struggled somewhat with control, missing up consistently." An observation from Boles on his injury-plagued 2012: "Boles said the injuries, both to Ranaudo’s groin and lower back, kept him from finishing and repeating his delivery and meant his fastball stayed up in the zone." 8/17/13 ESPNboston.com: ""Other than that he didn't have his curveball command tonight, they've all been similar in that his first inning is up with his fastball, and as he progresses it comes down in the zone," DiSarcina said" In regards to his velocity - this latest report is really excellent news, because just a couple weeks ago Chaz Fiorino observed: "In this outing, Ranaudo's fastball ranged 89-93, and sat 89-91, which is a tick below where I’ve seen him in the past."
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 5, 2014 15:18:05 GMT -5
I agree totally with that summary regarding his fastball but not with the thought that he's generally a high fastball pitcher. When he had lesser command, a large bit of the fastballs were too high but that was technique not intent. Recently, for the games I've seen and apparently from the article as well, he's improved in that area but, he was never a high fastball pitcher like say Papelbon. I even watched several game when he was in the Cape Cod League playing for the Whitecaps, even then, he was throwing downhill, attempting to locate low. He's a prospect, he isn't perfect and like all prospects there are areas that can be improved on, his command has taken a dramatic improvement.
At this point given an either or choice, I'd prefer to see him tighten up the command of his curve more than his FB. It might be the best curve in our system but I think he needs to throw it for strikes more often.
As far as his velocity, there was a report after his fourth outing (Speier) which said that game was the first of the year with velocity returning to last year's level. He basically had spring arm which is not at all uncommon. AT the time, iirc, the velocity difference was 2-3 MPH. One thing that's unfortunately though, for most broadcasts there are no radar readings and the Pawtucket announcers don't give many.
We still have nobody answering the question about the disparity between "advanced metrics" and Ranaudo's SP rating of 3-7 6.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jul 5, 2014 15:49:44 GMT -5
I agree totally with that summary regarding his fastball but not with the thought that he's generally a high fastball pitcher. When he had lesser command, a large bit of the fastballs were too high but that was technique not intent. Recently, for the games I've seen and apparently from the article as well, he's improved in that area but, he was never a high fastball pitcher like say Papelbon. I even watched several game when he was in the Cape Cod League playing for the Whitecaps, even then, he was throwing downhill, attempting to locate low. He's a prospect, he isn't perfect and like all prospects there are areas that can be improved on, his command has taken a dramatic improvement. At this point given an either or choice, I'd prefer to see him tighten up the command of his curve more than his FB. It might be the best curve in our system but I think he needs to throw it for strikes more often. As far as his velocity, there was a report after his fourth outing (Speier) which said that game was the first of the year with velocity returning to last year's level. He basically had spring arm which is not at all uncommon. AT the time, iirc, the velocity difference was 2-3 MPH. One thing that's unfortunately though, for most broadcasts there are no radar readings and the Pawtucket announcers don't give many. We still have nobody answering the question about the disparity between "advanced metrics" and Ranaudo's SP rating of 3-7 6. In regards to your last question, I know Mike likes Ranaudo a good bit - more than jmei and I do - so I'm sure that plays into his ranking. I would have him more of a 3-6 5. And to be really clear about my position: I have no problem with you having a higher opinion of Ranaudo than I do. I don't think you're wrong to have this opinion. You watch enough games where you can simply say, "from what I've observed I think Ranaudo can outperform his mean statistical projection and overcome some of his scouting concerns from the past". I think that is an infinitely reasonable thing. My observations have been somewhat different. What I've seen has generally jived with his scouting profile (control that comes and goes; inconsistent velocity; no average or above third pitch) and also jived with what the advanced metrics tell us (high in the zone too often giving up too many fly balls; wild in spurts giving up too many walks; can't miss bats when velocity is down leading to a less-than-stellar K%). The debate about Ranaudo's projection is a good one. I like the fact that you (and others) see something in him that makes you believe he can overcome these questions. None of us are right 100% of the time and this is one time where I really hope you're right! How huge would it be if Ranaudo gets a chance this year and shows himself to be a #2? That would be incredible. I just don't like the "you don't watch the games!" and "you're just a stats guy?" mentality. It brings down the quality of the conversation and can be insulting. I apologize if I snapped at you about this, it is just a pet peeve of mine. So I'll just end this by saying - I hope you're right! It would be great for this team if you were!
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 5, 2014 17:54:15 GMT -5
I'm really curious here, who has the better DIPS and SIERA, Ranaudo or Barnes ? Ranaudo, because Barnes can't strike anyone out this year. EDIT: In terms of SIERA, it's actually almost tied. In terms of FIP, Ranaudo is way ahead. Both are having down years in terms of strikeouts though.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 5, 2014 19:32:17 GMT -5
I agree totally with that summary regarding his fastball but not with the thought that he's generally a high fastball pitcher. When he had lesser command, a large bit of the fastballs were too high but that was technique not intent. Recently, for the games I've seen and apparently from the article as well, he's improved in that area but, he was never a high fastball pitcher like say Papelbon. I even watched several game when he was in the Cape Cod League playing for the Whitecaps, even then, he was throwing downhill, attempting to locate low. He's a prospect, he isn't perfect and like all prospects there are areas that can be improved on, his command has taken a dramatic improvement. At this point given an either or choice, I'd prefer to see him tighten up the command of his curve more than his FB. It might be the best curve in our system but I think he needs to throw it for strikes more often. As far as his velocity, there was a report after his fourth outing (Speier) which said that game was the first of the year with velocity returning to last year's level. He basically had spring arm which is not at all uncommon. AT the time, iirc, the velocity difference was 2-3 MPH. One thing that's unfortunately though, for most broadcasts there are no radar readings and the Pawtucket announcers don't give many. We still have nobody answering the question about the disparity between "advanced metrics" and Ranaudo's SP rating of 3-7 6. In regards to your last question, I know Mike likes Ranaudo a good bit - more than jmei and I do - so I'm sure that plays into his ranking. I would have him more of a 3-6 5. And to be really clear about my position: I have no problem with you having a higher opinion of Ranaudo than I do. I don't think you're wrong to have this opinion. You watch enough games where you can simply say, "from what I've observed I think Ranaudo can outperform his mean statistical projection and overcome some of his scouting concerns from the past". I think that is an infinitely reasonable thing. My observations have been somewhat different. What I've seen has generally jived with his scouting profile (control that comes and goes; inconsistent velocity; no average or above third pitch) and also jived with what the advanced metrics tell us (high in the zone too often giving up too many fly balls; wild in spurts giving up too many walks; can't miss bats when velocity is down leading to a less-than-stellar K%). The debate about Ranaudo's projection is a good one. I like the fact that you (and others) see something in him that makes you believe he can overcome these questions. None of us are right 100% of the time and this is one time where I really hope you're right! How huge would it be if Ranaudo gets a chance this year and shows himself to be a #2? That would be incredible. I just don't like the "you don't watch the games!" and "you're just a stats guy?" mentality. It brings down the quality of the conversation and can be insulting. I apologize if I snapped at you about this, it is just a pet peeve of mine. So I'll just end this by saying - I hope you're right! It would be great for this team if you were! To me, I see that post as being a much more valid argument than any that have been put forth prior. In terms of what we're seeing, I think where our opinions are different is that I see a pitcher that has made a steady progression to where he is today and see no reason for that progression to not continue and you see a pitcher that is streaky in the gains. I also see a pitcher who has made the step of repeating all the movements and is now fine tuning. I also see no reason to think that his development of the third and fourth pitches will not continue. Their likely replacement level now and down the road fringe average should do just fine considering his one-two. Of course there are ups and downs, few pitchers even in the majors are the same every start but the progression is there. The other difference and probably the biggest one is where that will lead. Had you said 3-7 5, that would be similar but you see both a lower ceiling and lower realistic projection. I really don't expect everyone to have the same opinion but at least you were able to give a valid reason for your opinion other than to say that theoretically his ability to limit solid contact won't continue as he progresses to the next step. There also no right or wrong here unless one of us has special powers, I don't. Still, LOL, I hope your wrong. By the way, I'm not ready for anointing him as a #2 yet, few players reach their ultimate ceilings but I have no problems with projecting a solid #3.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 6, 2014 16:36:33 GMT -5
Ranaudo is clearly a guy who lives up in the zone; virtually every scouting report of his mentions it, and it's readily apparent when you watch him pitch. The statement about how he won't be able to get MLB hitters to swing at the pitches up in the zone that he was getting guys out on in the low minors is lifted almost verbatim from a Speier article, something he also mentioned on a SP podcast. He might be trying to spot the ball down more, but he hasn't been terribly successful with it so far, and few pitchers successfully reinvent themselves from being a fly-ball guy to a ground-ball guy. Owens is an example of a guy who made this transformation; he cut his walk rate while drastically increasing his ground ball rate this year, all without losing many strikeouts. That's indicative of a vast improvement in his ability to command his fastball down in the zone. That's the sort of improvement I want to see out of Ranaudo before I start projecting him as more than a back-end starter, but it's a very difficult one to expect him to make.
I hadn't read about his uptick in velocity when I wrote my last post. That's good to see-- hopefully it sticks and he starts missing more bats. That helped drive a lot of his success in the first half last year, but by all accounts, he was back in the low 90s in the first few months this year. It's just tough to succeed as a fastball-centric pitcher if you don't have either plus velocity or plus command, and it sounded like he had been lacking in both departments.
Reducing his walk rate is a great start, but to reach his ceiling (which I think is of a third starter), he still needs to combine it with some combination of an uptick in his strikeout rate (which might come if this higher velocity sticks or if this slider turns into a swing-and-miss weapon) or a significant improvement in his ability to command pitches down in the strike zone. It certainly is possible, but remember that Ranaudo is now in his age 25 season and on the 40-man roster (and thus burning option years). This is a guy with lots of stuff to work on still (other than the above, he also needs to work on throwing his CB for strikes and improving his changeup), but not a lot of development time to work on it. I'd be much more comfortable projecting him to continue to improve if he was a few years younger, but now we're talking about him as major league depth (remember, this whole line of discussion started when someone mentioned promoting him to the majors and I responded by saying that he still needs development in the minors), and we have to consider the possibility that he's pretty much a finished product at this point and this is just who he is.
I think he can make marginal improvements (especially in terms of his command-- even last night, when he gave up a lot of runs, he still only walked one guy) and cement himself as a fourth starter, but I don't see him making the Owens-esque transformation in his batted ball profile or getting the extra whiffs it'd take to be more than that. Injuries have sapped a lot of his development time (and may continue to do so going forward), and even though he is a hard-working kid with plus makeup, I'm not sure he ever reaches his potential.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,298
|
Post by radiohix on Jul 7, 2014 15:27:00 GMT -5
Brian MacdPherson tweet: De La Rosa and Ranaudo are the candidates to pitch Wednesday, Farrell said.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 8, 2014 19:36:48 GMT -5
Ranaudo is another guy discussed on part two of this week's podcast (at roughly the 49:00 mark). Ian projects him as a number five starter, noting his tendency to pitch high in the zone with his fastball and his fringy changeup. He notes that even in his most recent 7 IP, 0 R, 3 H, 2 BB, 5 K start, he gave up a number of loud outs and was inconsistent with his command. He also mentions that he's heard the same stuff as Speier about Ranaudo potentially projecting as a bullpen arm, but that with improvement in his changeup and slider, he might improve his projection a little bit and end up a mid-rotation guy.
|
|
|