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.
Baseball Prospectus Red Sox Top 10
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 7, 2014 11:07:12 GMT -5
Hadn't seen this on Devers yet. His swing looks quite a bit different (much less leg kick) than the one in this:
Sure is a gorgeous swing though. He doesn't look at all like a middle IF though. 3B at best, more likely 1B. He has a huge frame.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 7, 2014 15:47:34 GMT -5
For those of you with a BP subscription, good article with background on AL East prospects, including five of the Sox' prospects: Bradley, Owens, Cecchini, Swihart and Betts. The series is done as a partnership with Perfect Game so it's from their reports. Here are two quotes from the Bradley piece: ... ...and here's a segment from their draft profile report on Bradley: Add: The piece on Owens is wonderfully ambiguous, as they have all been! I've got to run but I'll post some of that later (just enough to tantalize).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 7, 2014 16:13:56 GMT -5
For those of you with a BP subscription, good article with background on AL East prospects, including five of the Sox' prospects: Bradley, Owens, Cecchini, Swihart and Betts. The series is done as a partnership with Perfect Game so it's from their reports. Here are two quotes from the Bradley piece: ... ...and here's a segment from their draft profile report on Bradley: Add: The piece on Owens is wonderfully ambiguous, as they have all been! I've got to run but I'll post some of that later (just enough to tantalize). Holy crap!
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jan 7, 2014 16:49:00 GMT -5
I can't wait to see a center fielder day in and day out, who, along with being a terrific fielder in general, can actually throw at a premier level. Plays that involve outfielders throwing missiles to bases have always been among my favorites to watch, regardless of the circumstances. Case in point: www.kewego.com/video/iLyROoaf2gQM.html
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jan 7, 2014 18:16:15 GMT -5
I can't wait to see a center fielder day in and day out, who, along with being a terrific fielder in general, can actually throw at a premier level. Plays that involve outfielders throwing missiles to bases have always been among my favorites to watch, regardless of the circumstances. Case in point: www.kewego.com/video/iLyROoaf2gQM.htmlAgree, one of my favorite plays in all of baseball. I'll also add this:
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 7, 2014 19:12:09 GMT -5
That BP/Perfect Game collaboration also includes a very long piece on Owens. If you can read, the whole thing. A few quotes:
Sound familiar? Here's the core quote from the story: From his scouting timeline in the story, this would have been right after high school, so the scouts' statements are prophetic - at least so far. Fascinating to have a kid generate so many polarizing opinions. He does come around to a somewhat different view of how Owens should be evaluated as the piece wraps up.
Here's one more quote from the eval of Betts by Perfect Game. This one should bring you to attention:
Anyone might just want such a player on their team. There is a lot more. Sorry to cut it short. All five evals are just fantastic, but that's all I feel comfortable posting.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Jan 7, 2014 19:28:47 GMT -5
Thanks, Oregon Norm. This is really interesting read.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jan 8, 2014 8:57:18 GMT -5
I've now listened to the podcast and read the top 10 list, and I guess the discussion on Cecchini encapsulates one of my two criticisms with the new BPro.
I think, first, that Parks is 100% wrong when he suggests that new age Baseball Analytics has moved past the old number-crunching. I also really dislike the fantasy focus on BPro, now, but I understand the point from a marketing perspective (I just don’t care), and it doesn’t have anything to do with the scouting/prospect (Parks/Mellon) side. But on to my substantive criticisms:
First, with regards to Cecchini. Note that I realize that Mellen and Parks both note that Cecchini could well be a very good player, and I don’t disagree with their scouting report one bit. I have no idea if Cecchini will ever develop 20+ HR power, and the best indicator as to if he will is if he has. This is not a criticism of the viewpoint, or the scouting report, or the order. It is a criticism of how Parks views the world. When Parks discusses Cecchini, he notes that he views him as a .280+ hitter with 10-12 HR and 25-30 2b power, likely from a corner OF spot. Those are all perfectly reasonable assumptions. But, how many outs will he create? If he walks 55 times over 600 PAs he has a much different offensive feel than if he walks 115 times – his RC/27 go up something like 30%. Now, who cares. I realize it is just a podcast and he is talking in bites. I realize that Parks knows the value of a walk. I realize that walks have synergistic value – they not only decrease outs, but they increase the chance for good non-BB outcomes, etc. In the podcast, Parks is just reiterating the point he made in his comments to the article: “Some people see his OBP and get weak in the knees over his value, but his lack of power and average at best defensive profile at third base stand out for me and drop his stock as a result.”
But those comments are so vague as to be aimed only at those who are not serious in their objections. The question is, how much does his “average at best defensive profile” and “lack of power” drop his stock. And for us to know that, we have to actually project his stock – and all those around him in comparison. But, Parks doesn’t do so – or at least, he doesn’t tell us how he does so. Is Cecchini a 55 walk Nava-light (.280/.346/.403)? A career year Nava – .280/.370/.408? A pseudo-star (280/394/413) or a legitimate superstar – 280/418/418. All have 25/12 power and the same average. All are defensible. If you just take his 2013 BB/HBP rate (18%), and you plug in a .280 average, with 25 doubles (3 triples), and 12 Hrs, you get a .280/.411/.416 player over 600 PAs. That is a serious stud.
Now, I think there are very good reasons to think that his 2013 BB/HBP rate is unlikely to repeat itself in the majors. There are two ways to tell the story as to why that is likely the case. The first is to present a hypothesis that may or may not be grounded in reality – as players move up the chain, their ability to make solid contact is (at least partially) determinative of their BB rate. That makes a ton of sense – but the second way to present the case as to why that is true is to actually test that hypothesis by looking at actual data. Give me a list of all players in the last 25 years with BB rates above 15% and ISOs of .150 or less? Show me the correlation b/w ISO and BB rate – break it out by subgroups; etc. Give me something that tells me why it is that the story you are telling is likely correct, other than logic.
What Parks and BPro do, currently, ignores trying to test that hypothesis and just tell me the logical story, that may well be right, but isn’t grounded in analytics but instead in story telling (again, I don’t mean “story telling” in a pejorative way – that is what I do for a living, after all all). It’s a big step backwards from testing and objectivity – from science. At least, imho. And I don’t think parks misses that at all.
Extrapolating this point a little more (and remember, the above points about Cecchini’s walk rate really had nothing to do with his walk rate, but rather how to view and discuss the world), why is a 400/400 line better or worse than Bradley? Well, to know that, we’ll need to essentially create predicted WARs for each. We can talk about things in value “6” or “average” or “plus” terms, but to rank we always need to have real world projections. BPro was at the forefront (at least publicly) of talking about how to rank players in total value – why isn’t that part of this analysis? It is simply ignored, at least from what I can see so far. (And the annual may be much different.)
Note that I realize that if this wasn’t BPro – but instead BaseballProspects.com – this wouldn’t be a valid criticism at all (the retort would just be: go somewhere else for that), so it is very unfair to them. I recognize that.
My second gripe with BPro is similarly unfair - why is this different from Baseball America, other than a different voice? What are you bringing to the table that is new and worth seeing? Is it that your voices are scouts rather than writers? Is it the difference between Alex Speier and Chris Mellen? That seems forced – obviously (no offense Alex) I’d much rather hear Chris’s opinion on a specific player; but, and no offense Chris, I assume that someone like Alex has a much better/broader range of folks to gather opinions from (and is likely better at synthesizing those opinions). Is it merely the question of having an expert guess the number of jelly beans in the jar, or if a person summarizing the collective view of multiple experts is better? Or does BPro summarize them, too? It just is really hard to see the difference other than BPro is staffed by scouts rather than writers. If that is the entirety of the difference, then what I do with that is the same as I do with all expert opinions – add it to a mix, discount any one view heavily, and see if I can discern the wisdom of the crowd.
I remember when ChadBradfordWannabe (i.e., Carlos Gomez) started posting on Baseballthinkfactory in the mid-2000s. That was fantastic – an inside view of a want-to-be (and eventual) professional scout view on various players, what to look for, the lingo, the background. It feels like since then there has been a movement from formerly analytic outlets towards that storyline – HBT, Fangraphs, Bpro, and all the lesser known sites. But, that was in additional to understanding the value of a player, it wasn’t a supplement.
While I like the work, It feels like BPro has gone backwards for overall content, even though these specific pieces are very good product. The analytics – the now-oldschool number crunching – should be guiding their work. Instead, it is being ignored.
Anyway, I’m sure this is a viewpoint of the minority. I don’t think Chris or Jason should take this the wrong way (to the extent they care). But I miss the old BPro’s way of thinking more than anything (a thought I was not properly coveying before – and for which the retort “well, just look it up yourself, as it’s a waste of my time to have to read it” doesn’t really apply) and really wish it were instead melded with the great insights of Parks and Mellen instead of supplanted by it.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 8, 2014 9:07:59 GMT -5
One minor gripe I have here. It's Mellen not Mellon.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jan 8, 2014 9:09:40 GMT -5
Thanks. [Pointless stuff.] Fixed.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 8, 2014 9:13:31 GMT -5
The vibe I get from Parks moreso than most others is that he puts a lot more emphasis on floors and tempers his hopes for ceilings. I mean it's easy to argue for me anyway that Barnes has a higher floor than Owens because he has a plus-plus fastball and will at worst be a closer. Owens floor may not be that high, because his stuff might be too advanced for his level. That doesn't mean that it's going to improve much more or get ML hitters out. I don't expect that to happen, but expectations should be tempered a little. And his ceiling has seemed to have risen a little since his last pitch just from people talking him up.
Not putting words in Parks' mouth, but that's why I'd have Barnes ahead of Owens.
Listening to Speier is fun, but it sounds like he thinks (or hopes) we have 4-5 future HOF players in the system. It's easy to get caught up in it.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 8, 2014 9:22:17 GMT -5
IDK but repeatedly calling the guy the wrong name takes away from the discussion. It's not like Mellen instead of Mellon is that difficult.
Anyways continue to enjoy your awesome discussion.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Jan 8, 2014 9:29:01 GMT -5
I agree with joshv02 that Parks doesn't seem to realize how important hitter's plate discipline is.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jan 8, 2014 9:37:52 GMT -5
The vibe I get from Parks moreso than most others is that he puts a lot more emphasis on floors and tempers his hopes for ceilings. I mean it's easy to argue for me anyway that Barnes has a higher floor than Owens because he has a plus-plus fastball and will at worst be a closer. Owens floor may not be that high, because his stuff might be too advanced for his level. That doesn't mean that it's going to improve much more or get ML hitters out. I don't expect that to happen, but expectations should be tempered a little. And his ceiling has seemed to have risen a little since his last pitch just from people talking him up. Not putting words in Parks' mouth, but that's why I'd have Barnes ahead of Owens. Listening to Speier is fun, but it sounds like he thinks (or hopes) we have 4-5 future HOF players in the system. It's easy to get caught up in it. It does seem that parks is more set on floors and Speier is more about ceiling. The great thing is that from both perspectives it seems the Sox have the top (arguably) system in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jan 8, 2014 9:43:25 GMT -5
I know Cecchini doesn't have the "swing" that creates the kind of loft that will generate HR power, but he does have two things in plate discipline and size/strength.
I've heard he is so patient that he almost takes too many pitches just for the sake of taking pitches. I think when he matures and spends some time in the majors that he can develop some power if his hit tool and patients transfers to the majors. He just strikes me as the kind of hitter who is so smart that every once in a while he can just turn on a fastball when he sees it coming and knock it out of the park. I'm not talking 25-30 a year, but I would not be the least bit surprised if he can consistently hit around 12-15 give or take a few.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 8, 2014 9:43:54 GMT -5
I agree with Joshv's general point. I constantly find myself searching for a more complete analytical approach to prospect evaluation. I think Mookie Betts is a great example. We all know he had one of the more unique seasons we've seen in a while, but how do such extreme BB/K/ISO numbers translate as a player advances? I know in the quick scan I did I was surprised that so many of the comps were top prospects that have disappointed, but that was far from a complete analysis.
I think Mellen and Parks do a good job at what they do, but like joshv said, it's just another opinion in a crowded group of opinions. I just wish someone still did more with the statistical side. The only reason this rant is about BP is because they actually used to do it.
I also don't think Parks over emphasizes a prospects floor. If anything I think the opposite is true. He tends to have a lot of low minors-high upside players higher than others do. My critique of Parks - tying into the context of the conversation - is that he takes a scout's view of players and seems to base his opinion more on limited looks than a site like BA that consolidates opinions better. I think a good example of where this approach fails is with Anthony Ranaudo. I'm willing to bet the majority. (If not all) of Parks' looks came after June 18. As I've mentioned, Ranaudo was a different pitcher in the second half. I'm just not sure his style of analysis accounts for that.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,989
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 8, 2014 9:54:06 GMT -5
I agree with joshv02 that Parks doesn't seem to realize how important hitter's plate discipline is. Wow, really? Instead of Parks thinking that maybe some people with high obp in the minors won't have it in the majors? That's how I read/heard "Some people see his OBP and get weak in the knees over his value"
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 8, 2014 10:04:29 GMT -5
I agree that approach should be the 6th tool. Though that's something that is almost non-existent for many players when they're in high school. But it's also much harder to evaluate.
Anyone can go up to the plate and take the first 3-4 pitches in lower levels. (or you can look at WMB and Iglesias last season) Most pitchers have poor control at that point. But why bother? Just to make walk rates look better? It doesn't mean much later on. And if kids are only throwing fastballs in lower levels, why lay off pitches they can smash?
By the time they're in AA, a lack of power is going to begin to hurt someone who takes a lot of pitches and isn't actually recognizing them. Before that, it's hard to tell what the reason is for higher walk rates.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 8, 2014 10:08:57 GMT -5
I agree with joshv02 that Parks doesn't seem to realize how important hitter's plate discipline is. Wow, really? Instead of Parks thinking that maybe some people with high obp in the minors won't have it in the majors? That's how I read/heard "Some people see his OBP and get weak in the knees over his value" I think the biggest example is Cecchini. Parks loves him less than most, but I think it's more that he doesn't see his bat fitting a position he's acceptable at. He might just be a Nava, which isn't shabby either. Just not as exciting.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Jan 8, 2014 10:17:03 GMT -5
I agree with joshv02 that Parks doesn't seem to realize how important hitter's plate discipline is. Wow, really? Instead of Parks thinking that maybe some people with high obp in the minors won't have it in the majors? That's how I read/heard "Some people see his OBP and get weak in the knees over his value" You don't understand the concept of plate discipline.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 8, 2014 10:50:31 GMT -5
Wow, really? Instead of Parks thinking that maybe some people with high obp in the minors won't have it in the majors? That's how I read/heard "Some people see his OBP and get weak in the knees over his value" You don't understand the concept of plate discipline. So how about you explain it instead of just being condescending?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 8, 2014 10:58:35 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Parks mentioned in the podcast that he thought Cecchini had some things that could get exploited by more advance pitching. It remains to be seen. I like Cecchini and think he fits the organization to a tee. Don't really care where he's ranked. The power is the question mark and the comments that he works the count perhaps too much give me hope the Red Sox can teach him how to be a little more aggressive and how to use his strength but until then it's a question mark.
As for BPs new prospect approach can't really comment on it since I haven't been a bp customer but I think we have to consider that perhaps the group that wants more analytical view of prospects isn't as large so they have shifted towards the more traditional way of analyzing prospects in the hopes to attract more people, after all they are in the money making business too. Also I think they shifted a while ago, I believe Goldstein was more traditional too but I can't speak too much on that because I got that impression when listened to his podcast a few times not by following the site as a whole.
There is place for both analytical and traditional ways and in fact that's probably the best way of doing it.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 8, 2014 12:47:25 GMT -5
I totally agree with joshv02 and chavopepe2, with the caveat that I think it's a little unfair to expect BP to stick to a SABR-focused analysis of prospects. I think there's tons of room for statistically-minded analysis of prospects, especially when it's integrated with scouting looks (see the Ranaudo thread for a great example of what I mean). I think our contemporary understanding of player value should absolutely inform scouting in a more precise way than it has, even if a lot of that will inevitably be false precision.
But I think putting that burden on BP is a bit much. The broadening of their focus is far from limited to their prospect coverage. The site as a whole has lost a lot of the pure old-school numbers focus it once had, largely because many of the pioneers of that type of analysis have moved on to bigger and better things. In particular, much of BP has been oriented towards writing and analysis in recent years, and much less attention has been focused on the research and development of new (or the refinement of old) statistics and models. I mean, does anyone really use WARP or TAv or EqA much anymore? And it isn't their fault that they haven't kept up with the cutting edge-- the BP brain drain is a real phenomenon, and it's increasingly easy for talented up-and-comers to post their stuff elsewhere and still receive significant attention. Plus, now that they've grown and depend on subscriptions to pay off operating costs, it makes far more sense to take a generalist focus than to retrench themselves in old-school SABR analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 8, 2014 15:23:27 GMT -5
To everyone freaking out that Parks doesn't think highly enough of Cecchini, you realize that he has him in the top 101 still, right? This isn't like when Keith Law (correctly) said that Bowden wouldn't be a successful MLB starter.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jan 8, 2014 15:53:19 GMT -5
To everyone freaking out that Parks doesn't think highly enough of Cecchini... Who is that?
|
|
|