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 joshv02 on Jan 13, 2014 14:35:00 GMT -5
Your question already answers itself –I would then know the erosion of average walk rate from A to AA ball. Perhaps that differs among different populations – high SO, low power, (gb/fb hitters, though that data is incomplete in the public), etc. BP’s scouting report doesn’t tell me how AA or will effect a player’s walk rate. Much more importantly – I’d like to know if the postulate is itself correct. Does, the average walk rate erode (and in what way) from A to AA. Then, I’d like the scouting report to take that into consideration in a way that I can understand has been done. In other words, we know that players who profile statistically similar to player X have a longer term tendency to do Y or Z, I’d like the scouting report to (a) tell me that, and (b) tell me why this player’s observed skill set makes it more or less likely that this trend will effect this player.
I don’t know what it is you are argument against. I think it clear by this point that people are suggesting that scouting be informed by sabrmetric analysis/discovery/research, and not supplanted by it. Further, the focus on this being an issue for BPro is specifically because it is BPro and their history is such that this is the work they used to do. But we already recognized that this is a unfair standard to hold them to.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 13, 2014 15:01:39 GMT -5
My argument is that I like BP's prospect package just fine and I think their coverage of prospects is much better than it used to be as opposed to worse.
Yes the scouting report won't tell you how AA walk rate would erode on average, but for me anyways I don't think that would be particularly interesting or useful and would detract from my enjoyment of the package. As jimed alluded there is no publicly available stat that can tell me if the player is just taking advantage of pitchers who are still learning or really working counts fouling off tough pitches.
The comparison of statistically similar profiles to determine if a player will do X or Y in the future works pretty well in the majors because there is more data to go on and the player is fully developed. But it really hasn't worked for minor leaguers because there are too many factors that can't be seen in the statistical profile and that's why BP got away from doing that.
You are entitled to your opinion but I am glad BP got away from that. I can now enjoy their prospect coverage without having to wade through some of the obviously wrong conclusions that used to highlight their coverage.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 13, 2014 15:14:44 GMT -5
Actually I have completely the opposite view for myself. I don't know as much about scouting so I feel I learn more from the scouting reports which enhances my enjoyment of the game.
This is actually not true. Chris Mellen I guarantee you has seen these players more than "once or twice", Jason also talks to friends of his that have the team in coverage and the organization. Those writeups aren't based on a look or two.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 13, 2014 17:17:35 GMT -5
Preface: I hope I've already made it clear that I think statistical analysis of prospects is best used as a supplement to and not a replacement for first-hand expert scouting. Statistical analysis of the minor leagues is certainly limited for many of the reasons discussed above, especially as you go down the minor league ladder.
That said, here are some of the ways it adds value to prospect discussion:
1) Updated scouting reports are not always available. Even with the proliferation of publicly available scouting reports (from this site, BA, BP, Sickels, etc.), the best-case scenario is that the top handful of prospects in a system get three or four detailed looks over the course of a long season. Many prospects towards the mid- and back-end of a system are lucky to get one or two reports a year, with some (especially those from other organizations without great resources like the folks at SoxProspects) going years without anything more than a sentence or two of a regurgitated scouting report from when they were drafted. Statistical analysis can always be up-to-date, and if done correctly, can provide a wealth of information on players we would otherwise be clueless about. For instance, when Mookie was breaking out, Speier was continually providing mainly statistical updates on his season, which helped us appreciate his growth before the scouting reports could come in.
2) Even at their best, scouting reports are a snapshot of a moment in time. Statistical analysis gives us a much more dynamic measure of a player's growth and allows us to do more temporal analysis-- think chavo's recent Ranaudo work.
3) Statistical analysis is often much more precise than scouting reports, even if some of that is false precision. What constitutes a "mid-rotation starter" or "plus bat speed" is always somewhat ambiguous, especially because different scouts use those terms to mean different things. Meanwhile, with enough statistical production in the high minors, we can craft reasonably precise projections about what a player might put up at the MLB level, especially if we use scouting reports to hone those projections. This is especially true with regards to player value-- I find the system of second-division starter versus bench player versus up-and-down player not terribly helpful, and I think using statistical analysis gives us more precise grounds to evaluate prospects (think of the "how much does Iglesias have to hit to be a major league starter" discussion from last year).
4) Statistical analysis allows for much more interesting and nuanced discussion than purely relying on scouting reports. It means those of us without particular scouting backgrounds can have intelligent and constructive discussions about players that goes beyond "well, Parks thinks he has the ceiling of a number two" vs. "well, Speier thinks he's a number three." This would be a pretty boring forum if it was just soxfanatic posting new BA/BP scouting reports and rumors from MLBTR and the rest of us going "ooh, cool." We can discuss the importance of high walk rates in the low minors or whether/how much pitcher BABIP should be regressed, and doing so improves our knowledge of the player and of baseball as a whole.
5) Sometimes scouts and stats disagree, and the scouts are wrong. I don't want to go too far down this road, because this is the Moneyball vs scouts stuff that is pretty played out. But sometimes we hear a guy has a plus hit tool, but then he strikes out a quarter of the time (*cough* Kolbrin Vitek). This is especially true if our scouting reports lack detail or are old or are not from reputable sources.
6) Statistical analysis can back up scouting reports and give us that much more certainty. If we hear a guy has great plate discipline and he's walking more than he strikes out, well, I'm pretty sure he has great plate discipline. But if we hear a guy has great stuff but he isn't getting any strikeouts, maybe that guy is worth a second look (think Buttrey or RDLR).
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 14, 2014 12:20:45 GMT -5
Often these stats versus scouts debates on certain players really are artificial. Take Vitek. The Red Sox and others saw a plus hit tool and decent athleticism in college. That hasn't shown up in the pros in part because of injuries. College players play for a couple of months a few times a week. It's not uncommon for players who show good hit tools as amateurs to have their bat speed slow down as they start to play every day against far better competition.
Mike Newman had an excellent piece questioning Vitek in 2010 which unfortunately I can no longer find. In short, Vitek is NOT an example of a player scouts loved but who was ultimately exposed by his record.
Then you aren't properly using reading the material. The purpose of these pieces isn't to give you a "precise projection", but to give you a better idea as to who the prospect is as a player and what are some reasonable outcomes. Neither scouting nor statistics can give you a "precise" or even reasonably precise projection of the player because there are many things that are unknown. BPs statistical projection systems for prospects did a horrific job and that's why they are no longer used in their coverage of prospects.
Let's use Allen Webster as an example. On the plus side he has a premium fastball that can be a plus pitch. The reason it's plus is because he throws it hard and it sinks very quickly making it very difficult to square up. On the minus side he struggles with his command and sometimes he doesn't sink his fastball which makes it very easy to hit.
In short your post seems very hung up on getting the "right" or "precise" answer regarding these prospects. You've been here long enough that you should know that it doesn't work that way. I reiterate that I really enjoy these prospect packages as they are, and I think that I am a more knowledgeable baseball fan for them. I just find way too often some use statistics, often incorrectly, as an attempt to tear down an evaluation they don't like. Either that or they are trying to find some sort of "truth" as opposed to enhancing their understanding and enjoyment.
Good luck trying to find exact black and white answers in a area of analysis that has tons of grey.
|
|
|
Post by hairps on Jan 14, 2014 12:27:37 GMT -5
What in the world is going on around here? Are we back in 2003 again? moonstone2, you have been insufferable lately in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 14, 2014 13:11:15 GMT -5
In short your post seems very hung up on getting the "right" or "precise" answer regarding these prospects. You've been here long enough that you should know that it doesn't work that way. I reiterate that I really enjoy these prospect packages as they are, and I think that I am a more knowledgeable baseball fan for them. I just find way too often some use statistics, often incorrectly, as an attempt to tear down an evaluation they don't like. Either that or they are trying to find some sort of "truth" as opposed to enhancing their understanding and enjoyment. Good luck trying to find exact black and white answers in a area of analysis that has tons of grey. This sounds like a pretty much word-for-word critique of Bill James from the late 90s. Yes, statistical analysis is less useful for evaluating minor leaguers for the reasons discussed earlier, but I'm still a little flabbergasted that you think it provides no value, especially since it's coming from someone who regularly cites relatively advanced stats in his posts. I'll leave it at this: I very much enjoy reading the scouting coverage of the system that the guys here and at BA/BP/etc. diligently turn out, and my knowledge and appreciation of Red Sox prospects would be wholly and fundamentally incomplete without their hard work and dedication. But I also very much enjoy and get a lot of value out of pulling up Noe Ramirez's stats page and noting his 27.4% K, 7.1% BB, and 53.6% GB rates at AA or reading about Mookie Betts' unique statistical performance in 2013. In my mind, there's a place for both, and I will continue reading and appreciating the statistical analysis that's posted both here and elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 14, 2014 16:28:54 GMT -5
Right and one of the take aways from JP Riccardi, the demise of BPs analytical coverage of prospects, and of sites dedicated to analyzing prospects by stats was that Bill James was wrong. He said that minor league statistics tell you just as much about a players future as major league stats do, and even you admit that this is wrong.
I wouldn't even go as far as you did in saying that they give you a reasonably precise projection of the players future, because quite often they do not.
I do want to clarify again that I'm not saying you should never cite a stat line in an analysis about a player. The BP stuff does. I just don't want to read about it doesn't matter how small Mookie Betts is because he walked X% more often than others. Not if I am paying anyways.
And the beauty of the internet is that you get to read and enjoy what you like and I don't begrudge that of you.
Myself, I am more interested in how Noe Ramirez got to 27.4% K rate and if that's sustainable in the majors. After all in ten years if Noe Ramirez can't pitch in the majors, no one will care about his K rate in AA.
But I think you are right that we are going to have to agree to disagree because I think I am repeating myself.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 14, 2014 16:32:45 GMT -5
What in the world is going on around here? Are we back in 2003 again? moonstone2, you have been insufferable lately in this thread. Hey man thanks for chiming in. I don't mean to be a dick or anything, but I think that the whole Sabermetric/Moneyball "revolution" as it were went WAY overboard and there are many commenters including some on this board who dove over with the ship. In the end Jeremy Brown really wasn't any good.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jan 14, 2014 16:45:52 GMT -5
And the beauty of the internet is that you get to read and enjoy what you like and I don't begrudge that of you. Myself, I am more interested in how Noe Ramirez got to 27.4% K rate and if that's sustainable in the majors. After all in ten years if Noe Ramirez can't pitch in the majors, no one will care about his K rate in AA.
But I think you are right that we are going to have to agree to disagree because I think I am repeating myself. It goes both ways, does it not? To me, it all comes back to having a healthy balance between scouting and statistical analysis. They [should] go hand-in-hand, not be completely segregated schools of thought. You want to know why Ramirez has that K%, so you look for informative scouting reports on him. But what if you read such scouting reports that indicate he'll strike out a lot of batters, but his actual minor league K% isn't matching up with those beliefs ? Don't you want to trace how a player you spend time reading reports on actually did? Even if some stats aren't going to be highly informative of how he'll perform in the MLB years down the road, they at the very least let you know how he's performed relative to his peers, respected scouts predictions, and his past performance (when appropriate to compare). Take Chavo's excellent post on Betts that jmei just cited. We can read reports about him taking a walk and putting the bat on the ball, and that he has some sneaky power, but how do those incredible statistical tidbits that chavo provided not supplement or contribute significantly to your evaluation of the player? It's not purely about the numbers - you need to consider the league, park, injury, and other factors, of course, but statistical analysis provides lots of useful information about a player that complements the few scouting reports we read throughout the year about them. As nice a resource as BA, BP, SP, Sickels, and other prospect scouting sources are, they don't (they can't) tell you everything about a player as he progresses throughout the minors.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 14, 2014 17:24:05 GMT -5
And the beauty of the internet is that you get to read and enjoy what you like and I don't begrudge that of you. Myself, I am more interested in how Noe Ramirez got to 27.4% K rate and if that's sustainable in the majors. After all in ten years if Noe Ramirez can't pitch in the majors, no one will care about his K rate in AA.
But I think you are right that we are going to have to agree to disagree because I think I am repeating myself. It goes both ways, does it not? To me, it all comes back to having a healthy balance between scouting and statistical analysis. They [should] go hand-in-hand, not be completely segregated schools of thought. You want to know why Ramirez has that K%, so you look for informative scouting reports on him. But what if you read such scouting reports that indicate he'll strike out a lot of batters, but his actual minor league K% isn't matching up with those beliefs ? Don't you want to trace how a player you spend time reading reports on actually did? Even if some stats aren't going to be highly informative of how he'll perform in the MLB years down the road, they at the very least let you know how he's performed relative to his peers, respected scouts predictions, and his past performance (when appropriate to compare). Take Chavo's excellent post on Betts that jmei just cited. We can read reports about him taking a walk and putting the bat on the ball, and that he has some sneaky power, but how do those incredible statistical tidbits that chavo provided not supplement or contribute significantly to your evaluation of the player? It's not purely about the numbers - you need to consider the league, park, injury, and other factors, of course, but statistical analysis provides lots of useful information about a player that complements the few scouting reports we read throughout the year about them. As nice a resource as BA, BP, SP, Sickels, and other prospect scouting sources are, they don't (they can't) tell you everything about a player as he progresses throughout the minors. No doubt scouting is critical, but I think the short comings - without the resources of a major league organization - are significant. Remember, the Red Sox chart every single start for every one of their starters at every level. They have velocities and pitch type for every pitch. They also have an extensive scouting division that will have eyes all over the minors throughout the year. Now we're extremely spoiled to be Red Sox fans where we have a site like this that gets multiple looks at most players every year. But even still, we usually only get 3-5 looks at a starter across a season. How many looks do Jason Parks and the BP team get at each prospect when they have the entire league to cover? This isn't a knock on the work they do - I think it is great - but the reality is that they can't see the prospects enough to overcome the need for statistical analysis to complement the scouting reports. Prospects are dynamic. Anthony Ranaudo as has been mentioned was a different pitcher in the second half than he was in the first half. The change happened sometime in June. Unfortunately we don't have a scouting report on him from June or July. We know his velocity was lower in August than it was in April and May. But the only way we can really determine when that change happened is by looking at the stats. I also don't have a high degree of confidence that the national scouting services haven't put too much weight on his second half - especially if that happens to be when they got their look at him. The proper way to look at Ranaudo in my opinion is that his first half is what his projection should be based on and the fact that he faded in the second half should negatively effect the likelihood that he reaches that projection. But that isn't what we're getting from BA and BP. Instead, we're hearing people question his overall stuff and projection based on the influence of his second half starts. I'm completely open to someone disagreeing with me on this being the correct way to view Ranaudo's season, but I think it speaks to the short comings of using strictly scouting to understand who a prospect is.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 14, 2014 17:46:52 GMT -5
I don't remember well but Speier did mention something to do with Ranaudo's swing and miss, or lack thereof, on his fast ball in the zone. To know that I guess he had to used advanced stats or talk to someone who did.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 15, 2014 10:22:48 GMT -5
Responding to multiple posts here.
Do you have a specific example of this happening? I can't think of one. Usually it's the other way around.
Actually the scouting reports of him at the EL All-Star game and the futures game DID mention changes. About five years ago your point would be spot on. But today there is so much information out there that if there is a change that we as fans should know about it's going to be out there.
I thought your piece on Ranaudo was great, but as I mentioned earlier, I don't think you found something that scouting reports missed.
I think this a great question for Chris Mellen, or Chris Hatfield if he happens to know.
Part of the answer is that these guys aren't just evaluators but are reporters as well. They have multiple sources which in aggregate gives them many more than 3-5 looks at a player. Jason explained their process very well on the Sox Prospects podcast and it sounded to me that they like their coverage gives a very comprehensive overview of the player.
In conclusion I think there are a few of you that think that if we went back to the old days and included some deep numbers based analysis with these prospects packages that somehow you'll get some sort of truth that you aren't already getting. You won't. You'll get some arrogant guy proclaiming that experienced baseball evaluators are really Luddites and that he knows better about some guy who strikes out a million people in A ball throwing slop. That's what happened before and that's why you don't see the kind of numbers based analysis of prospects that you used to.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 15, 2014 16:35:20 GMT -5
I think that's about right. We see these guys more (at least the ones in the northeast), but they might talk to a few more guys, although we talk to plenty of scouts ourselves.
Big picture, I'd give something Ian Cundall says about a guy at least as much weight as what one of the national services says. Same with Mellen when he was the scouting director here.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 28, 2014 6:57:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 4, 2014 10:20:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 6, 2014 18:57:17 GMT -5
Speier wrote the BP annual's Red Sox segment. Great quote from Malcolm Gladwell to start it off...
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 6, 2014 21:04:53 GMT -5
So he's writing the BA and BP Red Sox segments?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 6, 2014 21:30:22 GMT -5
So he's writing the BA and BP Red Sox segments? Yes, I guess so. Add: Interesting stat from the annual, and Tazawa's write-up. Last year, he, Uehara, and new acquisitions Mujica and Badenhop accounted for all of 30 unintentional walks. It often seemed to me that Bard was doing that in each game. If remember right, jmei made a point of this when they were brought on board. We're talking about what should be some speedy late inning scenarios this year, people.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 7, 2014 14:26:42 GMT -5
That's crappy about Speier if true - why do I want to read him at WEEI, BA and BP?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Mar 7, 2014 14:29:21 GMT -5
That's crappy about Speier if true - why do I want to read him at WEEI, BA and BP? Then don't, and if enough people agree with you, presumably it will stop.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 7, 2014 16:45:22 GMT -5
No it won't because no matter what people who care about prospects will go look at these things. Don't act like it's not less than optimal as a fan to have the same at all three places.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 7, 2014 17:40:36 GMT -5
No it won't because no matter what people who care about prospects will go look at these things. Don't act like it's not less than optimal as a fan to have the same at all three places. BP's prospect team is still in charge of covering Sox prospects for them. Writing a chapter in the annual doesn't really mean that much.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Mar 7, 2014 18:05:01 GMT -5
No it won't because no matter what people who care about prospects will go look at these things. Don't act like it's not less than optimal as a fan to have the same at all three places. BP's prospect team is still in charge of covering Sox prospects for them. Writing a chapter in the annual doesn't really mean that much. This. I see rjp's concern having one [Boston] reporter writing about the Sox for two major prospect outlets, but if he's merely doing a blurb for BP while the actual BP prospect team is doing the real evaluating we care about, it's not that big of a deal.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 7, 2014 18:37:44 GMT -5
BP's prospect team is still in charge of covering Sox prospects for them. Writing a chapter in the annual doesn't really mean that much. This. I see rjp's concern having one [Boston] reporter writing about the Sox for two major prospect outlets, but if he's merely doing a blurb for BP while the actual BP prospect team is doing the real evaluating we care about, it's not that big of a deal. I've read through five of the team reports so far, so let me expand a bit. The annual now includes an introductory section for each team written by news hounds and bloggers. Speier's is easily the best out of the group so far. While it covers a lot of the familiar angles we've seen from him, it's really an excellent synthesis, with cautionary notes about what may or may not come next. It's about the process the team went through after being down at the bottom then making it's way to the top, and how it surprised even them. It's quite good. As fenway mentions, all the prospect/player analysis is from the folks at BP themselves, along with the PECOTA numbers. Contrast the Sox' entry with the Yankees' and it is, in a perverse way, very representative of each team's season. One of the beat writers from New Jersey spends the three pages allotted to NY going off in a very non-linear way about - who else but A-Rod! There's nothing at all about the success/failure of the season, no analysis of the FO thinking - outside of A-Rod angst - and no discussion of any players except for Rodriguez! I was honestly surprised they'd print this, but hey, maybe that's just who the MFY are these days. One quote from the SB Nation writer who did the Marlins' entry to give you some of the 'color' from the book: And that's one of the good things he has to say about Loria. This edition is different, no doubt about it.
|
|
|