|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 14, 2014 13:27:56 GMT -5
They have begun rolling them out this week, first with SS which Bogaerts was #1 and today with Left-handed pitchers with Owens at #2 and Trey Ball at #9. This rankings have more credibility at least for me with Jim Callis on board. I also like them because there is some video. mlb.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2014/#list=lhp
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jan 14, 2014 13:49:25 GMT -5
They have begun rolling them out this week, first with SS which Bogaerts was #1 and today with Left-handed pitchers with Owens at #2 and Trey Ball at #9. This rankings have more credibility at least for me with Jim Callis on board. I also like them because there is some video. mlb.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2014/#list=lhpI also really like being able to see their opinions on specific grades (especially now that the grades seem reasonable); not enough prospect people talk about actual specific grades like that, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 14, 2014 15:32:00 GMT -5
I can't say that I follow the other teams close enough to have an opinion on the specific order, nonetheless, I can say that I was very surprised that our generally 4th ranked prospect is the second ranked LHP in all of baseball.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 14, 2014 16:37:39 GMT -5
I can't say that I follow the other teams close enough to have an opinion on the specific order, nonetheless, I can say that I was very surprised that our generally 4th ranked prospect is the second ranked LHP in all of baseball. Yeah, it surprised me at first too. I think it says more about the crop of LHP than anything else. There are some good names, but it lacks the top end we would see many other years.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 14, 2014 16:45:38 GMT -5
I don't see a point in ranking LHP period. Handedness only really matters if they're being converted to relief and for 'top prospects' this isn't even part of the discussion.
The handedness of a SP should be right up there with RBI as designations/statistics that we are smart enough not to focus on anymore.
It adds one more category to their rankings though, which probably generates a few extra click-throughs, so more power too em I guess.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 14, 2014 16:50:37 GMT -5
I don't see a point in ranking LHP period. Handedness only really matters if they're being converted to relief and for 'top prospects' this isn't even part of the discussion. The handedness of a SP should be right up there with RBI as designations/statistics that we are smart enough not to focus on anymore. It adds one more category to their rankings though, which probably generates a few extra click-throughs, so my power too em I guess. I agree with your general thought process, but the quality of the content is significantly improved when they analyze 20 starters rather than 10 and this is just an easy way to split it out.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 14, 2014 16:58:37 GMT -5
I agree with your general thought process, but the quality of the content is significantly improved when they analyze 20 starters rather than 10 and this is just an easy way to split it out. I'm with you - anything that improves it is good. Last couple of years I have loved the presentation that MLB has been doing with their prospect listings - really grade A imo. Unfortunately their content/scouting itself has been god-awful at times. Last year's Xander write up in which they gave him '4' present power and '5' power potential really bugged me. Hoping this year looks better.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jan 14, 2014 17:04:36 GMT -5
I agree with your general thought process, but the quality of the content is significantly improved when they analyze 20 starters rather than 10 and this is just an easy way to split it out. I Unfortunately they content/scouting itself has been god-awful at times. Last year's Xander write up in which they gave him '4' present power and '5' power potential really bugged me. Hoping this year looks better. I hear you. The presentation is nice, I just wish they would make it a little more clear which prospect evaluater was doing the write ups. Oh well, I assume Callis has a big role in just about any big prospects ratings and analysis. Bogey's 40 power last year was a joke. This year looks pretty on point: Hit: 60 Power: 70 Run: 50 Arm: 60 Field: 55 Overall: 65 I was happy to see the 55 field tool. After seeing him in '13, I'm inclined to agree that it's a very fitting ranking for his glove at the moment. Hopefully we'll see those "he won't make it at SS" thoughts subside, at least for a few years
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 14, 2014 17:20:05 GMT -5
I'm gonna make a prediction and say Owens will be # 2 on the Red Sox prospects.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 14, 2014 17:28:23 GMT -5
Have a question about the 'field' tool. Are these at all position specific? Or is everyone lumped into one pile?
So - would a slick fielding first baseman be ranked lower than an average fielding SS?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 14, 2014 17:34:02 GMT -5
Seems odd they rank Ball so high with his lack of experience and any real track record beyond high school. Must not be many lefties out there...
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 14, 2014 17:38:03 GMT -5
We have to look at the entire toolset because I don't think anyone is getting ranked based solely on one tool, maybe Iglesias but even he was tough to rank. But to answer your question as one tool alone an avg SS is more valuable than an above avg 1B.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 14, 2014 17:47:59 GMT -5
I don't believe the tool itself or any tool for that matter is position specific. Is Xander was suddenly moved to first base, he would still have a 55 fielding (primarily range) tool. I do believe that the average fielding shortstop would be about a 55, not a 50.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 14, 2014 17:48:45 GMT -5
Seems odd they rank Ball so high with his lack of experience and any real track record beyond high school. Must not be many lefties out there... Or maybe they like him....Callis said before that he was close or was going to be in their top 100.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 14, 2014 18:09:59 GMT -5
Seems odd they rank Ball so high with his lack of experience and any real track record beyond high school. Must not be many lefties out there... That one didn't surprise me at all. I just wasn't sure how many lefties with "top" potential are out there at any given time. As much as you can say he didn't do anything to boost his standing, it would be equally valid to say he didn't do anything to hurt it either. He was the #7 pick in the most recent draft. As the write-up says, he "might" have the highest ceiling in our organization.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 14, 2014 18:28:53 GMT -5
For the general case, because of the several month lag between school schedules and actual contract signing, teams are very reluctant to stretch out a young arm twice in the same year. Therefore, there's usually a year gap in the way they are viewed. Unless something unusual happens like Hagadone's surprise 5 +MPH or Rozier's surprise 5 -MPH, little is likely to change in their own perceived value after the draft and before the first ranking.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 15, 2014 10:40:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 15, 2014 11:12:42 GMT -5
Agree. Unless someone suddenly and surprisingly bumps right up against his ceiling, the Sox have a bunch of likely #3 starters or less from A on up until proven otherwise.
Not that this is a bad thing, and most teams would be excited about this (coughYANKEEScough) but there's probably no young King Felix or Clayton Kershaw walking through that door anytime soon (unless we trade all the other top prospects for one).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 15, 2014 11:15:00 GMT -5
That's a strong group. I think I'd have all ten of them ahead of Heaney/Owens/Fried, the top three lefties. Kohl Stewart didn't make the top 10, so it's no surprise that none of the Sox pitchers did.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 15, 2014 11:39:27 GMT -5
That's a strong group. I think I'd have all ten of them ahead of Heaney/Owens/Fried, the top three lefties. Kohl Stewart didn't make the top 10, so it's no surprise that none of the Sox pitchers did. That's a strong group indeed and I can't really argue with the exclusion of our RH pitchers. I will say this though....if Allen Webster didn't pitch in the majors last year and we were only going off of his stats in Pawtucket....I think he makes it in the 5-10 range. He has as much upside as almost anyone on that list, but perhaps more downside than most of those guys.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 15, 2014 11:44:26 GMT -5
This format really makes it striking how much more RH pitching there is ... there just isn't all that much top end left-handed pitching out there. I mean, I'd rather have any of those top ten over Owens, but it is nice having some lefthanded starting pitching in the system in Owens and Ball.
Also a strong argument to lock up Jon Lester.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 15, 2014 11:45:52 GMT -5
Agree. Unless someone suddenly and surprisingly bumps right up against his ceiling, the Sox have a bunch of likely #3 starters or less from A on up until proven otherwise. Not that this is a bad thing, and most teams would be excited about this (coughYANKEEScough) but there's probably no young King Felix or Clayton Kershaw walking through that door anytime soon (unless we trade all the other top prospects for one). And yet we just beat a team with two aces in the ALCS despite not having even a real #1. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Depth and lack of weaknesses seems to be better than elite players at selected positions. It's not the NBA.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 15, 2014 11:56:46 GMT -5
This format really makes it striking how much more RH pitching there is ... there just isn't all that much top end left-handed pitching out there. I mean, I'd rather have any of those top ten over Owens, but it is nice having some lefthanded starting pitching in the system in Owens and Ball. Also a strong argument to lock up Jon Lester. Eh, I don't necessarily agree. I think it's quite important to have a mix of righties and lefties in the bullpen, but I really don't worry about it in the rotation. The 2013 Tigers had an all-right-handed rotation, and they were a better bullpen and a couple Prince Fielder blunders away from the World Series. The Dodgers spent most of the 90's without a lefty starter and won the division in 1995 without giving a single start to a lefty. In fact, they didn't give a start to a lefty between Bobby Ojeda in '92 and Dennys Reyes in '97. The argument for locking up Lester isn't that he's left-handed, it's that he's a good pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 15, 2014 13:35:55 GMT -5
Agree. Unless someone suddenly and surprisingly bumps right up against his ceiling, the Sox have a bunch of likely #3 starters or less from A on up until proven otherwise. Not that this is a bad thing, and most teams would be excited about this (coughYANKEEScough) but there's probably no young King Felix or Clayton Kershaw walking through that door anytime soon (unless we trade all the other top prospects for one). And yet we just beat a team with two aces in the ALCS despite not having even a real #1. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Depth and lack of weaknesses seems to be better than elite players at selected positions. It's not the NBA. Agree on depth, but also believe it's better to have quality depth if you can get it. This opportunity is not exclusionary or binary in nature. The Sox won, and I love it, but we did have an Ace of our own - Lester - which many here keep minimizing. And another starter - Lackey - who pitched like an ace in two short series (Also, if Miggy was healthy, I think the Sox's chances of getting to the WS would've been greatly reduced. Not that I didn't enjoy the fact that injuries are part of the game, as well as the chances involved with BBIP!).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 15, 2014 13:42:37 GMT -5
And yet we just beat a team with two aces in the ALCS despite not having even a real #1. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Depth and lack of weaknesses seems to be better than elite players at selected positions. It's not the NBA. Agree on depth, but also believe it's better to have quality depth if you can get it. This opportunity is not exclusionary or binary in nature. The Sox won, and I love it, but we did have an Ace of our own - Lester - which many here keep minimizing. And another starter - Lackey - who pitched like an ace in two short series (Also, if Miggy was healthy, I think the Sox's chances of getting to the WS would've been greatly reduced. Not that I didn't enjoy the fact that injuries are part of the game, as well as the chances involved with BBIP!). Pitching like an ace while not an ace is what you can get from a really deep rotation in a short sample size. Don't really want to get into the "is Lester an ace?" debate. Let's agree that he's not anywhere near Scherzer, Verlander, Kershaw, Hernandez...
|
|