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 Top 101 Prospects
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 30, 2014 21:52:49 GMT -5
I'm not so sure there's a bias against second basemen, it's a premium defensive position which should add value not deter from it. The past few years lack of second basemen on the top of the lists is more to do with the crop of second basemen currently arriving. This year for example, of the top 3 second basemen, Wong is good but not top 20 good even if he was a SS, his ceiling isn't high enough. Odor has a pedigree and has risen fast but is still very young (2 years ahead of Betts) and Betts is young and too much of a recent arrival on the horizon and hasn't performed at the upper levels.
I indicated similar performance at the upper levels. With the magic .300/.400/.500, plus base running skills, off the charts discipline and batting eye numbers and plus defense at a premium position. I can't see what an evaluator wouldn't like.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 30, 2014 21:55:43 GMT -5
From a slightly different perspective looking forward, I see 4 prospects that have a realistic chance of being top 15 players next year, IF EVERYTHING WENT RIGHT. Swihart, Betts, Owens, Webster. EDIT: ADDING MY REASONING: Swihart is a bit complex, it's a combination of two things, first he's a two way catcher, a rare commodity. Second, it's not so much his current level of play as it is the speed at which he got there. In just two seasons he's gone from being toolsy but inordinately raw high school draftee to his current level. For a position that's as difficult as catcher, that's incredibly impressive. If he continues to blossom at the same rate, he'll be thought of in Buster Posey reference. Betts is pretty simple. His stat line in 2013 was mind boggling good. If he puts up similar numbers in the upper minors, there will be a lot of folks on the Betts wagon. Owens is a better BB% rate away from being there now. In his third professional year, it's not unreasonable to assume that statistic could improve dramatically. Webster has the best pure stuff in our system. At the ripe old age of 23, it's not unheard of to see pitchers gain command in his age bracket. Don't forget the mythical Devers...he could be the token Law teenager Even Xander after starting his career in full season ball and doing well there, didn't achieve top 15 status in his first year and I'm intending to mean across the boards top 15, not somewhere on one evaluators list.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jan 30, 2014 22:04:43 GMT -5
Don't forget the mythical Devers...he could be the token Law teenager. Even Xander after starting his career in full season ball and doing well there, didn't achieve top 15 status in his first year. Bogaerts didn't have the pedigree coming into that season like Devers has this season. The difference in signing bonus for example is a indicator how people in the industry think of him. Devers has been a scouts dreams for a while now, while Xander was much of an unknown when he was scouted. You bet Devers is on the radar for writers like Parks and Law.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jan 30, 2014 22:10:09 GMT -5
I am of the opinion that Owens will not change his velocity. Neither righties or lefties could hit him last year with his 88-90 FB. He gets incredible SO against RH, ok against LH. It is only his BB rate against LH that is way high. It could be just that he did not face a lot of LH in the low minors so he never bothered to think about a different pitch sequence for lefties. The last 6? games in AA, Owens saw a higher percentage of LH than in A+. By AAA it could be a 50-50 R/L mix. Anyhow, I will try to make his first two starts,
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 30, 2014 22:33:44 GMT -5
Even Xander after starting his career in full season ball and doing well there, didn't achieve top 15 status in his first year. Bogaerts didn't have the pedigree coming into that season like Devers has this season. The difference in signing bonus for example is a indicator how people in the industry think of him. Devers has been a scouts dreams for a while now, while Xander was much of an unknown when he was scouted. You bet Devers is on the radar for writers like Parks and Law. Agree about the pedigree part, Badler has been tweeting about him for a while. I also think his ceiling is way up there, on the other hand Xander was viewed as somebody with questions about his ability to stick at SS whereas Devers is viewed as somebody with questions about his ability to stick at 3B, big difference. He'd have to really rake and at Greenville not Lowell or rookie to have a sniff at top 15ish status this coming year. On the other hand, I anticipate seeing him in the top 100 next year and hopefully a substantial climb the year after. Our mileage is different regarding the rankings but not too different regarding our views of Devers as a prospect which is the more important part anyways.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jan 30, 2014 22:35:54 GMT -5
Bogaerts didn't have the pedigree coming into that season like Devers has this season. The difference in signing bonus for example is a indicator how people in the industry think of him. Devers has been a scouts dreams for a while now, while Xander was much of an unknown when he was scouted. You bet Devers is on the radar for writers like Parks and Law. Agree about the pedigree part, Badler has been tweeting about him for a while. I also think his ceiling is way up there, on the other hand Xander was viewed as somebody with questions about his ability to stick at SS whereas Devers is viewed as somebody with questions about his ability to stick at 3B, big difference. He'd have to really rake and at Greenville not Lowell or rookie to have a sniff at top 15ish status this coming year. On the other hand, I anticipate seeing him in the top 100 next year and hopefully a substantial climb the year after. Our mileage is different regarding the rankings but not too different regarding our views of Devers as a prospect which is the more important part anyways. Yeah, I'm not expecting him to be in the top 15 next year, even with a good season. I do think he's more likely to be in the top 15 than Bogaerts was at the time.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jan 30, 2014 23:13:32 GMT -5
I'm no expert on Devers but he sounds like a guy whose bat might actually be good enough for 1st base. I'd be happy if we can get a solid bat there finally. Things are shaping up where we might actually have a strong core of farm talent for a solid run between 2016 and 2021.
...the Golden age of Redsox baseball...?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 30, 2014 23:33:53 GMT -5
I'm no expert on Devers but he sounds like a guy whose bat might actually be good enough for 1st base. I'd be happy if we can get a solid bat there finally. Things are shaping up where we might actually have a strong core of farm talent for a solid run between 2016 and 2021. ... the Golden age of Redsox baseball...? 2004, 2007, and 2013 weren't too bad. Felt kind of golden to me, but I know what you mean. They have the capability of extending this with Ben's "next Great Red Sox team". It makes me wish I knew how to change my handle to redsox0407 13champs.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 30, 2014 23:38:42 GMT -5
Unresearched thought:
I find it interesting that when comparing Webster to Owens on a one to one basis that both have a different command or control issue and that Webster is generally (myself included) thought of as having the best "stuff", yet when they do throw strikes, Owens is missing a lot more bats and getting better results, more so than the difference in levels would seem to indicate.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 30, 2014 23:48:43 GMT -5
I'm no expert on Devers but he sounds like a guy whose bat might actually be good enough for 1st base. I'd be happy if we can get a solid bat there finally. Things are shaping up where we might actually have a strong core of farm talent for a solid run between 2016 and 2021. ... the Golden age of Redsox baseball...? 2004, 2007, and 2013 weren't too bad. Felt kind of golden to me, but I know what you mean. They have the capability of extending this with Ben's "next Great Red Sox team". It makes me wish I knew how to change my handle to redsox0407 13champs. In a Golden Age world, if you could change your handle, you'd then have to worry about character length.
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Jan 31, 2014 0:39:49 GMT -5
Unresearched thought: I find it interesting that when comparing Webster to Owens on a one to one basis that both have a different command or control issue and that Webster is generally (myself included) thought of as having the best "stuff", yet when they do throw strikes, Owens is missing a lot more bats and getting better results, more so than the difference in levels would seem to indicate. I find that interesting myself. I think the major differences are that Owens had a low WHIP each year but his first. Webster has had a high WHIP every year but his one minor league season. Owens projects to have more consistent success as a starter IMO. Not that my oppinion is worth that much without seeing Owens live before... but is a statistical guess. Webster could make a filthy pitch or have a dominant stretch, but he is a feast or famine type guy. He had some good starts and others he had no clue how to throw strikes. To me that is a potential relief pitcher in the mold of Delcarmen, Bard or Miller and not a starter. Sent from my SGH-T999 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 31, 2014 8:56:18 GMT -5
When Randy Johnson first came up, his stuff was filthy and his walk rate was bad. First 3 years, ages 26-28. It wasn't until 29, that he settled in. Scherzer broke out a year and a half ago. Not saying Webster will be like then, but it can take certain guys longer. Especially bigger guys with a lot of movement. Learning all the variables is hard. When to keep it in the zone, when to. Movie tout. How to establish in the zone so you can move it out,etc.
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Jan 31, 2014 9:15:21 GMT -5
When Randy Johnson first came up, his stuff was filthy and his walk rate was bad. First 3 years, ages 26-28. It wasn't until 29, that he settled in. Scherzer broke out a year and a half ago. Not saying Webster will be like then, but it can take certain guys longer. Especially bigger guys with a lot of movement. Learning all the variables is hard. When to keep it in the zone, when to. Movie tout. How to establish in the zone so you can move it out,etc. There are far more top prospects like Franklin Morales who was a top pitching prospect with control problems who ended up in the bullpen though. That is reality. .. yes he could turn it around, but I think it starts as a bullpen arm until he is more consistent. Webster does have some hope as his AAA numbers were much better than any other year in terms of WHIP. I just hope it can translate into the majors at all at this point. Even with better numbers in AAA, Webster still had a game like on Nov 13 in the minors when he walked two, gave up 4 hits, 2 runs and never made it out of the first inning. Right now as he stands today, Webster is not consistent enough to be a MLB starter IMO and I see him go the Morales route in the pen. Sent from my SGH-T999 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 31, 2014 9:48:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 31, 2014 10:08:44 GMT -5
Unresearched thought: I find it interesting that when comparing Webster to Owens on a one to one basis that both have a different command or control issue and that Webster is generally (myself included) thought of as having the best "stuff", yet when they do throw strikes, Owens is missing a lot more bats and getting better results, more so than the difference in levels would seem to indicate. Do you remember that game Webster had against the Tigers? They had a ridiculous number of swings and misses. I think 23. Game didn't turn out great but it was still impressive early on. Webster definitely misses a lot of bats.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 31, 2014 15:36:33 GMT -5
Unresearched thought: I find it interesting that when comparing Webster to Owens on a one to one basis that both have a different command or control issue and that Webster is generally (myself included) thought of as having the best "stuff", yet when they do throw strikes, Owens is missing a lot more bats and getting better results, more so than the difference in levels would seem to indicate. Do you remember that game Webster had against the Tigers? They had a ridiculous number of swings and misses. I think 23. Game didn't turn out great but it was still impressive early on. Webster definitely misses a lot of bats. In the first inning alone in that game there were 11 swinging strikes. On the other hand Detroit had a walk, 3 singles to the outfield and a grand slam. It's the other part of my point, poor results when they do make contact. That inning was a testament to both his upside and his downside. The potential is there, no question. mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_06_22_bosmlb_detmlb_1#gid=2013_06_22_bosmlb_detmlb_1&mode=playsI'm guessing a better way to view my thought line is to look at the statlines and ignore the walks. Henry has been better in pretty much every way. That doesn't seem like the results I would have expected since I think Webster has better stuff. You can make the point that (as expected) Alan has the better GB% but look at his LD% (19.8%) that's inordinate, particularly because of the sinking action. The other tell is the FB results. Henry ends up with more pop ups and fewer HRs than Alan in spite of the higher FB rate. Although Henry's FIP, ERC & xERA are better, they would be significantly better if you removed the walks from the equation because Henry walks significantly more than Alan. I think there's more to it than just the simple c & c explanation in both their cases but in opposite ways. Maybe Alan's command is worse than it appears by the BB/K ratio. Maybe he's "wild in the zone" as well as missing the zone or else maybe his break doesn't break consistently. On the other hand, maybe Henry's command is better than it appears. Maybe he's close but nibbling too much by trying to be too fine. I really don't know, I just find the results surprising for their M.O.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 31, 2014 16:17:21 GMT -5
It's a premium article so I won't quote it directly, but Jason seemed to indicate that the Red Sox think of Webster as a future setup man/closer type as opposed to a starter. At least that's how I read his comments.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 31, 2014 16:36:38 GMT -5
Do you remember that game Webster had against the Tigers? They had a ridiculous number of swings and misses. I think 23. Game didn't turn out great but it was still impressive early on. Webster definitely misses a lot of bats. In the first inning alone in that game there were 11 swinging strikes. On the other hand Detroit had a walk, 3 singles to the outfield and a grand slam. It's the other part of my point, poor results when they do make contact. That inning was a testament to both his upside and his downside. The potential is there, no question. mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_06_22_bosmlb_detmlb_1#gid=2013_06_22_bosmlb_detmlb_1&mode=playsI'm guessing a better way to view my thought line is to look at the statlines and ignore the walks. Henry has been better in pretty much every way. That doesn't seem like the results I would have expected since I think Webster has better stuff. You can make the point that (as expected) Alan has the better GB% but look at his LD% (19.8%) that's inordinate, particularly because of the sinking action. The other tell is the FB results. Henry ends up with more pop ups and fewer HRs than Alan in spite of the higher FB rate. Although Henry's FIP, ERC & xERA are better, they would be significantly better if you removed the walks from the equation because Henry walks significantly more than Alan. I think there's more to it than just the simple c & c explanation in both their cases but in opposite ways. Maybe Alan's command is worse than it appears by the BB/K ratio. Maybe he's "wild in the zone" as well as missing the zone or else maybe his break doesn't break consistently. On the other hand, maybe Henry's command is better than it appears. Maybe he's close but nibbling too much by trying to be too fine. I really don't know, I just find the results surprising for their M.O. Webster isn't consistent (command and control) but he has the stuff to miss bats. Probably more than anyone. 23 swings and misses in a single game is probably close to most in any game by any pitcher last year if I had to guess and thats in 98 pitches. Just hope he puts it all together and the Sox are very patient with him.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 1, 2014 3:33:35 GMT -5
He has the classic problem, which I believe BP wrote about. He gets behind because his command isn't good enough. After guys get on, that same flaw has him trying to overpower hitters, trying to push stuff by them, less concerned with playing the edges than getting it over the plate.
The problem is that his pitches lose their action with the added velocity, they straighten out, they're too fat, and they get hammered.
When he does get ahead and lowers the heat a little he regains the boring action and drop on those pitches, so much so that hard contact in the air is almost out of the question. That's also where all those swings and misses come from.
So its all about getting a rhythm and keeping it. He can't throw 97 mph straight fastballs down the middle in the majors. Those are nothing but grapefruit for good hitters.
All that said, this same path has been followed by a lot of guys who mastered their stuff and went on to have good careers. This year will probably tell us a lot.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 2, 2014 8:36:34 GMT -5
He has the classic problem, which I believe BP wrote about. He gets behind because his command isn't good enough. After guys get on, that same flaw has him trying to overpower hitters, trying to push stuff by them, less concerned with playing the edges than getting it over the plate. The problem is that his pitches lose their action with the added velocity, they straighten out, they're too fat, and they get hammered. When he does get ahead and lowers the heat a little he regains the boring action and drop on those pitches, so much so that hard contact in the air is almost out of the question. That's also where all those swings and misses come from. So its all about getting a rhythm and keeping it. He can't throw 97 mph straight fastballs down the middle in the majors. Those are nothing but grapefruit for good hitters. All that said, this same path has been followed by a lot of guys who mastered their stuff and went on to have good careers. This year will probably tell us a lot. I wouldn't say that all hope is lost if he struggles in 2014. Every once in a blue moon, the kid with the amazing stuff, but terrible command/control figures it out in his mid to late twenties. It's the Sandy Koufax, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling career path.
|
|
|
Post by highcheeseandtaters on Feb 2, 2014 9:55:36 GMT -5
Webster is a bit of an enigma for me... He seems to get opportunity after opportunity but pushing on age 24 and his 7th year of pro ball, can't seem to put it all together.
Maybe I'm being unreasonable in my expectations-- and probably b/c he has such seductive stuff, but I'm beginning to think this is who he is.
I'd be curious to know how he got in that trade with the Dodgers-- whether he was offered-up (they had other prospects they were protecting and/or they figured he'd reached his ceiling?) or we specifically targeted him as a piece we wanted, thinking with some mechanical work, we could turn him.
|
|
costpet
Veteran
Posts: 1,157
Member is Online
|
Post by costpet on Feb 2, 2014 10:00:22 GMT -5
I don't know if it's me or not, but when I look into Webster's eyes, he looks like he's scared out of his mind. On the other hand, Workman looks confident. Anybody else notice that?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 2, 2014 10:11:07 GMT -5
I don't know if it's me or not, but when I look into Webster's eyes, he looks like he's scared out of his mind. On the other hand, Workman looks confident. Anybody else notice that? The dreaded eye test of the eye test. It's tough to LOOK confident when you struggle (Webster), and when you get good results you usually look confident by default (Workman).
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Feb 2, 2014 10:41:22 GMT -5
I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but the amount of conversation regarding Webster that ignores his statistical improvement jumping from AA to AAA is mind boggling to me. The way people are concluding, you would think the guy has 30+ MLB starts under his belt and just can't seem to figure it out. He was 23 last year, not 28 folks.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 2, 2014 10:56:25 GMT -5
Much of the improvement from the jump to Triple-A seems to be in the 90-point drop in his BABIP, though. The improvements in K rate are encouraging, but his home run rate returned to realistic levels. The change in his BB/9 number is inflated by that abnormally low BABIP enabling him to finish innings faster - he walked 10.3% of batters in '12, 9.9% in '13 (Triple-A only). Again, the strikeout rate took a huge step forward, but if scouts thought that his command/control were issues holding him back in 2012, and he didn't improve upon them in 2013 then I can see why they are souring on him. With the caveat that I don't really love FIP for minor leaguers, Webster's was 3.21 at Chattanooga and 3.79 at Pawtucket.
|
|
|