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.
FanGraphs Top 15 Prospects
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 25, 2014 21:48:21 GMT -5
Everyone has an opinion, mine is that Ranaudo has a higher ceiling than either Workman or Barnes but a lower probability of reaching that ceiling until he's good for an entire year.
On the other hand, I think he has a lower ceiling than either Webster or RDLR but a higher probability of reaching that ceiling than either of those.
Ranaudo is still only 24, there's still plenty of time here.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 26, 2014 6:38:20 GMT -5
The Steamers leave a lot to be desired. Bradley with a 1 def, Swihart and Vazquez equal 8's. Margot a better defender than Bradley (now), Xander a better defender than Morero, etc, etc, etc. I think there's too much underlying the stats to make Steamers for minor league players and have there be any real value. Gotta wonder if it's something to do with the position, as Margot, also a great defender in CF, has a 2.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 26, 2014 7:20:27 GMT -5
The Steamers leave a lot to be desired. Bradley with a 1 def, Swihart and Vazquez equal 8's. Margot a better defender than Bradley (now), Xander a better defender than Morero, etc, etc, etc. I think there's too much underlying the stats to make Steamers for minor league players and have there be any real value. Gotta wonder if it's something to do with the position, as Margot, also a great defender in CF, has a 2. I just looked across several teams for players that I am more or less acquainted with and several that I've never heard of. In general, it appears that virtually every center fielder gets a 2 score except Bradley who only gets a 1. Steamers must view him as substandard. Catchers are an interesting lot, virtually all get an 8, except 1 that I saw with a 10 (Pinto, Minn). Even Hedges only got an 8. They must be using some very basic data to generate the defensive numbers.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Feb 26, 2014 9:21:11 GMT -5
Straight from the article.
Note that just from the Sox the two catchers (regardless of level) are Def 8s. While the SSs are 7 & 6.
Across other projections: Francisco Lindor, widely considered a superior defensive SS then Bogaerts curiously only gets a 6. George Springer, probably a slightly worse defender (65 vs. 70) than Bradley gets a 2 Def rating. This may have no bearing as Vazquez, Swihart and Hedges are all varying degrees of very good defensive catchers, but all have an 8 Def.
I would hazard a guess that they copped out and said anyone without ML experience will get a base rating of X dependent on position. Further from the majors will probably push your imaginary number down some, such as Marrerro's (still doesn't explain Swihart, though). Now, in the case of Bogaerts' higher than generic Def and Bradley's lower than generic Def; in each of their short stints in the majors last season they were subject to UZR analysis. Bradley's was poor while Bogaerts' was positive, so Steamer adjusted accordingly.
On a final note: Steamer is dumb.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 26, 2014 9:59:24 GMT -5
For Webster to knock out Doubront, you'd have to have Webster suddenly harnessing decent command (which would be a huge leap for him), plus an absolutely miserable spring for Doubront. With Dooby reportedly arriving to ST in far better shape than past seasons, there's no reason to expect such a collapse. In fact, I'm looking at him as a major breakout candidate this year, due both to an improved (efficient) approach and better conditioning this offseason. After all, he pitched like an effective mid-rotation starter last season for all but two months, including September when he was noticeably run down. He got jerked to the pen after some rest and gave up 11 ER in two appearances (only to come up huge in that role in the playoffs). His K/9 also declined every single month, beginning at 11.2 in April and ending at a shoddy 5.7 in Sep/Oct (regular season). Notably, his velocity didn't trend in any notable direction, it simply was just lower overall than past seasons. Found this interesting. Since 1901, there have been 228 left-handed pitchers who have logged at least 250 innings between their age 24 and 25 seasons (a span in which Doubront has pitched 323 2/3 innings). Of that group, Doubront ranks sixth in strikeouts per nine innings
www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2014/02/25/felix-doubront-breakout-candidate
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 26, 2014 10:15:05 GMT -5
I'm curious to see all of the things that factored into Denney's ranking. There has been almost no positive news on him since he was drafted. I believe it was Speier in his BA chat that said Denney had very little support from scouts he talked to. I've said this before, but I think these national rankings sites are really sleeping on Ranaudo. If his sudden decline in late June last year really was fatigue and his velocity stays up for most of this year, he is an elite top-50ish prospect. I don't see a reasonable argument to rank Margot or Vazquez ahead of him never mind Denney. I'm sorry, I really can't get that excited about a 24 year old pitcher who hasn't been healthy and good for an entire season since... some point in college, I guess? I tend to agree with you on Ranaudo, I'm fine having him as a prospect, but I don't get excited or expect much out of him. But playing devils advocate for a minute, can't we look at these "health/stamina" issues as reasons why he could really surprise a lot of people? No real structural issues to be overly concerned with. The injuries could explain the lack of stamina last year and a lot of young athletes need to learn how to properly eat, train and condition themselves to perform optimally over a long season. I guess the point being, I kind of rather there being these excuses for his less then stellar performances then he just not being talented enough.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 26, 2014 10:21:08 GMT -5
Straight from the article. Note that just from the Sox the two catchers (regardless of level) are Def 8s. While the SSs are 7 & 6. Across other projections: Francisco Lindor, widely considered a superior defensive SS then Bogaerts curiously only gets a 6. George Springer, probably a slightly worse defender (65 vs. 70) than Bradley gets a 2 Def rating. This may have no bearing as Vazquez, Swihart and Hedges are all varying degrees of very good defensive catchers, but all have an 8 Def. I would hazard a guess that they copped out and said anyone without ML experience will get a base rating of X dependent on position. Further from the majors will probably push your imaginary number down some, such as Marrerro's (still doesn't explain Swihart, though). Now, in the case of Bogaerts' higher than generic Def and Bradley's lower than generic Def; in each of their short stints in the majors last season they were subject to UZR analysis. Bradley's was poor while Bogaerts' was positive, so Steamer adjusted accordingly. On a final note: Steamer is dumb. I wonder if Bradley got a "1" because he played left-field in his brief major league stint last year ...
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 26, 2014 11:27:12 GMT -5
In RE: Training habits Just this spring John Farrell has talked about both Buchholz & Doubront adopting better nutritional regimes I'm certainly hoping that the same applies to Anthony R.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 26, 2014 13:03:13 GMT -5
We're now concluding that his downturn last year when he pitched 140 innings a year after he pitched 37 innings is due to nutritional habits ? Does this look like Clay or Felix ??
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Feb 26, 2014 15:32:09 GMT -5
For Webster to knock out Doubront, you'd have to have Webster suddenly harnessing decent command (which would be a huge leap for him), plus an absolutely miserable spring for Doubront. With Dooby reportedly arriving to ST in far better shape than past seasons, there's no reason to expect such a collapse. In fact, I'm looking at him as a major breakout candidate this year, due both to an improved (efficient) approach and better conditioning this offseason. After all, he pitched like an effective mid-rotation starter last season for all but two months, including September when he was noticeably run down. He got jerked to the pen after some rest and gave up 11 ER in two appearances (only to come up huge in that role in the playoffs). His K/9 also declined every single month, beginning at 11.2 in April and ending at a shoddy 5.7 in Sep/Oct (regular season). Notably, his velocity didn't trend in any notable direction, it simply was just lower overall than past seasons. Found this interesting. Since 1901, there have been 228 left-handed pitchers who have logged at least 250 innings between their age 24 and 25 seasons (a span in which Doubront has pitched 323 2/3 innings). Of that group, Doubront ranks sixth in strikeouts per nine innings
www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2014/02/25/felix-doubront-breakout-candidateInteresting indeed. Thanks for pointing that out. While his velocity decline in 2013 compared to previous seasons was concerning, he pitched quite effectively for the bulk of '13, retained effective results until the very end, but gradually got worse at striking out hitters. So his conditioning issues didn't effect his velocity itself, but he for some reason got worse at keeping the ball out of play. I wonder if that was due to mounting fatigue, if he consciously switched up his pitching style, or a bit of both. Is he no longer a 9 K/9 guy as he was in 2012? Definitely some things to keep an eye on in 2014, but there's reason to believe he'll be a reliable fourth starter regardless of whether he recovers his velocity or strikeouts.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Feb 26, 2014 15:52:03 GMT -5
Definitely some things to keep an eye on in 2014, but there's reason to believe he'll be a reliable fourth starter regardless of whether he recovers his velocity or strikeouts. Same here, most likely the eye test. His stuff just flat out looked better last season. If he doesn't screw around with his conditioning (big if), he'll be a fine starter for years to come.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 26, 2014 15:55:19 GMT -5
Interesting indeed. Thanks for pointing that out. While his velocity decline in 2013 compared to previous seasons was concerning, he pitched quite effectively for the bulk of '13, retained effective results until the very end, but gradually got worse at striking out hitters. So his conditioning issues didn't effect his velocity itself, but he for some reason got worse at keeping the ball out of play. I wonder if that was due to mounting fatigue, if he consciously switched up his pitching style, or a bit of both. Is he no longer a 9 K/9 guy as he was in 2012? Definitely some things to keep an eye on in 2014, but there's reason to believe he'll be a reliable fourth starter regardless of whether he recovers his velocity or strikeouts. The good news is that even though his velocity dropped, he pitched better than he ever has. If it comes back, he could be better than Lester.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 26, 2014 16:13:02 GMT -5
Interesting indeed. Thanks for pointing that out. While his velocity decline in 2013 compared to previous seasons was concerning, he pitched quite effectively for the bulk of '13, retained effective results until the very end, but gradually got worse at striking out hitters. So his conditioning issues didn't effect his velocity itself, but he for some reason got worse at keeping the ball out of play. I wonder if that was due to mounting fatigue, if he consciously switched up his pitching style, or a bit of both. Is he no longer a 9 K/9 guy as he was in 2012? Definitely some things to keep an eye on in 2014, but there's reason to believe he'll be a reliable fourth starter regardless of whether he recovers his velocity or strikeouts. Looking at his monthly splits through the lens of advanced metrics, that 16-game stretch referenced in the article where he put up a 2.73 ERA doesn't necessarily show a breakthrough in terms of improved peripherals (i.e., strikeouts, walks, ground balls), but rather just like a period where he had a lower-than-normal BABIP and didn't give up many home runs. Here's how he looked by month: ___Mar/Ap_May_June_July__Aug_Sept ERA: 4.24, 6.23, 2.75, 2.56, 3.64, 9.77 xFIP: 3.30, 3.86, 4.13, 4.04, 4.18, 5.99 That stretch of great results thus might not actually be him "putting it together," but just some variance related to small samples and such.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Feb 26, 2014 16:35:04 GMT -5
Interesting indeed. Thanks for pointing that out. While his velocity decline in 2013 compared to previous seasons was concerning, he pitched quite effectively for the bulk of '13, retained effective results until the very end, but gradually got worse at striking out hitters. So his conditioning issues didn't effect his velocity itself, but he for some reason got worse at keeping the ball out of play. I wonder if that was due to mounting fatigue, if he consciously switched up his pitching style, or a bit of both. Is he no longer a 9 K/9 guy as he was in 2012? Definitely some things to keep an eye on in 2014, but there's reason to believe he'll be a reliable fourth starter regardless of whether he recovers his velocity or strikeouts. Looking at his monthly splits through the lens of advanced metrics, that 16-game stretch referenced in the article where he put up a 2.73 ERA doesn't necessarily show a breakthrough in terms of improved peripherals (i.e., strikeouts, walks, ground balls), but rather just like a period where he had a lower-than-normal BABIP and didn't give up many home runs. Here's how he looked by month: ___Mar/Ap_May_June_July__Aug_Sept ERA: 4.24, 6.23, 2.75, 2.56, 3.64, 9.77 xFIP: 3.30, 3.86, 4.13, 4.04, 4.18, 5.99 That stretch of great results thus might not actually be him "putting it together," but just some variance related to small samples and such. Yeah, I don't think that stretch tells us much of anything about him (I didn't even read the article, I just found the K/9 stat intersting, especially with the questions going forward about his strikeouts and velocity. Also, FWIW, those FG splits indicate that he was extremely unlucky in May, with a super elevated BABIP and HR/9 (.395, 1.38, respectively). Plus from the corner of my eye I spotted that his BABIP in high-leverage situations on the season was an even .400.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 26, 2014 19:44:12 GMT -5
It could be that's the case or it could be him pitching better. His BABIP was definitely down but so was his walk rate and LD%.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 26, 2014 21:08:21 GMT -5
It could be that's the case or it could be him pitching better. His BABIP was definitely down but so was his walk rate and LD%. The walk rate went down, but so did the strikeout rate, which sort of balanced itself out, and Doubront's real improvement over that stretch was the outcome of pitches put in play. And I'm pretty confident a month or two of a low line drive rate is more likely to be random variance than a true talent skill improvement, considering that LD% is the least consistent year-to-year pitching stat. It's certainly possible that he did improve the quality of contact he gave up in a sustainable way, but there's a lot of evidence pointing against it.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 26, 2014 21:27:58 GMT -5
With regards to evidence pointing against it what are you referring to? Lower K rate doesn't tell us that. It's not uncommon for a pitcher learning to pitch to have a K rate decline as they learn go pitch in the zone and induce weaker contact. Buchholz is a decent example of this, in my opinion. 2007 & 2008 his K and LD rates were higher and in 2009 they both dropped as he tried to learn how to pitch in the zone. This trend continued for him. Clay's contact percentages went up as well.. No two guys are perfect correlations and this could be completely off on what was happening with Doubront, but it's another possibility especially if coupled with his comments from Speier's article.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 26, 2014 22:58:21 GMT -5
Clay Buchholz is not a good comparison for any pitcher; he is one of a relatively small group of pitchers who have been able to consistently outperform their peripherals (he's third in the league since 2009 in FDP wins). I'm of the opinion that any pitcher who outperforms their peripherals over a small sample with no previous history of doing so is probably due for regression. This is especially true with a pitcher like Doubront who (a) has no history of meaningfully outperforming a league-average BABIP either in the majors or the minors, (b) does not fit the profile of those pitchers who can usually outperform their peripherals (fairly extensive research indicates that the following classes of pitchers often induce weaker contact: high-strikeout pitchers, extreme ground-ball pitchers, pitchers who get lots of IFFB, knuckleballers) and (c) did not maintain his success through the end of the season.
|
|
|
Post by jhenrywaugh, prop. on Feb 26, 2014 23:38:12 GMT -5
Not sure I'd agree with Renaudo's ceiling being higher than Barnes, though I'm thrilled it's a legitimate debate going into this year. I'm calling attention to it because I think Barnes is getting less attention than deserved. I think his performance has much to do with his performance stats last year, and that's fair to some extent, but I like him better than most as a breakout candidate because of his stuff and control. Both have been more consistent against better competition for a longer period of time than most of our better starting prospects. Development year? Here's hoping. Everyone has an opinion, mine is that Ranaudo has a higher ceiling than either Workman or Barnes but a lower probability of reaching that ceiling until he's good for an entire year. On the other hand, I think he has a lower ceiling than either Webster or RDLR but a higher probability of reaching that ceiling than either of those. Ranaudo is still only 24, there's still plenty of time here.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 27, 2014 3:08:22 GMT -5
Not sure I'd agree with Renaudo's ceiling being higher than Barnes, though I'm thrilled it's a legitimate debate going into this year. I'm calling attention to it because I think Barnes is getting less attention than deserved. I think his performance has much to do with his performance stats last year, and that's fair to some extent, but I like him better than most as a breakout candidate because of his stuff and control. Both have been more consistent against better competition for a longer period of time than most of our better starting prospects. Development year? Here's hoping. Everyone has an opinion, mine is that Ranaudo has a higher ceiling than either Workman or Barnes but a lower probability of reaching that ceiling until he's good for an entire year. On the other hand, I think he has a lower ceiling than either Webster or RDLR but a higher probability of reaching that ceiling than either of those. Ranaudo is still only 24, there's still plenty of time here. Some guy named Pedro's opinion: Which other young pitchers has Pedro been impressed by? “I thought Ranaudo was going to get a chance [last year]. When I saw him I saw a guy that was completely different because of the history, with his arm problems. I think he was delayed a little bit more just to be cautious because that was the first full year he was pitching. Owens, he’s a natural. He’s a natural. I think it’s just a matter of keeping them healthy and before you know it they’re going to be up. Those guys are full of talent. I was really impressed with the material we have in the minor leagues.” browniepoints.mlblogs.com/2014/02/26/everything-pedro-said-on-his-first-day-at-camp/
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 27, 2014 8:30:10 GMT -5
It could be that's the case or it could be him pitching better. His BABIP was definitely down but so was his walk rate and LD%. The walk rate went down, but so did the strikeout rate, which sort of balanced itself out, and Doubront's real improvement over that stretch was the outcome of pitches put in play. And I'm pretty confident a month or two of a low line drive rate is more likely to be random variance than a true talent skill improvement, considering that LD% is the least consistent year-to-year pitching stat. It's certainly possible that he did improve the quality of contact he gave up in a sustainable way, but there's a lot of evidence pointing against it. LD% is the least reliable stat there is because there isn't a good enough definition of it. A hard ground ball can be hit harder than a line drive. A line drive hit by Papi is way harder than a line drive hit by a pitcher so they're all going to have probably drastically different BAPIPs. Some players with top 10 LD% are average hitters. The next generation of advanced metrics might include something like average MPH of hit balls or something in that vein.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 27, 2014 9:13:42 GMT -5
The next generation of advanced metrics might include something like average MPH of hit balls or something in that vein. It's called HITf/x, and it's just a matter of time before the data becomes public.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Feb 27, 2014 20:36:22 GMT -5
Not sure I'd agree with Renaudo's ceiling being higher than Barnes, though I'm thrilled it's a legitimate debate going into this year. I'm calling attention to it because I think Barnes is getting less attention than deserved. I think his performance has much to do with his performance stats last year, and that's fair to some extent, but I like him better than most as a breakout candidate because of his stuff and control. Both have been more consistent against better competition for a longer period of time than most of our better starting prospects. Development year? Here's hoping. Everyone has an opinion, mine is that Ranaudo has a higher ceiling than either Workman or Barnes but a lower probability of reaching that ceiling until he's good for an entire year. On the other hand, I think he has a lower ceiling than either Webster or RDLR but a higher probability of reaching that ceiling than either of those. Ranaudo is still only 24, there's still plenty of time here. I'm with you; I actually personally think Barnes is the top pitcher in our system right now. But specifically talking Ranaudo vs Barnes: Barnes has better command of a better fastball, more potential with his changeup, and similar projection on his curveball (although Ranaudo's curve is definitely the better pitch currently).
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 27, 2014 22:32:54 GMT -5
The next generation of advanced metrics might include something like average MPH of hit balls or something in that vein. It's called HITf/x, and it's just a matter of time before the data becomes public. Wait, is it? If so, I look forward to reading the last paragraph of many the Fangraphs articles it will generate...
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 28, 2014 3:30:36 GMT -5
The next generation of advanced metrics might include something like average MPH of hit balls or something in that vein. It's called HITf/x, and it's just a matter of time before the data becomes public. As I understand it talking to folks at the SABR conference, this isn't likely to happen, at least for current data. And that there has been no effort to pool financial resources and buy the data for the saber community suggests that perhaps the data comes with a non-disclosure agreement. However, there should be no reason why old data shouldn't eventually be made public so that researchers can work with it to examine general, non player-specific questions. E.g., it would be great to know what the actual variation in hardness of contact allowed was, from pitching start to start, how streaky it was, and how it related to BABIP allowed. In fact, they could keep the last three seasons proprietary and release everything else. Four if they wanted to be conservative. I've put some Doubront comments where they belong, in his thread.
|
|
|