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.
Red Sox Pitching Development
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 6, 2015 15:26:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 6, 2015 15:57:07 GMT -5
I really don't like analyses that depend on guys' rankings on the Sox top 10. That is a highly variable metric, like "smartest 5 people in the room." Sometimes, that's an impressive group of brainiacs, but sometimes, it's just a bunch of vaguely clever folks in a roomful of idiots. Some guys sneak into the back end of the Sox lists that really aren't expected to do all that much. Of everyone on that list, I think Michael Bowden is the only guy (outside of Sanchez, Lester, Papelbon, and Buchholz) that I really had any hopes would turn into a rotation mainstay, and I carry that shame with me every day. Not many others believed in him. I guess maybe I thought Doubront might make it, but he actually looked more talented in MLB than I remember thinking he was in the minors. Basing it on ranking on BAs Top 100 is a little more useful, I guess. I think the central point - "the Red Sox haven't developed enough elite pitching since the Lester, Sanchez, Papelbon class" - is clearly true, but by making it seem like pitchers flamed out this analysis obscures that fact that they haven't actually developed pitchers that people even thought were going to be good. |
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,989 
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 6, 2015 16:13:34 GMT -5
I really don't like analyses that depend on guys' rankings on the Sox top 10. That is a highly variable metric, like "smartest 5 people in the room." Sometimes, that's an impressive group of brainiacs, but sometimes, it's just a bunch of vaguely clever folks in a roomful of idiots. .... Yes, important point, as in Flight Of The Conchords' "The Most Beautiful Girl (In The Room)" Yeah-ahh... Looking round the room, I can tell that you Are the most beautiful girl in the...room. In the whole wide room Oooh. And when you're on the street Depending on the street I bet you are definitely in the top three Good looking girls on the street...yeah... |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 7, 2015 23:04:07 GMT -5
I really don't like analyses that depend on guys' rankings on the Sox top 10. That is a highly variable metric, like "smartest 5 people in the room." Sometimes, that's an impressive group of brainiacs, but sometimes, it's just a bunch of vaguely clever folks in a roomful of idiots. Some guys sneak into the back end of the Sox lists that really aren't expected to do all that much. Of everyone on that list, I think Michael Bowden is the only guy (outside of Sanchez, Lester, Papelbon, and Buchholz) that I really had any hopes would turn into a rotation mainstay, and I carry that shame with me every day. Not many others believed in him. I guess maybe I thought Doubront might make it, but he actually looked more talented in MLB than I remember thinking he was in the minors. Basing it on ranking on BAs Top 100 is a little more useful, I guess. I think the central point - "the Red Sox haven't developed enough elite pitching since the Lester, Sanchez, Papelbon class" - is clearly true, but by making it seem like pitchers flamed out this analysis obscures that fact that they haven't actually developed pitchers that people even thought were going to be good. The other thing to consider is the BA ranking history in the years subsequent to the Top 10 ranking. You want to differentiate between guys who started disappointing while still in the minors, versus guys who graduated to MLB while still in the top 10. It's also a way to objectively measure which guys were actually regarded as top SP prospects. Bowden dropped to 13 and then to the depth chart after his #2 ranking. But the #2 ranking was based on a great AA season and decent work in AAA, so he was a guy who stalled and then regressed at the AAA level. He's really the only counter-example to the success of Lester / Papelbon / Sanchez group. Britton's 3 ranking was a fluke: he was on the depth chart for two years, then went 15, 3, 16, 11, 17. Doubront was similar: dc, 18, dc, 27, 18, 5, 17. Kris Johnson sneaked into the top 10 after his first year, based strictly on draft status, then went 13, 16, dc, unmentioned. Abe Alvarez was actually once the #7 guy, then headed straight downward. Pimentel dropped to 23 after struggling in high-A (and then went down to 29). The book is still out on just about everyone else. But Ranaudo, for one, went 2, 4, 14, 11, so he's another guy who started losing some of his luster before getting near MLB. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 8, 2015 8:26:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 8, 2015 8:52:47 GMT -5
I really don't like analyses that depend on guys' rankings on the Sox top 10. That is a highly variable metric, like "smartest 5 people in the room." Sometimes, that's an impressive group of brainiacs, but sometimes, it's just a bunch of vaguely clever folks in a roomful of idiots. Some guys sneak into the back end of the Sox lists that really aren't expected to do all that much. Of everyone on that list, I think Michael Bowden is the only guy (outside of Sanchez, Lester, Papelbon, and Buchholz) that I really had any hopes would turn into a rotation mainstay, and I carry that shame with me every day. Not many others believed in him. I guess maybe I thought Doubront might make it, but he actually looked more talented in MLB than I remember thinking he was in the minors. Basing it on ranking on BAs Top 100 is a little more useful, I guess. I think the central point - "the Red Sox haven't developed enough elite pitching since the Lester, Sanchez, Papelbon class" - is clearly true, but by making it seem like pitchers flamed out this analysis obscures that fact that they haven't actually developed pitchers that people even thought were going to be good. The other thing to consider is the BA ranking history in the years subsequent to the Top 10 ranking. You want to differentiate between guys who started disappointing while still in the minors, versus guys who graduated to MLB while still in the top 10. It's also a way to objectively measure which guys were actually regarded as top SP prospects. Bowden dropped to 13 and then to the depth chart after his #2 ranking. But the #2 ranking was based on a great AA season and decent work in AAA, so he was a guy who stalled and then regressed at the AAA level. He's really the only counter-example to the success of Lester / Papelbon / Sanchez group. Britton's 3 ranking was a fluke: he was on the depth chart for two years, then went 15, 3, 16, 11, 17. Doubront was similar: dc, 18, dc, 27, 18, 5, 17. Kris Johnson sneaked into the top 10 after his first year, based strictly on draft status, then went 13, 16, dc, unmentioned. Abe Alvarez was actually once the #7 guy, then headed straight downward. Pimentel dropped to 23 after struggling in high-A (and then went down to 29). The book is still out on just about everyone else. But Ranaudo, for one, went 2, 4, 14, 11, so he's another guy who started losing some of his luster before getting near MLB. Interesting point ... and basically fits with the rankings here, too. Bowden was the one guy highly regarded for a number of ranking periods (I guess my memory of my being an outlier in believing in Bowden was wrong); he was ranked higher than Pedroia for a while (otoh, I guess my memory of my being an outlier for the depth of my enthusiasm for Pedroia was right). But, outside of Buchholz, there really isn't a pitcher ranked highly consistently after Lester graduated. Also, Bryce Cox? We've come a long way in understanding prospects ... It was fun looking back through the rankings. There weren't many years where the Sox had much interesting below #9 or so ... and I don't think that's hindsight. I don't think there were guys comparable to today's group of Trey Ball, Javier Guerra, Wendell Rijo, Nick Longhi, etc. |
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Feb 8, 2015 11:16:15 GMT -5
There was a time when Bowden was considered better than Buchholz. I recall reading that Bowden had a much better idea of pitching than Buchholz, but that Buchholz had better stuff.
In any case, they were considered more or less equal competitors.
BTW, Bowden pitched for the Seibu Lions in 2014, 2-1 4.50 ERA in 40 innings, which is the most he ever has pitched outside the minors. (I have a baseball hat of the Seibu Lions from one of my trips to Japan).
He didn't pitch badly for the Cubs in 2012 and 13, but still only pitched less than 40 innings each year. The most innings he ever pitched in the majors for the Sox was 20 in 2011. He never was given an extended try-out and he still is only 28 years old.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 8, 2015 11:50:56 GMT -5
There was a time when Bowden was considered better than Buchholz. I recall reading that Bowden had a much better idea of pitching than Buchholz, but that Buchholz had better stuff. In any case, they were considered more or less equal competitors. BTW, Bowden pitched for the Seibu Lions in 2014, 2-1 4.50 ERA in 40 innings, which is the most he ever has pitched outside the minors. (I have a baseball hat of the Seibu Lions from one of my trips to Japan). He didn't pitch badly for the Cubs in 2012 and 13, but still only pitched less than 40 innings each year. The most innings he ever pitched in the majors for the Sox was 20 in 2011. He never was given an extended try-out and he still is only 28 years old. And he's got a minor league contract with a spring invite for the Reds. I was heavily involved in driving the Bowden bandwagon, LOL, ask Chris. ADD: What put me onto Bowden was his peripheral stats at low A. Check out the K, GB combination, he was in rare turf for his age. LOL, I also bought into the draft day story on why he fell to the Sox. It involved building a driveway for his mom just before an important high school game before a lot of scouts. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 8, 2015 12:46:57 GMT -5
I really don't like analyses that depend on guys' rankings on the Sox top 10. That is a highly variable metric, like "smartest 5 people in the room." Sometimes, that's an impressive group of brainiacs, but sometimes, it's just a bunch of vaguely clever folks in a roomful of idiots. Some guys sneak into the back end of the Sox lists that really aren't expected to do all that much. Of everyone on that list, I think Michael Bowden is the only guy (outside of Sanchez, Lester, Papelbon, and Buchholz) that I really had any hopes would turn into a rotation mainstay, and I carry that shame with me every day. Not many others believed in him. I guess maybe I thought Doubront might make it, but he actually looked more talented in MLB than I remember thinking he was in the minors. Basing it on ranking on BAs Top 100 is a little more useful, I guess. I think the central point - "the Red Sox haven't developed enough elite pitching since the Lester, Sanchez, Papelbon class" - is clearly true, but by making it seem like pitchers flamed out this analysis obscures that fact that they haven't actually developed pitchers that people even thought were going to be good. When I look at that list of pitchers, the question isn't "why aren't the Red Sox getting more out of their pitching talent?", it's "why haven't the Red Sox drafted better pitching talent?". I really don't see a bunch of super-talented guys who flamed out or failed with the Red Sox before other organizations got them on the right track or anything; overall it seems like the results have been about what should be expected given what they were working with. I don't see a lot of examples of sure-thing talents that failed with the Red Sox; at least not beyond what you'd expect given the normal volatility of pitchers. |
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 8, 2015 13:00:10 GMT -5
I thought this was a worthwhile topic to have its own thread.
As someone who follows the draft closely to me it seemed like the Red Sox didn't draft many stuff guys. Prolly Barnes is the one I can think of recently (prior to 2014). Last year they did get a couple guys in Kopech and Cosart so we'll see if thats a shift internally where they will target more guys like that. They also got Espinoza who can qualify as a stuff guy, though reports say he can pitch too at least for a 16 y/o.
Obviously stuff guys can flameout too and I'm not saying that's the only reason for the problems developing pitchers but I do think its part of the equation if we are going to do an indepth analysis. I don't think they have drafted well pitching wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 8, 2015 13:02:26 GMT -5
ADD: What put me onto Bowden was his peripheral stats at low A. Check out the K, GB combination, he was in rare turf for his age. LOL, I also bought into the draft day story on why he fell to the Sox. It involved building a driveway for his mom just before an important high school game before a lot of scouts. Ha, that's exactly my story, too ... the whole "fixing potholes in the driveway" story, along with his peripherals in A-ball. I remember some piece someone wrote listing the guys with a K rate (or K/BB, can't remember) over X and a GB% over Y, and Bowden was high on the list. I guess the reality wasn't necessarily that I was alone in being wrong on Bowden; others here were, and he peaked at #31 on BP's top 100 (and was at the back end of the BA Top 100 for three years). But I do remember a lot of scouts questioning his delivery and his overall stuff. He's a cautionary tale for me on two things: 1) slavish dedication to a few key stats from A-ball, and 2) accounts of minor league radar readings. I remember people saying he was 94-95 with his fastball, and he clearly wasn't. I started to make a comparison to Brian Johnson, but it doesn't hold up to much thought ... they're someone similar in results and rankings, but Johnson's lefthanded, has more pitches, and seems to understand pitching more, and throws a little softer. Looking back at the Theo decade, the Red Sox seems to have spent a lot of time pursuing a couple of strategies that didn't really work: converting college relievers to starters and (presumably) rating power arms lower than other clubs relative to other criteria. They got some guys with live fastballs (Hagadone comes to mind), but it certainly doesn't look like it was a priority. |
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Feb 8, 2015 13:38:31 GMT -5
I think people over-estimate the number of actual impact players there are in any draft. If you manage to find even one player who puts up 20 WAR before hitting free agency, you've had a really good draft -- better than 2/3 of the other teams. If you find a single player who puts up 10 WAR, you've done fine.
By that measure the Red Sox drafted really well in 2002 (Lester), 2003 (Murphy, Papelbon), 2004 (Pedroia), 2005 (Ellsbury, Buchholz), 2006 (Masterson, Reddick) and 2007 (Rizzo). They were unlucky in 2008 (Westmoreland), although that draft, too, still has an opportunity to be solid (Vasquez). 2009 and 2010 appear at this point to have been weak drafts (although either Cecchini or Coyle could still save the 2010 draft), possibly due to transition following the departure of Jed Hoyer to San Diego, but there is solid reason for hope in the 2011 draft (Betts, Swihart, Owens, Barnes), the 2012 draft (Johnson, Marrero) and the 2014 draft. They have also been solid internationally (H. Ramirez, A. Sanchez, Bogaerts).
Frankly, when it comes to impact players, that's about as well as a team without a top 5 pick can be expected to do. I doubt you'd find anyone who, over a statistically significant period of time, has significantly out-performed them.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,404
|
Post by radiohix on Feb 8, 2015 13:44:36 GMT -5
Looking back at the Theo decade, the Red Sox seems to have spent a lot of time pursuing a couple of strategies that didn't really work: converting college relievers to starters and (presumably) rating power arms lower than other clubs relative to other criteria. They got some guys with live fastballs (Hagadone comes to mind), but it certainly doesn't look like it was a priority. I don't think that it's ALWAYS the case: I think the idea behind starting them is to make them work on refining their pitches in game situation et get into some high leverage situations as much as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 8, 2015 13:57:47 GMT -5
dcsoxfanWell I don't think anybody is saying that the Red Sox have been bad in the draft. They have their hit and misses as any team would have. I'd say they have done very well in the draft. What people are talking about is solely pitching. And given the list you just compile since 2005 (Buchholz) it has been dearth. Masterson has been a success then the jury is still out on all of them. Maybe Barnes, Owens and Johnson will change that soon we'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 8, 2015 15:48:32 GMT -5
I thought this was a worthwhile topic to have its own thread. As someone who follows the draft closely to me it seemed like the Red Sox didn't draft many stuff guys. Prolly Barnes is the one I can think of recently (prior to 2014). Last year they did get a couple guys in Kopech and Cosart so we'll see if thats a shift internally where they will target more guys like that. They also got Espinoza who can qualify as a stuff guy, though reports say he can pitch too at least for a 16 y/o. Obviously stuff guys can flameout too and I'm not saying that's the only reason for the problems developing pitchers but I do think its part of the equation if we are going to do an indepth analysis. I don't think they have drafted well pitching wise. The other thing about drafting stuff guys is that the Red Sox play in park and a division that is tough on pitchers, and on top of that they're usually trying to compete and therefor can't give young guys as long a leash as a rebuilding club. In other words, it doesn't actually help the Red Sox that much to develop a bunch of 4/5 starters, so even if the "stuff guys" flame out more, they're also more likely to turn into guys the team can actually use. (Of course, the best thing you can say about Webster and RDLR is that they have really good stuff, so maybe that's the wrong distinction.) |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 8, 2015 15:55:09 GMT -5
ADD: What put me onto Bowden was his peripheral stats at low A. Check out the K, GB combination, he was in rare turf for his age. LOL, I also bought into the draft day story on why he fell to the Sox. It involved building a driveway for his mom just before an important high school game before a lot of scouts. Ha, that's exactly my story, too ... the whole "fixing potholes in the driveway" story, along with his peripherals in A-ball. I remember some piece someone wrote listing the guys with a K rate (or K/BB, can't remember) over X and a GB% over Y, and Bowden was high on the list. I guess the reality wasn't necessarily that I was alone in being wrong on Bowden; others here were, and he peaked at #31 on BP's top 100 (and was at the back end of the BA Top 100 for three years). But I do remember a lot of scouts questioning his delivery and his overall stuff. He's a cautionary tale for me on two things: 1) slavish dedication to a few key stats from A-ball, and 2) accounts of minor league radar readings. I remember people saying he was 94-95 with his fastball, and he clearly wasn't. I started to make a comparison to Brian Johnson, but it doesn't hold up to much thought ... they're someone similar in results and rankings, but Johnson's lefthanded, has more pitches, and seems to understand pitching more, and throws a little softer. Looking back at the Theo decade, the Red Sox seems to have spent a lot of time pursuing a couple of strategies that didn't really work: converting college relievers to starters and (presumably) rating power arms lower than other clubs relative to other criteria. They got some guys with live fastballs (Hagadone comes to mind), but it certainly doesn't look like it was a priority.No necessarily. There's lots of pitchers who start losing velocity really young; pitcher development just has a lot more variance (in both directions) than hitter development does. Which, speaking of Theo, might have something to do with the Cubs not developing any pitching prospects ever. |
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Feb 8, 2015 17:17:13 GMT -5
dcsoxfanWell I don't think anybody is saying that the Red Sox have been bad in the draft. They have their hit and misses as any team would have. I'd say they have done very well in the draft. What people are talking about is solely pitching. And given the list you just compile since 2005 (Buchholz) it has been dearth. Masterson has been a success then the jury is still out on all of them. Maybe Barnes, Owens and Johnson will change that soon we'll see. A pitching staff of ex-Sox would include Jon Lester, Anibal Sanchez, Clay Buccholz, Justin Masterson and Jonathon Papelbon. If you consider all the top pitchers drafted before the Red Sox had a chance, that's a solid haul. There's only a very small pool of impact players available when the Red Sox draft -- you grab what you can. |
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 8, 2015 17:51:46 GMT -5
It's been nine years since the last one then. While the Red Sox do pick lower generally that doesn't account for 9 years of not hitting on one.
|
|
|
|
Post by 111soxfan111 on Feb 8, 2015 19:02:47 GMT -5
It's been nine years since the last one then. While the Red Sox do pick lower generally that doesn't account for 9 years of not hitting on one. Calling it 5 years seems a little more fair. It's a little early to judge the 2011-14 drafts. EDIT: I forgot Masterson was 2006, so make that 4 years (2007-2010). I'm hopeful for Owens or Johnson to end the drought soon. |
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Feb 8, 2015 19:24:00 GMT -5
Plus, Casey Kelly still has a shot from the 2008 draft. Really, most of the failed picks seem to be guys that most thought would be relievers from day one: Hagadone, Price, and Wilson.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 8, 2015 19:29:43 GMT -5
Plus, Casey Kelly still has a shot from the 2008 draft. Really, most of the failed picks seem to be guys that most thought would be relievers from day one: Hagadone, Price, and Wilson. Agreed. Maybe I just can't let go, but I still think Kelly is good. |
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 8, 2015 20:04:32 GMT -5
Plus, Casey Kelly still has a shot from the 2008 draft. Really, most of the failed picks seem to be guys that most thought would be relievers from day one: Hagadone, Price, and Wilson. I don't think the Sox wasted that many high picks on guys they thought would be relievers. I mean, Craig Hansen, I'm sure they thought was going to be a reliever, but they thought he'd be dominant and in the majors quickly. I think they thought those guys were going to be starters; I know they thought that about Hagadone. The Sox had an explicit strategy of drafting college relievers because they had low mileage on their arms, but they intended to make them starters. But we're acting as if the draft is the only way to acquire young talent ... once again, Craig Shipley rears his ugly head. A big part of the story of the state of Sox player development in the Theo era is that the lack of international talent put a lot of pressure on their drafting. They did really, really well with their drafts, but it wasn't really enough. And they did better on drafting position players than pitchers, so the pitching is where they were thin on talent pretty much continuously. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 8, 2015 20:46:58 GMT -5
LOL, I also bought into the draft day story on why [Bowden] fell to the Sox. It involved building a driveway for his mom just before an important high school game before a lot of scouts. Jed Hoyer told me that Bowden had the highest score they'd ever seen on their psych profile. That profile valued the combination of competitiveness and agreeableness; IOW, Pedro-ness. Bowden had some amazingly dominant runs in relief at AAA (consistent with his low-minors numbers), which alternated with crap. He was never supposed to be a guy with great stuff; rather, 70 command and great makeup. I think that as he aged and grew into his body, his muscle memory went south, and he never got it back. There was reason to believe he was one of those guys with average stuff who could simply put the ball exactly where he wanted to; when a prospect who fits that profile has the 70 command become ordinary, they essentially collapse in value. Stuff is important in pretty much the inverse proportion to command; there's almost no difference in results between a 98 mph FB and an 88 mph FB thrown to an average hitter's cold zone, but a huge difference when thrown (accidentally) to a hot zone. |
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Feb 9, 2015 0:02:24 GMT -5
The bottom line in my book is that umpires are calling strikes lower in the strike zone than I can ever remember.
So if the umpires are going to let pitchers pitch down there, then maybe our front office pushing the fastball, curveball and change up combo, while ignoring the slider and cutter because they put more stress on the arm, may have to be re-examined.
It seems that by ignoring the cutter and slider, our front office may actually be holding back the development of the pitchers.
Ps: not saying our pitchers have to throw these pitches exclusively, just saying that showcasing them now and then may help our pitchers get through the lineup 3 times per game.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 9, 2015 9:30:46 GMT -5
Is it just me or has Speier been a lot more negative nancy since he joined the Globe? He was the opposite with WEEI.
|
|
|
