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.
SoxProspects Rankings Discussion
|
Post by soxin8 on Oct 6, 2020 18:34:13 GMT -5
My view is that Houck is a ready now #4 or better and you would need one hell of a system to have 4 players ranked higher than that status. I'd have him 3rd behind Duran and Casas. That would also be the case if he was limited to 150 innings. I think the top 10 being so difficult to rank speaks to the improvement and depth in the system. With the Sox talking up Duran and Mata and the MLB performances of Houck and Dalbec, as well as the ATS performances of Casas and Groome, this looks like no easy task for anyone ranking them. Would be interested to see Ian, Mike and Chris's list before they combined them.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 6, 2020 19:39:56 GMT -5
I think Downs is less advanced than we (I ?) initially thought. Still needs a lot of work on both sides of the ball. The tools are there, the skills aren't. Just my opinion of course, he's unlikely to change in the national rankings. I also think others in the system have passed him as far as prospects go. From what I have read is the sox were not worried about his bat. That is why they concentrated on his fielding for the majority of the time this yr. We will not know until he gets on the diamond but his ability to play multiple positions and his bat put him over casas for me. Casas could turn out to be a hell of a hitter but he is stuck at 1b or dh. To me, he looked overmatched at the plate, he wasn't taking command in the batters box. I don't doubt the tools, like I said the skills need work, pitch recognition and selection. I'm optimistic that it will come together for him but it doesn't always happen. Here's the summary from McMillon in the Athletic (Jen McCaffey): 2B Jeter Downs Acquired from Dodgers, 2017 first-round pick | Age: 22 Area of progress: Defense took a strong step forward Needs improvement: Match offensive potential with the defensive strides McMillon: “He made tremendous strides defensively. But there are some things he needs to work on like his makeup and confidence, and I think those issues affected how he did offensively. I see tremendous upside, and his track record of offensive performance indicates that at 7:05 when the lights are on, he shows up at the plate. I’m hopeful his track record offensively meshes well with the strides he made defensively.” theathletic.com/2114086/2020/10/05/red-sox-minor-league-prospect-report/That's not a glowing way to state that, particularly in comparison to how he stated things with others at camp. You can't see makeup on a video screen.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 6, 2020 20:09:42 GMT -5
Nobody should care but here's my Top and why.
Duran. I believe the power is real. It was too consistent not to be. It wasn't just the HRs, it was the whole output. He still uses the entire field but now, last year's ground balls are hard hit flyballs. Last year my thought was a Brett Gardner comp now I think Ellsbury except better at all 5 tools. I have him ahead of Casas because he has more ways to impact a game.
Casas. What a fantastic ATS he had. The plate discipline was off the charts. Now, I am not so sure they won't give him some time at 3B considering how his body developed. He played some but not a lot at the ATS.
Houck. I'm impressed with where he is right now. As the Braves manager stated it, effectively wild and nasty. Slider, 4 seamer and sinker are three distinctively different pitches. I would have no issue with someone calling him a #3 right now.
Mata. Wow stuff and improved command. I expect him in Boston this coming year but don't expect a Houck-like start, more typical.
Downs. The tools are there, just needs development.
Groome. The tools are there, just needs major innings progression.
Dalbec. Decent but I don't see star potential. All the above have star potential.
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Oct 6, 2020 20:29:19 GMT -5
Ive been pretty impressed with Duran as well. All I know is if we can actually watch some minor league games next season, Worcester and portland might be fun to track. There will be a good collection of talent to follow.
|
|
|
Post by soxfaninnj on Oct 6, 2020 21:07:49 GMT -5
Nobody should care but here's my Top and why. Duran. I believe the power is real. It was too consistent not to be. It wasn't just the HRs, it was the whole output. He still uses the entire field but now, last year's ground balls are hard hit flyballs. Last year my thought was a Brett Gardner comp now I think Ellsbury except better at all 5 tools. I have him ahead of Casas because he has more ways to impact a game. Casas. What a fantastic ATS he had. The plate discipline was off the charts. Now, I am not so sure they won't give him some time at 3B considering how his body developed. He played some but not a lot at the ATS. Houck. I'm impressed with where he is right now. As the Braves manager stated it, effectively wild and nasty. Slider, 4 seamer and sinker are three distinctively different pitches. I would have no issue with someone calling him a #3 right now. Mata. Wow stuff and improved command. I expect him in Boston this coming year but don't expect a Houck-like start, more typical. Downs. The tools are there, just needs development. Groome. The tools are there, just needs major innings progression. Dalbec. Decent but I don't see star potential. All the above have star potential. I like your optimism and enthusiasm
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 6, 2020 21:45:26 GMT -5
Nobody should care but here's my Top and why. Duran. I believe the power is real. It was too consistent not to be. It wasn't just the HRs, it was the whole output. He still uses the entire field but now, last year's ground balls are hard hit flyballs. Last year my thought was a Brett Gardner comp now I think Ellsbury except better at all 5 tools. I have him ahead of Casas because he has more ways to impact a game. Casas. What a fantastic ATS he had. The plate discipline was off the charts. Now, I am not so sure they won't give him some time at 3B considering how his body developed. He played some but not a lot at the ATS. Houck. I'm impressed with where he is right now. As the Braves manager stated it, effectively wild and nasty. Slider, 4 seamer and sinker are three distinctively different pitches. I would have no issue with someone calling him a #3 right now. Mata. Wow stuff and improved command. I expect him in Boston this coming year but don't expect a Houck-like start, more typical. Downs. The tools are there, just needs development. Groome. The tools are there, just needs major innings progression. Dalbec. Decent but I don't see star potential. All the above have star potential. I like your optimism and enthusiasm I tend to trust McMillon, Crabbe and Abbott more than analysts in general. I'm a scouting oriented person over analytics for the minor leagues. I consider tracking data the equivalent of scouting but that's not available to the public for the minors.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Oct 7, 2020 2:17:50 GMT -5
I like your optimism and enthusiasm I tend to trust McMillon, Crabbe and Abbott more than analysts in general. I'm a scouting oriented person over analytics for the minor leagues. I consider tracking data the equivalent of scouting but that's not available to the public for the minors. Really? I trust them wayyyy less. It's definitely nice to get their insights and all but they're not going to come out and say anything bad about any of the guys, so anything they say about a player is going to be spun to make them look better than they probably are. In most cases, at least. Give me an objective party any day.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 7, 2020 2:49:35 GMT -5
I tend to trust McMillon, Crabbe and Abbott more than analysts in general. I'm a scouting oriented person over analytics for the minor leagues. I consider tracking data the equivalent of scouting but that's not available to the public for the minors. Really? I trust them wayyyy less. It's definitely nice to get their insights and all but they're not going to come out and say anything bad about any of the guys, so anything they say about a player is going to be spun to make them look better than they probably are. In most cases, at least. Give me an objective party any day. I'll grant that they don't put a negative view but if you read carefully you can spot things. Example, they said Potts was a versatile defensive player. They didn't say a good versatile defensive player. They also pointed out pretty much everyplace what the player should be working on going forward. There were several players in camp that they didn't mention at all, Chatham, for example. The coaches have two distinct advantages over the analysts. 1. They see them every day both in games and in practice. 2. The more important one, they know what the prospects are working on. Do you really believe Keith Law scouts every team himself ? He counts on in house contacts to form his opinions. Several years ago, Jim Callis stated that he tries to get 10 in house and 10 rival clubs opinions when he makes a top 30 list. There were also the two articles which were written by Thomase and Gammons which sourced Red Sox front office personnel which pretty closely aligned with what the coaches said. It also doesn't hurt that what they said pretty much aligns with what you've seen. I did have a different takeaway of Rosario but I'd defer to them there. ADD: The comments also pretty much matched with what the streaming announcers said during the broadcasts. I'd venture to say that all three of the broadcasters have seen more upper level baseball than any analyst. My favorite, Mike Antonellis has 15 years broadcasting Sea Dogs games both radio and TV. During one of the closing broadcasts, they were discussing Duran. They came up with Ellsbury with a significantly better arm and more consistent power. I didn't hear one comment but I think one of them said more athleticism too but I am not 100% sure.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 7, 2020 3:52:13 GMT -5
Since the offseason is going to suck, if people are interested and have time to kill, you should be able to go to either the PawSox Facebook or Twitter page and watch all the ATS games they've broadcast.
No subscription needed.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 7, 2020 11:11:51 GMT -5
There's a clear top 6, and it's tough to rank them. Not just Houck but Dalbec exceeded expectations.
The Davenport Peak Translations are tough on guys who fan too much. They identified Middlebrooks as overrated until his fluke rookie year.
Dalbec had a .287 EqA in Salen in 2018 but a .257 after his promotion to Portland. The next year, it was .283 in Portland and .245 in Pawtucket.
He was .306 in MLB this year. Davenport has his top 2 comps as Chris Carter and Jay Buhner. And it's worth remembering that there were folks who thought he had made great strides and had him as #1.
I might now go:
Casas Durran Houck Mata Dalbec Downs
There is evidence that prospects on a team that has had a weak farm system can be systematically underrated.
Where would you rank this system? The top 6 prospects are:
Dustin Pedroia in A+ Hanley Ramirez in AA Jon Lester in A+ Jonathan Papelbon in A Anibal Sanchez in A- Brandon Moss in A+
And also Kelly Shoppach, Cla Meredith and Manny Delcarmen.
BA had us #21 that year.
Even the year after, when we'd traded Hanley and Sanchez but added Ellsbury, Buchholz, and Lowrie in the draft (and Hansen and Bowden), they had us #7 ... and that's with Andy Marte as the #1 prospect!
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 7, 2020 12:09:16 GMT -5
Question. Why isn't there a Davenport equivalent for pitchers ? Is there a TINSTAAPP reason ?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 7, 2020 12:45:27 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, the Davenport Translations loved Garin Cecchini, Lars Anderson, and Ryan Lavarnway, among others.
I'm not saying they're wrong and we shouldn't refer to them. Just pointing out they're just as fallible as any other ranking or projection.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 7, 2020 12:51:09 GMT -5
And for what it's worth I tend to agree with Eric's point that if a system is seen as bad, its players are viewed worse. I admittedly lack the breadth of knowledge to quibble with organization rankings, but I think that if Casas were in, say, the Padres system, he'd be ranked higher. (Ian and I had a discussion on the podcast released last night as well about how he's punished too much in rankings for being a first baseman. Certainly there's more value in a shortstop than a first baseman in a vacuum, but it feels like he takes way too much of a hit for that.)
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 7, 2020 12:56:10 GMT -5
lol, I was just thinking. Anyone remember the little major league equivalency calculator ? Maybe 15 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Oct 7, 2020 13:56:19 GMT -5
Really? I trust them wayyyy less. It's definitely nice to get their insights and all but they're not going to come out and say anything bad about any of the guys, so anything they say about a player is going to be spun to make them look better than they probably are. In most cases, at least. Give me an objective party any day. I'll grant that they don't put a negative view but if you read carefully you can spot things. Example, they said Potts was a versatile defensive player. They didn't say a good versatile defensive player. They also pointed out pretty much everyplace what the player should be working on going forward. There were several players in camp that they didn't mention at all, Chatham, for example. The coaches have two distinct advantages over the analysts. 1. They see them every day both in games and in practice. 2. The more important one, they know what the prospects are working on. Do you really believe Keith Law scouts every team himself ? He counts on in house contacts to form his opinions. Several years ago, Jim Callis stated that he tries to get 10 in house and 10 rival clubs opinions when he makes a top 30 list. There were also the two articles which were written by Thomase and Gammons which sourced Red Sox front office personnel which pretty closely aligned with what the coaches said. It also doesn't hurt that what they said pretty much aligns with what you've seen. I did have a different takeaway of Rosario but I'd defer to them there. ADD: The comments also pretty much matched with what the streaming announcers said during the broadcasts. I'd venture to say that all three of the broadcasters have seen more upper level baseball than any analyst. My favorite, Mike Antonellis has 15 years broadcasting Sea Dogs games both radio and TV. During one of the closing broadcasts, they were discussing Duran. They came up with Ellsbury with a significantly better arm and more consistent power. I didn't hear one comment but I think one of them said more athleticism too but I am not 100% sure. I don't think their analysis is entirely useful, I think there are a lot of good nuggets in there and you're right they see things a lot of us don't, but at the same time I'm not more of less confident a player is going to be good because their coach says they're good, ya know? I'm more interested in what coaches say when they don't have a stake in the game, like when the Vandy manager said he thought Yorke was the best HS hitter in the class. Stuff like that. But I don't discredit them entirely, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 7, 2020 14:13:21 GMT -5
McMillon was fairly frank though, if you look at his full comments. He addressed the fact that Duran's defense isn't that great yet, for example, as well as the Downs piece (which seems to translate to something akin to he wasn't really trying hard on offense or something?). Abbott too, who noted that Seabold's stuff isn't super impressive on its own, save for the changeup. He's been frank earlier this season as well when he was addressing the fact that Groome needed to learn how to push himself in bullpen sessions (which he then addressed as a positive development in the end-of-season session).
I've learned to take comments from broadcasters, however, with a grain of salt. They travel with these guys every day during the year and, in my opinion, are just too close to things to be able to step back effectively and evaluate. I can still recall one broadcaster who I really liked and did his job very well telling me with a straight face that Ryan Lavarnway was a better defensive catcher than Tim Federowicz. Some are better than others. You figure that out better when you talk to them off air though - there have been a few who get it, and that won't get caught up in a guy hitting, say, an empty .300.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Oct 7, 2020 14:36:15 GMT -5
Comparing prospects, I wonder how the staff will view Jimenez vs Yorke. I thought it was too bad that there wasn't room for Ward and Jimenez at Pawtucket. Yorke, almost 2 years younger than Jimenez, really impressed there with the bat. Did Yorke's success and Jimenez non invite change anyone's rankings?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 7, 2020 14:57:52 GMT -5
Comparing prospects, I wonder how the staff will view Jimenez vs Yorke. I thought it was too bad that there wasn't room for Ward and Jimenez at Pawtucket. Yorke, almost 2 years younger than Jimenez, really impressed there with the bat. Did Yorke's success and Jimenez non invite change anyone's rankings? No. Yorke had never worked with the team previously and was already in the country. Coming in a week and a half early is going to mean more for him than someone like Jimenez who's been with the org for several years. As much as I've been saying we're not going to move Houck much based on three MLB starts, we're certainly not going to move Nick Yorke much based on what, 10 at-bats at the ATS or whatever it was? We also wouldn't have moved him down if he went 0-for-10.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 7, 2020 17:44:54 GMT -5
Comparing prospects, I wonder how the staff will view Jimenez vs Yorke. I thought it was too bad that there wasn't room for Ward and Jimenez at Pawtucket. Yorke, almost 2 years younger than Jimenez, really impressed there with the bat. Did Yorke's success and Jimenez non invite change anyone's rankings? No. Yorke had never worked with the team previously and was already in the country. Coming in a week and a half early is going to mean more for him than someone like Jimenez who's been with the org for several years. As much as I've been saying we're not going to move Houck much based on three MLB starts, we're certainly not going to move Nick Yorke much based on what, 10 at-bats at the ATS or whatever it was? We also wouldn't have moved him down if he went 0-for-10. You would never move Houck up based on the results of three starts, but you would based on his slider objectively having a 70 (or 75, if they ever give that) combination of velo and movement. And he didn't have the normal movement in his second start -- comparing him to all starting pitchers 2015-2019, he ranked 2nd to Kluber after his debut, then was 6th, then went back to 2nd.
Only now do you ask, what kind of results did he get from that slider? A +1.5 runs per 100 pitches (wSL/C) is a 60 slider, and a +2.5 is a 70 (no fudging, 1.52 and 2.51 are actually the 1 and 2 standard deviations above average in my larger study that includes relievers). Hmm ... let's look it up. He threw 94 sliders, and he had 4.12.
It's a "potential plus" pitch in his scouting report; you'd now have to call it a plus pitch, given that he could get just average results from his next 256 sliders and still grade out with plus results. The plus-plus potential is clear -- if his next 102 sliders are midway between average and plus in effectiveness, he still has plus-plus results. There's nothing to indicate that he won't have sufficient command of it continue to reap the benefits of the movement.
Now, I haven't done the work on his fastball to see if it really does serve as two distinct pitches. But it's very interesting that his 4-seamer and sinker were almost identical in effectiveness (1.85 and 1.99).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 7, 2020 17:49:07 GMT -5
One final post on Houck. As I was saying to Ian the other night (I think on the podcast episode, but might've been before), having to temper expectations on guys is the part of this gig that I hate, but let's look at what Houck did and didn't do in his starts.
33.3% K rate - this is very good! That said, it's also higher than any rate he's put up in his career, and I don't think he'll stay up there going forward. Based on his career numbers, you could probably expect it to drop back down to about 25%, still good. (If you're more used to K/9, his was 11.12, and the only time he's been above 10 was 10.07 in Lowell.)
14.3% BB rate - this is very bad! To be fair, it's also higher than any number he's put up in his career, although it's been as high as 11.6% in his season with Salem. You'd hope this similarly comes down as we get some regression to the mean and he figures out how to pitch to MLB hitters... but it does need to come down. (For the /9 crowd: 4.76, and he was at 4.54 in Salem, although he was facing more hitters per inning.) Because...
.161 BABIP, 95.9% strand rate - neither of these is sustainable, and they account for a big part of the disparity between his ERA (0.53) and FIP (3.25). As hits fall in, he's going to strand fewer runners, and we're going to have to see how much the strikeout and walk numbers change.
His numbers suggest he's not going to keep this up, not that anyone is necessarily saying he will. The question is what the regression looks like. I don't think we know that yet, and that's why I'm saying he shouldn't move much in a ranking. Yet.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 7, 2020 19:11:08 GMT -5
One final post on Houck. As I was saying to Ian the other night (I think on the podcast episode, but might've been before), having to temper expectations on guys is the part of this gig that I hate, but let's look at what Houck did and didn't do in his starts. 33.3% K rate - this is very good! That said, it's also higher than any rate he's put up in his career, and I don't think he'll stay up there going forward. Based on his career numbers, you could probably expect it to drop back down to about 25%, still good. (If you're more used to K/9, his was 11.12, and the only time he's been above 10 was 10.07 in Lowell.) 14.3% BB rate - this is very bad! To be fair, it's also higher than any number he's put up in his career, although it's been as high as 11.6% in his season with Salem. You'd hope this similarly comes down as we get some regression to the mean and he figures out how to pitch to MLB hitters... but it does need to come down. (For the /9 crowd: 4.76, and he was at 4.54 in Salem, although he was facing more hitters per inning.) Because... .161 BABIP, 95.9% strand rate - neither of these is sustainable, and they account for a big part of the disparity between his ERA (0.53) and FIP (3.25). As hits fall in, he's going to strand fewer runners, and we're going to have to see how much the strikeout and walk numbers change. His numbers suggest he's not going to keep this up, not that anyone is necessarily saying he will. The question is what the regression looks like. I don't think we know that yet, and that's why I'm saying he shouldn't move much in a ranking. Yet. Summing that, you've decided to ignore the scouting and base your ranking on a 3 game sample size.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 7, 2020 20:25:36 GMT -5
McMillon was fairly frank though, if you look at his full comments. He addressed the fact that Duran's defense isn't that great yet, for example, as well as the Downs piece (which seems to translate to something akin to he wasn't really trying hard on offense or something?). Abbott too, who noted that Seabold's stuff isn't super impressive on its own, save for the changeup. He's been frank earlier this season as well when he was addressing the fact that Groome needed to learn how to push himself in bullpen sessions (which he then addressed as a positive development in the end-of-season session). I've learned to take comments from broadcasters, however, with a grain of salt. They travel with these guys every day during the year and, in my opinion, are just too close to things to be able to step back effectively and evaluate. I can still recall one broadcaster who I really liked and did his job very well telling me with a straight face that Ryan Lavarnway was a better defensive catcher than Tim Federowicz. Some are better than others. You figure that out better when you talk to them off air though - there have been a few who get it, and that won't get caught up in a guy hitting, say, an empty .300. I think it's natural to favor players, we all do but I am talking mostly about game action. Specific comments I remember (but paraphrased) a grounder that Potts should have gotten to, a flyball that Duran should have gotten to, a wrong break by Rosario on a flyball that he did get to anyways, Pivetta's very slow to the plate with runners on and a general comment on Chatham after a hit that he needed that because he wasn't having a very good camp offensively. Their Ellsbury comment on Duran came in the last broadcast when they were picking an MVP and CY winner. It generally wasn't prospect evaluation based, it was performance based. For the Cy, they didn't come up with a clear winner saying there were several candidates including some relievers. That is clearly not a prospect evaluation statement.
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Oct 7, 2020 21:13:19 GMT -5
Imo houck proved to have a higher ceiling than I initially thought. He showed to me he can at least be a decent starter. I thought for sure he was a bullpen only arm. Maybe giving you a spot start once and a while. As for his three starts his numbers are without a doubt skewed bcs if he sticks as SP for us, once guys see him multiple times some of the stuff he got away with would be capitalized on. He left a decent amount of pitches in spots his stuff is not good enough to be in. So I'll temper my expectations on houck but I would still rate him over groome, ward and song. Groome has bust written all over him in my eyes (hope I'm wrong). Song might not see a field for a couple of seasons and ward I haven't seen alot of so I side with houck bcs ive seen alot more of him.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Oct 7, 2020 22:18:20 GMT -5
.161 BABIP, 95.9% strand rate - neither of these is sustainable, and they account for a big part of the disparity between his ERA (0.53) and FIP (3.25). As hits fall in, he's going to strand fewer runners, and we're going to have to see how much the strikeout and walk numbers change. His numbers suggest he's not going to keep this up, not that anyone is necessarily saying he will. The question is what the regression looks like. I don't think we know that yet, and that's why I'm saying he shouldn't move much in a ranking. Yet. Agreed, I don't know that anyone expects him to maintain an 0.53 ERA. Regression to 3.25 FIP would be pretty impressive though - that would put him on the borderline between ace and 1A. I don't know that anyone expects him to maintain a 3.25 FIP either, but he made two good lineups (ATL, NYY) look like they had no idea what was coming, pretty much on pure stuff. To me, the question is how well he can sustain the depth/sharpness/tunneling/command/mechanics that he showed. If he can sustain it reasonably well, I would think he's at least a #3/4.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 8, 2020 22:01:52 GMT -5
Ever since the Chris Sale trade, we've been generally strong at the bottom, weak at the top.
Going into this year, I can only think of three players (excluding relievers) with a reasonable chance (baring injuries) of being rookies at some point this season. Dalbec, Houck and Chatham.
Going into next year, I'd list an improved Dalbec & Houck, plus Duran, Mata & Casas. That's some serious talent on the cusp and we could end the upcoming season with 5 rookie regulars.
If the primary function of a farm system is to bring major league talent to the show, I don't see any team better poised to do just that. Almost every other team in baseball graduated their best prospects this year already.
We also likely have another wave that should be getting closer next season with Downs, Seabold and Ward amongst others heading that group. The Times are a Changin'.
|
|
|