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.
|
Post by thebogeyman on Jul 19, 2016 10:21:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 20, 2016 12:44:05 GMT -5
JJ Cooper has BA's updated Sox top 10: www.baseballamerica.com/minors/midseason-prospect-update-red-sox-2/#qltkMMSMyZCW2Uo0.971. Moncada 2. Benintendi (3. Espinoza) 3. Devers 4. Travis 5. Kopech 6. Basabe 7. Hernandez 8. Chavis 9. Dubon 10. Light Seems a lot different from the one here but it really isn't if you think about it. Consider that the draftees aren't ranked (pull Groome and Chatham), the most glaring difference is that Johnson's not there, but otherwise their top 10 are in what we would rank as the top 12. I don't think there's a lot separating that Basabe to, presuming he'd be 11 on the list, Ockimey, so putting them in a different order is perfectly reasonable. Would be interesting to see if Johnson was excluded for some reason, but it doesn't seem that way given that Hernandez is there. Dinging him for anxiety issues and not dropping Travis after a torn ACL is... interesting. That's the thing that stands out first. The second is keeping Travis over Kopech, but I get it if you think Kopech's a reliever.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 20, 2016 13:40:28 GMT -5
This is as good a place to post this as any ... A recent FG article included some research that identified the average WAR (for 6 years of control) and bust rate (less than 3 WAR) for top 100 prospects, broken down by ranking groups and by hitter / pitcher. That gives us an objective way to answer the question: have Sox top 100 hitting prospects out-performed the average (as I've been claiming), and if so, by how much? From 2005 to 2014 the Sox had the following hitting prospects reach their highest rating: 1-10: Hanley, Xander 11-25: Ellsbury, Lars Anderson, [Ryan Westmoreland. I think he could be excluded from the study, just as you would Oscar Taveras.] 26-50: Bradley 51-75: Middlebrooks, Iglesias, Moss, Lowrie, Cecchini, Reddick, Betts. [Mookie can also be placed in 11-25 based on his likely mid-season ranking.] 76-100: Pedroia, Kalish. Based on the above, you would expect 6.5 busts (6.2 if you promote Mookie); we had 4. Including Westmoreland adds 0.3 expected busts. We have 74% of the expected bust rate if you just take the raw data; exclude Westmoreland and promote Mookie and it's 65%. The expected 6-year-control WAR is 108; add 13 if you count Westmoreland and 8 if you promote Mookie, so it would be fair to call it 121 (literal) or 116 (nuanced). The total bWAR at present is already 142. And that excludes the remaining two months of Reddick, Moss, Iglesias, Betts, Bradley, and Bogaerts, plus 2 more years of Iglesias, 3 of Xander, and 4 each of Betts and Bradley. If you project all of that based on what the first two guys have done this year and the last four guys have done the last two, you get 71 more WAR. So a good guess might be 85% more WAR than expected. We had 28% more players succeed, each producing (including projections) 43% more than expected.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 20, 2016 15:02:30 GMT -5
^some great stuff to argue with deepjohn about how Benintendi and Moncada plus for Teheran who supposedly has $108M in excess value is a really stupid deal. Both Benintendi and Moncada are arguably each worth more than that assuming average WAR outcomes for top 10 prospects.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 20, 2016 15:18:37 GMT -5
^some great stuff to argue with deepjohn about how Benintendi and Moncada plus for Teheran who supposedly has $108M in excess value is a really stupid deal. Both Benintendi and Moncada are arguably each worth more than that assuming average WAR outcomes for top 10 prospects. But you can't argue with deepjohn. Actually, I try not to argue because it's always a waste of time. People think what they want to think and you can't change their minds by arguing with them. I do try, whenever everybody here says one thing, to find another point of view. The contrarian view is often worth considering, because I find it's easy for me to get caught up in the herd.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 20, 2016 15:19:11 GMT -5
^some great stuff to argue with deepjohn about how Benintendi and Moncada plus for Teheran who supposedly has $108M in excess value is a really stupid deal. Both Benintendi and Moncada are arguably each worth more than that assuming average WAR outcomes for top 10 prospects. The link to the original article has the surplus values: $73.5M for a 1-10 hitter and $62M for an 11-25. Pedroia notwithstanding, there's not a lot of bias towards the bottom end of the rankings, in terms of where we're getting 85% extra. Hanley + Xander (projected at a modest 16 WAR further) is 50 WAR versus expected 30, or 60% extra. Given that Moncada is unusually good for a 1 through 10 (being, in fact, 1), he's got to have at least $120M of surplus value and maybe more. Benny's probably about $110M. BTW, the Sox in this time period were MLB-average for pitching bust rates. I should do the WAR some time.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Jul 20, 2016 19:21:10 GMT -5
^some great stuff to argue with deepjohn about how Benintendi and Moncada plus for Teheran who supposedly has $108M in excess value is a really stupid deal. Both Benintendi and Moncada are arguably each worth more than that assuming average WAR outcomes for top 10 prospects. Or not. The underlying projections are here. Hitters 1-10, $73.5M. GMs should be risk averse when it comes to trading for a prospect that might be a bust, so the team's evaluation should account for that risk, as compared to the public evaluators. As the article mentions: Moncada is not completely without risk, since so far AA lefties are killing him. Benny's risk seems pretty minimal, given that he has "figured it out" since June 6. If you look at the trade that Coppy proposed (according to my source), the Braves knew enough not to demand Benny, and gave DDo an option to substitute Kopech or Shaw. DDo did not blink, and went immediately to Pomeranz for AE. So glad DDo is on our team.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,982
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 21, 2016 11:05:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jfizznet on Jul 23, 2016 8:49:51 GMT -5
Anyone know when MLB updates their lists?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 23, 2016 12:38:05 GMT -5
So, this may have been explained long ago, so forgive me if it is ignorant. But why have guys like the run of Hernandez, Chatham, and Dubron at 10-12, all of whom seem like low ceiling guys but not, say, guys like Pennington or Cosart, who are very high risk but higher reward? I know relief pitchers get dinged a bit, but I'm not sure why, especially relative to middle-infield depth players. And while the arms I mentioned are far off, dreaming didn't keep Espinosa back (not saying they're close to him, but if risk was factored in, he'd potentially be in bottom half of top-10, for example).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 25, 2016 15:57:13 GMT -5
So, this may have been explained long ago, so forgive me if it is ignorant. But why have guys like the run of Hernandez, Chatham, and Dubron at 10-12, all of whom seem like low ceiling guys but not, say, guys like Pennington or Cosart, who are very high risk but higher reward? I know relief pitchers get dinged a bit, but I'm not sure why, especially relative to middle-infield depth players. And while the arms I mentioned are far off, dreaming didn't keep Espinosa back (not saying they're close to him, but if risk was factored in, he'd potentially be in bottom half of top-10, for example). What's the higher reward you think Pennington or Cosart bring?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Jul 25, 2016 16:01:19 GMT -5
So, this may have been explained long ago, so forgive me if it is ignorant. But why have guys like the run of Hernandez, Chatham, and Dubron at 10-12, all of whom seem like low ceiling guys but not, say, guys like Pennington or Cosart, who are very high risk but higher reward? I know relief pitchers get dinged a bit, but I'm not sure why, especially relative to middle-infield depth players. And while the arms I mentioned are far off, dreaming didn't keep Espinosa back (not saying they're close to him, but if risk was factored in, he'd potentially be in bottom half of top-10, for example). What's the higher reward you think Pennington or Cosart bring? Potentially overrated relievers, of course. The relief pitching market absolutely boggles my mind.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 25, 2016 17:14:30 GMT -5
What's the higher reward you think Pennington or Cosart bring? Hernandez, for example, is a possible utility player, but he doesn't appear to project -- even at best -- as a starter for the Sox. Pennington, with a mid-to-high 90s fastball and an average-or-better curve, or Cosart, putting up crazy numbers this year, and, too, with at least a plus-or-better fastball -- either could be a lights-out reliever. Perhaps it is more about philosophy, but I value hard throwing relievers pretty highly -- string 2-3 of them together, you put a huge amount of pressure on the opponent. I view middle infield depth as being significantly less valuable -- and far easier and cheaper to come by (I'm not talking Brock Holt level, but more have-glove-will-travel types). I guess it seems to me that if all five guys I named originally reached their maximum ceiling, the pitchers would be far more valuable. While the likelihood the pitchers do reach that level is far lower, that doesn't seem to be part of the evaluation (or Groome would probably be much lower at 17, never having thrown a pro pitch). I'm not, by the way, meaning to take shots or anything. You all know far more than I do, so I'm interested in understanding better the sense of the big organizational picture.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 25, 2016 17:26:50 GMT -5
You're overestimating the value of relievers and underestimating the value of utility infielders while simultaneously overrating the importance of ceiling and underestimating the importance of floor. Hernandez is a major leaguer who is likely to be above-replacement-level. Because they're still at low levels, Pennington or Cozart are more likely than not to never make the majors, and if they do, are far more likely to be Hembree-esque 6th inning fodder than elite stud relievers. It's not even a question in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 25, 2016 18:04:29 GMT -5
You're overestimating the value of relievers and underestimating the value of utility infielders while simultaneously overrating the importance of ceiling and underestimating the importance of floor. Hernandez is a major leaguer who is likely to be above-replacement-level. Because they're still at low levels, Pennington or Cozart are more likely than not to never make the majors, and if they do, are far more likely to be Hembree-esque 6th inning fodder than elite stud relievers. It's not even a question in my mind. Fair enough. I do under-look floor, since I am more of a dreamer. I know most of these guys will never pan out, but I like to think about who would be most valuable if he actually approaches his ceiling. I also suspect I find it depressing that the Red Sox's 10-12 prospects are likely backup shortstops/second-basemen. Not sexy. Anyway, as I said, I am not meaning to pick nits -- I am sure that, past a certain point, it is tough to distinguish one guy from the next, especially as they get lower in the farm system. (Philosophically, I'd end by way of aside, while I may overvalue those relievers, I don't think I overvalue relievers. But that's another story.)
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jul 28, 2016 3:53:08 GMT -5
MLB released their updated top 100 and teams lists.
Top 100:
#2 Moncada (behind Bregman) #7 Benintendi (#21 Espinoza) #25 Devers #42 Groome #83 Kopech
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 28, 2016 7:34:49 GMT -5
#2 Moncada (behind Bregman) #7 Benintendi (#21 Espinoza) #25 Devers #42 Groome #83 Kopech Link to the full list: m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=prospectsI think they have the exact same Top 10 that I would, with the order just slightly mixed up. Top two the same though. I might have Brinson, who I really like, in there too. Margot #36 (#45 pre-season) Guerra falls out of Top 100 (#58 pre-season). Looks like Groome is fourth among 2016 draftees behind Moniak, Ray, and Lewis. Tad surprised they have Lewis as high as they do, but I don't really know enough about him to say that's right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jul 28, 2016 7:54:47 GMT -5
#2 Moncada (behind Bregman) #7 Benintendi (#21 Espinoza) #25 Devers #42 Groome #83 Kopech Link to the full list: m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=prospectsI think they have the exact same Top 10 that I would, with the order just slightly mixed up. Top two the same though. I might have Brinson, who I really like, in there too. Margot #36 (#45 pre-season) Guerra falls out of Top 100 (#58 pre-season). Looks like Groome is fourth among 2016 draftees behind Moniak, Ray, and Lewis. Tad surprised they have Lewis as high as they do, but I don't really know enough about him to say that's right or wrong. I think it's surprising that there are three draftees ranked ahead of Groome, while he was listed as the #1 draft prospect. Sure, they have had good starts of their pro careers, but isn't that what you would expect from high draftees?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Jul 28, 2016 11:12:14 GMT -5
#2 Moncada (behind Bregman) #7 Benintendi (#21 Espinoza) #25 Devers #42 Groome #83 Kopech Link to the full list: m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=prospectsI think they have the exact same Top 10 that I would, with the order just slightly mixed up. Top two the same though. I might have Brinson, who I really like, in there too. Margot #36 (#45 pre-season) Guerra falls out of Top 100 (#58 pre-season). Looks like Groome is fourth among 2016 draftees behind Moniak, Ray, and Lewis. Tad surprised they have Lewis as high as they do, but I don't really know enough about him to say that's right or wrong. If I was to guess what list would have Lewis too high based on pre draft negative buzz, it would be MLB's list. They always stay a few steps behind the rest of the pack. Love Callis, but MLB.com is pretty bad list-wise. Lewis has been better than Moniak though in a SSS.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 28, 2016 11:22:06 GMT -5
Link to the full list: m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=prospectsI think they have the exact same Top 10 that I would, with the order just slightly mixed up. Top two the same though. I might have Brinson, who I really like, in there too. Margot #36 (#45 pre-season) Guerra falls out of Top 100 (#58 pre-season). Looks like Groome is fourth among 2016 draftees behind Moniak, Ray, and Lewis. Tad surprised they have Lewis as high as they do, but I don't really know enough about him to say that's right or wrong. I think it's surprising that there are three draftees ranked ahead of Groome, while he was listed as the #1 draft prospect. Sure, they have had good starts of their pro careers, but isn't that what you would expect from high draftees? They were all drafted ahead of Groome though. His pick position might have been an overreaction to whatever off-the-field stuff was going on, but there's obviously some sort of risk involved here and I think MLB makes a sensible choice to acknowledge it. Throw in the inherent risk with every pitcher and Groome at #42 seems like a totally reasonable spot. If he dominates and keeps his nose clean I'm sure they won't hesitate him to rocket him toward the top a year from now.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 28, 2016 11:59:08 GMT -5
MLB released their updated top 100 and teams lists. Top 100: #2 Moncada (behind Bregman) #7 Benintendi (#21 Espinoza) #25 Devers #42 Groome #83 Kopech Its a small difference and it really doesn't bug me, but MLB had a consistency issues with how they ranked the 2016 draft class. If they thought Groom was the #1 prospect up till the start of the draft, what has changed to make them rank Moniak, Senzel, Ray, and Lewis ahead of him? They dropped him down a half a grade yet he hasn't pitched publicly between scouting reports. In years past they ranked the top picks much higher as well, but that was something I usually criticized.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 28, 2016 12:12:46 GMT -5
Is the ranking of prospects in a top 100 list the same thing as ranking players for a draft? I'm not sure. It's easy to argue why an 18 year old pitcher who hasn't thrown a pitch as a professional would be behind two 21 year old OF who were picked a few spots ahead of him, even if he was ranked ahead of them in draft lists. There is a lot less uncertainty for the college players and a lot more dreaming on the upside of the HS pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 28, 2016 12:14:40 GMT -5
Is the ranking of prospects in a top 100 list the same thing as ranking players for a draft? I'm not sure. It's easy to argue why an 18 year old pitcher who hasn't thrown a pitch as a professional would be behind two 21 year old OF who were picked a few spots ahead of him, even if he was ranked ahead of them in draft lists. There is a lot less uncertainty for the college players and a lot more dreaming on the upside of the HS pitcher. Wasn't the case last year with Rodgers and Swanson. It really doesn't bug me, only reason I call it out is because it involves the team I'm biased towards.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 28, 2016 12:16:18 GMT -5
Also, when doing the rankings I think it's fair to consider what actual major league baseball executives thought. When a player rises, that can be because one team is higher on him specifically. There's probably nothing you can learn from that other than "well I guess the Cubs really liked Schwarber." But for a player to drop, you need several teams to be lower on him than you were - that should absolutely cause a re-evaluation.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 28, 2016 12:25:55 GMT -5
Is the ranking of prospects in a top 100 list the same thing as ranking players for a draft? I'm not sure. It's easy to argue why an 18 year old pitcher who hasn't thrown a pitch as a professional would be behind two 21 year old OF who were picked a few spots ahead of him, even if he was ranked ahead of them in draft lists. There is a lot less uncertainty for the college players and a lot more dreaming on the upside of the HS pitcher. Wasn't the case last year with Rodgers and Swanson. It really doesn't bug me, only reason I call it out is because it involves the team I'm biased towards. I don't usually take initial rankings very seriously. Once scouts see them play professionally in leagues the scouts are very familiar with, they wind up where they belong pretty quickly I think.
|
|
|