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 ryan24 on Aug 10, 2017 4:11:14 GMT -5
m.mlb.com/news/article/82719548/red-sox-sign-international-pitching-prospects-christopher-acosta-and-anderson-espinoza/I'm all about upside. Espinoza was talked about as a top of rotation player the moment he signed. Just like with Groome. Sure Groome was the better overall prospect, mainly because of the age difference they entered the system. There upside though was the same. One just had more risk. That's why I have him over Houck. I don't see top of the rotation upside with Houck. Houck has a lot less risk. See Acosta, but less upside. I wouldn't argue with Houck being rated as a better overall prospect. I just prefer and look more at the upside when they enter the system. Do you see Houcks upside as top of the rotation or more mid rotation type? Maybe I'm low on Houcks true upside. He would just have to improve a ton to be top of rotation type player. Sale is top of the rotation. No definitely not. The 2 or 3 guy like Porcello and Drew yes. PROVIDED he develops the 2 and 3rd pitches. I see that he could/can start in the bigs.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 10, 2017 4:15:13 GMT -5
-There is nothing stating that Barnes has looked better as a starter than Houck (this is in fact your personal opinion, don't state it as fact) and there's no actual evidence that Houck can't start. -Houck and Barnes both have pitcher's builds that can probably withstand a 200 innings workload (Houck needs to develop to that workload in time). -No one "ripped" the Sox for picking a pitcher who fell to them after many picked Houck to be a top 10 pick earlier in the college season. -Many scouts are actually "torn" whether Houck can start or be a reliever. The development of his secondary pitches will be the determination of that evaluation. Secondary pitches can be discovered or developed over their minor league careers (Papelbon being a prime example of that). Rule number one with pitching prospects is that you ALWAYS start them until they PROVE they can't be as successful as a starter versus being a reliever. It's funny because in that Matt Barnes thread, you were wrong for all the right reasons about Matt Barnes. Now you could be wrong or even right about Houck for all the wrong reasons. Instead of making 5 minute evaluations and trying to be right all the time, just state what you're hopeful for and what you're skeptical of. Make even silly comparisons like I did with Papelbon (no two players are EVER the same). Just don't state what the Sox should or shouldn't do, because they aren't going to probably listen to what you want them to see do when it comes to Houck in the first place. No, that's based off scouting reports and what the majority of baseball experts said. After both players drafted the so called experts were higher on Barnes starting. It makes sense as Barnes had better off speed pitches. A couple people started listing Houck pre-draft so I did some research. I kept seeing the same thing pop up most likely a reliever. Hence why I said before the draft nope, pass. Did you not watch the draft live?? The MLB expert totally bashed the pick live, it did happen 100%. Chris even made posts about it, because the board went crazy. It was the most negative opinion on any pick that night. Something along the lines of a future reliever that has 1.5 pitchers. But the slider comes and goes. Spent large amounts of time throwing only his fastball because that was the only pitch he had at times. Said he is getting drafted this high because of the promise of his freshman year, but he has gone backwards since then. Scout pre-draft and after the draft weren't torn. Has the look of a future reliever. Has a chance to start if he can get back to what he did as a freshman. He also did fall, he was basically drafted were he was ranked. I agree, try him as a starter. See what happens. Maybe the Red Sox and there great staff can really help Houck. My point was I wouldn't give him 3-4 years unless he showed you something. The game is changing. The value of a very good reliever and a 4/5th starter are getting closer. Starters are going less innings, meaning the bullpen is becoming more and more important. Nevermind things like the fangraph article saying elite relievers are undervalued. I would like the Houck pick if he became the next Barnes, it would be a good pick. I was wrong about Barnes years ago because we needed starters. I was also new to studying prospects and advanced stats. Followed the Red Sox for years, but didn't get into advanced stats till joining this board in 2013. What I've learned is that WHIP is very important, something I didn't pay attention too years ago. Now not every player is the same. The thing is you can get a great idea about a College guy starting after 2 years in pros and 3 years in College. That is a good amount of data. Either he is improving or he isn't. You can play the odds or just dream that the Joe Kelly's of the world figure it out one day. Sure it happens, but it's the outliers. It is a fact that the majority of players that struggle with mechanics, repeating there deliveries and maintaining there stuff inning after inning while starting won't just figure it out at age 24 or 25. Houck is a guy that currently has like 1.5 pitches that he trusts to throw in games. He has a long way to go to be a great starter prospect. The guys with 3 or 4 good pitches that struggle to maintain stuff while starting, are the guys you dream on. So if in 2 years Houck has 3 good pitches or is getting close . We can debate it then. He just has a long way to go. I will state what I think the Red Sox should do. It's my opinion, be it right or wrong. Has nothing to do with me being right or wrong. Only time will tell. If I'm wrong. You can all bash me and I will be happy. I hope I'm wrong about this, I really do. It does not though change the facts of the majority of Houcks scouting reports. Those are facts, not my opinion. Learned some more here that I did not know. maybe I am going against the tide on my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Sept 13, 2017 15:43:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Oct 31, 2017 13:05:02 GMT -5
Chris 12:53 There are strong scouting opinions projecting Tanner Houck as a future reliever. Are his odds of becoming a starter mostly tied to the development of his secondaries or a change in mechanics (or both)?
Eric A Longenhagen 12:55 I wouldn't change his delivery, I'd hope he can learn to do locate his secondaries well enough to deal with left-handed hitters. If he can't, he's a reliever. I thought he showed glimpses of being able to do it at Mizzou, so I think he's got a chance.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 31, 2017 15:03:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 31, 2017 22:15:44 GMT -5
Shouldn’t we give him the benefit of a full spring training and a season on the mound before deciding his fate?
Hard to get a read on a guy that spent most of last year at mizzu.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 31, 2017 22:56:57 GMT -5
Who is "deciding his fate"?
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Dec 27, 2017 12:00:30 GMT -5
I’m looking at recent draft history and trying to find a comparison for Houck to gauge what the Sox might do to push him through the system. The closest comp for a college 1st round starter I can see is Brian Johnson, but he had an injury at the end of his first season that affected his next season so I don’t think that would be an accurate comparison. Obviously, what they do with one guy won’t be the same as another, I’m just looking for trends. Probably going to start in Greenville and end in Salem assuming everything goes right, but is there any chance he ends the year in Portland?
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Dec 27, 2017 12:05:46 GMT -5
Slightly smaller Justin Masterson
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 27, 2017 12:26:16 GMT -5
Just looked up Houck's scouting report and noticed that he's not Rule 5 eligible until 2021. With 3 options, he wouldn't have to stick on the roster until 2025 when he'd be out of options. That would make him 29. This is just meant as a question about development times, not really anything to do with Houck.
Why can't they change rule 5 eligibility to being the same age regardless of whether the player is an IFA, HS draftee or college draftee? I just don't get why IFAs have to be major league ready when they're possibly out of options by age 23 and others are safe until age 29 without ever exposing them to Rule 5. It's pretty ridiculous. What is the reasoning? The average development track being pushed is way too fast for IFAs and way too slow for college draftees IMO.
Didn't know where to put this. Feel free to move it if it warrants any discussion. I didn't think it's worth a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 27, 2017 14:04:07 GMT -5
I’m looking at recent draft history and trying to find a comparison for Houck to gauge what the Sox might do to push him through the system. The closest comp for a college 1st round starter I can see is Brian Johnson, but he had an injury at the end of his first season that affected his next season so I don’t think that would be an accurate comparison. Obviously, what they do with one guy won’t be the same as another, I’m just looking for trends. Probably going to start in Greenville and end in Salem assuming everything goes right, but is there any chance he ends the year in Portland? I'd point you toward Matt Barnes, who dominated in 5 Greenville starts before a promotion to Salem. My guess is that they'll keep an open mind in camp, but that they'll likely start him in Greenville with the chance to move very quickly if he shows he's outclassed the competition there. Dangle the carrot, so to speak. Of course, under the current regime, maybe they'll be more aggressive. Just looked up Houck's scouting report and noticed that he's not Rule 5 eligible until 2021. With 3 options, he wouldn't have to stick on the roster until 2025 when he'd be out of options. That would make him 29. This is just meant as a question about development times, not really anything to do with Houck. Why can't they change rule 5 eligibility to being the same age regardless of whether the player is an IFA, HS draftee or college draftee? I just don't get why IFAs have to be major league ready when they're possibly out of options by age 23 and others are safe until age 29 without ever exposing them to Rule 5. It's pretty ridiculous. What is the reasoning? The average development track being pushed is way too fast for IFAs and way too slow for college draftees IMO. Didn't know where to put this. Feel free to move it if it warrants any discussion. I didn't think it's worth a new thread. First of all, that's an error on Houck's player page. He's eligible in 2020. Thanks for the catch! They can't base Rule 5 eligibility on age. Consider that IFAs sign at age 16 and college juniors sign at age 21 or 22. It'd be silly to have IFAs take six years longer to reach Rule 5 eligibility than college draftees. The current rule is based on how old you were the June 5 before you signed. If you were 19 or older, you're eligible in the 4th Rule 5 draft after you signed (e.g., Houck eligible in 2020). If you were 18 or younger, it's the 5th Rule 5 draft after you signed (e.g., Cole Brannen is eligible in 2021). As for your point, you're correct that the current Rule 5 rules screw over IFAs. Dunnzo and I have both commented on this in the past. I think all they need to do is add a year for players who sign at age 16 or 17 and they'd be good, as I think the current rule has the correct amount of time for HS draftees. Or perhaps you go with three tiers as 16/17 (6 years), 18/19 (5 years; seems right for one-year JuCo guys), and above (4 years)?
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Dec 27, 2017 14:34:39 GMT -5
So the two comps for Houck mentioned so far have both transitioned to relievers. Fantastic. Still holding out hope though.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 27, 2017 14:37:28 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'd put much stock in a sample size of 2.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 27, 2017 14:40:32 GMT -5
Masterson had a very strong multi-year run as a starter.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 27, 2017 15:02:43 GMT -5
So the two comps for Houck mentioned so far have both transitioned to relievers. Fantastic. Still holding out hope though. Would be nice if we don't have to trade for another closer or setup man. That would be what, 12 prospects in a few years?
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Dec 27, 2017 15:08:39 GMT -5
For the record, I’m very happy with the Houck pick, especially at the end of the 1st round. If he becomes an elite reliever, then awesome. As for the Masterson point, maybe it was just me, but beyond those couple good years in Cleveland that felt like outliers, I thought he would have been better as a reliever than a starter.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 3, 2018 8:51:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 3, 2018 12:46:30 GMT -5
Heh, by the end of the 2019 season Walker Buehler will be at least 8th on that list.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Mar 2, 2018 19:01:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 2, 2018 20:13:13 GMT -5
I presume he’s just being asked to add the 4-seam? Seems silly to totally scrap a weapon. He obviously gets good results when he throws the sinker 92-94. Maybe he’s going to be asked to work off the 4 as his primary FB and throw it harder? I remember him saying somewhere that he could throw the sinker 96-97 but he lost movement and it got hit more. Curious to see how they ask him to mix his pitches this year. Does he morph the two-seam into a hard cutter?
And I’d be curious to know what their view of “tunneling” is and if he’ll be asked to adjust his secondaries accordingly.
I like Houck’s arm strength and I know the Sox like big RHP as power arms (though we all know the durability thing is essentially debunked). I think he’s got a lot of potential, but I really hope this doesn’t put a crimp in his development. Very curious to see how that 4-sean misses bats. Barnes has a terrific 4-seam and he still never made it as a starter because the the location was an issue and the secondaries inconsistent. Very interesting move, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Mar 2, 2018 20:20:43 GMT -5
I don't mind Houck dumping a pitch to add another better pitch. The hope is that he can improve on his offspeed pitches next so he can stay in a rotation for a very long time.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 2, 2018 20:43:15 GMT -5
I presume he’s just being asked to add the 4-seam? Seems silly to totally scrap a weapon. He obviously gets good results when he throws the sinker 92-94. Maybe he’s going to be asked to work off the 4 as his primary FB and throw it harder? I remember him saying somewhere that he could throw the sinker 96-97 but he lost movement and it got hit more. Curious to see how they ask him to mix his pitches this year. Does he morph the two-seam into a hard cutter? And I’d be curious to know what their view of “tunneling” is and if he’ll be asked to adjust his secondaries accordingly. I like Houck’s arm strength and I know the Sox like big RHP as power arms (though we all know the durability thing is essentially debunked). I think he’s got a lot of potential, but I really hope this doesn’t put a crimp in his development. Very curious to see how that 4-sean misses bats. Barnes has a terrific 4-seam and he still never made it as a starter because the the location was an issue and the secondaries inconsistent. Very interesting move, to say the least. There aren't a lot of pitchers who can keep a 4 seamer and 2 seamer consistent. I've been blaming Porcello's problems on this for awhile.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 3, 2018 10:29:01 GMT -5
I presume he’s just being asked to add the 4-seam? Seems silly to totally scrap a weapon. He obviously gets good results when he throws the sinker 92-94. Maybe he’s going to be asked to work off the 4 as his primary FB and throw it harder? I remember him saying somewhere that he could throw the sinker 96-97 but he lost movement and it got hit more. Curious to see how they ask him to mix his pitches this year. Does he morph the two-seam into a hard cutter? And I’d be curious to know what their view of “tunneling” is and if he’ll be asked to adjust his secondaries accordingly. I like Houck’s arm strength and I know the Sox like big RHP as power arms (though we all know the durability thing is essentially debunked). I think he’s got a lot of potential, but I really hope this doesn’t put a crimp in his development. Very curious to see how that 4-sean misses bats. Barnes has a terrific 4-seam and he still never made it as a starter because the the location was an issue and the secondaries inconsistent. Very interesting move, to say the least. There aren't a lot of pitchers who can keep a 4 seamer and 2 seamer consistent. I've been blaming Porcello's problems on this for awhile. If the four seamer is better, which it sounds like it pretty conclusively is, then that's the one he should throw. I know it seems a little extreme to just throw away the guy's primary pitch like that, but that's where we are with pitching. We can measure pitches, and the measurements are fairly unambiguous. Throw the four seam, it's better. Regarding the bit about his sinker flattening out when he throws it max effort, that probably reflects a high spin fastball with rising movement. He's actually getting more movement on the pitch when he throws it harder, but all that movement does is work to lift the pitch, which obviously is not what you want on a sinker. If you have a high-spin fastball, you want to throw it high in the zone as a "rising" fastball. The velo almost doesn't matter. That's why Uehara was so deadly with a 88mph fastball up in the zone. A lot of that was credited to his control, but his control never seemed that amazing to me. What was exceptional was the spin/rise on his fastball. For however tantalizing that thing looked coming in at 87, it just didn't have the trajectory hitters intuitively expect on a fastball and they either swung under it entirely for whiffs, or got under it for flyball outs and popups. Kershaw is another good example, his velo isn't crazy and his four seam looks straight as an arrow, but guys can't square it up. For his career, nearly a third of the fly balls hit off his fastball have been infield popups, automatic outs. Conversely, whenever you see a guy who can't miss bats up in the zone with good fastball velo, it's probably someone who either has low spin/natural sink and should be throwing sinkers, or something who has very average fastball movement (Matt Barnes) and should possibly think about the Rich Hill plan and just throw his best secondary a lot. I'm very happy to hear that the Red Sox are embracing modern pitching science. With Bannister in the organization we should expect that, but it's not a guarantee that just because a guy is there that anyone is going to listen to him or implement his methods.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 3, 2018 19:57:26 GMT -5
There aren't a lot of pitchers who can keep a 4 seamer and 2 seamer consistent. I've been blaming Porcello's problems on this for awhile. If the four seamer is better, which it sounds like it pretty conclusively is, then that's the one he should throw. I know it seems a little extreme to just throw away the guy's primary pitch like that, but that's where we are with pitching. We can measure pitches, and the measurements are fairly unambiguous. Throw the four seam, it's better. Regarding the bit about his sinker flattening out when he throws it max effort, that probably reflects a high spin fastball with rising movement. He's actually getting more movement on the pitch when he throws it harder, but all that movement does is work to lift the pitch, which obviously is not what you want on a sinker. If you have a high-spin fastball, you want to throw it high in the zone as a "rising" fastball. The velo almost doesn't matter. That's why Uehara was so deadly with a 88mph fastball up in the zone. A lot of that was credited to his control, but his control never seemed that amazing to me. What was exceptional was the spin/rise on his fastball. For however tantalizing that thing looked coming in at 87, it just didn't have the trajectory hitters intuitively expect on a fastball and they either swung under it entirely for whiffs, or got under it for flyball outs and popups. Kershaw is another good example, his velo isn't crazy and his four seam looks straight as an arrow, but guys can't square it up. For his career, nearly a third of the fly balls hit off his fastball have been infield popups, automatic outs. Conversely, whenever you see a guy who can't miss bats up in the zone with good fastball velo, it's probably someone who either has low spin/natural sink and should be throwing sinkers, or something who has very average fastball movement (Matt Barnes) and should possibly think about the Rich Hill plan and just throw his best secondary a lot. I'm very happy to hear that the Red Sox are embracing modern pitching science. With Bannister in the organization we should expect that, but it's not a guarantee that just because a guy is there that anyone is going to listen to him or implement his methods. Bannister and now Dave Bush to be the minor league Bannister.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 4, 2018 17:16:21 GMT -5
I presume he’s just being asked to add the 4-seam? Seems silly to totally scrap a weapon. He obviously gets good results when he throws the sinker 92-94. Maybe he’s going to be asked to work off the 4 as his primary FB and throw it harder? I remember him saying somewhere that he could throw the sinker 96-97 but he lost movement and it got hit more. Curious to see how they ask him to mix his pitches this year. Does he morph the two-seam into a hard cutter? And I’d be curious to know what their view of “tunneling” is and if he’ll be asked to adjust his secondaries accordingly. I like Houck’s arm strength and I know the Sox like big RHP as power arms (though we all know the durability thing is essentially debunked). I think he’s got a lot of potential, but I really hope this doesn’t put a crimp in his development. Very curious to see how that 4-sean misses bats. Barnes has a terrific 4-seam and he still never made it as a starter because the the location was an issue and the secondaries inconsistent. Very interesting move, to say the least. There aren't a lot of pitchers who can keep a 4 seamer and 2 seamer consistent. I've been blaming Porcello's problems on this for awhile. Yeah, I immediately thought of Porcello. That’s what made me hopeful they might just alter his 2-seam grip a little and convert it to a hard cutter.
|
|
|