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.
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 14, 2015 10:37:34 GMT -5
[ The ROY voting is starting to change. Voters may consider a candidates future value when voting for the award. Wait... what? why? Tell me how that is fair or makes any sense. ROY should be abotu which rookie had the best year. Are you saying a guy that is a blue chip prospect should win ROY over a C+/B- DeGrom type if he has comparable yet definitively lesser numbers? I'm totally with the best rookie season winning RoY. And yet: Player A: 666 PA, .283 / .333 / .470, +4 defense at 1B, 0 SB / 1 CS, 22 GDP. 81 R, 88 RBI for a team that scored 719; 467 outs. 3.2 bWAR. Player B: 592 PA, .307 / .405 / .521, +1 defense in LF, 42 SB / 5 CS, 7 GDP. 85 R, 75 RBI for a team that scored 605; 362 outs. 6.0 bWAR. The BBWAA in their infinite wisdom gives ROY to player A, pretty much because he was a hyped prospect and Player B was a surprise. Subsequent career bWAR: Player A: 65.1 Player B: 2.1
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 14, 2015 11:00:58 GMT -5
Wait... what? why? Tell me how that is fair or makes any sense. ROY should be abotu which rookie had the best year. Are you saying a guy that is a blue chip prospect should win ROY over a C+/B- DeGrom type if he has comparable yet definitively lesser numbers? I'm totally with the best rookie season winning RoY. And yet: Player A: 666 PA, .283 / .333 / .470, +4 defense at 1B, 0 SB / 1 CS, 22 GDP. 81 R, 88 RBI for a team that scored 719; 467 outs. 3.2 bWAR. Player B: 592 PA, .307 / .405 / .521, +1 defense in LF, 42 SB / 5 CS, 7 GDP. 85 R, 75 RBI for a team that scored 605; 362 outs. 6.0 bWAR. The BBWAA in their infinite wisdom gives ROY to player A, pretty much because he was a hyped prospect and Player B was a surprise. Subsequent career bWAR: Player A: 65.1 Player B: 2.1 Interesting that only 28 votes were even cast for the award that year though, and it was just a straight vote, not a tiered 5-3-1 or anything. Winner played for east coast team (2nd, AL East) while the next three were in Oakland (last, AL west - probably the biggest thing here), Texas (2nd, AL West), Detroit (4th AL East). Player A 12.5 Player B 9.5 Player C 4 - 617 PA, .287/.361/.410, 28 SB/12 CS, 87 R, 62 RBI, team scored 767. 5.4 bWAR. (16.5 career bWAR) Player D 2 - 218.1 IP, 15-7, 3.09 ERA, 92 K, 1.17 WHIP, led league with 1.4 BB/9, 5.7 bWAR. (15.8 career bWAR) So the guy who won, in theory, shouldn't have sniffed the award.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 14, 2015 14:53:46 GMT -5
The purpose of the ROY is to promote future stars of the game. If not why have it?
In 1994, Bob Hamelin won the award at age 26 over Manny Ramirez who was 6 years younger at the time and clearly had a brighter future though his numbers weren't as good as Hamelin's.
Manny should have won the award and that he didn't makes the award less relevant in my view.
Numbers should be put in context. A 19 year old CF numbers are not the same as a 28 year old 1B's even if both are in their first year in the league....and voters are allowed to think along the same lines as well they should.
As for Eric's continued "scouts are stupid and I'm not" meme, I think that even he agreed at the time that Manny Ramirez had a brighter future than Bob Hamelin.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 14, 2015 15:57:42 GMT -5
I thought the purpose of ROY is to name the best rookie period. I mean giving it to the "biggest name rookie" is almost similar logic to justifying things like the Gold Glove going to Derek Jeter.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 14, 2015 17:48:10 GMT -5
MLB.com's website says only that the award is given to the "top rookie-eligible players in both leagues." To me, top player is top player, not player who will eventually be the best.
It's an interesting idea to propose, but it's certainly not what the award is supposed to be. They already have that award - it's given out by several publications and indicated by the number "1" next to their name in an article called "Top 100 Prospects" or similar.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 14, 2015 18:00:34 GMT -5
I'm not sure why this is a discussion. James posted earlier an empirical analysis showing that no starting pitcher who threw less than 140 innings has won the ROY in the last twenty years, and only one has won having thrown less than 160 innings. It's very unlikely that Owens reaches those thresholds (hell, I'd easily take the under on 100 innings), which means it's exceptionally unlikely that he'll be a legitimate ROY contender.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater on Jan 15, 2015 14:38:58 GMT -5
The purpose of the ROY is to promote future stars of the game. If not why have it? In 1994, Bob Hamelin won the award at age 26 over Manny Ramirez who was 6 years younger at the time and clearly had a brighter future though his numbers weren't as good as Hamelin's. Manny should have won the award and that he didn't makes the award less relevant in my view. Numbers should be put in context. A 19 year old CF numbers are not the same as a 28 year old 1B's even if both are in their first year in the league....and voters are allowed to think along the same lines as well they should. As for Eric's continued "scouts are stupid and I'm not" meme, I think that even he agreed at the time that Manny Ramirez had a brighter future than Bob Hamelin. The part I bolded I'm not sure is correct. The award is for the rookie who had the best season. Scouts are not stupid but it's not 100% that said hyped prospect goes on to have a better career than a lower rated rookie who exceed expectations. It's greater than 50% and growing probably, but not a given. Baseball is a random game and stuff happens that players, coaches, GMs, scouts and media experts cannot predict. We can sit here and play God and pretend like we think we know what's going to happen. We might a little. We're getting better at it. But no matter how much we think we know there are so many facets, parameters and variables to the game we don't even know we don't know. They are finite, yes but can be impossible to predict no matter how many complex models we create. That's a lot of the draw to the game for me. You have to give credit where credit is due and not just have expectations on one outcome which we deem to be worthy before the games are even played.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater on Jan 15, 2015 14:43:18 GMT -5
Wait... what? why? Tell me how that is fair or makes any sense. ROY should be abotu which rookie had the best year. Are you saying a guy that is a blue chip prospect should win ROY over a C+/B- DeGrom type if he has comparable yet definitively lesser numbers? I'm totally with the best rookie season winning RoY. And yet: Player A: 666 PA, .283 / .333 / .470, +4 defense at 1B, 0 SB / 1 CS, 22 GDP. 81 R, 88 RBI for a team that scored 719; 467 outs. 3.2 bWAR. Player B: 592 PA, .307 / .405 / .521, +1 defense in LF, 42 SB / 5 CS, 7 GDP. 85 R, 75 RBI for a team that scored 605; 362 outs. 6.0 bWAR. The BBWAA in their infinite wisdom gives ROY to player A, pretty much because he was a hyped prospect and Player B was a surprise. Subsequent career bWAR: Player A: 65.1 Player B: 2.1 This is fascinating, you've piqued my interest. Who are these players?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 15, 2015 15:02:17 GMT -5
Regardless of it means to you MLB has specifically guided voters otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 15, 2015 15:12:35 GMT -5
One of my pet peeves is the cliche "it's not 100%". Some things are so close to 100% certain that it's not even worth your breath to argue the difference. At the time it was a 100% certain that Manny Ramirez had a brighter future than Bob Hamelin. Yes it's true sometimes a much lower rated rookie ends up with a better career than the a top 3 prospect who is several years younger but it is very very rare.
The only purpose of any of these awards is to promote the game. Otherwise who cares? What would have highlighted the game more....a 20 year old phenom who would go on to hit 500 home runs or a 26 year old 1B.
The same idea would hold for those who don't want to vote for foreign free agents for ROY. By the letter of the law they are eligible, but it violates the spirit of the award which is to highlight up and coming young future stars.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 15, 2015 15:24:23 GMT -5
Are you actually arguing that it's right? We already have the All-Star game for that nonsense. Maybe if two guys had similar seasons, I'd be with you, but I'm perfectly ok with someone like Brock Holt beating Xander Bogaerts if he had a better season.
I do think there should be an age limit. I don't like it when guys like Abreu win.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 15, 2015 15:34:56 GMT -5
Depends how much better.....as you said. I just said it should be a consideration, not that voters should ignore performance entirely.
Not an age limit but definitely foreign free agents like Abreu shouldn't win. If Abreu were born a mere 90 miles away in Miami he would have already been a major league player for sometime. He wasn't a rookie as far as I am concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 15, 2015 15:41:50 GMT -5
Regardless of it means to you MLB has specifically guided voters otherwise. Where? Asking because I looked and didn't find anything. I posted that because that's all I found.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 15, 2015 16:19:47 GMT -5
Regardless of it means to you MLB has specifically guided voters otherwise. Where? Asking because I looked and didn't find anything. I posted that because that's all I found. Keith Law revealed during one of his chats that he asked and they said that he could take future value into account. Not sure if it was last year or the year before.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 15, 2015 16:28:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 15, 2015 17:09:31 GMT -5
Interesting. Thanks.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,793
|
Post by nomar on Jan 15, 2015 17:40:13 GMT -5
Are you actually arguing that it's right? We already have the All-Star game for that nonsense. Maybe if two guys had similar seasons, I'd be with you, but I'm perfectly ok with someone like Brock Holt beating Xander Bogaerts if he had a better season. I do think there should be an age limit. I don't like it when guys like Abreu win. It was horrendous to hear ESPN call Abreu a rookie every other sentence too. Gonna be weird when 4 years from now he's a declining DH.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonstah on Jan 16, 2015 16:18:39 GMT -5
Are you actually arguing that it's right? We already have the All-Star game for that nonsense. Maybe if two guys had similar seasons, I'd be with you, but I'm perfectly ok with someone like Brock Holt beating Xander Bogaerts if he had a better season. I do think there should be an age limit. I don't like it when guys like Abreu win. It was horrendous to hear ESPN call Abreu a rookie every other sentence too. Gonna be weird when 4 years from now he's a declining DH. Yeah, Abreu and Tanaka are both great talents, but it is ridiculous to call them rookies.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 16, 2015 16:26:30 GMT -5
It was horrendous to hear ESPN call Abreu a rookie every other sentence too. Gonna be weird when 4 years from now he's a declining DH. Yeah, Abreu and Tanaka are both great talents, but it is ridiculous to call them rookies. And to be fair the same holds true with Castillio this year.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan1994 on Jan 16, 2015 20:39:44 GMT -5
What is Henry's velocity like on his fastball?
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 16, 2015 20:50:46 GMT -5
Yeah, Abreu and Tanaka are both great talents, but it is ridiculous to call them rookies. And to be fair the same holds true with Castillio this year. Definitely applies to Rusney, too ... One of my pet peeves is when people justify guys like Abreu getting it by pointing out that the award is named for Jackie Robinson, who won the inaugural award at an older age after playing at another professional league. Honestly, that argument makes me want to type in all caps and profanity in RAGE ... it's just not the same thing at all. Jackie Robinson is so, so much more than that, just in a different universe than Ichiro Suzuki or Jose Abreu. Robinson was the Rookie of the Century in all of American sports, the single most important rookie of all time; it's maybe the most fitting and poignant baseball fact that he was the initial Rookie of the Year. But Ichiro Suzuki is closer to giving the NL award to a guy who's spent 5 years in the AL than it is to giving it to a real rookie. I generally don't care about baseball awards, but for some reason this always bugs me. Probably mostly because of that stupid argument in favor of the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jan 29, 2015 20:07:56 GMT -5
Is it just me, or does anyone see a lot of Mark Mulder in Henry Owens? The curveball might not be there, and his changeup is more advanced for his age, Doesn't quite have the same pedigree. But the height, the motion (to an extent), cool demeanor, fastball that plays up etc. I'd love for his career to start out MM's. I just can't remember a tall lefty non power pitcher so highly touted so young.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,793
|
Post by nomar on Jan 30, 2015 2:11:29 GMT -5
I don't think he'll strike out as many people in the majors as he has thus far, but I think Owens will be more of a K pitcher than Mulder. It would be great if he can keep the BB/9 as low as Mulder did, but other than being tall lefties with lacking velocity, I don't think its a great comp.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 30, 2015 12:03:22 GMT -5
I don't think he'll strike out as many people in the majors as he has thus far, but I think Owens will be more of a K pitcher than Mulder. It would be great if he can keep the BB/9 as low as Mulder did, but other than being tall lefties with lacking velocity, I don't think its a great comp. Mulder had excellent fastball command which Owen's doesn't have yet. Yes they are both tall lefties with plus secondary pitches and great makeup, but you are right other than that, it's not a great comp.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,793
|
Post by nomar on Jan 31, 2015 12:20:01 GMT -5
Jim Callis' best tools of the top 100 prospects
Best changeup: Henry Owens, LHP, Red Sox Owens has averaged 10.7 strikeouts per nine innings in three pro seasons despite working mostly with an 88-92 mph fastball. That's a tribute to the deception he creates with his delivery as well as with his changeup. It's a true out pitch that he sells by delivering it with his normal arm speed, only to have it arrive in the upper 70s and fade at the plate. His changeup helps him negate the platoon advantage, as right-handers batted just .208 against him last season and .167 in 2013.
|
|
|