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 Chris Hatfield on Feb 9, 2022 20:13:58 GMT -5
1. Figure out which past or present MLB player most resembles a HS draftee with a big frame who projects for decent 1B defense, meh BA, and high ISO. 2. ?? 3. Profit! (I have never understood the purpose of comps.) I think I piss people off in interviews when I sometimes decline to give them. It's one thing for a scout who literally does nothing but watch baseball and has a huge knowledge base to draw from, but for me, they're more likely to be confusing than truly descriptive. Like, sometimes there's a Duran-Ellsbury-type comp that is pretty apt, but even then you have defense caveats, etc. Then there's the issue of comparing type of player when you don't necessarily mean production, but the listener is always immediately going to compare using the latter... they're more trouble than they're worth, imo.
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on Feb 10, 2022 10:16:45 GMT -5
I don't see the comp. Youkilis: 6-1, 220, R/R. College draft pick came up as a 3B and was ok there before moving to 1B in deference to Mike Lowell. Known for extremely high OBP and control of the strike zone. Grew into unexpected power in MLB and was an unexpectedly great defender at 1B. Casas: 6-5, 250 (probably like 265 now I bet), L/R. HS draft pick was never going to stick at 3B and pretty quickly moved to 1B where he's pretty good. Calling card is his power and has potential to develop an average to above-average hit tool. Is Casas' calling card really his power? Power potential, maybe,but this whole thread is full of folks gushing over his approach and discipline not his .480 slugging. Also not sure why their draft position plays in to their comparison.
|
|
|
Post by jaffinator on Feb 10, 2022 10:41:46 GMT -5
I feel like comps are a great way to provide a lot of information of potentially imperfect accuracy quickly. On a board like this, where every piece of information about a prospect is dissected ad nauseam, they don't really have much utility at all.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 10, 2022 12:14:47 GMT -5
I don't see the comp. Youkilis: 6-1, 220, R/R. College draft pick came up as a 3B and was ok there before moving to 1B in deference to Mike Lowell. Known for extremely high OBP and control of the strike zone. Grew into unexpected power in MLB and was an unexpectedly great defender at 1B. Casas: 6-5, 250 (probably like 265 now I bet), L/R. HS draft pick was never going to stick at 3B and pretty quickly moved to 1B where he's pretty good. Calling card is his power and has potential to develop an average to above-average hit tool. Is Casas' calling card really his power? Power potential, maybe,but this whole thread is full of folks gushing over his approach and discipline not his .480 slugging. Also not sure why their draft position plays in to their comparison. Kind of a chicken or the egg thing. I suspect that the gushing over the approach and discipline is in part because it makes it more likely that the .480 slugging average should go up at least 50 points with more experience and maturation of the approach and discipline.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 10, 2022 12:37:08 GMT -5
I don't see the comp. Youkilis: 6-1, 220, R/R. College draft pick came up as a 3B and was ok there before moving to 1B in deference to Mike Lowell. Known for extremely high OBP and control of the strike zone. Grew into unexpected power in MLB and was an unexpectedly great defender at 1B. Casas: 6-5, 250 (probably like 265 now I bet), L/R. HS draft pick was never going to stick at 3B and pretty quickly moved to 1B where he's pretty good. Calling card is his power and has potential to develop an average to above-average hit tool. Is Casas' calling card really his power? Power potential, maybe,but this whole thread is full of folks gushing over his approach and discipline not his .480 slugging. Also not sure why their draft position plays in to their comparison. It's the power potential that makes him a top prospect though. And by power potential, it's not just the strength to hit bombs, but the approach to allow him to tap into that power with some regularity. Like, maybe he ends up a 40 homer guy, but he also very might well end up someone who hits .290 with 25 homers and 50 doubles. But you're right in the sense that, without that approach, you're talking about a guy less likely to be able to take advantage of the power and with much more of a downside.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 10, 2022 15:20:55 GMT -5
I don't see the comp. Youkilis: 6-1, 220, R/R. College draft pick came up as a 3B and was ok there before moving to 1B in deference to Mike Lowell. Known for extremely high OBP and control of the strike zone. Grew into unexpected power in MLB and was an unexpectedly great defender at 1B. Casas: 6-5, 250 (probably like 265 now I bet), L/R. HS draft pick was never going to stick at 3B and pretty quickly moved to 1B where he's pretty good. Calling card is his power and has potential to develop an average to above-average hit tool. When I said comp, I did not mean that they are/were the same size and hit from the same side of the plate or started out with the same profile and will finish the same. I meant that Casas looks like he has the ability to hit for average with a lot of walks along with a bigger power profile and (hopefully slightly) less defensive ability. I mean Keith Law's line that he put on Casas which sounded reasonable (.280/.370/.520) wasn't far off from Youkalis' career line. (.281/.381/.478)
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 10, 2022 16:00:13 GMT -5
Is Casas' calling card really his power? Power potential, maybe,but this whole thread is full of folks gushing over his approach and discipline not his .480 slugging. Also not sure why their draft position plays in to their comparison. Kind of a chicken or the egg thing. I suspect that the gushing over the approach and discipline is in part because it makes it more likely that the .480 slugging average should go up at least 50 points with more experience and maturation of the approach and discipline.I think the bold is exactly right. We all know he's got double-plus raw power. He's just not some .230 average, 30% K rate slugger who does literally nothing but hit bombs. The approach, willingness to learn and adjust, etc. make it much more likely he gets to his power in-game.
|
|
|
Post by soxinjersey on Feb 10, 2022 23:35:41 GMT -5
1. Figure out which past or present MLB player most resembles a HS draftee with a big frame who projects for decent 1B defense, meh BA, and high ISO. 2. ?? 3. Profit! (I have never understood the purpose of comps.) I think I piss people off in interviews when I sometimes decline to give them. It's one thing for a scout who literally does nothing but watch baseball and has a huge knowledge base to draw from, but for me, they're more likely to be confusing than truly descriptive. Like, sometimes there's a Duran-Ellsbury-type comp that is pretty apt, but even then you have defense caveats, etc. Then there's the issue of comparing type of player when you don't necessarily mean production, but the listener is always immediately going to compare using the latter... they're more trouble than they're worth, imo. As a coach, I think in terms of comps all the time, and I find them both useful and stimulating. We need to make a distinction between comps in a public forum such as this one and those which are used within closed frameworks such as teams to evaluate and develop players. Within a public domain, the best comps are often framed as questions, such as the one which triggered many passionate discussions when I was a kid: Who's better, Mantle or Mays? The best comps of this sort are those which include larger issues involving, as here, such things as race, different leagues, and rival fan bases. What's more fun than to come up with a comp that provokes serious conversation? But, as we see often on this site, it's hard to do. Within teams, though, comps can be very useful. One thing that's interesting about them on this practical level, in my experience, is that they are provoked by what we can see. At some point numbers will become part of the discussion, but it starts with what we can observe of a player's performance and demeanor. An example on a personal level: during tryouts this year (HS basketball), the rest of the coaching staff was leaning toward sending Player A, a freshman, to JV, but I liked her, although my reasons for doing so were somewhat nebulous even to me. I told the other coaches that she reminded me of Player B, a senior, who began her career at the end of the bench but has since become a two-year starter. Like her, Player A knows her limitations, doesn't try to do what is beyond her ability, and so makes few mistakes. Like Player B, she is unafraid of physical contact or pressure. Like Player B, she has an engaging, positive personality with a sense of playfulness and even mischief. After I made my case, the other coaches looked at her in a different way. Interestingly, so did I. After calling attention to her, I watched her more closely and recognized more positive qualities (especially great game instincts). She is now part of our regular rotation, and she helps make practices fun. Further, by making her aware of the comparison we had made, we encouraged her to emulate Player B as a model, which she has done. In some ways, this is a trivial example, but it illustrates how comps can be used to open coaches' eyes to see players better and then to find words/comps to show players how to improve. In one example in my own life, a coach's public comp to a player to whom I would never have dared to compare myself (a successful future MLB player and coach) boosted my confidence and focused my ambitions. I recently read David Epstein's "Range" about how to develop talent in a wide variety of domains. One chapter raises the question of the best way to put together a group of people to solve a problem or organize a major project. Should we collect the most famous professionals in the relevant field, or should we collect people with a wide range of expertise? In all the examples Epstein gives, the diverse groups are more successful than the narrow professional ones because they are able to make unexpected connections with productive applications to the given problem. In coaching and scouting, comps can serve a similar purpose by stretching our minds to see differently and more perceptively. True, comps are a double-edged sword: they can obfuscate as well as illuminate, but My assumption: if you look at the organizations best at identifying and developing talent, such as the Rays and Dodgers, you will find their conversations to be full of comps.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 11, 2022 13:29:58 GMT -5
So when we talk about comps in this context, it's usually "I don't know about this player, what kind of player is he going to be in the majors?" It's a shorthand to convey a lot of information in a much shorter amount of time. If I tell you Duran is a lot like Jacoby Ellsbury, you're thinking of an athletic centerfielder who hits lefthanded and has 70 speed, pretty good hit tool with the potential for some power if things broke right. The problem with using shorthand is that everyone needs to be on the same page about what the shorthand means, and I don't think people usually are. I find that often the other person thinks you're saying the prospect is going to become exactly like the MLB player you comped him to.
Using your example, you compared one of your players to another in a very specific way. That required you explaining what you meant. That's exactly my point. People want to just know "who's his comp?" and ignore the 20 other things you say about the player, and that's why I kind of hate it. When I say Duran reminds me of Ellsbury, are you thinking of 2011 Ellsbury, the MVP candidate who hit twice as many HR as he did in any other season? Do you have a misconception about how good he was as a defender when he came up (he was no gold glover at that time)? I probably need to explain, now, the issues with Duran's swing mechanics in MLB, so that caveat needs to be in there.
You raise an interesting anecdote, but I don't think the comparison is necessarily apt. You and your fellow coaches were all roughly equally familiar with the player. You were speaking the same language in that you had the same background. You explained what you meant and they understood the limitations of the comparison. I feel like none of these are the case when I make a comp publicly as an "expert" on the Sox farm system. Heck, even when I don't use comps that happens - I still remember doing a radio hit, I forget the station or the player, when I described a pitcher as a likely 4 or 5 with mid-rotation upside if everything broke perfectly, finishing the call, and the hosts bemoaning the fact that this great prospect now sounded like a bum. I wanted to call back in and explain that I just said he's an MLB starter and that's extremely valuable, and they'd completely taken what I just said in the entirely wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 11, 2022 14:24:04 GMT -5
So when we talk about comps in this context, it's usually "I don't know about this player, what kind of player is he going to be in the majors?" It's a shorthand to convey a lot of information in a much shorter amount of time. If I tell you Duran is a lot like Jacoby Ellsbury, you're thinking of an athletic centerfielder who hits lefthanded and has 70 speed, pretty good hit tool with the potential for some power if things broke right. The problem with using shorthand is that everyone needs to be on the same page about what the shorthand means, and I don't think people usually are. I find that often the other person thinks you're saying the prospect is going to become exactly like the MLB player you comped him to. Using your example, you compared one of your players to another in a very specific way. That required you explaining what you meant. That's exactly my point. People want to just know "who's his comp?" and ignore the 20 other things you say about the player, and that's why I kind of hate it. When I say Duran reminds me of Ellsbury, are you thinking of 2011 Ellsbury, the MVP candidate who hit twice as many HR as he did in any other season? Do you have a misconception about how good he was as a defender when he came up (he was no gold glover at that time)? I probably need to explain, now, the issues with Duran's swing mechanics in MLB, so that caveat needs to be in there. You raise an interesting anecdote, but I don't think the comparison is necessarily apt. You and your fellow coaches were all roughly equally familiar with the player. You were speaking the same language in that you had the same background. You explained what you meant and they understood the limitations of the comparison. I feel like none of these are the case when I make a comp publicly as an "expert" on the Sox farm system. Heck, even when I don't use comps that happens - I still remember doing a radio hit, I forget the station or the player, when I described a pitcher as a likely 4 or 5 with mid-rotation upside if everything broke perfectly, finishing the call, and the hosts bemoaning the fact that this great prospect now sounded like a bum. I wanted to call back in and explain that I just said he's an MLB starter and that's extremely valuable, and they'd completely taken what I just said in the entirely wrong way. I think you make a couple of good points on what comp means. Many use the term to mean 'as good as' which is rarely (if ever) what's intended when discussing prospects. These terms along with explaining that a player will in some way be 'pretty good' can be difficult for the shock-jock crowds, but I try to remind myself that fan stands for fanatic, so it's best to temper expectations while refining my delivery in discussions. What do you find is the best way to get the idea of 'pretty good' through to those who live at the extremes (e.g. 'he's the greatest player every'; 'he's a bum, get him out of here!')?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 15, 2022 21:32:21 GMT -5
Nickname idea: “Tristan Houses”
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 16, 2022 7:27:05 GMT -5
Tristan Shanties?
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Feb 16, 2022 9:15:39 GMT -5
Tristan Shout?
|
|
|
Post by eagleeye9184 on Feb 16, 2022 9:21:22 GMT -5
Nickname idea: “Tristan Houses” Mi Casas, es su Casas.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 16, 2022 14:35:13 GMT -5
“The Realtor”?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 16, 2022 15:51:44 GMT -5
Triston Casas -> Casa -> House -> Brick House -> Bricks -> T-Bricks
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 16, 2022 18:07:55 GMT -5
I kind of like “Brick House”.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Mar 13, 2022 21:04:29 GMT -5
How awesome would it be if Casas wins a job out of spring training.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Apr 12, 2022 16:58:29 GMT -5
A Dalbec/Casas comparison came up in the game day thread but seemed more appropriate to a Triston/Bobby thread. Here's one way to look at it:
What I would like to know is if Chaim enquires after Frankie Montas or Luis Castillo or Bryan Reynolds and he puts together a package with the last piece being "either Dalbec or Casas," who would the OAK/CIN/PIT/whoever GM pick?
Dalbec has shown that he can perform in MLB and hasn't reached his ceiling; Casas is still new to AAA. Dalbec has five years of control remaining, as of right now; Casas has six years of control, starting whenever/if he makes it to the Show. Dalbec has 70 raw that he gets to in MLB games although not quite as often as you'd hope; Casas has 60 raw and a 50/55 hit tool (per FG). Dalbec strikes out a wicked lot and doesn't walk much; Casas has a much better command of the strike zone thus far. Dalbec is a workaholic, picking anyone's brain who gets close enough (one recent example being Josh Donaldson, who offered advice on how he uses his eyes at the plate, while being held on 1B by Dalbec); Casas's SP scouting report also lauds his work ethic and clubhouse makeup. Dalbec has been dizzyingly streaky at the MLB level; Casas has been remarkably consistent at the dish in the minors. Both appear to have a ceiling of an average glove at 1B and both have deceptively average speed.
Is it a slam-dunk for Casas? Dalbec has played in the bigs for a couple years and proven that he isn't the next Freddie Freeman or Joey Votto but Casas still could be, right? Maybe the choice would depend on a team's proximity to contention? Could/should the Sox keep both if Casas reaches the big leagues later this year on his current minor-league trajectory (i.e. ~.380 OBP/~.480 SLG)?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 12, 2022 17:03:54 GMT -5
Yes, it’s a slam dunk for Casas.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 12, 2022 17:32:48 GMT -5
Have bit my tongue on this, but FG's tool grades this year made absolutely no sense fairly often and were pretty disappointing. For example, Binelas' writeup says he has plus-plus raw power while the tool grade section gives him 50/50 present/future raw. Wilkelman Gonzalez's writeup talks about his plus curveball that is absent from his tool grades entirely. Jimenez and Bleis are described as having plus speed; the former has a 70 (double-plus) and the latter a 50 (average). Mata described as having a plus slider that in the box above has 45/45 grades. Etc. Etc.
Casas absolutely has 70 raw and I'd project him for 60 in-game if not better. His power versus Dalbec's is a fun debate and I'd pay to see them slug it out in an old-school HR derby.
I may sound like a blowhard when I say our scouting reports are the best in the biz for this system, but if you want to go to a different site, you can find better than the "tool grade" sections on Fangraphs' reports this year.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 12, 2022 19:18:30 GMT -5
And we have a winner. When he hits bombs it'll be "House of Pain."
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 12, 2022 19:42:54 GMT -5
Have bit my tongue on this, but FG's tool grades this year made absolutely no sense fairly often and were pretty disappointing. For example, Binelas' writeup says he has plus-plus raw power while the tool grade section gives him 50/50 present/future raw. Wilkelman Gonzalez's writeup talks about his plus curveball that is absent from his tool grades entirely. Jimenez and Bleis are described as having plus speed; the former has a 70 (double-plus) and the latter a 50 (average). Mata described as having a plus slider that in the box above has 45/45 grades. Etc. Etc. Casas absolutely has 70 raw and I'd project him for 60 in-game if not better. His power versus Dalbec's is a fun debate and I'd pay to see them slug it out in an old-school HR derby. I may sound like a blowhard when I say our scouting reports are the best in the biz for this system, but if you want to go to a different site, you can find better than the "tool grade" sections on Fangraphs' reports this year. I've noticed this as well, for a number of players I follow both within and outside the system. I might put it down to the multiple inputs (4 people vs. 1 or 2 previously), but it's also not updated frequently or completely enough over time, despite their adopting a "continuous update" approach from what I understand. The overall FV grades are often changed but not the tool grades that comprise them. I agree that there's no evidence showing Dalbec as having better raw power...they're both approaching the top of the scale. You don't hit a 477-ft HR like Casas did without a stupidly high EV, unless you've got a microburst tailwind. Idk if I could find that EV somewhere, but it would have to be in the 115-118 mph range at a minimum I'd imagine (again, barring a ferocious tailwind). The big difference between the two has always been in likelihood to convert raw to game power, with Casas having the big edge. Dalbec seems to be learning to hit and might over-perform his 30-35 typical range, but I don't see him as being a regular .270-.280 guy. Seems more likely to settle in Khris Davis country at .247 (although I do think his improving selective aggression gives him a good chance at least). Casas strikes me as a guy who could approach Judge country at his 90th %ile outcome (actual Judge performance probably more like a 97th %ile outcome), and I wouldn't be surprised at all by a career peak of 2-4 years near .300 with 40/40 2b/HR. I think he probably lands around 3.5-5.5 WAR pretty regularly in his prime, depending on his defense at 1b.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Apr 13, 2022 0:02:47 GMT -5
I also think the answer is Casas but I think Dalbec's performance at the MLB level gets diminished in these pages. For example, I don't know how one could say Casas has better game power than Dalbec. Dalbec has a career .511 SLG and a .268 ISO in what amounts to a full season in MLB, whereas Casas is .476 SLG and .214 ISO in the minors. I would assert that having better power numbers in games vs. better pitchers means you have better in-game power.
Casas is clearly a great hitter (those are surely good numbers on their own) but people act like he's got a bunch of hidden in-game power that he just doesn't feel like showing yet, 200+ games into his pro career. Maybe that will come out when he starts to face major-league pitching but why make us wait? His bomb tonight is a good start, so I hope he keeps it coming and proves me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 13, 2022 6:51:50 GMT -5
I don't think anyone has said he definitively has better game power. It protects to be close probably.
What he does have is a hit tool that projects to be a full grade better, if not more, and that's huge.
Plus, looking solely at his minor league numbers doesn't necessarily work. In 2019, he spent the first month experimenting with hitting all the time with what is now his two-strike approach. After hitting .208/.284/.364 in April, he went back to a more normal approach with 0 or 1 strike and hit .267/.364/.506 the rest of the way. Then last year he left Portland twice to play for Team USA, missing stretches of 2 (qualifier) and 4 weeks. Given that as well as statements he's made about how he was working on seeing more pitches last year, I'm not terribly concerned that his final line wasn't terribly impressive.
Finally, consider that this is his age 22 season. In Dalbec's, he hit .247/.345/.437 in Low-A with a 37% K rate.
It's not a knock on Dalbec to say Casas is, without question, the guy you'd hang onto or ask for or whatever right now. There's an argument that, all things considered, he's got the most trade value in the org.
|
|
|