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 jmei on Nov 21, 2013 13:47:59 GMT -5
For their sakes, I hope they come ready to battle since, right now, I don't see either as major leaguers and, therefore, I could see the Red Sox picking up a AAAA first baseman to occupy the spot next year. I could also see one or both traded this offseason. Brandon Snyder just announced that he re-signed with the Boston Red Sox (presumably on a minor-league deal with a camp invite and maybe an opt-out). He's flexible defensively, but probably slots in best at 1B, so that muddies the waters a bit. As it looks today, I think both Shaw and Almanzar probably start the season in Porland.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Nov 21, 2013 20:07:45 GMT -5
I hope Shaw found his stroke and he may be in play next season. Someone to keep an eye on.
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Jan 17, 2014 13:12:44 GMT -5
Is it just me or has one AFL performance skyrocketed Travis Shaw from a middling prospect to an almost sure fire Major Leaguer? I'm a big Shaw fan, but in recent weeks, Shaw was named to the rookie development program (so the Sox expect him to have a shot at the majors in 2014), he got an invite to Major League Spring Training, and was just named the #8 First Base prospect by MLB.com. Is this really all only because of 61 at bats?
|
|
jchang
Veteran
Posts: 871
Member is Online
|
Post by jchang on Jan 17, 2014 14:08:57 GMT -5
I am inclined to think that the RDP + spring training invite is that Shaw could be because he is a viable up and down player, which his AA stats may justify. Of course the MLB rating has him as a full div 2 regular.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,972
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 17, 2014 14:17:18 GMT -5
Is it just me or has one AFL performance skyrocketed Travis Shaw from a middling prospect to an almost sure fire Major Leaguer? I'm a big Shaw fan, but in recent weeks, Shaw was named to the rookie development program (so the Sox expect him to have a shot at the majors in 2014), he got an invite to Major League Spring Training, and was just named the #8 First Base prospect by MLB.com. Is this really all only because of 61 at bats? No it's mainly because there are very few 1b prospects, both in general because many 1b start out elsewhere like Cabrera and Pujols and Youkilis and Teixeira and Napoli, and specifically right now when there are even fewer good 1b prospects than usual. It's like when Bill Lee used to talk about his wife being Miss Alaska--what's the competition?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 17, 2014 14:23:54 GMT -5
Here's where we can use sabremetrics and check out that walk rate, a reasonable K rate and the HR and get a little more hopeful, or is it because he's 23 in AA?
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jan 17, 2014 14:29:53 GMT -5
Bump.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 17, 2014 14:46:03 GMT -5
I think his slash line last year is pretty badly affected by that .262 BAPIP.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 17, 2014 15:48:45 GMT -5
Is it just me or has one AFL performance skyrocketed Travis Shaw from a middling prospect to an almost sure fire Major Leaguer? I'm a big Shaw fan, but in recent weeks, Shaw was named to the rookie development program (so the Sox expect him to have a shot at the majors in 2014), he got an invite to Major League Spring Training, and was just named the #8 First Base prospect by MLB.com. Is this really all only because of 61 at bats? The Red Sox know better than to base anything on what he did in the AFL. Heiker Meneses got a NRI too. Doesn't mean he's a future MLB shortstop. That said, I think his being ranked in the MLB.com list is in part because of the AFL, but in that it made Callis, who as we know is quite familiar with this system, take a second look at him. I think the key issue is not to read more into this stuff than you should.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jan 19, 2014 12:05:37 GMT -5
Is it just me or has one AFL performance skyrocketed Travis Shaw from a middling prospect to an almost sure fire Major Leaguer? I'm a big Shaw fan, but in recent weeks, Shaw was named to the rookie development program (so the Sox expect him to have a shot at the majors in 2014), he got an invite to Major League Spring Training, and was just named the #8 First Base prospect by MLB.com. Is this really all only because of 61 at bats? The Red Sox know better than to base anything on what he did in the AFL. Heiker Meneses got a NRI too. Doesn't mean he's a future MLB shortstop. That said, I think his being ranked in the MLB.com list is in part because of the AFL, but in that it made Callis, who as we know is quite familiar with this system, take a second look at him. I think the key issue is not to read more into this stuff than you should. I agree.He's probably starting this season in Portland and he has quite a few things to prove still at the level. I think the time off from the end of the MILB season and the start of the AFL season allowed him to get his head together a bit and change his approach, now can he carry that over to this season.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 8, 2014 14:48:10 GMT -5
So K% becomes reliable with a sample size of 150 PA according to thisTravis Shaw has 124 PA so far this season with a ridiculous K% of 9.7%
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on May 8, 2014 15:06:47 GMT -5
So K% becomes reliable with a sample size of 150 PA according to thisTravis Shaw has 124 PA so far this season with a ridiculous K% of 9.7% Ping jmei -- see, this is what I'm talking about What does "k% becauses reliable" mean? That he is a 10% K$ guy with future projection of 10% (+/- standard error), despite the seasons of data showing 20%? Just that he likely improved (weight the recent sample)? What? These studies aren't used to mean what they really say.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 8, 2014 15:09:36 GMT -5
So K% becomes reliable with a sample size of 150 PA according to thisTravis Shaw has 124 PA so far this season with a ridiculous K% of 9.7% Ping jmei -- see, this is what I'm talking about What does "k% becauses reliable" mean? That he is a 10% K$ guy with future projection of 10% (+/- standard error), despite the seasons of data showing 20%? Just that he likely improved (weight the recent sample)? What? These studies aren't used to mean what they really say. I'd say it means quite a bit more for hopefully improving prospects than it does for 32 year olds.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 8, 2014 15:43:23 GMT -5
So K% becomes reliable with a sample size of 150 PA according to thisTravis Shaw has 124 PA so far this season with a ridiculous K% of 9.7% Ping jmei -- see, this is what I'm talking about What does "k% becauses reliable" mean? That he is a 10% K$ guy with future projection of 10% (+/- standard error), despite the seasons of data showing 20%? Just that he likely improved (weight the recent sample)? What? These studies aren't used to mean what they really say. I think it means that we can be very cautiously optimistic that Shaw has made sustainable improvements to his strikeout rate. You still regress a good bit to his career averages (i.e., I don't think he's a 10% strikeout guy going forward), but because strikeout rate becomes predictive rather quickly and his YTD K% is so much better than his career marks, we should change our projections of his future strikeout rate (by how much is up to you). This is especially true because we know he made significant changes to his hitting mechanics this offseason, ones specifically targeted at allowing him to stay back on the ball and make more contact with offspeed pitches. His contact rate in Portland is 88.8% this year, but just 73.6% last year and 69.1% in 2012. That's a huge improvement, and should significantly inform our projections of him.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 8, 2014 17:20:34 GMT -5
Agree with JiMed and JMei. What the study means is that we can use the current sample to begin adjusting previous predictions, while we can't yet use his .iso for example to suggest he's become more or less powerful.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on May 8, 2014 18:01:32 GMT -5
So K% becomes reliable with a sample size of 150 PA according to thisTravis Shaw has 124 PA so far this season with a ridiculous K% of 9.7% Ping jmei -- see, this is what I'm talking about What does "k% becauses reliable" mean? That he is a 10% K$ guy with future projection of 10% (+/- standard error), despite the seasons of data showing 20%? Just that he likely improved (weight the recent sample)? What? These studies aren't used to mean what they really say. I think that as you have pointed out in the past that conclusions drawn from any study can only be applied to players who fit the parameters of that study. The study involving the stabilization of K rates was for major league players. It did not conclude anything about minor league players especially older ones repeating their league. Hence we cannot conclude that Shaw's improved K rate is predictive. Or if it is predictive it's predictive of anything other than his future performance in AA. Studies involving the translation of minor league statistics to major league statistics are also clouded by survival bias.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on May 10, 2014 0:18:46 GMT -5
Technically, "stabilization" just means the point at which you only have to regress 50% to the mean. It's kind of a silly concept, and it's mostly useful to see which statistics are more variable in smaller samples than others. Realistically, you can't just entirely throw out old data ever, but a small strikeout rate over 129 PA does tell you something, especially if you combine it with the scouting reports of different mechanics. His production wasn't even that bad last year, driven down by a low BABIP. I'd like to see what he can do in Pawtucket at this point. Eno Sarris does a good job explaining "stabilization" (which has a terrible name) www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/strikeouts-stabilization-and-suprising-swings/
|
|
|
Post by mbyrnes on May 10, 2014 19:07:08 GMT -5
Just got back from a trip to Portland to see the Sea Dogs. Travis Shaw made my 4-year old daughter's day - after an inning that ended on a play at first, he tossed me a ball for her!
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 10, 2014 19:35:03 GMT -5
Technically, "stabilization" just means the point at which you only have to regress 50% to the mean. It's kind of a silly concept, and it's mostly useful to see which statistics are more variable in smaller samples than others. Realistically, you can't just entirely throw out old data ever, but a small strikeout rate over 129 PA does tell you something, especially if you combine it with the scouting reports of different mechanics. His production wasn't even that bad last year, driven down by a low BABIP. I'd like to see what he can do in Pawtucket at this point. Eno Sarris does a good job explaining "stabilization" (which has a terrible name) www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/strikeouts-stabilization-and-suprising-swings/Thanks for the link. I think the third explanation he gives for the term is the best. It's just the number of observations where the player's own statistic becomes a better predictor of his performance than that of the rest of the league. That really does not tell you much since different statistics have wildly varying conditions under which you can use them to project performance. It's a very small piece of the predictive puzzle.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 10, 2014 21:38:22 GMT -5
Just got back from a trip to Portland to see the Sea Dogs. Travis Shaw made my 4-year old daughter's day - after an inning that ended on a play at first, he tossed me a ball for her! Saw the pic in tweets, she sure looks happy
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 20, 2014 11:47:18 GMT -5
So, Travis Shaw has cut his strikeout rate from 22.1% last year in Portland to a microscopic 10.2% in Portland this year. But the most fascinating part to me is how that decline has almost entirely come through a decline in his swinging strikeouts. Check out this comparison from last year's stint in Portland to this year's stint (stats courtesy of Minor League Central and the SoxProspects stat page):
| Strikeouts swinging
| Strikeouts looking
| Contact rate
| 2013 | 15.1% | 6% | 73.6%
| 2014 | 4% | 5.6% | 87.9%
|
That decline in swinging strikeouts in absolutely insane. He's striking out swinging less than a third as often as he did last year. It's the lowest swinging strikeout rate in the Eastern League (Mookie Betts makes an appearance in fifth place) and would come close to leading the AL (though I'm not suggesting that he has a chance of maintaining it in the majors). Perhaps more importantly, Shaw has by far the highest proportion of looking strikeouts to swinging strikeouts both in the EL and in the Red Sox minor league system. Might Shaw be able to strike out even less if he protects the plate a little better with two strikes? If he did so, he would certainly strike out looking less, but if he swings more with two strikes, he'd probably lower his contact rate and rack up more swinging strikeouts, so it's hard to say what the net effect would be. I couldn't find much useful research about whether distinguishing between swinging strikeouts and looking strikeouts helped predict future strikeout rates, but I know it's something I've heard others (Eric?) suggest in the past, so I figured it was worth mentioning. Regardless, that 14.3% improvement in his contact rate (a stat that becomes predictive pretty quickly) suggests that this decline in strikeout rate looks at least somewhat sustainable. He's just not swinging-and-missing much at all, and when you combine that with a willingness to take walks and a little pop, Shaw might be a very interesting dark horse prospect indeed.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 20, 2014 11:52:11 GMT -5
Two things stick out for me in a not so great way. The drastic increase in GB% and the unsustainable HR/FB%.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 20, 2014 12:01:42 GMT -5
Two things stick out for me in a not so great way. The drastic increase in GB% and the unsustainable HR/FB%. Good point. The drastic uptick in ground balls (from 36.3% last year to a whopping 57.8% this year) is just as amazing a change, and a very pessimistic one at that. It's pretty much impossible to sustainably hit for much power if more than half your balls in play are ground balls. If his new swing mechanics traded whiffs for ground balls, is that a net positive?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 20, 2014 12:03:04 GMT -5
Two things stick out for me in a not so great way. The drastic increase in GB% and the unsustainable HR/FB%. Good point. The drastic uptick in ground balls (from 36.3% last year to a whopping 57.8% this year) is just as amazing a change, and a very pessimistic one at that. It's pretty much impossible to sustainably hit for much power if more than half your balls in play are ground balls. If his new swing mechanics traded whiffs for ground balls, is that a net positive? I guess James Loney had a career in the majors. Time will tell, I guess. That's the kind of contact rate I want to see Cecchini having before I'm more sure of him. Though his FB% is a lot higher than I thought it was...
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on May 20, 2014 12:08:59 GMT -5
The two things I wanted to see from Shaw last year were a better HR/power rate and BB>K (both of which he achieved only in spurts). So he's done both so far this year - while repeating at AA at 24. Unfortunately that still means he has a ways to go, since as a 1B the bar is quite high offensively.
|
|
|