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.
2023 National Rankings (in season)
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 16, 2023 10:01:16 GMT -5
Honestly, to me the best outcome would be if BA, MLB, ESPN, Law etc. used the FG method (and if FG/Craig updated the logic with a few more years of data). It's based on an objective study of how different prospect FVs translate into MLB value, so you pair that with other groups of evaluators ranking prospects with their own perspective and I think you'd get a more accurate picture overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 16, 2023 10:01:45 GMT -5
I very much disagree with the thought that pitchers are more valuable. If you told me the Sox can have either Skenes or Jackson Holliday for free right now I'm picking Jackson Holliday every time. I'd say the same thing when it comes to Crews than Skenes as well. Ideally a farm would have a good mix of pitching and hitting but I'd certainly lean going with hitting prospects in the draft which is what the Sox have done in recent history and I'm 100 percent fine with it. I disagree. Young pitching is just way more valuable. It’s almost like having a a really good QB on their rookie contract. Everyone wants young pitching and no one really wants to pay pitchers in FA they are way more risky. If you have a farm that can continually supplement your rotation with good pitching, that is the competitive advantage these days. Obviously you want both in your system but more pitchers the better. Having basically no legit pitching prospects should punish us Pitchers have inherent injury risk not present in hitters. That's why Fangraphs' model literally values hitters more highly. I get what you're saying with regard to scarcity, but the problem is that there's no way to tell whether a pitcher is one who you're going to lose 2 of the 6 years of control because of a TJS for. |
|
|
|
Post by remmartin34 on Aug 16, 2023 10:03:20 GMT -5
I do think the knocks about pitching are valid. We have some guys with potential to set the world on fire if they make it to the majors (Perales/Gonzalez are my favorites) down the road. But we do lack medium-to-high level REPLENISHABLE starting pitching in the upper levels.
The Dodgers, for example, can have more than half of their pitching staff go down early in a year. But they almost always seem to have Bobby Millers/Dustin Mays/Emmet Sheehans/Michael Groves/Gavin Stones. I realize the guys other than Miller haven't been successful in terms of their numbers this year, and I included Dustin May only because he's an iteration of this trend dating back years now for the Dodgers.. but they're always there and ready and throwing 95+, and have kept the Dodgers in plenty of games. And they will more likely than not be solid as they mature. And they were drafted in rounds 2-4....
I think it's fair to question if it is time for a little more focus in the earlier rounds (2-6) on pitchers, when it comes to the draft. Bloom has nailed it so far in every draft on the hitting prospects, but he made his career on scouting/drafting/developing pitchers. I have confidence he'd be able to work some magic if he decided to gear the strategy back in that direction at least somewhat.
|
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 16, 2023 10:04:26 GMT -5
I very much disagree with the thought that pitchers are more valuable. If you told me the Sox can have either Skenes or Jackson Holliday for free right now I'm picking Jackson Holliday every time. I'd say the same thing when it comes to Crews than Skenes as well. Ideally a farm would have a good mix of pitching and hitting but I'd certainly lean going with hitting prospects in the draft which is what the Sox have done in recent history and I'm 100 percent fine with it. I disagree. Young pitching is just way more valuable. It’s almost like having a a really good QB on their rookie contract. Everyone wants young pitching and no one really wants to pay pitchers in FA they are way more risky. If you have a farm that can continually supplement your rotation with good pitching, that is the competitive advantage these days. Obviously you want both in your system but more pitchers the better. Having basically no legit pitching prospects should punish us Don't really want to get in a back and forth but I'd rather have an elite prospect who is going to play 150+ games a year vs one who is going to pitch in 30ish games a year. Look at the 2018 Boston Red Sox, arguably the best roster in the history of the franchise. They had one home grown starter in E-Rod who is honestly debatable as a home grown player since he was traded for. Meanwhile the team had home grown stud hitters in X, Rafi, Beni, Mookie and then home grown guys in JBJ and Vazquez who were good role players. |
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Aug 16, 2023 10:07:05 GMT -5
I disagree. Young pitching is just way more valuable. It’s almost like having a a really good QB on their rookie contract. Everyone wants young pitching and no one really wants to pay pitchers in FA they are way more risky. If you have a farm that can continually supplement your rotation with good pitching, that is the competitive advantage these days. Obviously you want both in your system but more pitchers the better. Having basically no legit pitching prospects should punish us Pitchers have inherent injury risk not present in hitters. That's why Fangraphs' model literally values hitters more highly. I get what you're saying with regard to scarcity, but the problem is that there's no way to tell whether a pitcher is one who you're going to lose 2 of the 6 years of control because of a TJS for. Oh yeah I get that. I’m talking more in the grand scheme of mlb roster construction. Your injury point is exactly why the prospects / young cost controlled pitcher should be more valuable Because that risk is with them for life, but just costs a team wayy more if they sign an expensive contract and then get injured I understand FG to an extent as the hitters are essentially higher floors / safer bets. But from the perspective of the MLB roster construction, young cost controlled pitchers are becoming a competive advantage, so in that sense I’d value them higher |
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Aug 16, 2023 10:11:49 GMT -5
I disagree. Young pitching is just way more valuable. It’s almost like having a a really good QB on their rookie contract. Everyone wants young pitching and no one really wants to pay pitchers in FA they are way more risky. If you have a farm that can continually supplement your rotation with good pitching, that is the competitive advantage these days. Obviously you want both in your system but more pitchers the better. Having basically no legit pitching prospects should punish us Don't really want to get in a back and forth but I'd rather have an elite prospect who is going to play 150+ games a year vs one who is going to pitch in 30ish games a year. Look at the 2018 Boston Red Sox, arguably the best roster in the history of the franchise. They had one home grown starter in E-Rod who is honestly debatable as a home grown player since he was traded for. Meanwhile the team had home grown stud hitters in X, Rafi, Beni, Mookie and then home grown guys in JBJ and Vazquez who were good role players. Don’t worry not getting combative, but that’s my other side here. We had such an expensive rotation that we basically had to dismantle that team. And then a chuck of that rotation got injured in 2019. Why I’m saying if anyone can crack the code (dodgers kind of have) and continually have young cost controlled pitchers and keep your spending on the rotation to a limit… it’s a huge competitive advantage in my eyes |
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Aug 16, 2023 10:16:33 GMT -5
Uh oh. This is closer to Law's #20. No wonder Kennedy was all about the Fangraphs rankings. Did you expect him to use a Pipeline list that didn't even exist at the time of his interview? |
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 16, 2023 10:19:03 GMT -5
Don't really want to get in a back and forth but I'd rather have an elite prospect who is going to play 150+ games a year vs one who is going to pitch in 30ish games a year. Look at the 2018 Boston Red Sox, arguably the best roster in the history of the franchise. They had one home grown starter in E-Rod who is honestly debatable as a home grown player since he was traded for. Meanwhile the team had home grown stud hitters in X, Rafi, Beni, Mookie and then home grown guys in JBJ and Vazquez who were good role players. Don’t worry not getting combative, but that’s my other side here. We had such an expensive rotation that we basically had to dismantle that team. And then a chuck of that rotation got injured in 2019. Why I’m saying if anyone can crack the code (dodgers kind of have) and continually have young cost controlled pitchers and keep your spending on the rotation to a limit… it’s a huge competitive advantage in my eyes That's certainly fair, I think we're mostly on the same page that ideally an organization has a good mix of both pitchers and hitters in the pipeline and that currently does not appear to be the case for the Sox as it's certainly more hitter heavy. Hopefully Perales and Gonzalez can continue to develop and Drohan's solid start last night was an indication of him starting to figure it out at AAA. Not that I think Drohan is going to be an ace type of guy but as you state there's a lot of value even in home grown 4/5 starters. If you have a young cost controlled 4/5 starter it saves you from having to go out and give a guy like Kluber a 10M contract. |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 16, 2023 10:23:12 GMT -5
Uh oh. This is closer to Law's #20. No wonder Kennedy was all about the Fangraphs rankings. Did you expect him to use a Pipeline list that didn't even exist at the time of his interview? I should've used the sarcasm font. People looking to make a point often elevate data that supports their point and ignores data that...doesn't. So, Sam Kennedy did the high school debate team thing (and ignored The Athletic/Law and even MLB's previous ranking). |
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Aug 16, 2023 10:34:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 16, 2023 11:00:09 GMT -5
My general thought is that a team should always (to a point) prioritize talent over position when considering who to draft, sign or trade for (regarding low level prospects). But below are a few situations where it can become slightly disadvantageous:
- players at a level are forced to the bench or another position as a result of positional crowding
- players are promoted, demoted or held back to avoid positional crowding
- the MLB team is restricted upon who they can call up (when a need arises) due to a lack of talent at a given AA/AAA position(s)
- MLB team is forced to choose between protecting a lesser prospect at a position of need (for depth) or a prospect further down the depth chart at a position of abundance
- it 'may' be more difficult for a team to sign multiple free agents at the same/ similar position than spread throughout positions (e.g. 2 starting pitchers or 2 OFers as opposed to 1 SP and 1 OF) due to lack of high minors depth at a given position
5 issues I could come up with, and we've already seen multiple occasions of crowding (for short periods of time) in the infield this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Aug 16, 2023 11:30:53 GMT -5
Its kind of what most of us thought. The Sox probably have the deepest farm with players that can eventually make a 40 man roster. The Sox also have almost no pitching in the minors and lack prospects that are looked at as future stars. Basically outside of Anthony Rafaela and Mayer you're looking at players who might be decent and might stick on the 40 for a season or two.
I do think that if Bleis was healthy the ranking would be a lot higher but they really need to take a gamble or two on some arms.
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 16, 2023 12:08:35 GMT -5
So I think this is the difference in approach I've mentioned and why I really don't think the FG ranking can be viewed the same way as other sites' rankings. Fangraphs looks only at the FV number, hitter vs. pitcher, and nothing else. Not the player's level of risk (beyond inherent pitching risk). Not the player's level. Not the player's position. Not the system's depth at different positions and levels. Now, some of this should be accounted for in a FV number but I just see major issues with a system that assigns every 45 the same value (a AAA 45 with injury history is not worth the same value as a complex-level 45 who's raw as hell) as limited in some sense. It also doesn't take a team's success in development into account, although you could argue whether it should if your goal is to assess present-day value. It's just very different. It's an interesting discussion point to include in the conversation, 100%. But there's so much it doesn't take into consideration. Let me add positives. It does account for the much greater value of better prospects well (a 60 is worth 2 50s? A 50 worth 4 45+s? Sounds right.). It attempts to remove subjectivity, which is admirable (but it can't do that entirely when the basis for the computation is a subjective FV score). I disagree with your conclusion here. Things like the player's level of risk, level and position ought to be baked into the FV ranking. Ditto for how good an organization is in terms of player development (that ought to show up in the number of good prospects they churn out). I'm not sure why the system's depth at different positions and levels matters when you are ranking a farm system (why would you increase or decrease the value of a prospect if the organization has too many or too few other prospects at that position/level?). If your point is that assigning all 45 FV prospects with the same dollar value isn't the best way to do it, I agree, but that's a precision issue (maybe we should have 42.5s and 47.5s (I will note that we already have that to some extent with 45+s), or maybe the dollar values should have a slight adjustment based on how close they are to the majors) rather than an issue with the methodology writ large. More importantly, it is a much more systematic process for ranking than having one guy squint and make judgment calls, which is largely how the other MLB farm system rankings are done. It's far from perfect, but there's at least a methodology that tries to remove as much subjectivity/bias from the exercise as possible. Yeah, I think to the extent that these lists value this, they're basically making an aesthetic judgment: the system is "balanced" and "healthy" if the prospects are spread out at different positions. But I don't see why this should matter more than a tiny bit. If a system produces (arbitrary numbers here) 5 good hitters and 5 good pitchers, the team will need to supplement that with 5 free agent hitters and 5 free agent pitchers; if the system produces 10 good hitters and 0 good pitchers, then they need to add 10 free agent pitchers and 0 free agent hitters. What difference does it make? And considering TINSTAAPP, if anything it seems like it would make more sense to invest more heavily in position player prospects. |
|
|
|
Post by bcsox on Aug 16, 2023 12:21:00 GMT -5
Alexcorahomevideo:
I think you need to add Teel to your list. Almost all publications have him as a solid long term MLB contributor.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 16, 2023 12:21:36 GMT -5
Its kind of what most of us thought. The Sox probably have the deepest farm with players that can eventually make a 40 man roster. The Sox also have almost no pitching in the minors and lack prospects that are looked at as future stars. Basically outside of Anthony Rafaela and Mayer you're looking at players who might be decent and might stick on the 40 for a season or two. I do think that if Bleis was healthy the ranking would be a lot higher but they really need to take a gamble or two on some arms. I don't know that this is saying much, if you take any system and remove their top 4 prospects, not a lot have many future stars (at least as projected at the moment). Also, if you only look at a system's top 4 prospects, not a lot have a better four than Boston. |
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Aug 16, 2023 12:28:49 GMT -5
I disagree with your conclusion here. Things like the player's level of risk, level and position ought to be baked into the FV ranking. Ditto for how good an organization is in terms of player development (that ought to show up in the number of good prospects they churn out). I'm not sure why the system's depth at different positions and levels matters when you are ranking a farm system (why would you increase or decrease the value of a prospect if the organization has too many or too few other prospects at that position/level?). If your point is that assigning all 45 FV prospects with the same dollar value isn't the best way to do it, I agree, but that's a precision issue (maybe we should have 42.5s and 47.5s (I will note that we already have that to some extent with 45+s), or maybe the dollar values should have a slight adjustment based on how close they are to the majors) rather than an issue with the methodology writ large. More importantly, it is a much more systematic process for ranking than having one guy squint and make judgment calls, which is largely how the other MLB farm system rankings are done. It's far from perfect, but there's at least a methodology that tries to remove as much subjectivity/bias from the exercise as possible. Yeah, I think to the extent that these lists value this, they're basically making an aesthetic judgment: the system is "balanced" and "healthy" if the prospects are spread out at different positions. But I don't see why this should matter more than a tiny bit. If a system produces (arbitrary numbers here) 5 good hitters and 5 good pitchers, the team will need to supplement that with 5 free agent hitters and 5 free agent pitchers; if the system produces 10 good hitters and 0 good pitchers, then they need to add 10 free agent pitchers and 0 free agent hitters. What difference does it make? And considering TINSTAAPP, if anything it seems like it would make more sense to invest more heavily in position player prospects. Because FA pitchers are inherently way more risky and costly given injury risks Our 2018 / 2019 team basically shows the cost having way too much money tied up in the rotation and when that money gets injured Position players are much less likely to have season long injuries. Thus less risky as FA signings |
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 16, 2023 12:55:09 GMT -5
Yeah, I think to the extent that these lists value this, they're basically making an aesthetic judgment: the system is "balanced" and "healthy" if the prospects are spread out at different positions. But I don't see why this should matter more than a tiny bit. If a system produces (arbitrary numbers here) 5 good hitters and 5 good pitchers, the team will need to supplement that with 5 free agent hitters and 5 free agent pitchers; if the system produces 10 good hitters and 0 good pitchers, then they need to add 10 free agent pitchers and 0 free agent hitters. What difference does it make? And considering TINSTAAPP, if anything it seems like it would make more sense to invest more heavily in position player prospects. Because FA pitchers are inherently way more risky and costly given injury risks Our 2018 / 2019 team basically shows the cost having way too much money tied up in the rotation and when that money gets injured Position players are much less likely to have season long injuries. Thus less risky as FA signings Everything you're saying also applies to pitchers as prospects though, except the performance is also generally less predictable than for hitters. |
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Aug 16, 2023 13:09:12 GMT -5
Looking at this Pipeline list, I would just like to say that there is no way that Kyle Teel, this year's chalk #14 pick, should be ranked the same as Chase DeLauter, last year's chalk #16 pick who has barely played because of chronic foot injuries, and Daniel Espino, a pitcher with elite stuff that is going to go two whole years without pitching because of shoulder injuries.
Oh god, and he's behind Spencer Jones, a 2022 reach at #25 who is having a bad 2023 season.
|
|
|
|
Post by remmartin34 on Aug 16, 2023 13:29:50 GMT -5
Because FA pitchers are inherently way more risky and costly given injury risks Our 2018 / 2019 team basically shows the cost having way too much money tied up in the rotation and when that money gets injured Position players are much less likely to have season long injuries. Thus less risky as FA signings Everything you're saying also applies to pitchers as prospects though, except the performance is also generally less predictable than for hitters. I think there are merits to both sides of the argument. That being said, I don't believe there has been a larger discrepancy (in the aggregate) between top-tier, major contract ($100+ million) free agent pitchers $/WAR and that of top-tier free agent position players $/WAR, in history than there is currently. Pitcher injury rates being at all time highs is a major contributor (TJS), innings limits to avoid TJS and fatigue, etc. all play a major role in that. I know it's the most extreme of examples, but look at Brayan Bello vs. Chris Sale. Since that extension for Sale, I think his number is around $45 million/WAR over a 4 year span. Bello in this year alone is around $250K/WAR. That's the reason why the "cost" of proven top-tier pitching talent under control (Dylan Cease, Logan Gilbert, George Kirby) is astronomical. I originally believed after the deadline that this offseason the price would come down a bit (i.e. White Sox not requiring Brayan Bello as part of a PACKAGE for Dylan Cease). Even if it does, it's just not going to make sense. Particularly because of the fact that Dylan Cease/Logan Gilbert/etc. could all need TJS, just like any "power" pitchers around these days. .... The reality is that I'm coming to realize a rough truth... You can't be considered a top-10 farm system in baseball, when your best pitching pitching prospect in the upper levels (Shane Drohan, who I still have really high hopes for) is not even close to being a top-100 prospect or impact contributor currently, and your next best options (like Perales and Gonzalez, who I love) are at least a 2-3 years away. After Murphy (who is a stud bullpen weapon) and Walter, the next best options to fill spots in emergencies were a guy we picked up off the street (Kyle Barraclough) and a rehabilitation project (Dinelson Lamet). That's evidence that you have a ways to go before being an elite farm system. |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 16, 2023 13:32:06 GMT -5
Alexcorahomevideo: I think you need to add Teel to your list. Almost all publications have him as a solid long term MLB contributor. When I worked at universities the baseball coaches would always say catcher is "the fast track to the pros." Basically, if a kid is a good to great defensive catcher and can hit major college pitching, he's going to get drafted and he has a better chance than most prospects to reach an MLB level. A while back there was one kid who was at a Southern Conference school who was a very good starting catcher who was hitting in the high .300s as a freshman and sophomore, and on a full scholarship. I was part of our academic mentoring group to him and he told me he was applying for academic scholarships because he was "bored with baseball." This kid came from a very poor family in central NC. I told him his grades were good enough for academic scholarships that could cover his costs, but also to consider that one more year at his current performance level in baseball and he'd definitely get drafted and if it was first three rounds he'd likely make enough on the bonus to provide for his family for years. He knew this but ended up leaving baseball anyway. It made me sad, though I never told him that. He's an officer in the Marines now with an MBA and will go far. Still, would've loved to see him in the pros. |
|
|
|
Post by capesox on Aug 16, 2023 13:34:17 GMT -5
Put me down for wanting hitters over pitchers if we have to choose one. The reason being that hitters are more likely to work out then pitchers. Especially when you have a weaker system like Bloom took over, it's smart to concentrate on a demographic that has a higher probability of succeeding. A team like Detroit that has concentrated on pitching to rebuild with Matt Manning, Casey Mize, Tarik Skubal among others have been a collective disappointment, injuries being a big reason why.
Also, it seems like we get dinged for Peralas and W. Gonzalez being our top pitching prospects. Both are relative unknowns coming out of the international signing system and don't have the pedigree that a high bonus baby 1st or 2nd round pick has. I think if they were both 2 million bonus 2nd rounders, they would get respected more from prospect analysts.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 16, 2023 13:54:08 GMT -5
Pitchers, as a class of player and in the aggregate, are just less valuable across baseball now. Starting pitchers are throwing fewer innings and every team (Boston included) is tilting towards throwing a bunch of relievers (of both the one-inning and bulk varieties) at the wall rather than having a steady five-man rotation.
In that world, are the remaining traditional starting pitcher prospects more or less valuable? I tend to think less. If I can cobble together decent bulk innings out of the Crawfords and Pivettas of the world, I'd rather just do that than draft a bunch of high-risk high-reward domestic pitching prospects.
|
|
|
|
Post by remmartin34 on Aug 16, 2023 13:54:22 GMT -5
Put me down for wanting hitters over pitchers if we have to choose one. The reason being that hitters are more likely to work out then pitchers. Especially when you have a weaker system like Bloom took over, it's smart to concentrate on a demographic that has a higher probability of succeeding. A team like Detroit that has concentrated on pitching to rebuild with Matt Manning, Casey Mize, Tarik Skubal among others have been a collective disappointment, injuries being a big reason why. Also, it seems like we get dinged for Peralas and W. Gonzalez being our top pitching prospects. Both are relative unknowns coming out of the international signing system and don't have the pedigree that a high bonus baby 1st or 2nd round pick has. I think if they were both 2 million bonus 2nd rounders, they would get respected more from prospect analysts. Right. But you can't bring up Perales or Gonzalez when pitchers go down with injuries (which they do now more than ever). I've mentioned it in a previous post, but teams like the Dodgers almost always have 4-5 guys that are ready to come up and deal when needed, and those guys weren't drafted in the 1st round like Matt Manning, or Tarik Skubal (who was a 9th round pick, by the way..) Bloom went with the right strategy upon his arrival for the reasons you stated, and it is paying dividends, in terms of how many of those positional draft picks are meeting/exceeding expectations. I don't believe that using a 1st Round pick on a pitcher who is going to get a $5-8 million signing bonus is necessary or wise. But as I said previously, I feel it is time for a little more focus in the earlier rounds (2-6) on pitchers, when it comes to the draft. Bloom made his name with the Rays scouting/drafting/developing pitchers. I think shifting the strategy back in that direction will be a key next phase in making the Sox farm system one of the truly best in MLB. |
|
|
|
Post by majikthise on Aug 16, 2023 13:58:51 GMT -5
I wonder if you took the MLB/FG/Law lists, if the Sox are the farthest from a consensus The main source of disagreement seems to be the fact that they're so hitter-heavy. MLB doesn't spell it out, but you can infer from the write-up that they're dinging the Red Sox for having few top pitching prospects (which Law also did), whereas the FG list actually rewards them for that by valuing hitters more than pitchers. It is a fair criticism, in my view. I agree that if all things are equal you should lean towards the hitter, but I believe they have gone too far to avoid risk and taking less talented players. Many other teams have taken chances on pitchers, and it has worked out just fine. I also look at recent draft history and not many of the "safe" pitchers drafted in later rounds have panned out, either. I know I'm not privy to all the information the team has so I can only go by what I see, and track record is pretty bad on the pitching side. |
|
|
|
Post by jaffinator on Aug 16, 2023 14:05:48 GMT -5
Looking at this Pipeline list, I would just like to say that there is no way that Kyle Teel, this year's chalk #14 pick, should be ranked the same as Chase DeLauter, last year's chalk #16 pick who has barely played because of chronic foot injuries, and Daniel Espino, a pitcher with elite stuff that is going to go two whole years without pitching because of shoulder injuries.
Oh god, and he's behind Spencer Jones, a 2022 reach at #25 who is having a bad 2023 season.
Spencer Jones over Teel is not a call I thought I'd be seeing. I thought Jones was an interesting development guy in the back half of the first round in 2022, but I don't think you can justify putting that profile over a prospect with a high floor because of defense at a premium position like Teel until the development guy starts to you know, actually develop. I don't have exit velo or chase numbers on Jones, but his fangraphs page doesn't exactly quite paint the picture of a guy who's getting unlucky at the plate either. |
|
|
