Ian Browne has a Q&A with Devin Pearson - not too much to gleam from it, but a couple interesting answers:
MLB.com: It has been well-chronicled how Craig changed the organizational pitching infrastructure from the top down, and he added director of pitching Justin Willard, who surely has been carving up hours of tape on potential draftees. How valuable has the pitching knowledge of Craig and Justin aided you in your prep?
DP: It’s been great. I think they’ve provided insights into different things about pitchers that we maybe over-valued or under-valued in the past. It’s great to have a clear development understanding of what we’re valuing from a pitching perspective. That just helps us identify the right players and try to understand how we can develop them if we select them.
That's interesting. They haven't devoted much capital to pitching in the draft, but they've also pretty much whiffed on everyone since Chaim took over. You could count Drohan as a semi-hit since he looked like a big leaguer for a minute before arm trouble knocked him down, but that's about it. The book has not been written on everyone they've taken, but nobody else has broken out.
I do expect this regime to have an edge on the league in terms of longshot pitching bets, whether it's from the draft or waiver wire.
Post by incandenza on Jul 11, 2024 15:56:51 GMT -5
Guys, my point was that the trend of pitching development success extends back a couple years now; there was not a notable inflection point this past offseason. If you want me to grant that Houck is an exception and his success is totally a result of changes since 2023 then I'll concede the point (though I still say he was a good pitcher before this season).
And this would be a good thing, right? I'm glad the organization is establishing a pattern of success that has some staying power.
Guys, my point was that the trend of pitching development success extends back a couple years now; there was not a notable inflection point this past offseason. If you want me to grant that Houck is an exception and his success is totally a result of changes since 2023 then I'll concede the point (though I still say he was a good pitcher before this season).
And this would be a good thing, right? I'm glad the organization is establishing a pattern of success that has some staying power.
You mean to tell me breslow didn't wave a magic wand and fix all of the pitching woes??
Ah yes, you and EV are the two people who believe rate stats and/or cherry picked endpoints matter more that durability and availability. This is also true of Crawford as well.
You have noticed that the Sox this year are receiving a lot fewer horrible innings than in previous. What would it take to get you to realize that fringy starters going 3-4 IP/start developing into starters that can go 6-7 IP/start might actually be contributing to there being fewer horrible pitchers throwing horrible innings?
Feels like that's an important missing link to your recent observations about the state of the Sox pitching staff.
Getting back to Houck your theory - no development - and EV's theory - just stamina improvement, don't say much of anything about his massive platoon split improvement.
This year:
vR - 628 OPS vL - 513 OPS
2023: vR - 622 vL - 858
2022: vR - 496 vL - 776
Houck is basically the same guy as always vR and massively better vL. Is one sided platoon improvement more likely to have come from improving his stamina or developing his split finger so that it's a weapon vLHH?
Throughout his entire professional life Houck has not been able to consistently get LHH out. This lead to expectations he'd end up a reliever and an inability to go deep into starts. This year he's developed a way to get LHH out and now he's an actual starting pitcher.
Whatever "development" he did to become a 3/4 IP starter with ~1 WAR seasons pales in comparison to his more recent development into a starter capable of pitching real starter innings have producing a ~3 WAR half season.
His trajectory has been:
2020-21 very good starter (2.7 WAR in 86 IP);
2022 solid MIRP
2023 okay starter (1.2 WAR in 106 IP in a season disrupted by injury)
2024 ace
A "starter with 1 WAR seasons" doesn't really describe what he was at any point. And I go back to the big picture point which I stated above: yes, he's taken a step forward this season but he was already a development success prior to this year.
re: the bolded - Not even the year he had 1 WAR as a starter? Huh. I guess I am too literal about these things.
Not at all interested in engaging on the platoon split issue?
As for your summary of his career... He made 3 starts in 2020. Meaningless. He pitched 58 innings out of the rotation in 2021 averaging fewer than 4.5 IP/start. To say those two seasons constitute a very good starter is to just reinforce my point that when it suits you don't care about durability and availability at all. Gosh, if those Sox could only stockpile very good starters who pitch 75 innings over 2 years, then all their pitching problems would be solved? The idea that any time a pitcher throws 75 good innings over 2 seasons makes him a "very good starter" is an idiosyncratic and ridiculously low bar.
And it's funny, I don't recall you offering any criticism at all for Bloom/Cora making a supposed "very good starter" into a middle reliever. If you really believed that Houck was a "very good starter" then one of Bloom/Cora's major failings was turning that "very good starter" into a middle reliever. You should have been railing against Bloom for throwing away a very good starter on a fungible middle relief role.
Did I miss those complaints? I don't think I did.
Digging in your heals on the idea Houck has not developed in the last 9 months is odd to me.
Guys, my point was that the trend of pitching development success extends back a couple years now; there was not a notable inflection point this past offseason. If you want me to grant that Houck is an exception and his success is totally a result of changes since 2023 then I'll concede the point (though I still say he was a good pitcher before this season).
And this would be a good thing, right? I'm glad the organization is establishing a pattern of success that has some staying power.
You mean to tell me breslow didn't wave a magic wand and fix all of the pitching woes??
Ha. And of course we shouldn't expect an instant turnaround, even if Breslow does do a good job of building on past successes.
But they were already having some successes, was my original point. People got all tetchy about the Houck thing, but he's not even the interesting case - a big bonus first-rounder doesn't necessarily need a development machine to succeed. But what about the small-bonus IFA signee Bello and the late rounder Crawford? Those are more promising indicators of success I think.
That's interesting. They haven't devoted much capital to pitching in the draft, but they've also pretty much whiffed on everyone since Chaim took over. You could count Drohan as a semi-hit since he looked like a big leaguer for a minute before arm trouble knocked him down, but that's about it. The book has not been written on everyone they've taken, but nobody else has broken out.
I do expect this regime to have an edge on the league in terms of longshot pitching bets, whether it's from the draft or waiver wire.
A little early to say this given the limited capital they invested, no? Like as far as later round picks go ERC and Dobbins seem to be doing okay, they were picked in 2021. Early, Wehunt and some of the 2022 guys don't have their books written yet. And given they took none of these guys before the third round I feel like if one or two of them is a big league pitcher that's a pretty good return-on-pick.
add: plus a couple IFA guys in Monegro and Paez looking alright
Last Edit: Jul 11, 2024 20:44:43 GMT -5 by scottysmalls
Really hoping the Red Sox pull an angels and draft 20 pitchers. They have a top 3 positional farm group in MLB if they could get to top half pitching farm group they’d have a wagon
Really hoping the Red Sox pull an angels and draft 20 pitchers. They have a top 3 positional farm group in MLB if they could get to top half pitching farm group they’d have a wagon
Counterpoint: What if the available talent doesn't merit it?
You can put your boots in the oven, but that don't make 'em biscuits.
Really hoping the Red Sox pull an angels and draft 20 pitchers. They have a top 3 positional farm group in MLB if they could get to top half pitching farm group they’d have a wagon
Counterpoint: What if the available talent doesn't merit it?
I’d just start throwing darts. Best way to hit is to throw them all if it doesn’t work you get 20 new darts next year and I’m taking the chance if you throw 20 at least 2 hit
You mean to tell me breslow didn't wave a magic wand and fix all of the pitching woes??
Ha. And of course we shouldn't expect an instant turnaround, even if Breslow does do a good job of building on past successes.
But they were already having some successes, was my original point. People got all tetchy about the Houck thing, but he's not even the interesting case - a big bonus first-rounder doesn't necessarily need a development machine to succeed. But what about the small-bonus IFA signee Bello and the late rounder Crawford? Those are more promising indicators of success I think.
You attributed a lot of credit for development to 2017-2023 now to turn around and say he didn't need it.
Really hoping the Red Sox pull an angels and draft 20 pitchers. They have a top 3 positional farm group in MLB if they could get to top half pitching farm group they’d have a wagon
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 11, 2024 19:52:41 GMT -5
I think replicating the Angels idea is dumb for a number of reasons. The first an obvious one is that you’re more likely than not choosing a player that is not the best player on your board within your bonus constraints for the sake of of their position, which just does not make sense with how the MLB Draft is set up. The second is that I’m not even sure the system is all that weak pitching-wise anymore? There are multiple young, home-grown starters at the major league level and they have a handful of guys who are interesting as starter prospects and a bunch of guys you can see being bullpen pieces. I think the system could use another dynamic high level picking prospect in the Perales mold, so I’d hope they allocate one of their three highest bonuses to a pitcher if it makes sense to do so, but I don’t think this is a system completely devoid of arms.
Outside of shooting for at least one high level arm, I’ll repeat and say the only position I want to target is a college first baseman, as I think they need a guy in the lower levels of the system that is a natural at that position. Ideally it’d be a guy with actual prospect equity, but even a Joe Davis type fills an organizational need and would be fun.
I mean MarkM has been consistent saying sox should go heavy pitching so they're definitely committed to that thought. It's a ridiculously bad idea though but hey if that's what they think the Sox should do then that's their opinion.
Post by vermontsox1 on Jul 11, 2024 19:59:54 GMT -5
Latest Callis mock:
12. Red Sox: Christian Moore, 2B, Tennessee (No. 13) If an unexpected surprise doesn't slip to 12, the Red Sox figure to grab someone from a pool of a dozen or so guys in the second tier of college bats. Leading contenders include Moore, Smith, Benge and Waldschmidt. This is probably the ceiling for Wake Forest third baseman/outfielder Seaver King, Louisiana State third baseman Tommy White and North Carolina outfielder Vance Honeycutt. If Boston wants pitching, East Carolina right-hander Trey Yesavage would be the obvious choice.
I think replicating the Angels idea is dumb for a number of reasons. The first an obvious one is that you’re more likely than not choosing a player that is not the best player on your board within your bonus constraints for the sake of of their position, which just does not make sense with how the MLB Draft is set up. The second is that I’m not even sure the system is all that weak pitching-wise anymore? There are multiple young, home-grown starters at the major league level and they have a handful of guys who are interesting as starter prospects and a bunch of guys you can see being bullpen pieces. I think the system could use another dynamic high level picking prospect in the Perales mold, so I’d hope they allocate one of their three highest bonuses to a pitcher if it makes sense to do so, but I don’t think this is a system completely devoid of arms.
Outside of shooting for at least one high level arm, I’ll repeat and say the only position I want to target is a college first baseman, as I think they need a guy in the lower levels of the system that is a natural at that position. Ideally it’d be a guy with actual prospect equity, but even a Joe Davis type fills an organizational need and would be fun.
The final reason it’s dumb is because it’s copying the angels
Post by crossedsabres8 on Jul 11, 2024 20:53:46 GMT -5
Houck seems like a success story of 3 different regimes, Dombrowski's for drafting him, Bloom's for developing him, and Breslow's for putting him over the top.
Now how much credit do they all deserve? That can be debated for sure, but surely they all deserve at least some credit. Late first 1 draft picks do not develop into aces very often and there was a lot of work done by all 3 regimes. And a lot of work done but Houck himself! He deserves the most credit out of anyone.
Fun trivia that's actually kind of on topic: who has the most bWAR of anyone from the first round of the 2017 draft?
Last Edit: Jul 11, 2024 20:58:56 GMT -5 by crossedsabres8
I think replicating the Angels idea is dumb for a number of reasons. The first an obvious one is that you’re more likely than not choosing a player that is not the besHe shoud go t player on your board within your bonus constraints for the sake of of their position, which just does not make sense with how the MLB Draft is set up. The second is that I’m not even sure the system is all that weak pitching-wise anymore? There are multiple young, home-grown starters at the major league level and they have a handful of guys who are interesting as starter prospects and a bunch of guys you can see being bullpen pieces. I think the system could use another dynamic high level picking prospect in the Perales mold, so I’d hope they allocate one of their three highest bonuses to a pitcher if it makes sense to do so, but I don’t think this is a system completely devoid of arms.
Outside of shooting for at least one high level arm, I’ll repeat and say the only position I want to target is a college first baseman, as I think they need a guy in the lower levels of the system that is a natural at that position. Ideally it’d be a guy with actual prospect equity, but even a Joe Davis type fills an organizational need and would be fun.
Join me in hoping that MLB draft prospect #199, 1st baseman Jeremy Jenkins from U Maine, is a Sox pick. Two straight 20 homer seasons, hits missiles and plays a very good 1B. He should be a later round day 2 pick. That would be fun !!
Houck seems like a success story of 3 different regimes, Dombrowski's for drafting him, Bloom's for developing him, and Breslow's for putting him over the top.
Now how much credit do they all deserve? That can be debated for sure, but surely they all deserve at least some credit. Late first 1 draft picks do not develop into aces very often and there was a lot of work done by all 3 regimes. And a lot of work done but Houck himself! He deserves the most credit out of anyone.
Fun trivia that's actually kind of on topic: who has the most bWAR of anyone from the first round of the 2017 draft?
I have no clue how he is defensively, but Micky Gasper looks like a good choice for backup 1b starting next season. He's been completely ignored but he's hitting and does it from both sides. I have no problem with taking Kurtz but I don't think it's that big of a need for an older 1b type.
Ian Browne has a Q&A with Devin Pearson - not too much to gleam from it, but a couple interesting answers:
MLB.com: It has been well-chronicled how Craig changed the organizational pitching infrastructure from the top down, and he added director of pitching Justin Willard, who surely has been carving up hours of tape on potential draftees. How valuable has the pitching knowledge of Craig and Justin aided you in your prep?
DP: It’s been great. I think they’ve provided insights into different things about pitchers that we maybe over-valued or under-valued in the past. It’s great to have a clear development understanding of what we’re valuing from a pitching perspective. That just helps us identify the right players and try to understand how we can develop them if we select them.
at the very least, when they do become bonified MLB players -
Okay, I try very hard not to be the grammar police, but this one had me chuckling like a 12-year-old. I think you're looking for "bona fide" from the Latin for "in good faith", which is generally used colloquially as something along the lines of the real deal, like the antonym for fraudulent.
The spelling you used I would take to mean something else.
For example, Rafael Palmeiro insisted to Congress that he was the former, and insisted during the commercial breaks that he was the latter.
