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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by jmei on Feb 8, 2023 21:38:31 GMT -5
Nice job by the bench to stay afloat with Tatum getting some rest.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 8, 2023 15:17:39 GMT -5
The economics of baseball is going to make that tough. Local revenue (ticket sales, local sports network revenue) is a much larger proportion of revenue (with national revenue from nationally-televised games) being a smaller proportion, and there’s no robust system of revenue sharing. Maybe it’ll happen in our lifetimes but I wouldn’t count on it.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 8, 2023 11:57:29 GMT -5
ZiPS projections are out now that the offseason is mostly done, and it's not pretty for the Red Sox: blogs.fangraphs.com/the-2023-start-of-spring-zips-projected-standings-american-league/79-83 and last place. Probably a little bit lower than I would have thought, I would have said 83 or so wins, but Story's absence hurts a lot. Still, a lot of players are going to have to outperform their projections if this team is going to contend. It looks like the difference between these projections and the FG-DC WAR projections are probably due to Syzmbrowski's tweaking of playing time and strength of schedule. Without knowing how he tweaked the playing time it's hard to say for sure, but it seems reasonable enough. On a somewhat positive note, despite being projected to finish in last place the model gives the Red Sox a 25% chance to make the playoffs. I'll still take the over and make my pre-spring training prediction 86 wins. I think they've got some good candidates to outperform the projections and they're a good fit to make some midseason additions. I think the reason that these projections are different than just adding up projected WAR is more that (1) the ZiPS projections use a distribution of injury risk rather than just taking the median projection ("After that is done, ZiPS applies another set of algorithms with a generalized distribution of injury risk that changes the baseline PAs/IPs for each player. [...] ZiPS then automatically “fills in” playing time from the next players on the list (proportionally) to get to a full slate of plate appearances and innings.") and (2) they apply a strength-of-schedule modifier, and, even with a more balanced schedule, the Red Sox will play a lot of good AL East teams that will negatively impact their record ("After applying the new strength of schedule calculations based on the other 29 teams, I end up with the standings...").
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 7, 2023 10:39:40 GMT -5
I don't know how any one human being can be informed about the top X prospects in every team's farm system, and so what his rankings are most useful for are not the numerical rankings but the handful of tidbits in the commentary that are sourced from either personal looks or scouts. (Sort of how like the price targets in sell-side analyst reports are not very useful, but you should read them for the analysis/commentary.)
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 7, 2023 10:33:38 GMT -5
It does sound from that podcast that Kiké thinks that he's going to be the everyday shortstop. That still makes me a little nervous. I don't think you can ever take a defensive positional change for granted. It goes wrong all the time even when players are going down the defensive structure (Arroyo/RF, Cordero/1B, H. Ramirez/LF, Bogaerts/3B), let alone when a 31-year-old is moving to the hardest non-catcher defensive position for the first sustained period of his career (he has a combined 64 starts at SS spread out over nine seasons, with his highest single-season total being 17 starts in 2018). To put it another way, Kiké has been about +10 runs in CF over the last two years on an annualized basis. Let's be conservative and call that a +7 with some regression to the mean and age-related slippage. In order to match that defensive value at SS, based on the standard defensive positional adjustments, he'd have to be a +2 runs at SS, which I think is pretty unlikely. But the team knows him best and must think he's up for it. I like your second paragraph, but this is hardly a "throw Hanley in LF, how hard could it be" scenario. Kiké has 600 innings at SS, 2500 in the infield in general. For comparison he had 1100 at CF and 2000 in the outfield in general when he became the everyday CF in 2021. The stats are ambiguous though: DRS has him +9 at SS for his career (elite) but OAA has him at -3 (well below average). At 2B in 1700 innings he's +18 by DRS (elite again) and -5 by OAA (lousy). I trust OAA more, but if the team thinks he can be solid in the infield DRS gives at least some support for that.
In general I think this team's best alignment will have Kiké in CF and Mondesi or Story at SS, but I don't have a problem with Kiké at SS as a bridge until one of those guys is healthy. Eh, 450+ of those 600+ innings at SS were from 2018 or earlier, and you'd think that if teams thought he could be a plus defensive SS, they would have moved him there (or signed him to play there) earlier in his career. I take the point on "they have other options later in the season," but April games count the same as September games at the end of the day. Just a little too much risk from my POV when there are still decent free agent shortstops out there.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 7, 2023 9:00:20 GMT -5
It does sound from that podcast that Kiké thinks that he's going to be the everyday shortstop. That still makes me a little nervous. I don't think you can ever take a defensive positional change for granted. It goes wrong all the time even when players are going down the defensive structure (Arroyo/RF, Cordero/1B, H. Ramirez/LF, Bogaerts/3B), let alone when a 31-year-old is moving to the hardest non-catcher defensive position for the first sustained period of his career (he has a combined 64 starts at SS spread out over nine seasons, with his highest single-season total being 17 starts in 2018).
To put it another way, Kiké has been about +10 runs in CF over the last two years on an annualized basis. Let's be conservative and call that a +7 with some regression to the mean and age-related slippage. In order to match that defensive value at SS, based on the standard defensive positional adjustments, he'd have to be a +2 runs at SS, which I think is pretty unlikely. But the team knows him best and must think he's up for it.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 7, 2023 6:46:21 GMT -5
Sending Bello to AAA is both bad for the team (he’s arguably their best starting pitcher) and his development (he’s got nothing left to prove there). He’s not going to be sent down long enough to get another year of team control. They don’t have enough of a roster crunch that they have to DFA someone to keep him up. Because of all that, I don’t see any real scenario where he’s sent down to start the season.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 7, 2023 6:39:59 GMT -5
I like Pritchard as a player, but they have all three of Smart, White and Brogdon signed long-term, and all three of those guys are really good and fit well with each other and Tatum/Brown, so Pritchard is trade bait inevitably, and might as well cash him in during a season when they have a legit chance to win the title.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 6, 2023 11:15:45 GMT -5
Has any team gone with the piggybacking concept for any significant period of time? It's comes up on this site every so often, but I can't imagine that it would work through multiple turns of the rotation. If a high-leverage situation arises on Monday and Cora thinks Whitlock gives him the best chance to win that game, he's going to call for Whitlock (which is exactly what he should do), even if Sale is pitching on Tuesday. Conversely, if a Sale game turns into a blowout early, it wouldn't make sense to use Whitlock. Sticking dogmatically to the piggybacking strategy means Cora wouldn't be making optimal use of Whitlock and Houck. A lot of teams have used the "opener" strategy to good success in the last few years, which is really just a modified version of piggybacking where the reliever pitches before the starter does. A lot of other teams used piggyback starters in the 2020 COVID season (and, in some cases, in seasons since) to avoid stretching out starters up too fast, and it generally went OK. It takes a little discipline to commit to not using the piggyback guys in any role other than their piggyback role, but is definitely doable.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 5, 2023 15:10:14 GMT -5
Pretty meh return. Nets must have been fed up with his act and desperate to get him out of town.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 3, 2023 17:37:07 GMT -5
Even just size-wise, they're quite different. Mayer's got three inches on Nomar. Nomar was also never that good of a defender, especially in his later years, and I have higher hopes for Mayer on that front.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 3, 2023 17:32:41 GMT -5
Grant Williams is a better player and a better fit for this roster (shooting, defense (including versatility), passing) than Vanderbilt.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 3, 2023 13:55:42 GMT -5
Not Celtics related, but Kyrie Irving is really the worst.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2023 19:07:21 GMT -5
I disagree to an extent. Remember when Groome was drafted, he was a steal and was looked at as having sky high potential. Houck was also looked at as being pretty good. I think better than anyone they had now in terms of potential. Again, the farm ranking clearly doesn't take into account the young arms in the majors where as you said is probably the most exciting part of the 2023 MLB squad. To this point and scottysmalls' question on the last page... Houck debuted at #5, then he bounced around between 3 and 10 through the leanest years in the system's recent history, and he was back to #5 for his last pre-graduation ranking. Certainly I don't ever remember him getting as much buzz as Bello or even Mata. (For one thing, Mata ranked above Houck from mid-2019 until his Tommy John in 2021.) Maybe the folks who actually do the rankings could weigh in - where would ca. 2018-2020 Houck rank in the current system? I'm guessing around the Walter/Perales level? Unfortunately, I don't think there's an easily accessible database of SoxProspects.com historical prospect grades, but Eric Logenhagen and Kiley McDaniel at Fangraphs ranked Houck as a 40+ in January 2019, as a 40 in December 2019 and as a 45 in January 2021. Assuming translatability of the 20/80 scouting scale from FG to SP, that's around where Mata (45), Walter (45), Perales (40) and Murphy (40) are graded now by SP.com.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2023 15:55:01 GMT -5
www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/red-sox-bottom-10-farm-system-ranking-indictment-teams-entire-plan?cid=Yahoo&partner=ya4nbcsIn the vein of Keith Law's rankings, has anyone seen this gem of an article from Tomase? I don't like Tomase, haven't for years but this may take the cake as one of if not his dumbest articles written. Let's write a whole article crapping all over the Sox and Bloom's plan and use one guys rankings who compared to the other major farm ranking writers/publications is a pretty big outlier. It's either lazy writing and he didn't want to bother checking the other publications or he didn't care and cherry-picked Law's rankings because it fit his narrative of the last year+ to crap all over the Sox and the FO. Writers aren't here to write fair and balanced articles, they're here to get clicks, and this article is going to get clicks.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2023 15:53:03 GMT -5
They have a bunch of decent pitching prospects in the high minors at the moment, but no one other than Bello and maybe Whitlock/Houck (to the extent that they stay in the rotation) who projects to be more than a back-end starter. Of course, the thing with back-end starters is sometimes they end up better than that, so having a bunch of those guys is still valuable. But, without the power of hindsight, I think the group of Barnes, Webster, De La Rosa, Owens, Ranaudo, Workman set in the ~2013-2014 timeframe blows the current group out of the water, especially in terms of upside. Well, semantics, but I would agree that was a much stronger group of prospects at the time while still maintaining that the current group of young pitchers is better, given that Bello/Whitlock/Houck have already looked good at the major league level in a way that none of that group (other than Barnes and Workman as relievers) ever did. Like, hindsight aside, you'd take Bello right now over Owens at his peak, right? And Whitlock over Webster? Houck over Ranaudo? I think you're underrating how well regarded that 2013-14 crew was because it's really difficult to ignore hindsight. I don't have a BA subscription and so had to do this via quick Googling, and there are always some odd timing/prospect eligibility quirks, but Owens was the 40th best prospect in baseball per BA and Bello topped out at 49. Webster was ranked in the top 100 per BA multiple times and Whitlock has never been ranked (again, due to a prospect eligibility quirk, but I think a legitimate argument can be made that peak Webster > peak Whitlock). Ranaudo was ranked 67th per BA and Houck has never been ranked. And it gets worse from there (peak Barnes, De La Rosa and Workman were much more highly regarded than the Pawtucket crew is currently).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2023 15:21:41 GMT -5
By the way, pour one out for that 2013/14 group. I was super high on both Webster and De La Rosa at the time. If those guys didn't all blow up, Ben Cherington might still be GM
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2023 15:20:10 GMT -5
I don't think the system should be this low. But I'll echo most when pointing out the real lack of pitching in this farm system. I don't think it's been this bad in a while. Even when Dombrowski was here, you had Houck. However, it doesn't take into account Bello graduating. So the number is slightly worse than what it should be. They don't have a top-tier pitching prospect now that Bello has just graduated, but I think a top 5 of Mata/Walter/Perales/Gonzalez/Murphy has got to be better than Darwinzon/Houck/Groome/Feltman/Mata was in 2019. In general the three years or so after they tradeed Espinoza and Kopech look pretty grim.
Taking a broader view, the young pitching as a whole seems like the strongest its been in quite a few years, with Whitlock, Houck, Bello, and Crawford in addition to the prospects. When was the last time they had that much good young pitching? The Lester/Buchholz/Papelbon years?
They have a bunch of decent pitching prospects in the high minors at the moment, but no one other than Bello and maybe Whitlock/Houck (to the extent that they stay in the rotation) who projects to be more than a back-end starter. Of course, the thing with back-end starters is sometimes they end up better than that, so having a bunch of those guys is still valuable. But, without the power of hindsight, I think the group of Barnes, Webster, De La Rosa, Owens, Ranaudo, Workman set in the ~2013-2014 timeframe blows the current group out of the water, especially in terms of upside.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2023 11:51:13 GMT -5
I do think there is some loss of depth over the last year, largely driven by some below-expectation 2022 performances from existing prospects (as opposed to losses from the system due to trade/etc.). For instance, just looking at the middle of the system (call it the 5 to 20 prospects) from opening day 2022, the arrow has pointed down on Groome, Jordan, W. Gonzalez, Downs, Seabold, McDonough, Jimenez, etc. While that's partially offset by a breakout season from Rafaela, continued progress from Bleis, Walter, Wink, Murphy, etc. and the addition of Mikey Romaro and Roman Anthony in the draft and Luis Perales' arrival stateside, on net, I think the middle of the system is worse now than it was a year from now.
With that said, I don't think that middle of the system is anywhere close to being bad enough to drop them from middle of the pack to lower third in national rankings. Law is a much more "gut feel" ranker than most of the other national guys so I think he just pulled that from you-know-where.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2023 10:55:45 GMT -5
That's moving the goalposts. We're talking about where they rank relative to the entire league. I'd have the system in the 10-15 range. Mayer/Cases/Bleis/Rafaela is a really good top four, and while none of Crawford/Wink/Mata/Walter/Murphy is a slam dunk long-term starting pitcher, they're all MLB-ready with options and I think one of them sticks as a legit mid-rotation starter and a couple others become legitimate bullpen weapons. Unintentional. I'm posing a legit question with regard to their immediate competition. I have no sense of the systems for most of the other teams outside the AL East except LAD and AZ. And I only know a little more than not about those only because, well, LAD is the model the whole league should be emulating - although, "hiring Tampa guys" apparently does not equate to hiring Andrew Friedman, which I think we all knew - and I have family in AZ who keep me apprised of their farm. I don't think anyone other than the national rankers keep close enough tabs on all those farm systems to have an actually informed opinion, but those national rankers generally have Boston behind Baltimore and Tampa but either in the same tier or a little better than New York and Toronto.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2023 10:18:34 GMT -5
I think the numerical ranking is almost certainly wrong if you go through any sort of quantitative exercise, but Law has a point about the lack of starting pitching throughout the system. I don't know much about the other systems, but just in the AL East, who would we have ranked lower than the Sox? My gut instinct is NYY - which almost seems like a mirror of the Sox with some near MLB-ready guys and a few other A or lower prospects. But the projections for Balt (which tanked in multiple years), TB (I see the Bulls often and they have been cycling up talent annually like tires off an assembly line) and Toronto seem accurate as appear to have better systems than the Sox. Anyone disagree? That's moving the goalposts. We're talking about where they rank relative to the entire league. I'd have the system in the 10-15 range. Mayer/Cases/Bleis/Rafaela is a really good top four, and while none of Crawford/Wink/Mata/Walter/Murphy is a slam dunk long-term starting pitcher, they're all MLB-ready with options and I think one of them sticks as a legit mid-rotation starter and a couple others become legitimate bullpen weapons.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2023 9:54:42 GMT -5
For people who think we need wing depth as well as a young developmental guy, what if they could get Cam Reddish for peanuts? Get him in the building before his restricted free agency and see what he’s like, work ethic etc…. Can you unlock something there with all the talent and professionals and winning environment? He’s never had a stable team in the NBA… This feels more like a "go all in to win a title" season than a "take a flier on a guy for next year" season and so I'd rather use those assets and minutes on a guy who is more likely to contribute meaningful minutes in the playoffs this year. ADD: that's also why I'm more concerned about wing depth than big man depth. If one of Horford or R. Williams is injured, they're probably not winning the title anyways, so upgrading the third big is less of a priority for me. Meanwhile, despite having a 30-point lead after the first quarter, Tatum still played 29 minutes and Brown still played 31 minutes yesterday. Tatum is second in the league in minutes per game (37.3) and Brown is just a couple minutes behind (35.9). Getting those guys some rest and upgrading the 15 Hauser/Pritchard minutes in the playoffs (where they will have a target on their back) is huge for me.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2023 9:52:19 GMT -5
I think the numerical ranking is almost certainly wrong if you go through any sort of quantitative exercise, but Law has a point about the lack of starting pitching throughout the system. Evergreen quote since 2008. I don't think that's fair. They had a fair number of highly-touted (top 100 contender) starting pitching prospects in that stretch. Guys like Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens, De La Rosa, Webster, Rodriguez, Kopech, Espinoza, Groome. Only one of those guys worked out as a starting pitcher in Boston (Eduardo Rodriguez was a legit #2/#3 starter for half a decade), but Barnes did well in the bullpen and Kopech still has some sparkle. It does illustrate the high attrition rate for starting pitcher prospects, though.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2023 8:39:20 GMT -5
I think the numerical ranking is almost certainly wrong if you go through any sort of quantitative exercise, but Law has a point about the lack of starting pitching throughout the system.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 1, 2023 20:07:38 GMT -5
Not interested in debating on whether they're better or not right now, but I'll just say that over/under win totals are not the same as predicted wins. They're based on where the odds makers think they can make the most money. I did forget Duvall, but we'll see on him. I'm just stating that given that the offense likely took a hit and the pitching has a wide range of various outcomes with a likelihood of being as good as last year, plus the overall age of the guys they're bringing in, it makes sense that they would set the over/under at roughly the same as last year even if they're not factoring the unlucky amount of injuries they had. There's a chance the Red Sox are the oldest team in baseball next year. They're going to have injuries again. Wouldn't that qualify as a rough projection as they're setting the betting line at that number? www.bostonherald.com/2023/01/19/mastrodonato-2023-red-sox-could-be-the-oldest-team-in-mlb-but-thats-not-a-bad-thing/I disagree that the offense takes a hit next year. They were very much a stars and scrubs group of position players last year. They got excellent seasons from Devers, Bogaerts and the catchers, and Story was OK, but just about everyone else who got major playing time was mediocre to worse. Bradley gave them 290 PAs of .210/.257/.321 (58 wRC+), Duran gave them 223 PAs of .221/.283/.363 (78 wRC+) and Dalbec gave them 353 PAs of .215/.283/.369 (80 wRC+). They received a total of 1,754 PAs (equivalent to three full-time spots) worth of below replacement level production (totaling -3.3 fWAR) from Dalbec, Hosmer, Almonte, Pham, Cordero, Arauz, Bradley, Downs, Duran, Sanchez, Plawecki and Shaw, of whom only Dalbec and Duran are still in the organization. Just replacing those plate appearances with run of the mill replacement level plate appearances gives them a huge leg up already, and I think we tend to think their bench players are a tad better than that. I would also expect better performances out of Hernandez and Verdugo, both of whom hit unnaturally poorly last year. Meanwhile, who do you project to hit worse? Maybe Devers, but I imagine we generally have high hopes of a repeat performance. Definitely McGuire and Refsnyder, though neither guy played all that much last year (108 and 177 PAs, respectively).
|
|
|