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 burythehammer on Sept 23, 2015 14:57:23 GMT -5
Travis Shaw 139+ JBJ 132+ In essentially the same # of PAs. They're the same age, and Shaw has nothing like JBJ's execrable 2014 to hold against him. I think there's an interesting dissertation for someone on the dynamics of player hype; and I don't think it's a coincidence that the media are behind it (which is surprising and sad in this age of the Internet), it's just bizarre. And meanwhile the GM is forcing the movement of the team's best player (who is 22 and has a career 120+) for a 25 year old with a career 73+ It's just insane I don't understand what you're arguing here. Comparing Bradley to Shaw is an apples to oranges comparison It's not for the people who are buying into this "Nobody who hits like this over X plate appearances doesn't become an average hitter!" nonsense. Obviously JBJ is better for lots of reasons, but why is his hot streak any more predictive? |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 23, 2015 14:39:20 GMT -5
Sure, but it's a lot closer to meaningless trivia than it is to meaningful analysis of Bogaerts' projected career. As mentioned in a past episode of Effectively Wild (and alluded to in this Sam Miller tweet), all fun facts are lies. I guess, but that's not the question I think of when I see this fact. To me, this fact answers the question, "Just how good is a .322 BA as a 22 year-old?" Which this little comparison answers nicely with a resounding "really good!" If someone wants to put more meaning into it, that's not the fact's problem. #standupforfunfacts But don't you also have to take into account how meaningful batting average is as an offensive measure? Bogaerts actual production this year isn't in the same stratosphere as the five other guys on that list in their age 22 seasons, which was sort of my main point. In fact it probably wouldn't even come close to the top 50 age 22 seasons ever. That's just hitting, mind you. A 5 WAR season at age 22 is indeed a great accomplishment and bodes very well for his future. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 23, 2015 7:49:26 GMT -5
I mean, just to be clear, we're all in agreement that this is just a fun fact and a nice thing for Xander to be able to say and he doesn't actually belong in the same sentence as these guys, right? That's not to say that he couldn't be a Hall of Famer, or that he isn't going to become a much better hitter than he is right now, but let's not get carried away here... |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 15, 2015 19:05:38 GMT -5
Are we sure he's ready for Winter Ball? I don't think we should be moving this guy up the chain too fast!
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 14, 2015 5:39:17 GMT -5
"And Mookie is/was a better player/prospect than JBJ ever was." That's your original statement and I misread it as "is a way" not "is/was," so yes, I agree with you. I was arguing my own incorrect interpretation. Fair enough. Although I admit, at the risk of continuing this, I do think Mookie was considered a way better prospect at his peak, but that's more subjective and I suppose a reasonable argument can be made otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 14, 2015 5:35:04 GMT -5
FWIW I was indeed implying race, but not racism. There is a big difference. I don't think it's controversial to say that small, white players get the "gritty, hard-working baseball rat" tag that you will never see put on Latin players who are built like running backs. It's actually insulting to both players.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 14, 2015 5:25:33 GMT -5
FWIW, Kiley rates his pitches, right now, as 70/60/50 with 45 command. If you just looked at that, and ignored his age, you wouldn't be surprised at all to see that pitcher in High-A. Actually, that was his projection for what he'll be at MLB level ... he called his current fastball an 8 but thought it might downgrade to a 7 by the time he's in MLB (either because it'll slow a little or he'll back off it a bit) Nope, look at Neo's FG page. The way the numbers work are the first number is the current rating of the pitch and the second number is the "peak projection" or whatever. So his fastball is actually 70/80, for example, meaning it's a 70 major league pitch right now. Turns out I misremembered the numbers however, it's 70 FB, 50 CB, 45 CH (and 40 command). Yeah, it's one guy's opinion, I get that, and I do take it with a grain of salt, but I don't think it's outlandish to say a guy who we all agree is ready for Low-A could pitch successfully in High-A. I'm positive those are current ratings though, because someone asked Kiley on twitter if that means Neo could pitch successfully in the major leagues right now, and his answer was: "no. one 45 pitch with below average command means he can't start, and one above avg pitch means can't get K's in relief." |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 13, 2015 13:47:06 GMT -5
BA had Betts an estimated 12th midseason, right after his callup, but never ranked for that reason. Bradley was 35th before jumping to the majors from AA, clearly prematurely. Use all of the qualifiers you want, "significantly," "way better," whatever. Betts had a late meteoric rise and Bradley had a linear progression that was truncated by an early promotion. We'll have to agree to disagree, because I'm an "educated" poster, and while I'm not disputing that at their peaks Betts was a better prospect, and will probably be a better player, my issue was with the implied cavernous disparity. Talk technicalities? Where would Bradley have ranked after ST before his callup? You're saying Betts' peak ranking was affected by an early callup...so was Bradley's. Regardless, this has devolved into useless banter. Betts ranking was not "affected" by his call up. He was technically disqualified from such lists because of it. We know for a fact he would have ranked 12, and you don't dispute it. There is no gray area here, despite your best efforts to create some. That is not even close to the same thing that you are saying about Bradley, which is "Had he not been called up he would have continued succeeding in the minors and his prospect status would have risen." Except, he DID spend the vast majority of that year in AAA, and he was really good. A hundred bad PA in the majors didn't make that much of a difference. And going into 2014, his rankings didn't improve at all. He was still a consensus 30-40ish guy. That is a direct refutation of your premise. And all I said was Mookie is and was better. You inferred the "cavernous" disparity on your own. And as Chavo pointed out, the facts back me up. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 13, 2015 12:00:32 GMT -5
I find it funny that you are admittedly just scouting the box score and that has led you to conclude that Moncada is "raw" and Benintendi is a "baseball rat." I wonder what other factor might be leading to those labels.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 13, 2015 11:57:36 GMT -5
Isn't it safe to say that they are forcing him to throw such a high % of fastballs? I think I read something else from Kiley on twitter where he said that's a policy a number of organizations have with rookie pitchers. I agree with Eric, if he were to throw a more conventional mix, I'm not sure Low-A hitters have much of a chance when a guy is throwing 98 with a plus curveball and a 15+ MPH slower changeup and averageish command. FWIW, Kiley rates his pitches, right now, as 70/60/50 with 45 command. If you just looked at that, and ignored his age, you wouldn't be surprised at all to see that pitcher in High-A.
I'm not as convinced it actually happens, but I wouldn't be shocked.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 13, 2015 4:43:22 GMT -5
Last year excepted, he has always projected to be a better-than-average MLB hitter statistically and always been projected to be a better-than-average MLB hitter by scouts. You mean with his old, irrelevant swing right? Why do you keep bringing that up? Please explain to us why you throw out 2014 and yet keep referring back to and cite as evidence his minor league track record from before this season. Because the only reason I see is, as others have pointed out, "it destroys my argument." |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 13, 2015 4:29:57 GMT -5
So your arguments for Moncada being overrated, to recap:
- They paid him 60m
- He's a really good base stealer
- He's not as good as Mike Trout
- People underrate Andrew Benintendi
Looks airtight to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 12, 2015 20:01:37 GMT -5
Kiley talks about The One with Carson on the podcast. Starts talking about him at 32 minutes. With some tangents, goes for about 15 minutes. At around 45 he says that Espinoza's stuff is at least as good as Bundy's and Taillon's when they were coming out of high school and gives his pitch grades. Taillon and Bundy were both consensus top 10 prospects before they threw a professional pitch. And both of their arms have basically fallen off.  |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 12, 2015 19:45:13 GMT -5
Per Rosenthal, if Hazen isn't named GM it could lead to a "mass exodus" in the front office. Ugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 12, 2015 19:24:27 GMT -5
Not saying he won't be great. Saying he's still mainly just an extremely toolsy prospect. This year has been very encouraging but I'm not penciling him in as an all star just yet. No question he has tremendous tools but he is still in A ball and in over 300 AB with all that speed he still is hitting less than .280. His wRC+ ranks 6th in the Sally League. And all but one of the guys ahead of him are at least a year older. And we all know he's been even better than that since he shook the rust off. He even has a .300 average. You could easily make the argument he's the best hitter in the Sally League as a 20 year old. That's based on performance, not projection or tools. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 12, 2015 4:47:49 GMT -5
JBJ was considered a sure-fire top-10 draft pick out of South Carolina until he hurt his wrist his Sr year. He was also around 35 on BA's top-100 list before being rushed to the majors out of AA. Betts never made the top-50 (though he likely would've been around 15 in last year's mid season list had he not been called up). Had JBJ not been rushed up, and played the year in the minors...putting up the stats he has in the minors...he'd easily have been a top-10 or -15 prospect with his defense and OBP near .400. So your premise is not only patently wrong, but the rationale that follows it is likewise completely flawed. I wouldn't put any stock at all in computer projections based largely on 2014 numbers. I think you're way, way off here. Oh I see, so he would have been a more highly rated prospect under this hypothetical scenario that you just completely made up out of thin air. Why even mention Betts not making the top 50 when you acknowledge that it's only because of a technicality? Multiple BA guys confirmed that they had him at 12 (I believe) before he got called up. That's not a hypothetical, it's a fact. Mookie is actually , in reality, putting up a 4 WAR season, something you're hoping Jackie Bradley can do, in the major leagues at age 22. When Jackie was 22, he was in high A/double A. If you think JBJ is a 4 WAR player based on a month of hitting, you must think Mookie is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Again, I really don't understand what is getting guys like you so up in arms here. I don't think any of us are saying Jackie sucks. Far from it. But because we think it's a joke to say that the worst he could possibly do is be one of the 40 or so best players in MLB you take that as us dumping on him? Get a grip, seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 11, 2015 20:45:29 GMT -5
By the way, where did you get that 1475 number? You wouldn't be including his minor league PA from before this year, would you? You know, before he adopted this new swing that has magically turned him from the worst hitter in baseball into Miguel Cabrera? Because, as you know, we have to completely ignore all that irrelevant data.
So, in that case, the only relevant data is this year. Which means he's one of the five best hitters in baseball, and an ungodly centerfielder. So, Mike Trout, basically. Why are you only projecting him for 5 WAR, then? If you look at the relevant data it's clear that his floor is MVP candidate and his mean projection is inner circle Hall of Famer.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 11, 2015 15:40:20 GMT -5
Yes, if I had to bet my hard earned money, I would put it on JBJ putting up less than 4 WAR next year, because I think that's more likely than the opposite. That is a far cry from being "adamant" that he "can't" get to 4.5 WAR. Whereas someone who says his "floor" is 4.5 is actually saying, literally, he can't be worse than an All-Star. And somehow you find the prior statement more objectionable than the latter. I think some of the resistance to the idea that Bradley isn't a cinch for a 4 win season is based on skepticism about his offense, but it underestimates how well-suited the JBJ skill-set is to racking up WAR. Look at Betts right now - he's already put up 4 fWAR this season, and that's with only a .331 OBP and 114 wRC+. Except, a 114 wRC+ is really, really good for a centerfielder. And Mookie is/was a better player/prospect than JBJ ever was. Nobody would have disputed that for a second a month ago. One month doesn't change that for me, sorry. Saying that 110 is a "very conservative" estimate for JBJ is crazy. ZIPS and Steamer both have him below 100. 110 would be a tremendous year for him and if that's the best he ever gets we should be thrilled. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 11, 2015 10:10:17 GMT -5
Yes, if I had to bet my hard earned money, I would put it on JBJ putting up less than 4 WAR next year, because I think that's more likely than the opposite. That is a far cry from being "adamant" that he "can't" get to 4.5 WAR. Whereas someone who says his "floor" is 4.5 is actually saying, literally, he can't be worse than an All-Star. And somehow you find the prior statement more objectionable than the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 11, 2015 9:15:36 GMT -5
Nobody is adamant that he can't be a 4.5 win player. Somebody is adamant that 4.5 wins is his floor.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 11, 2015 9:00:33 GMT -5
BTW, know how many position players had 18 WAR from 2011-2014 (four years)? 17. How many had 20? 10. Yet someone how it's far more unlikely that Syndergaard, who has a better major league track record and arguably a better minor league one, does something that 21 pitchers have done over a six year span.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 11, 2015 8:45:31 GMT -5
I'll take the under on 4 WAR too, unless he has a crazy great defensive season, which I guess is more possible with him than most.
I have always liked Bradley, always thought he would hit and still do, which makes him a pretty good player. For pete's sake I was defending him in this very thread last year when he was the worst hitter in baseball, saying that his defense still made him an everyday player. So the fact that I'm being forced into a position where I'm "down on him" shows how ridiculously you are overrating a small sample, which, as we all know, is your MO. That's fine. As usual, I disagree, and so do most others here in this case.
But I can't break down his swing, so what do I know...
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 10, 2015 18:22:39 GMT -5
If there's a baseball team out there that thinks Jackie Bradley is a 5 WAR player then not trading him would be an act of incompetence.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 10, 2015 18:11:45 GMT -5
Has Moncada gotten more lean since we signed him? He looks leaner in the recent videos. I don't think the Sox will be inclined to move him through the minors quickly. Considering how much they signed him, for why not make sure he is in his prime when he makes the majors? I'm not saying they will park him in the minors for years but I don't see why they would hurry hi. The fact that he is still in Greenville seems to confirm that. Could you give me an example of a type of player who you think it would be wise to move through the minors quickly? It seems like this is your personal take on every prospect and you're projecting it onto the Red Sox. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 9, 2015 15:20:51 GMT -5
Glad to see them promoting from within and it's looking more and more like I was wrong about the cleaning house thing.
That said, for the people who want to blame our issues on pro scouting, I assume you're going to be critical of them just moving up Porter's number 2 man.
|
|
|
