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 jchang on Jun 9, 2014 8:05:22 GMT -5
any idea why Owens was skipped in the next Portland game? and the Owens/McCarthy? is it just some rest? or is he going somewhere?
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jun 8, 2014 23:50:42 GMT -5
sorry if this is the wrong thread, but the listed started on Portland's MILB website for the next 3 games are Johnson, Couch and Pena - skipping Owens. Is this just a turn off? Johnson was skipped last turn for Doubront. I was planning on driving up to Altoona.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jun 5, 2014 11:18:18 GMT -5
did anyone get Mookie's HR ball? is it on ebay?
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jun 5, 2014 9:57:26 GMT -5
the knocks on Owens that people have made are 1) lack velocity, 2) lack of control, 3) too many walks. Someone mentioned that the highly successful MLB pitchers wit 90 FB had great control. I am not concerned with Owens FB velocity because he is comfortable throwing it, and batter have great difficulty hitting it (and I believe it is less likely he will end up on the TJ list). Sure, I agree that Owens does not have great FB command, but his walk rate is in part because he was trying to get batters to chase out of the strike zone. Now that he is backing off the SO strategy (a mere 6 SO in 8 IP today) it is still clear that batters can't hit him when he is throwing strikes. My only concern with Owens is his line against lefties. Whatever stuff Owens has obliterates righties, but is only average against lefties. I am imagine at some point, he will have to learn a new strategy for lefties. Given that he is not yet 22, learning new tricks is still possible. Erie's lineup today had 5 lefties, 3 righties and one switchie. .523 OPSA overall. .623 OPSA vs left. .493 OPSA vs right. Against his worst side, he has a lower OPSA than Workman, Ranaudo, Barnes & Webster. Last year, Owens line in 20 games at A+ was BA/OBP .221/.393 against lefties with 124 BF. for the 6 games in AA, .158/.289 against lefties with 45 BF. (2012, .361/.489 against lefties 91 BF). Prior to last nights game, 2014 against lefties .256/.347, with 49 BF. So the 15 lefty BF last night at 1H/2BB really helps his line against Lefties. I would say that Owens had already started on a new approach against lefties by the time got to Portland. So we just need wait until there is a reasonable sample size to see how his line looks. It is possible that prior to last year or perhaps 2012, Owens had not faced a sufficient number of lefties to draw meaningful statistical conclusions.
Edit: clarification - perhaps prior 2012, Owens had not faced a sufficient number of lefties who gave him difficulty such that a separate strategy was warranted - just a guess. Also, minor league central updated their stats to include yesterdays game. Owens line against lefties is .211/.308 at 65 BF, this is above EL avg?
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jun 4, 2014 21:40:12 GMT -5
the knocks on Owens that people have made are 1) lack velocity, 2) lack of control, 3) too many walks. Someone mentioned that the highly successful MLB pitchers wit 90 FB had great control. I am not concerned with Owens FB velocity because he is comfortable throwing it, and batter have great difficulty hitting it (and I believe it is less likely he will end up on the TJ list). Sure, I agree that Owens does not have great FB command, but his walk rate is in part because he was trying to get batters to chase out of the strike zone. Now that he is backing off the SO strategy (a mere 6 SO in 8 IP today) it is still clear that batters can't hit him when he is throwing strikes. My only concern with Owens is his line against lefties. Whatever stuff Owens has obliterates righties, but is only average against lefties. I am imagine at some point, he will have to learn a new strategy for lefties. Given that he is not yet 22, learning new tricks is still possible.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jun 4, 2014 20:20:15 GMT -5
So who thinks Owens stuff won't work at the MLB level?
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jun 2, 2014 13:15:09 GMT -5
My understanding is that there were 6 clear choices, they were gone. Next came a group of uncertain ranking from high floor but not so high ceiling to high ceiling but risky picks. With the expectation that we will most often be picking from the 20+ spots, the high ceiling picks are usually gone, while there are still high floor guys. So while there may have been better picks instead of Ball at #7, the thought was that we could get such players in subsequent drafts at pick #20 or higher.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jun 1, 2014 20:22:07 GMT -5
given that the grading scale of 8 is an elite MLB player, i.e., the small handful that are above All-Star, which is grade 7, I would like to suggest that we avoid the use of the term "elite prospect" to describe a projected All-Star talent, even though a prospect worthy of grade 7 is very exceptional. As much I hope Mookie and Hank (etc., etc.) turn out to be All-Star or even elite, I do not see a serious issue with setting the upper range of several of our current prospects to be 7. That could be a way to describe a perennial above average player, with one or 2 All-Star seasons.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jun 1, 2014 19:18:56 GMT -5
If we are confident that Shaw should make the 25 man roster in 2015 or even 16, then perhaps burning an option this year would not be bad, and it would be great if Shaw turned out to be a MLB player, bench, platoon or everyday. But if the expectation is that he would be a good person to have in AAA for up and down purposes, then it is more important to keep his options for 2015-17 considering that there are other players of comparable talent already on the 40 man.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 31, 2014 12:16:14 GMT -5
My impression is that hard throwers (mid-90 FB) have surgery more often softies (90). Pitchers can be effective throwing 90. Pitchers who can throw 95 in their youth don't need to learn deception or other factors. When they reach their 30, and their velocity is down, then they need to learn something else. Hopefully we will not sign a 30-ish free-agent pitcher who made his reputation on a mid-90 FB to a multi-year $25M/yr contract to find that he is no longer effective with diminished velocity (who would be dumb enough to do this?). Another point is that people seem to pine for 1/2 starters, and anything less is nothing. A free-agent 3 starter gets about 12-15M per year. For every 3 pitcher we can develop, that is 12-15M per year saved towards the salary cap (I appreciate what the Red Sox ownership has done, but I am not particularly worried that the sox might run into financial problems). Otherwise we might trade a valuable chip like Iggy for a pitcher that was once a 3, but is now a 3/4 while still getting 3 money. Heck, even 4/5 starters are valuable.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 30, 2014 17:19:58 GMT -5
that's my concern. Owens has an awesome line against righties, but only average against lefties. Hopefully teams will stack lefties against him so he can work on this while in the minors.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 30, 2014 15:28:58 GMT -5
I suppose a 2 game sample is too small, but it would seem that Owens backing off on the SO is true both for a) the last 2 games relative to earlier this season and b) this season versus 2013 & 12. His K/9 in 2012 was 11.5, 2013 11.2 (a phenomenal 13.65 for the 6 games in AA) and this year dropping to a mere 9.5 Again, small sample alert, 7.07 SO/9 for the last 2 games (11 SO in 14 IP, versus 16 SO in 8 IP the 2 games before that, per Owens comment). I suppose it is amusing that pitching to contact for Owens means lowering his SO/9 to just under 10, but this has also manifest in his games with 6 IP+. Last year he had 7 games with 6IP or more, 2 of 7 IP or more over 26 games. This year he already has in 11 games to date, 7 of 6+ IP, and 3 of 7+
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 29, 2014 12:29:33 GMT -5
if any one has a video link to the ending, please post it, TIA
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 29, 2014 11:40:39 GMT -5
I always thought that Owens used to try too much for the SO. You could see that he was trying to hit the corners. But he never easy to hit when throwing strikes. In this game and the previous (when he had a 6 run lead before taking the mound) he has backed off on the SO, and going deeper into games. I think Owens will be in AAA later this season. If there is an opening in Pawtucket soon, it might be Couch (excluding Wright on rehab) to give Owens more seasoning.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 27, 2014 15:39:53 GMT -5
3) similar to old 3rd QB NFL rule: every game, designate a pitcher who cannot be used unless the game goes to extras. No problem, I'll just designate the guy who started yesterday. He's not allowed to show up late, though, and no fried chicken and beer in the clubhouse! I am thinking that an extra roster spot for a pitcher in extra innings would not work because he would not get regular playing time. I think something like the recent rule for double headers would work. The day after an extra inning game, the team can bring up someone from AAA for 1 game, perhaps someone who does not need to be on the 40-man (but is on the AAA roster) and perhaps if the game goes deep into extra innings, more than 1.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 27, 2014 15:35:46 GMT -5
I was not suggesting that the WAR system is not accurate in its purpose, but rather specifically to the purpose of using WAR_def to find the all time worst player defensively at his position. If an average defensive SS is assigned +1, while an average 1B is assigned -1 (for the purpose of computing overall WAR), then a poor defensive 1B might be -2 while a poor SS might be 0, both 1 below average defensively. But I am not sure how replacement level WAR_def is assigned by position.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 27, 2014 10:48:57 GMT -5
Wow, its hard to think of Jeter in such terms. Using baseball reference, for primary SS active in 2013 (I downloaded historical WAR, but standard batting only for 2013 which has position info), Jeter has the second lowest avg WAR_def at - 0.483. Eduardo Nunez at -0.87. The 3 SS just above Jeter in WAR_def are Hanley, Brendan Harris, and Dee Gordon at -.347, -.439, -.447 respectively. For all positions, players active in 2013, with 8 or more years there are 40 with lower avg WAR_def, the bottom are
name_common def woff WAR Miguel Cabrera -1.106 5.675 4.965 Michael Cuddyer -1.136 1.895 1.134 Ryan Howard -1.175 2.308 1.884 Prince Fielder -1.955 3.633 2.615 Adam Dunn -1.981 2.377 1.178 Papi has WAR_def -1.04
so I suppose WAR_def might be unfair to 1B and DH?
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 27, 2014 9:58:29 GMT -5
I am thinking that are system is well stocked with prospects who could or will be average MLB players/ starting pitchers and impactful bench + RP. Excluding Bogaerts, perhaps a few of the grade 6 prospects will be above average. For a low budget team, this would be great. But (if) we are a contending team that is overall strong, we would prefer to get one or two all-star prospects + depth.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 26, 2014 21:19:08 GMT -5
Going on the supposition that both Lavarnway and Shaw might be up and down players, Lavarnway will be out of options next year. If L were let go, then we would only be losing 2/3 of a season. That said, I am not sure we really need Wright given the number of pitchers who are almost MLB ready.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 23, 2014 20:24:31 GMT -5
what do you mean just 1-6? 8 of todays lineup are batting .277 or better. EL average is .258. Heck only teams in the EL have BA over .277 Prospect wise. For Portland team themselves, it's great, Agreed. But as far as long term prospect wise, just those guys mostly. then we should include the pitchers not on today's lineup: Owens, Johnson, Couch. possibly a few more too.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 23, 2014 18:52:37 GMT -5
what do you mean just 1-6? 8 of todays lineup are batting .277 or better. EL average is .258. Heck only teams in the EL have BA over .277
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 23, 2014 5:57:56 GMT -5
Lets say that Shaw looks like he could be a grade 5, i.e., second division starter good for WAR 2 or even 1. Should we a get a free agent good for WAR 3 or above at $5M/WAR or go with the home grown playing for MLB minimum? Obviously, the answer is it depends on who's is available in the free agent/trade market, and where the other needs are. Some people seem to only get excited if a player looks to be above average or even all-star. But get average MLB players out of the farm has value too, even if they are traded. Shaw is currently our best 1B prospect, and actually looks like he might have upside to be a MLB player.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 21, 2014 21:24:11 GMT -5
what a set of games in Portland. I saw the first game, and 3IP of the second, but was not dressed for extended periods in cool weather. The second game was a great test for Portland in facing a good pitcher. Of Bowman's 26 R, 19 ER in 2014, 15 R & ER came from Portland, so he would have awesome stats (29.1 IP, 4 ER) if he did not have to pitch against us.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 16, 2014 16:30:51 GMT -5
i think the BP WARP is just for this season I would find it hard to believe that a .401 BA projects to WAR 3.3 (then add in a plus defense position)
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 16, 2014 15:20:02 GMT -5
eric - OK, I am assuming the BP WARP is based on entire minor career. I am inclined to believe that Mookie has improved more than the normal progression in talent from A to A+ to AA, on the grounds that he is small, always had great contact, but more recently developing power to get hits over ground outs. So while Mookie may not bat .400 at the MLB level (notice I am qualifying this), his oWAR might be in the 4+ range.
On the matter of not getting Gallo, or Olt, if we miss a Gallo for every Mookie we do get, then I am happy.
|
|
|