173 replies to this topic

[philly sox fan]

Up and free, but with absolutely no discussion. In years past they did a series of roundtable discussions that were good reads if only to laugh at Sheehan saying, "But we're performance analysts damnit!" or Silver saying, "PECOTA says he'll only be worth 1.356 wins in 2011, we should downgrade him.

BP Top 50

Sox related:

7. Andy Marte, 3B, Cleveland
11. Dustin Pedroia, 2B, Boston
36. Jonathan Papelbon, RHP, Boston
45. Craig Hansen, RHRP, Boston

Honorable mentions
Hanley Ramirez, SS, Florida
Anibal Sanchez, RHP, Florida

No Lester in the top 65 is a bit odd.

Rany will be doing a chat on the 21st. I guess that'll be the only discussion of the list.

[yecul]

I'm not surprised that Pedoria is placed so high given PECOTA's projections, but I find that valuation to be hard to believe. Would like to see him healthy and productive in AAA a bit first.

Lester's absence is odd considering the inclusion of Hansen.

[redinchicago]

Rany will be doing a chat on the 21st.  I guess that'll be the only discussion of the list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm a little disapointed with that being the only discussion. I've been looking forward at viewing why they ranked so-and-so player, etc..

Conor Jackson not being listed in the top 50 is a surprise to me. Though, he hasn't shown the power yet.

I guess Justin Upton at 41 is somewhat surprising, but maybe they'll do a wait and see.

Edited by redinchicago, 20 February 2006 - 11:20 AM.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

Lester's absence is odd considering the inclusion of Hansen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I recall them saying somewhere that they really downgraded pitchers as a category this year due to their propensity for injury. Is Hansen the future closer less likely to get hurt than Lester the future starter?

[PedroKsBambino]

I count 14 pitchers amongst the top 50.

4. Francisco Liriano, LHP, Minnesota (has pitched in MLB)
12. Matt Cain, RHP, San Francisco (has pitched in MLB)
15. Justin Verlander, RHP, Detroit (has pitched in MLB)
17. Jeremy Sowers, LHP, Cleveland
25. Anthony Reyes, RHP, St. Louis (has pitched in MLB)
28. Joel Zumaya, RHP, Detroit
33. Yusmeiro Petit, RHP, Florida
35. Jered Weaver, RHP, Los Angeles of Anaheim
36. Jonathan Papelbon, RHP, Boston (has pitched in MLB)
38. Paul Maholm, LHP, Pittsburgh (has pitched in MLB)
40. Philip Hughes, RHP, New York (AL)
43. Fernando Cabrera, RHRP, Cleveland (has pitched in MLB)
45. Craig Hansen, RHRP, Boston (has pitched in MLB)
47. Rich Hill, LHP, Chicago (NL) (has pitched in MLB)

BA doesn't have its 2006 list out yet (IIRC Callis said it would be out this week) but 18 of their top 50 in 2005 were pitchers....we'll see what happens this year on their list. I expected a bit more of a "position player" bias than that, actually....though it's not a straight comparison until BA's own list comes out.

It's pretty hard to construct an argument for Jered Weaver over Lester, I think....a year older, less successful in AA and fewer pro innings. I guess you could focus on scouting reports and doubt Lester's velocity jump.

Hughes was outstanding last year, and is only 19...but he also hasn't crossed into AA yet.

Edited by PedroKsBambino, 20 February 2006 - 11:31 AM.

[yecul]

I recall them saying somewhere that they really downgraded pitchers as a category this year due to their propensity for injury.  Is Hansen the future closer less likely to get hurt than Lester the future starter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I presumed that the projectability of a AA SP with some injury history is mitigated by the fact that Hansen is a reliever with zero track record. It's a marginal point, Lester clearly carries more value with the team and in the league, but I suppose that's not the purpose of this list.

[ShaneTrot]

They have Hughes at 40? He had a great year in the SAL but Lester who is only two years older dominated the EL. That seems sort of bogus.

Plus Petit that high? The guy is a HR giving up machine. He gave up 20 in 131.1 innings, while Lester gave up 10 in 148.1 innings.

I just can't take this too seriously. Lester may have a higher ceiling than half the pitchers on that list. You really have to wonder when a guy is one of the youngest pitchers in the EL and dominates and doesn't even get a whiff even in the Honorable Mentions.

[redinchicago]

47. Rich Hill, LHP, Chicago (NL) (has pitched in MLB)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rich Hill is an interesting selection. Jim Callis ranked him #5 in the Cub organization.

He'll be 26 in a couple weeks and really only has 1 above average pitch. Granted it is a great curve.

Before 2005 he couldn't find the strikezone. Then, between AA and AAA, Rich only walked 2.61 per 9. He got promoted and the walk rate jumped back up to 6.46.

He will at least be a good bullpen lefty, but better than Lester? Not sure about that.

[PedroKsBambino]

Hill is almost surely a pick based on his high k rate, 12.11 per nine is very PECOTA-friendly.

[redinchicago]

If you take BA's contributing editors ranking of Lester, he averages out to around #24.

[OCD SS]

21. Kenji Johjima, C, Seattle

This seems pretty silly to me. I understand that he's technically a prospect, but including players from Japan (who's 30 yrs old) seems to go against the point of the list to me (I also think it's rather silly to have these guys (like Shemp) in the running for RoY honors).

[drtooth]

2005 top 50

Interesting to compare, although I may need help or clarification for some of the differences with some of the following:

Hanley Ramirez- 2005 #24 2006-Honorable Mention

Dustin Pedroia-2005-#49 tie. 2006-#11

Andy Marte-2005 #1 2006-#7

I find it fascinating to see where the prospects rank from 2005 to 2006. What would change in terms of stats to explain such a drastic change in Ramirez's rank?

[Youk2004]

Such change in ranks could come from lots of areas, such as not fulfilling 2005 expectations for that ranking or a new crop of prospects that now look better than what 2005 offered.

[PedrosRedGlove]

Just look at his numbers from last year. As a 20 year old splitting the season between Hi-A and AA he put up a combined ~.790 OPS. He was a .310AVG/.360OBP guy in both places, and showed a major power spike in AA that hadn't been seen since rookie ball. This year he joined Renteria in the curse of Red Sox SSs, as they both put up nearly identical .720 OPS lines (Hanley hit .271, Edgar .276, that was the only difference in their lines). All this in a year that should have been devoted to spring boarding himself into a spot in the top 5 of prospect lists.

[BCsMightyJoeYoung]

Interesting to compare, although I may need help or clarification for some of the differences with some of the following:

Hanley Ramirez- 2005 #24 2006-Honorable Mention

Dustin Pedroia-2005-#49 tie. 2006-#11

Andy Marte-2005 #1 2006-#7

I find it fascinating to see where the prospects rank from 2005 to 2006. What would change in terms of stats to explain such a drastic change in Ramirez's rank?

That seems easy .. BP is very stats oriented when rating prospects .. look at Hanleys 2004 data in AA as opposed to 2005 ..

http://www.thebaseba...y-ramirez.shtml

That #24 ranking was probably the result of 139 very good PAs in AA. He regressed rather markedly last year .. despite being at the same level. I'm surprised he even made honourable mention given their criteria. And , IIRC, there was a great deal of doubt about Hanley in the first place. The hype was almost totally tools vs performance.

[dnramo]

40. Philip Hughes, RHP, New York (AL)

They must have some serious yankee fanboys on their staff. Hughes has 87 good A-ball innings, and is seriously injury-prone. (Per BA: has pitched for 3 teams and ended each tour on the DL). They seem to be overlooking level, sample size, and propensity for injury to include Hughes in their list. Given their reason for cutting so many pitchers (they're bad injury risks) you really have to wonder what their agenda is with Hughes.

[redinchicago]

That seems easy .. BP is very stats oriented when rating prospects .. look at Hanleys 2004 data in AA as opposed to 2005 ..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would be a lot easier if BP would just post their chat sessions (same as previous years). PECOTA is involved, but other factors as well (Sickels, BA rankings, etc.)

[redinchicago]

They must have some serious yankee fanboys on their staff. Hughes has 87 good A-ball innings, and is seriously injury-prone. (Per BA: has pitched for 3 teams and ended each tour on the DL). They seem to be overlooking level, sample size, and propensity for injury to include Hughes in their list. Given their reason for cutting so many pitchers (they're bad injury risks) you really have to wonder what their agenda is with Hughes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you about Hughes, but I don't think there are more than a couple Yankee fans. Rany is a Royal fan, Nate Silver is a Cub or Tiger fan. Dayn Perry is a Cardinal fan.

[David Laurila]

They must have some serious yankee fanboys on their staff. Hughes has 87 good A-ball innings, and is seriously injury-prone. (Per BA: has pitched for 3 teams and ended each tour on the DL). They seem to be overlooking level, sample size, and propensity for injury to include Hughes in their list. Given their reason for cutting so many pitchers (they're bad injury risks) you really have to wonder what their agenda is with Hughes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of the three was a stubbed toe, while the others were mild tendonitis and a tired arm. Given how cautious organizations are with their top young prospects, I'm not sure how much concern there should be. Given that he's only 19, and BA opines that in a different organization he could be in the big leagues this year, I think we're looking at some serious talent here.

Meanwhile, no Lester is a real head-scratcher.

[dnramo]

One of the three was a stubbed toe, while the others were mild tendonitis and a tired arm.  Given how cautious organizations are with their top young prospects, I'm not sure how much concern there should be.  Given that he's only 19, and BA opines that in a different organization he could be in the big leagues this year, I think we're looking at some serious talent here. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The stubbed toe isn't that bad in and of itself, but somehow he stubbed his toe so badly that he had to be placed on the DL? That seems suspicious to me -- either he takes abnormally long to heal from common injuries (a bad sign especially for a pitcher) or he kicked something in purpose (also a bad sign, though of a different nature). His other two injuries -- tendinitis and tired arm -- both indicate potential elbow problems.

I'm just not sure how they can justify ignoring this stuff in his case but using it to demerit more accomplished, more advanced, healthier pitching prospects.

I agree with you about Hughes, but I don't think there are more than a couple Yankee fans. Rany is a Royal fan, Nate Silver is a Cub or Tiger fan. Dayn Perry is a Cardinal fan.

Their agenda could be "we need to sell more subscriptions to our largest demographic" which is probably yankee fans.

[redinchicago]

Their agenda could be "we need to sell more subscriptions to our largest demographic" which is probably yankee fans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could be. Ask them specific questions about Hughes next month, if you are still living the chicago area. Last year, Rany, Nate, and Dayn all showed up for a couple hour talk session at one of those major bookstores. They all live in the Chicago area and should be at one of the pizza feeds, or what ever they call it.

[Paul M]

The average age of this top 50 has to be greater than any of the other lists. Some interesting placements on this list, and I think they want to create some buzz by going further off the track this year. Just one more data-point to add to the mix...

[Hendu Candu]

As far as Lester goes, I seem to remember a BP chat in which one of the writers was asked about Papelbon's meager PECOTA projection and he said that Portland is a more extreme pitcher's park than peopl e realized, thus the pitchers there were heavily discounted, but the hitters (Pedroia!) got a huge boost.

Don't know if the park though should be enough to drop Lester out of even honorable mention though.

[BCsMightyJoeYoung]

Could be. Ask them specific questions about Hughes next month, if you are still living the chicago area. Last year, Rany, Nate, and Dayn all showed up for a couple hour talk session at one of those major bookstores. They all live in the Chicago area and should be at one of the pizza feeds, or what ever they call it.

I have never really noticed a Yankee bias at BP. Joe Sheehan is the only one that comes to mind as being a Yankee fan and he, if anything, rips them more than most.

There have been a few articles at BP recently discussing how PECOTA's been massively upgraded in it's rating of prospects. So I checked out PECOTA's projections for both Hughes and Lester ..

PECOTA loves Philip Hughes ..

Projected 5 year WARP totals :

Philip Hughes : 17.9
Jon Lester : 9.9
Jonathan Papelbon : 7.9
Anibal Sanchez : 11.7
Craig Hansen's : 6.6

That could explain things ..

[edit: thought I'd add Francisco Liriano's (the top ranked pitcher) PECOTA 5 year WARP projection : 18.9]

Edited by BCsMightyJoeYoung, 20 February 2006 - 03:52 PM.

[PedrosRedGlove]

I have never really noticed a Yankee bias at BP.

Just in their Top 50 prospect lists Eric Duncan was placed at #13 last year. I think theres a rule that an under 20 y/o Yankee that had success in A-ball must be included some where on the list.

[FortyFive]

Apologies for not knowing, but I'm curious as to what the criteria are for this list, in terms of previous time in the major leagues?

Papelbon makes the list, even though he finished the season active with the Sox and on the playoff roster, and even though most are projecting him to be with the Sox in lieu of AAA when this season starts. Yet Felix Hernandez, who I see was #3 on the list last year, does not. Papelbon had more games, less innings than Hernandez (17 vs. 12 games; 34 vs. 84.1 innings), but several other players on the list (non-pitchers) were active in more games and had a sizeable number of AB's at the major league level.

How do they determine what constitutes a prospect for the purposes of this list? I didn't see an explanation on the link - I'm assuming it gives one when you actually purchase the Prospectus?

Edited by FortyFive, 20 February 2006 - 05:08 PM.

[PedrosRedGlove]

I think they go by MLB's standard for rookie eligibility, which I believe is 50 IP for pitchers and 150 ABs for hitters.

[PedroWillSaveUs]

I think they go by MLB's standard for rookie eligibility, which I believe is 50 IP for pitchers and 150 ABs for hitters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, it's whether you are RoY eligible. Thus the Japanese players as well.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I'm shocked they put Chris Snelling in that list. I would have thought that his constant and severe injury problems over the past few years would have significantly affected his prospect status.

[PedroWillSaveUs]

Here's their explanation: http://www.baseballp...?articleid=4781

Lester hurt by GB/FB ratio.

They mention that Snelling is "underrated" by other prospect lists, but it doesn't seem like they actually go in to why, unless I missed it.

[PedroKsBambino]

Am I the only one who has never heard of the author of that article, David Regan?

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

That seems suspicious to me -- either he takes abnormally long to heal from common injuries (a bad sign especially for a pitcher) or he kicked something in purpose (also a bad sign, though of a different nature).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In this interview, Hughes explains that he kicked something running across the hall and he was put on the DL b/c MFYs didn't want him changing his motion to compensate. "Being very very careful."

On the other hand, this website says that he kicked a door in frustration:

#4 Philip Hughes, SP: Hughes was the Yankees’ No. 1 pick in 2004, but injuries have clouded his future and slowed his development. * * * Hughes also missed time during the 2004 season with elbow tendonitis, then missed the end of the season when he broke his toe kicking a door in frustration. * * * ETA: 2008

[PedrosRedGlove]

Lester hurt by GB/FB ratio.

That explanation doesn't really cut it for me. It is strange that Lester is even mentioned, especially with the way the sentence was worded.

Among pitchers on the top 50 (or honorable mention), an average GB/FB ratio of 1.19 hurts Jon Lester somewhat in relation to other pitching prospects and could be a future trouble spot pitching in Fenway Park.

He mentions Lester as a pitcher among the top 50?

Either way, I don't really see how a G/F ratio of 0.04 below average is really reason to bump someone off the list when he pretty much exceeds all other requirements.

K/BB and K/9: ...The baseline for K/BB is 2:1, but your top prospects will be at 3:1 or better (Francisco Liriano was at 4:1). The baseline for K/9 is 9.0--we like to see pitching prospects striking out a hitter an inning or more. Also, excellent K/9 and K/BB rates increase in prospect-ranking relevence as a pitcher ascends the minor league ladder. A guy can get by on mediocre stuff at the lower levels if he had good polish and command. Not so much once he hit Double-A and above.

Lester struck out 9.89 per nine and had a K/BB ratio of 2.86 in AA.

Platoon splits: Lester was actually better against righties last year than lefties, and he held both to an OPSA of under .690.

Health History: The only health related concern he's had in his entire professional career was a sore shoulder for a short period of time in 2004, something very minor which hasn't affected him since.

Scouting Report: Lester throws a fastball between 90-96, added a plus cutter this past year, and has a good curveball and change up.

Age vs. Peer Group: Lester was one of the youngest pitchers in the Eastern League last year.

Pitchers Recap: The ideal pitcher is pretty simple: look up a Felix Hernandez report. Outside of that, you like to see a pitcher with a clean health history, at least two “plus” pitches and a decent changeup, the ability to strike out a hitter per inning while maintaining a 1:3 BB:K rate, and a GB/FB rate of 1.20+ A track record of consistent improvement against older competition and the ability to get both same-side and opposite-side hitters out on a consistent basis are also key indicators.

Lester is 0.14 below the ideal K/BB ratio and 0.01 below the ideal G/F ratio. Everything else he excels in, it will be interesting to hear what they have to say about this in the chat.

Edited by PedrosRedGlove, 22 February 2006 - 06:46 PM.

[Paul M]

If all that stuff is true, then why is Jered Weaver on the list? He is a fly-ball artist and is two years older I believe.

[Paradigm]

Here's what BP had to say about Hughes:

Hughes earns high marks for his performance as a teenager, striking out over a hitter per inning while holding SAL and FSL hitters to a line of .182/.245/.215. You don’t see a .215 SLG-against very often, and it’s a result of allowing just one longball in 86 1/3 IP. One final note: the Yankees have yet to even allow Hughes to throw his supposed best pitch, a slider.

I think it would have been great if they'd delved a bit more into the comparables of some of the other hitters, though.


the Golden Sombrero - my blog

Edited by Paradigm, 21 February 2006 - 03:23 PM.

[dnramo]

I have never really noticed a Yankee bias at BP. Joe Sheehan is the only one that comes to mind as being a Yankee fan and he, if anything, rips them more than most.

A lot of yankee fans dislike the way the team has been run lately because the team has traded away a lot of minor leaguers. An analyst pushing such an agenda may be a bit more likely to overrate "his" guys. I'm not sure how much that happens at BPro, but read a Mets thread at primer and you'll be knocked senseless by it.

PECOTA loves Philip Hughes ..

Projected 5 year WARP totals :

Philip Hughes : 17.9
Jon Lester : 9.9
Jonathan Papelbon : 7.9
Anibal Sanchez : 11.7
Craig Hansen's : 6.6

That could explain things ..

[edit: thought I'd add  Francisco Liriano's (the top ranked pitcher) PECOTA 5 year WARP projection : 18.9]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's on 91.2 innings of data, though. I don't see how they can rationally project 5 years worth of performance with 91 innings of data. Hughes wasn't even that good when he was healthy enough to be on the field. A lot of MLB pitchers probably don't project to have 18 WARP over the next 5 years. Josh Beckett had 17.2 WARP1 over his first 5 MLB seasons and likely projects to less over the next 5 seasons. Any system that gives a result like that based on 91 innings of good but not great minor league pitching probably isn't regressing enough.

[bowiac]

Any system that gives a result like that based on 91 innings of good but not great minor league pitching probably isn't regressing enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In defense of PECOTA, even prospectus will admit as much. They've said themselves that PECOTA does a very bad job with tiny sample size dominance guys, as it just projects them to be superstars, pretty much without exception. This was their response to all the Pedroia questions last year, when PECOTA had him turning into Gary Sheffield or so. Of course, he kept it up, and a year later his #1 comp is now Gary Sheffield, but that's another matter.

That said, I think a very good case could be made for Hughes over Lester. Hughes's injury history is actually less scary than a cursory analysis might suggest. He's a year younger than Lester was when he tore up A ball, and his dominance of the level was greater than Lester's was.

Furthermore, Lester now has some control questions, while Hughes for now just has all plusses in his statistical profile.

I personally prefer Lester, but it's close for me, very close.

[bowiac]

So I sent an e-mail to Dave Regan, and he was kind enough to reply within minutes. In response to the Lester issue, and curiosity as to why Lester wasn't top 50:

I tend to agree with you on Lester, but that list was the final responsibility of Dayn and Rany, so I've forwarded your email to them as to their reasoning.

I know Lester has had some shoulder problems in recent years, and his BB:K of 2.86 is solid, but not Liriano-esque.  GB/FB ratio is average and he's certainly got youth on his side.  Being a southpaw doesn't hurt either.  Personally, I'd have probably put him in the mid 40s.  If he can improve his control (BB/9 of 3.5), he'll skyrocket up this list I believe.

Mid 40s is a bit lower than I'd place him personally, as I have a hard time imagining putting him below Papelbon(36th), but it's a good deal more reasonable than out of the top 65 entirely. Somewhere around 25th would seem reasonable to me, between Chad Billingsley and Papelbon. Billingsley has a very similar statistical profile to Lester, and the scouting report seems to match as well. He's a got a year on Lester, which is why I'd put him ahead, but he's a reasonable comp.

[PedroWillSaveUs]

Their agenda could be "we need to sell more subscriptions to our largest demographic" which is probably yankee fans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd guess Sox fans if I had to guess. But the notion that a Yankees fan on the fence about whether to subscribe would sign up because he saw Hughes on the list is fairly far-fetched I think. I'd be surprised if the list-making is motivated by anything other than the goal that they will be able to brag that it was good (or better than the competition) years down the line. THAT might sell books/subscriptions.

[dnramo]

That said, I think a very good case could be made for Hughes over Lester. Hughes's injury history is actually less scary than a cursory analysis might suggest. He's a year younger than Lester was when he tore up A ball, and his dominance of the level was greater than Lester's was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hughes hasn't leapfrogged Lester yet unless you consider 17 innings "dominance." He may jump to AA next year, but I don't think he "deserves" credit for high A until he's actually been around the league.

Also, while he was shut down once for what may or may not have been an angry outburst that broke/mangled his toe, his other injuries (tendinitis, dead arm) are warning signs for future severe injury.

I don't think Hughes is a bad prospect by any means, I just don't see why he seems to be getting such preferential treatment relative to more accomplished players. The injury-induced absence of information probably should not be held as a point in his favor, as it appears to be here.

I agree with the analogy to Pedroia, though of course Pedroia has been far healthier and his evaluation is based on performance punctuated by season schedules rather than frequent DL visits.

[dnramo]

I'd guess Sox fans if I had to guess. But the notion that a Yankees fan on the fence about whether to subscribe would sign up because he saw Hughes on the list is fairly far-fetched I think. I'd be surprised if the list-making is motivated by anything other than the goal that they will be able to brag that it was good (or better than the competition) years down the line. THAT might sell books/subscriptions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In my experience, people enjoy reading/hearing what they want to read/hear more than they enjoy reading/hearing accurate, dispassionate analysis that disagrees with their preconceived notions.

[PedroWillSaveUs]

In my experience, people enjoy reading/hearing what they want to read/hear more than they enjoy reading/hearing accurate, dispassionate analysis that disagrees with their preconceived notions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, this is a rather silly argument, but I think that the target subscriber for BP is not going to make a decision on whether to subscribe based on how many of their team's prospects are on a top 50 list. The amount of coverage devoted to a team in general, sure.

I think Hughes might be a bit of a reach, but it's not an unthinkable pick, and it's hard for me to believe that they did it for any other reason than they think it's the correct baseball choice. Again, if you were trying to please the most fans/potential-readers possible, you certainly wouldn't give a lower-than-expected ranking to Lester.

I wonder if they will post any kind of chat or if this is all we get.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

In my experience, people enjoy reading/hearing what they want to read/hear more than they enjoy reading/hearing accurate, dispassionate analysis that disagrees with their preconceived notions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As someone who was privy to and nominally a part of the debate that led to the Top 50, I am very confident that the people involved were motivated, in the main, by an interest to select the players most likely to have the best careers. Everyone involved has their own biases and blind spots, I am sure. Then again, so do all of you,.

[PedroWillSaveUs]

...and it's obvious that they're extremely competitve, that they want to "beat" their rivals. Again, in the long run, if they can convincingly argue that their lists were better, that's what gets them more readers and subscribers.

[Rough Carrigan]

Leaving aside the notion of whether Lester's gb/fb ratio is, in and of itself, a problem, where does this notion come from that you have to avoid at all costs being a fly ball pitcher in Fenway?

Fenway seems to boost batting average slightly, doubles strongly and infield errors. It's really not that bad of a flyball park for pitchers. Would it be nice if every opposing hitter slapped a Suzuki-esque 37 hopper when he didn't strike out against Lester? Sure. But I need some convincing that you can't be a successful pitcher with an average GB/FB in Fenway.

I just don't think it's a mismatch like putting an extreme flyball pitcher in the Phillies park, or the White Sox park or a few others.

[epraz]

Well, this is a rather silly argument, but I think that the target subscriber for BP is not going to make a decision on whether to subscribe based on how many of their team's prospects are on a top 50 list.  The amount of coverage devoted to a team in general, sure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, they are, particularly if they overvalue their own farm system as most fans seem to do (even those who disparage their farm system in general--as we did up until the past 2 years or so-- tend to overrate individual prospects). People like to have their opinions reinforced. They will tend to pay attention to information that supports their beliefs and tend to ignore info that goes against those beliefs. It's called the confirmation bias and is an established, replicable phenomenon.

[OttoC]

Leaving aside the notion of whether Lester's gb/fb ratio is, in and of itself, a problem, where does this notion come from that you have to avoid at all costs being a fly ball pitcher in Fenway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leaving the rightness or wrongness aside, I suspect that the thought process goes something like this:

Lester is a left-hander; therefore, the opposing lineup will be stacked with right-handed batters. Right-handed batters in Fenway Park will try to pull the ball. Short fly balls to left field in Fenway are apt to hit the wall or go over it.

Obviously, almost any fly ball hit to the right of the flagpole to nearly the right-field line has a lot of room to travel, so being a fly-ball pitcher there won't be a great problem if the pitcher can keep them in the safe two-thirds of the field.

[templeUsox]

In 2005 Lester did hold righties to a .608 OPS vs. a .688 OPS against lefties. There is probably a lot of noise in these numbers, and its only a 1-year sample. But it is possible that he is tougher against RHH's than LHH's. Not to say that he will ever be in this pitcher's caliber, but Lester's frame and arsenal reminds me of Andy Pettitte's. Pettitte has been able to maintain success against RHH's over his career with his cutter. Similarly, Lester has developed the cutter into his best breaking pitch.

[dnramo]

I wonder if they will post any kind of chat or if this is all we get.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe there will be some sort of chat later on.

BTW, I think Hughes is likely in the "real" top 50, but BPro includes a lot of people who wouldn't be on most top 50 lists because they have a strong preference for position players. I don't see why Hughes survives the "pitcher purge" when he has more warning flags than most of the prospects who didn't.

Of course the real (or at least most direct) reason for these lists isn't to sell subscriptions or to live up to scrutiny 5 or 10 years from now, it's to foster discussion. Their methodology will likely be very different 5 years from now just like it was 5 years ago. Likewise, the BA guys will shuffle around, so choosing which product to buy based on 5 year-old lists would be little more than a choice in brand label, even if there was enough information in a handful of lists to make a definitive judgment.

These lists (all the prospect lists, really) are toys for discussion. The value in BA's (or Sickels') products is in the analysis, descriptions, and information they provide. Hughes just stands out to me because I would expect BPro to be more wary of him than the traditional community, rather than less.

[PedroWillSaveUs]

I believe there will be some sort of chat later on.

BTW, I think Hughes is likely in the "real" top 50, but BPro includes a lot of people who wouldn't be on most top 50 lists because they have a strong preference for position players. I don't see why Hughes survives the "pitcher purge" when he has more warning flags than most of the prospects who didn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Weaver and Sowers and Petit all made it too and they don't crack BA's top 50.

Edited by PedroWillSaveUs, 22 February 2006 - 09:59 AM.