2013 draft early returns

Stan Papi Was Framed · Jul 22, 2014

smastroyin said:
the Jon Denney news got me thinking about last year's draft, and so far it has been horrible. It's only been a year and things can change, of course. It will be interesting to see how things develop further.

Trey Ball. OK we knew it would take some time I guess but even with recent better outings he is showing improvement to regaining prospect status, not improvement toward a solid major leaguer.
Teddy Stankiewicz. He hasn't been bad but he hasn't done anything particularly well. As a highly touted JuCo guy I would expect him to look better against the 19-20 year olds in the Sally League.
Jon Denney. Big bonus, now suspended for his attitude, probably done as a Red Sox property.
Myles Smith. College pitcher doing nothing in A ball and already moved to bullpen.
Corey Littrell. Probably the best of the bunch, Major college pitcher holding his own in A+.
Jordon Austin. Struggling in second year in GCL.
Mike Adams. College pitcher doing well in A ball in small sample.
Forrestt Alliday. Older college player (already 23) doing ok in A ball. Very little power relative to league.
Kyle Martin. Another college pitcher, doing ok, at least in A+.
Taylor Grover. Another old college pitcher, doing well controlling the strike zone but gives up too many hits. Very old for Sally League.
Carlos Asuaje. College player, good on base skill, see how he handles promotion to A+, but more a David Eckstein ceiling than anything.
Jake Drehoff. Struggling in NYPL

The Sox basically have to hope that Ball figures it out to get much of impact player types out of this draft. Right now, the upside of this draft looks like maybe a depth starter (between Ball, Stank, Littrell) or a bullpen arm or two (those guys plus the Adams/Martin types) and maybe a low end utility player in Asuaje.

Again, these are early returns, and of course every draft isn't going to be 2011 or 2005.

yes, a lot of disappointment so far. But Trey Ball and Stankiewicz are (perhaps) showing some signs of moving in a positive direction. and Joe Gunkel (18th round pick) has been interesting...but yes, so far, not a lot to be excited about from 2013...unless we count Rafael Devers, who of course wasn't drafted but was signed in 2013....and wait, I forgot about Nick Longhi. not much to go on yet, but a nice start at Lowell this year as an 18 year old (after a few AB last year in the GCL I believe)

Stan Papi Was Framed · Jul 22, 2014

smastroyin said:
yeah, I didn't want to go all the way down the board, but Longhi merits mention as he also got a good bonus down in the 30th round. That's a big miss on my part as right now he's probably the best prospect of the bunch, depending on how you view Ball's chances of straightening himself out versus the small length of Longhi's success (150 or so PA).

understood. I am cautiously optimistic about Longhi--as you rightly point out, he has not had many PA yet...and maybe some of those guys from the top of the draft will improve. I am glad Ball has had (mostly) good starts recently

amfox1 · Jul 22, 2014

smastroyin said:
the Jon Denney news got me thinking about last year's draft, and so far it has been horrible. It's only been a year and things can change, of course. It will be interesting to see how things develop further.

Trey Ball. OK we knew it would take some time I guess but even with recent better outings he is showing improvement to regaining prospect status, not improvement toward a solid major leaguer.
Teddy Stankiewicz. He hasn't been bad but he hasn't done anything particularly well. As a highly touted JuCo guy I would expect him to look better against the 19-20 year olds in the Sally League.
Jon Denney. Big bonus, now suspended for his attitude, probably done as a Red Sox property.
Myles Smith. College pitcher doing nothing in A ball and already moved to bullpen.
Corey Littrell. Probably the best of the bunch, Major college pitcher holding his own in A+.
Jordon Austin. Struggling in second year in GCL.
Mike Adams. College pitcher doing well in A ball in small sample.
Forrestt Alliday. Older college player (already 23) doing ok in A ball. Very little power relative to league.
Kyle Martin. Another college pitcher, doing ok, at least in A+.
Taylor Grover. Another old college pitcher, doing well controlling the strike zone but gives up too many hits. Very old for Sally League.
Carlos Asuaje. College player, good on base skill, see how he handles promotion to A+, but more a David Eckstein ceiling than anything.
Jake Drehoff. Struggling in NYPL

It's way too early to assess. A draft is difficult to assess until three years out, especially when you frame everything negatively, as you did above. Perhaps you should recalibrate your expectations.

BTW, Smith was an NAIA pitcher, not a D1 college arm. Also, he is not a bullpen arm - he's piggybacking (sometimes he pitches first, sometimes second). He's going to take time to develop, as will Stank and Ball.

Forgetting Longhi is a big miss - he received the fourth highest bonus in the class, ahead of Smith, and he looks promising.

Obviously, Denney is a big whiff and Austin looks like a lottery ticket that won't pay off. It's still wait-and-see on GCL kids like Williams and Speier.

ALiveH · Jul 22, 2014

not giving up on stank, ball or denney yet. those kids were all really talented and could turn it around quickly. but, yeah, early returns not good (except for Devers).

Mugsy's Jock · Jul 22, 2014

The legacy of Bobby V. All that losing for nothing...

Fake edit: Except the Punto trade. That worked out pretty good.

someoneanywhere · Jul 22, 2014

A standard caveat is not to be too hard and fast in assessing young pitching in A ball, even for college guys. Too much that's too new is happening to these guys.

A/A+ ball are what we used to call the "stuff" leagues. A lot of guys have "stuff," in fact plenty of them do, and A ball is where they begin to learn that stuff won't be enough. So first they have to learn that lesson. And next they have to adjust to it. The ones who do move along; the ones who don't get released. But both outcomes are realized "eventually."

Snodgrass'Muff · Jul 22, 2014

ALiveH said:
not giving up on stank, ball or denney yet. those kids were all really talented and could turn it around quickly. but, yeah, early returns not good (except for Devers).

I'm not sure I'd be willing to bet a used ziplock bag on Denney turning it around. He just got put back on the Restricted List and may be done for the year for off the field reasons. That's starting to look like a huge whiff on the character evaluation side.

That said, I'm not worried about most of these draftees yet. People seemed to forget about Deven Marrero last year and he's now being talked about as the reason to keep Xander Bogaerts at 3rd. It's really early and they all have plenty of time to find their footing and start progressing through the system.

Stan Papi Was Framed · Jul 22, 2014

smastroyin said:
"early returns" + "too early" + "so far" does not imply I have made definitive final judgments. But to this point, none of these guys, other than Longhi, has even done anything worth following if it weren't for their draft pedigree. Granted that it is early enough that draft pedigree is enough, I'm just saying - they have sucked "so far" for the most part. There is literally nothing in any of the performance that makes you go "oh I have to keep an eye on that guy" other than their name. I realize that this is often the case. But it is also often not the case. Henry Owens at a similar point was striking out 12 batters/9 innings, for instance.

thanks for putting this up to get the discussion going

amfox1 · Jul 22, 2014

smastroyin said:
"early returns" + "too early" + "so far" does not imply I have made definitive final judgments. But to this point, none of these guys, other than Longhi, has even done anything worth following if it weren't for their draft pedigree. Granted that it is early enough that draft pedigree is enough, I'm just saying - they have sucked "so far" for the most part. There is literally nothing in any of the performance that makes you go "oh I have to keep an eye on that guy" other than their name. I realize that this is often the case. But it is also often not the case. Henry Owens at a similar point was striking out 12 batters/9 innings, for instance.

Cool, so you're using SSS to sh!t all over the 2013 draft while giving yourself an out to change your mind over a more relevant period of time. Then, you use an extreme outlier (Owens) as your measuring stick.

Can't wait to read your thread on the 2014 draft (Chavis is a bust!!!)

Snodgrass'Muff · Jul 22, 2014

Or it's a provocative position designed to generate some discussion.

sdiaz1 · Jul 22, 2014

Remember how bad the 2012 draft looked at the end of last season? It seemed like we drafted three bust pitchers and a guy who had an outside shot of being a second division shortstop. Well after 6 months, it looks like Johnson has a legitimate shot at being a back end of the rotation guy on a playoff contender, while Marrero has shown more with the bat to raise his floor as utility middle infielder while driving his ceiling to above average starting shortstop. Sure Light and Maddox are probably nothing, but even Callahan has been coming to life and showing signs as to why he got an overslot bonus.

Point is, with prospects you really need to give time. Lets revisit the 2013 draft after next season to really get an idea as to how well or poorly it is shaping out to be.

Mike F · Jul 22, 2014

One should also wait an extra year to allow any trades involving prospects to access their worth, albeit in terms of who is acquired.

someoneanywhere · Jul 22, 2014

Snodgrass'Muff said:
Or it's a provocative position designed to generate some discussion.

Personally I found it welcome, and understood exactly the boundaries and limitations of the perspective before I responded. In the case of my point (or counterpoint), it was a chance to say something basic about A ball that some people may know, but that a lot of others don't -- and here I am going off some of the things I see in the forum but also a ton of things getting kicked around on the main board now that the wacky season is upon us. People come across stuff at different points of their understanding the game, so it's good maybe for them to pick up some things they otherwise might not. These threads can help with that.

Besides, just because the organizational pros have way more information and are expert in their development planning doesn't mean that they, too, aren't taking stock a year out.

Cesar Crespo · Jul 22, 2014

Carlos is nothing like Eckstein unless you mean he's an interesting fringe prospect to keep an eye on.

billy ashley · Jul 23, 2014

Trey Ball is absolutely still a prospect. To think that Longhi* or Littrell is the best prospect of the bunch, at present time, probably means that you're focusing far too much on statistics.

Trey Ball was a project when we was drafted. He was (and still is) athletic, big and had a loose arm. This season, he was aggressively assigned to Greenville (Lowell or even EST would not have been that unusual, at all). For the first several months of the season, he was hit, very hard. Making matters worse, scouting reports were mostly negative (concerns that his arm speed was slower than in HS). However, over the last month, he's had a lot of success at the level (though I haven't read anything about his mechanics or stuff improving, yet).

Given the fact that Boston has been shaping Ball's mechanics, and that he's super young for his league, it would be a mistake to expect him not to struggle. If he started the season in extended spring training, and was in the GCL right now, I expect folks wouldn't be so worked up about his "lost" season.

The 2013 draft class was not very deep. If Ball had been drafted this past season, he wouldn't have gone 7th. However, he would likely have still be a first rounder.

*I actually like Longhi a lot, and think that he might be a top 20 prospect in the system. He's also likely a first baseman, so his bat is going to have to be stellar.

billy ashley · Jul 23, 2014

I'd also point out that a lot of the guys Boston was linked to, haven't exactly set the world on fire.

Clint Frazier (who i really wanted) has been ok in A ball at a young age, but has a 28% K rate
Austin Meadows has barely played
Colin Moran has been good but not great across A and A+

The thing is, Frazier still has elite bat speed. Meadows is still an excellent athlete. Moran still has a very good hit tool.

I get primarily using statistics to evaluate prospects. For us who don't see these guys or have access to people who do, it's all we've got (I'm guilty of this as well). However, the fact of the matter is that the game is so different at each level, that statistics only tell a small party of the story.

Take Henry Owens for example. He's a good prospect, for sure. But he's absolutely crushed every level he's been at. Why? Because he has a plus change-up. That change-up probably ensures that he'll have an mlb career... but in AA, it's so good and so different from what everybody else is throwing that he doesn't have to worry about having a third pitch (his curve usually gets rated anywhere from a 45-55 on the scouting scale). If you look at box scores, he looks like a number 1. But if you read what scouts have said about him, he sounds like a mid rotation starter (not an insult).

chrisfont9 · Jul 24, 2014

I'm enjoying all of this discussion, recognizing the caveats. Ball may not have looked like a prospect to this point, but I took your premise to mean that there really aren't any conclusions to be drawn at this time.

[Edit] To fill this out a bit more, isn't the term "prospect" largely a subjectivity? Scouts see a combination of measurable talents (velocity, contact rate) and other things (body, athleticism, etc.) and project the whole package forward into a potential future. So a guy shouldn't lose his "prospect" label until something in the basis for the label becomes untrue. Time is a big one -- lack of development eventually forces a reassessment -- but that's not applicable here. In fact, I can't think of many things that would make one a prospect which can be lost in less than a year. Injury, unprofessionalism… not sure what else. The stats on which this column is based are interesting, but I wouldn't translate any of them into a change in "prospect" status, without knowing more.

Plympton91 · Jul 24, 2014

This is a great catalyst for discussion.

It's definitely way to early to make any definitive judgements on Ball, but there are at lot of people in this thread whitewashing things. None of the reports on Ball when he was drafted suggested that he was a "project." They were all universally positive, as you'd expect for someone taken so high in the draft. You don't take a "project" with the number 7 pick. He's also not young for the SAL, and it is not "aggressive" to place a number 7 overall pick in full season low-A ball during his first full pro season. His season can't be characterized as anything but disappointing, and you hope that an offseason to get stronger and mature will let him come back and not have to repeat a level he should be mastering this season. Time will tell, but early returns, as smas said, are poor.

With Denny, I guess we're finding out why he dropped so far from projections and why he was willing to sign for way less than projected. I hope the kid can put his life together and not end up living under a bridge.

That said, I think it is too early to conclude that Asuaje has a low ceiling. He's showing both power and plate discipline, now at an age appropriate level. There's no reason not to be optimistic. Longhi is a bit of a disappoitment that he didn't make a full season roster and now he's hurt, but there's a production record there now that makes him interesting in a Ryan Kalish kind of way.

I'd also add Reid Gragnani to the list of players worth following. He's doing everything you could ask of someone at an age appropriate level. He truely does have a low ceiling, as there appears to be at best average power and speed for a middle infielder, but if he keeps hitting and walking he'll keep building value.

The last draftee that smas noted, Drehoff, I would encourage everyone to just forget. He's a soft tossing lefthander with unspectacular secondary pitches that I imagine will never see AA, let alone the majors. He must've been a guy they drafted to save slot money on.

Edit: another potential sleeper is 24th rounder Janzen Witte from TCU. He's holding g his own at Salem while playing first and third, plus an occasional second base.

Quintanariffic · Jul 25, 2014

Plympton91 said:
This is a great catalyst for discussion.

It's definitely way to early to make any definitive judgements on Ball, but there are at lot of people in this thread whitewashing things. None of the reports on Ball when he was drafted suggested that he was a "project." They were all universally positive, as you'd expect for someone taken so high in the draft. You don't take a "project" with the number 7 pick. He's also not young for the SAL, and it is not "aggressive" to place a number 7 overall pick in full season low-A ball during his first full pro season. His season can't be characterized as anything but disappointing, and you hope that an offseason to get stronger and mature will let him come back and not have to repeat a level he should be mastering this season. Time will tell, but early returns, as smas said, are poor.

Much of this is just factually incorrect. Ball, though universally considered a Top 10 talent, was always believed to be a project due to three important factors. First, he was drafted from a cold weather state (Indiana), and therefore had a lot less experience than kids from the south where the season is 2x as long. Second, Ball was a two-way player who was highly regarded as an OF, to the point where most evaluators had him as a supplemental or 2nd rd pick as an OF. He didn't spend all of his time honing his pitching craft - had to work on his swing and defense just as much. Finally, his father was keen to protect his arm and didn't let him throw a breaking ball until his senior year. Despite all of these factors, Ball still was rated where he was by all respected outlets. It was always clear that he would be a slow mover due to his lack of pitching experience.

Also, given the avg age in the SAL is 22, Ball is most definitely young compared to the league, though perhaps not compared to recent high picks in the SAL.

I'm as disappointed as the next guy that he hasn't come out and lit the SAL on fire like a Casey Kelly or Henry Owens, but he's got such a different background than those two it's just not fair to compare.

Plympton91 · Jul 25, 2014

Again with the "average age" thing. Why is that the appropriate benchmark? The right number is, what is the average age at which current major leaguers completed low, full-season, class A leagues. Or even, since they were obviously hoping he'd be a better than average major leaguer, what is the average age at which current high-impact major leaguers completed that level.

People just posted a bunch of the write ups from the draft publications in another thread. None of them said the equivalent of, "Don't expect this guy to succeed in low-A next year."

OptimusPapi · Jul 25, 2014

Because nobody can predict how a player will do. So stating he will struggle in low A would be a foolish statement. Ball was always seen as a project for all the reason Quint suggested. But I have seen your post in the main board Plympton. Essentially if there is not immediate success then there is a failure. Which is insane.

Quintanariffic · Jul 25, 2014

Plympton91 said:
Again with the "average age" thing. Why is that the appropriate benchmark? The right number is, what is the average age at which current major leaguers completed low, full-season, class A leagues. Or even, since they were obviously hoping he'd be a better than average major leaguer, what is the average age at which current high-impact major leaguers completed that level.

People just posted a bunch of the write ups from the draft publications in another thread. None of them said the equivalent of, "Don't expect this guy to succeed in low-A next year."

Nice how you cherry pick my comments. Typical.

Anyway, if you can't connect the dots between "cold weather state", "two-way player" and "never threw a breaking ball", that's your own inadequacy.

Plympton91 · Jul 25, 2014

Quintanariffic said:
Nice how you cherry pick my comments. Typical.

Anyway, if you can't connect the dots between "cold weather state", "two-way player" and "never threw a breaking ball", that's your own inadequacy.

I understand that argument, I just don't understand how it can coexist with the words #7 overall pick. And it ignores the fact that the biggest reason for the struggles is a drop in velocity, which has nothing to do with any of your offered excuses.

Plympton91 · Jul 25, 2014

OptimusPapi said:
Because nobody can predict how a player will do. So stating he will struggle in low A would be a foolish statement. Ball was always seen as a project for all the reason Quint suggested. But I have seen your post in the main board Plympton. Essentially if there is not immediate success then there is a failure. Which is insane.

You might want to check out some of the archives. Search Daniel Bard threads from the winter of 09-10 when I was one of the only ones to note that his splits suggested he could be a good reliever. Check out the Andrew Miller thread when they resigned him in the winter of 11-12 when I again nailed it that he'd transition nicely to relief. Or buy into the projected jealousy of many posters around here.

billy ashley · Jul 25, 2014

i think we need to re-calibrate our expectations surrounding the the words "#7 pick".

Trey Ball was a good amateur prospect who still is a very interesting prospect, despite his early season struggles. However, in a normal year, he would have gone closer to 20 than 7. 2013, was a weak draft year. Oh well.

BTW- Soxprospects had been trying to temper expectations of him well before the season started. This was going to be a transitional year for Ball, according to most who follow the minors.

We should note that the two guys we were linked to, most closely, have also had issues this year: Fraiser and Meadows.

Quintanariffic · Jul 26, 2014

Plympton91 said:
I understand that argument, I just don't understand how it can coexist with the words #7 overall pick. And it ignores the fact that the biggest reason for the struggles is a drop in velocity, which has nothing to do with any of your offered excuses.

So are we to believe that working on Ball's unrefined mechanics is not supposed to have a short-term impact on his velocity?

Plympton91 said:
You might want to check out some of the archives. Search Daniel Bard threads from the winter of 09-10 when I was one of the only ones to note that his splits suggested he could be a good reliever. Check out the Andrew Miller thread when they resigned him in the winter of 11-12 when I again nailed it that he'd transition nicely to relief. Or buy into the projected jealousy of many posters around here.

Are you trying to be EV here, or is this just parody?

Shall we also search the archives for the umpteen times you've been wrong?

SouthernBoSox · Jul 26, 2014

Plympton91 said:
You might want to check out some of the archives. Search Daniel Bard threads from the winter of 09-10 when I was one of the only ones to note that his splits suggested he could be a good reliever. Check out the Andrew Miller thread when they resigned him in the winter of 11-12 when I again nailed it that he'd transition nicely to relief. Or buy into the projected jealousy of many posters around here.

Dude, I typically like your contrarian views but this is a top 5 most embarrassing post I've ever seen on this site. And I've seen some shit.

You aren't some oracle. If you were, you wouldn't have to constantly remind people of the times you were right.

Plympton91 · Jul 26, 2014

SouthernBoSox said:
Dude, I typically like your contrarian views but this is a top 5 most embarrassing post I've ever seen on this site. And I've seen some shit.

You aren't some oracle. If you were, you wouldn't have to constantly remind people of the times you were right.

It's not right vs. wrong, we're all just flipping coins here to an even greater extent than the professional talent evaluators employed by the teams. My response was to counteract the idea that for some reason people have this view that I'm universally negative. In those two cases, I was positive even though there was no superficial reason to be positive at all. I call it as I see it, and sometimes that's positive and sometimes that's negative. But it seems like if you're not universally positive on the site, then people feel as if you're always negative.

I was positive on the Bobby V. signing, way way wrong! Another instance, at the beginning of last season I was extremely high on Bradley, moreso after I trusted that the Front Office knew what they were doing when they promoted him out of spring training. After watching him struggle all last year, then I became convinced that both he and the team's record would benefit from more time in AAA. So, I was dead wrong last year by being too positive. But again, to say that I'm just reflexively negative is wrong.

OptimusPapi · Jul 26, 2014

It's not a matter of right or wrong a bunch of your post though not all are asinine and illogical that's what your being called out on

Quintanariffic · Jul 26, 2014

Plympton91 said:
It's not right vs. wrong, we're all just flipping coins here to an even greater extent than the professional talent evaluators employed by the teams. My response was to counteract the idea that for some reason people have this view that I'm universally negative. In those two cases, I was positive even though there was no superficial reason to be positive at all. I call it as I see it, and sometimes that's positive and sometimes that's negative. But it seems like if you're not universally positive on the site, then people feel as if you're always negative.

I was positive on the Bobby V. signing, way way wrong! Another instance, at the beginning of last season I was extremely high on Bradley, moreso after I trusted that the Front Office knew what they were doing when they promoted him out of spring training. After watching him struggle all last year, then I became convinced that both he and the team's record would benefit from more time in AAA. So, I was dead wrong last year by being too positive. But again, to say that I'm just reflexively negative is wrong.

No one gives a shit that you may be universally negative. You seem to have an extraordinarily ability to remind people of the few times you were right while developing amnesia about all the issues you were wrong about.

You're nothing more than an EV-esque punchline at this point.

LeftyTG · Jul 26, 2014

Quintanariffic said:
So are we to believe that working on Ball's unrefined mechanics is not supposed to have a short-term impact on his velocity?

Alex Speier with some helpful tidbits on Ball's velocity:

Though left-hander Trey Ball absorbed the loss to drop to 1-8, the 20-year-old left-hander continued his run of strong performances. He permitted four runs (two earned) on six hits (four singles, a double and triple) in six innings, walking just one while punching out three. He recorded eight groundball outs while averaging 91 mph and topping out at 95 — a mark he hadn’t been hitting to this point in the year — and recorded five swings and misses with his fastball, a pitch that he threw for strikes at will (37 of 48 for strikes — 77 percent), on a night where he sailed through his six innings in just 71 pitches.
The month of July has thus represented a considerable step forward in the 2013 first-rounder’s performance. In 25 innings, he has a 3.24 ERA with 19 strikeouts and seven walks while holding opponents to a .196 average — a considerable improvement from the first three months, during which he had a 7.27 ERA.
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/07/26/red-sox-minor-league-roundup-brian-johnson-cody-kukuk-dominate-trey-ball-breakthrough-continues-feats-of-mookie/

Plympton91 · Jul 26, 2014

Quintanariffic said:
No one gives a shit that you may be universally negative. You seem to have an extraordinarily ability to remind people of the few times you were right while developing amnesia about all the issues you were wrong about.

You're nothing more than an EV-esque punchline at this point.

People willing to offer opinions and projections publicly take the chance of being wrong a lot. It's par for the course. If that makes others jealous and uncomfortable, nothing I can do about it.

OptimusPapi · Jul 27, 2014

The problem is yours are silky. My favorite was you declaring Workman a bullpen arm after only five decent starts. How the hell do you judge someone with such a small sample?

Rasputin · Jul 27, 2014

OptimusPapi said:
The problem is yours are silky. My favorite was you declaring Workman a bullpen arm after only five decent starts. How the hell do you judge someone with such a small sample?

Please don't make me agree with Plimpy, it probably makes him just as uncomfortable as it makes me.

Minor league performance matters. Scouting reports matter. If a guy has five major league starts and he's been through the minors, you've got a pretty good idea of what he's going to be. You're going to be wrong sometimes because people will perform better and worse than you think.

The reports on Workman suggest that he's going to be a guy in the back of the rotation or a bullpen guy and there's nothing wrong with that.

LondonSox · Jul 27, 2014

Just on the it's too early note

If we had this same conversation the year after Mookie Betts was drafted with a reasonable bonus, he had a 658 OPS in 2012 over 71 games at short season ball.
BUST!!!!!

Oh yeah right 400 OBP, and 900 ish OPS at every level since and a top prospect 18mths later.

Plympton91 · Jul 27, 2014

OptimusPapi said:
The problem is yours are silky. My favorite was you declaring Workman a bullpen arm after only five decent starts. How the hell do you judge someone with such a small sample?

See if you're unable to properly comprehend what I very clearly said, then it's no wonder you find it silly. As Ras said, it is nearly universal in the scouting community and backed up by MLEs that Workman is a back of the rotation starter. In contrast, his short stints as a reliever, as well as his splits for the first time through the order as a starter, suggest that he'd be potentially a dominant reliever. The latter is more valuable than the former, especially for a team with now 8 candidates for the rotation in AAA and AA.

OptimusPapi · Jul 27, 2014

No I guess you guys have a point. I mean if the scouting reports say something then that has to be right. Because scouting reports are infallible. Or perhaps if a player comes up pitches well for five starts it might be better to say hmm maybe we need to continue throwing this guy out there and get a large sample size to see if perhaps the scouting reports are wrong. Naw why depend on large sample sizes when you can make snap judgements right Plympton.

Quintanariffic · Jul 27, 2014

Plympton91 said:
People willing to offer opinions and projections publicly take the chance of being wrong a lot. It's par for the course. If that makes others jealous and uncomfortable, nothing I can do about it.

Don't give yourself too much credit.

It's your unnatural lack of any sort of self-awareness that is making people uncomfortable.

Plympton91 · Jul 27, 2014

OptimusPapi said:
No I guess you guys have a point. I mean if the scouting reports say something then that has to be right. Because scouting reports are infallible. Or perhaps if a player comes up pitches well for five starts it might be better to say hmm maybe we need to continue throwing this guy out there and get a large sample size to see if perhaps the scouting reports are wrong. Naw why depend on large sample sizes when you can make snap judgements right Plympton.

Yeah, cause I clearly said only use scouting reports. Oh wait, no I didn't. You could also use MLEs, like I said in the post. You could also look at splits by pitch count and times through the order, like I said in the post. Not said last time, but clearly also relevant, you can look at something like a 4,46 xFIP to help determine how well he'd really pitched as a starter. But, you know, keep beating those strawmen, you and Quintannariffic are great at it.

Quintanariffic · Jul 27, 2014

Plympton91 said:
But, you know, keep beating those strawmen, you and Quintannariffic are great at it.

You can't make this stuff up!

Oh wait, you just did.

TheGoldenGreek33 · Jul 27, 2014

Everyone educate themselves on how advancing through minor league baseball works. Hint: it's not numbers and only a small fraction of a scouting report.

The players goal is to climb the ranks. They're told by player development what needs to happen: "you need to improve X, Y, Z" ... That could be anything, whether it's quantifiable or not.

Without context, there is nothing.

Plympton91 · Jul 27, 2014

Quintanariffic said:
You can't make this stuff up!

Oh wait, you just did.

I mean what are we arguing about here? Do you want to claim that there's nothing at all disappointing about having a #1 pick struggling in low-A? Because, if not, I'm having a hard time understanding the disagreement.

TheGoldenGreek33 · Jul 27, 2014

No. There's not.

TheGoldenGreek33 · Jul 28, 2014

TheGoldenGreek33 said:
Everyone educate themselves on how advancing through minor league baseball works. Hint: it's not numbers and only a small fraction of a scouting report.

The players goal is to climb the ranks. They're told by player development what needs to happen: "you need to improve X, Y, Z" ... That could be anything, whether it's quantifiable or not.

Without context, there is nothing.

Mark Appel, 2013 No. 1 overall, at High-A Lancaster (remember that launching pad?): 2-5, 9.74 ERA, 1.92 WHIP... Promoted to Double-A. Say what you want about Appel's future potential, that just got him promoted.

Bigpupp · Jul 29, 2014

Pretty sure that had nothing to do with meeting goals. At that point they were just trying to save his career.

2013 draft early returns

simpering whimperer

Member

simpering whimperer

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Eli apologist

Well-Known Member

oppresses WARmongers

simpering whimperer

Member

Well-Known Member

oppresses WARmongers

New Member

Mayor of Fort Myers

Well-Known Member

79

simpering whimperer

Member

Member

simpering whimperer

Member

bubble burster

Well-Known Member

bubble burster

Jiminy Cricket

Well-Known Member

bubble burster

bubble burster

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

bubble burster

Jiminy Cricket

Well-Known Member

Member

bubble burster

Jiminy Cricket

Will outlive SeanBerry

Robert the Deuce

bubble burster

Jiminy Cricket

Well-Known Member

bubble burster

Well-Known Member

Member

bubble burster

Member

Member

Member