ESPN/Keith Law Farm System Ranking - Red Sox 5th

terrisus

formerly: imgran
SoSH Member
Ranking all 30 farm systems
 
Relevant excerpt for those without Insider: 
 
 
5. Boston Red Sox

They rival Houston for the best top 10 of any team, with as many prospects on the top 100 as the Astros have, and while they don't have Houston's depth, Boston's system is pretty deep, with at least a half-dozen pitching prospects who reasonably project (that is, not just pie-in-the-sky forecasting) as No. 4 starters or better.

And that ignores the part about their best prospects being position players who hit and most of whom play very good defense. When a defensive whiz like Christian Vazquez, a catcher who can hit a little, can't crack your top 10, you're doing a lot of things right.
 
 
Also, FWIW, Yankees at #20.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
The Red Sox are behind Houston, Chicago (N), Minnesota and Pittsburgh for those curious.  I don't think it's unfair to rank them behind any of those clubs, though you could probably make a somewhat convincing argument for the Red Sox as high as three behind the Astros and Cubs.
 

mikebrooks

New Member
Apr 27, 2013
8
Quick turnaround for Theo, Hoyer and the crew in Chicago. Interesting ranking for San Diego on the list, particularly after Hoyer's departure. They were Law's #1 system a few years ago, slid to 6th last year, and now at 9th. 
 
And I agree - wouldn't put the Sox higher than the Astros and/or Cubs. Can't wait to see a few of these farm arms in the Bigs.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,093
mikebrooks said:
Interesting ranking for San Diego on the list, particularly after Hoyer's departure. They were Law's #1 system a few years ago, slid to 6th last year, and now at 9th. 
 
 
 That's what happens when the prospects who make you #1 graduate to the majors.
 

Galamann

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
36
Columbus OH
Top 100 is out: 7 Red Sox prospects made it.
 
(2) Xander Bogaerts
(42) Henry Owens
(51) Jackie Bradley Jr. 
(53) Garin Cecchini 
(56) Blake Swihart
(61) Mookie Betts
(89) Matt Barnes
 
The biggest variance among rankings seems to involve Allen Webster. Both Keith Law and Baseball Prospectus have left out Webster ( and AFAIK he still qualifies) while MLB has Webster at (46) and I'm assuming Baseball America has Webster on their Top 100 ( ranked 4th in Red Sox organization)
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Do Law, BP and others articulate how they rank prospects?
 
For example, there's a very good chance that Henry Owens will never amount to anything in the majors. Law obviously puts a lot of weight on projectability if he rates Owens ahead of JBJ. That same bias might also explain a lower ranking for Webster -- he improved his stock with a nice season at Pawtucket, which suggests a good chance of being a useful major leaguer in the not-too-distant future, but I don't think any of us think Webster could become a top-of-the-rotation guy, which Owens obviously has a chance to be.
 
FWIW, I think Law's focus on projectability is probably correct if you're ranking guys by their trade value. 
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
Henry Owens is another one. Speier (BA) and Law had him number two in the Sox system, while BP ranked him quite a bit lower than that.
 

Galamann

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
36
Columbus OH
From Keith Law's article about how he weights his rankings
 
When ranking players, I consider scouting reports on players -- usually my own, supplementing with conversations with other scouts and front-office executives as needed -- as well as performance, adjusted for age and context. I've made one adjustment in my ranking philosophy in recent years, favoring higher-upside prospects over lower-ceiling prospects who are closer to the majors. This better reflects how these players are valued now by front offices and scouting departments, and gives me a chance to deliver more information on prospects whose names or scouting reports might be new to you.
 
Disclaimer: I fully understand that prospect rankings are an inexact science and I am no where near an expert on this subject. IMO I'd have Webster in the top 100 based on his upside and I find it really interesting how divided people are on him. 
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Speaking of Owens, Law calls him a "strike thrower" with good "feel and control".  I thought the walk rate was one of the major concerns, no?
 

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
16,247
Boston, MA
Betts also seems to split a lot of ballots, either they see him as a dynamic athlete whose skill set can play anywhere on the diamond, others see him as just a utility guy who will be exposed in the upper levels.  I believe, but given his 'out of nowhere' campaign in 2013, I can see wanting him to repeat it before moving him up on the list.
 

terrisus

formerly: imgran
SoSH Member
Hoping it's alright to post this here (I believe only the first 2 are Insider content). If not, please delete.
 
 
 
2: Xander Boegarts, SS
 
For all of Bogaerts' tools -- and he has many -- it was his patient approach at the plate that stood out in the Aruban's brief major league stint in 2013. Bogaerts has explosive potential as a hitter, as the ball comes off his bat exceptionally well, and the fact he sees the ball so well and makes good decisions as a hitter bodes well for his ability to adjust to major league pitching if he's handed an everyday job in 2014.

He has quick and very strong hands at the plate, with moderate hip rotation that still projects to plus power because of the speed and force of his swing. He's a natural shortstop, with soft hands and very good actions as well as plenty of arm for the left side of the infield. Although his frame could allow him to get too big for the position, he's maintained his conditioning well enough to stay at short for the near future, and the possibility of a 25- to 30-homer bat with strong on-base skills at that position gives Boston strong incentive to leave him there.

He could be Troy Tulowitzki with a little less arm, and that's an MVP-caliber player.
 
 42: Henry Owens, LHP
 
Owens was prospect No. 101 on last year's rankings, first in the column of guys who just missed the main list, but he showed across-the-board improvement in 2013 and now projects as a No. 3 starter with a chance to be a good No. 2.

He has always been a strike-thrower, but was working in the upper 80s as a starter in high school and right after signing, showing 90-92 in short stints. In 2013, he was working at that higher range as a starter and his curveball got sharper and harder as well, now more 72-74 as opposed to the upper 60s he showed the year before. The curve will settle in as an average to slightly above-average pitch, but he already has the swing-and-miss weapon in his plus-plus changeup, made even more effective because hitters do not pick up the ball out of his hand.

Owens has always had feel and control, but now the stuff is catching up to his polish and he's not far away from contributing in Fenway.
 
 51: Jackie Bradley Jr., OF
 
While Bradley Jr.'s Jackpot Wad took over Fort Myers last spring, with a .419/.507/.613 line in 62 at-bats, the push for his Hall of Fame induction might have been a touch premature, as Bradley wasn't the same guy when the bell rang in April as he was when the games didn't count.

Major league pitchers were able to beat him in the zone with plus velocity and down and away with off-speed stuff, but Bradley managed to perform as well as expected after a demotion to Pawtucket. His ideal game is plus-plus defense in center with a high OBP at the plate and fringy power, maybe 10 to 15 homers a year; when he tries to over-rotate to hit the ball out to right, he expands his zone and makes less contact as a result.

Staying short to the ball and focusing on going line-to-line rather than trying to hit for power should make him an above-average regular, with OBPs in the .360 to .380 range. He could also save 10 or more runs a year on defense, enough to make Red Sox fans say "Jacoby who?"
 
 53: Garin Cecchini, 3B
 
Cecchini had a minor hamstring issue that slowed him down in 2013, but he showed he could really hit, projecting as a consistent .300-plus hitter whose future hit grade is a 65 or a 70. Now he just has to show he can stay at third base.

As a hitter, Cecchini has an extremely advanced approach at the plate, actually walking more than he struck out this year despite moving up a level midseason. He has some raw power but rarely shows it in games, preferring to use the middle of the field, although with no stride and a tendency to stay more linear and short to the ball, he'll have a hard time getting past 15 homers. His defense at third will never be pretty, but I believe he can stay there based on his instincts and game awareness, which will make up for a lack of first-step quickness.

His downside is a Bill Mueller-type of career, but I see Cecchini hitting for higher averages and OBPs while providing comparable defense at third base.
 
 56: Blake Swihart, C
 
Swihart, the No. 100 prospect on my list before the 2012 season, had a slow start that year but finished strong, and then carried it over with a breakout season in 2013 that saw him improve on offense and defense.

He is a tremendous athlete who played all over the field in high school, but last year the athleticism started to translate into very good defensive skills, with a plus arm that's quite accurate to go with better actions and receiving behind the plate. As a hitter, Swihart started to control the zone more effectively in 2013, with a 20 percent drop in his strikeout rate and a 33 percent hike in his walk rate even with the move up to high-A. He's a switch-hitter who lacked reps from the left side before entering pro ball but made substantial progress in his approach from that side last year, taking more than 80 percent of his plate appearances from that side.

Right now, Swihart is more of a line-drive hitter with doubles power but still projects to have average to above-average power when he peaks, 15 to 20 bombs a year, along with a strong OBP and plus defense behind the plate. He wasn't young for his level in either of the past two years, as he graduated high school at 19, but he's ready for Double-A now. With defensive wizard Christian Vazquez ahead of him, Swihart should get plenty of time in the high minors to continue to work on hitting left-handed and keeping his arm stroke short and simple behind the plate.
 
 61: Mookie Betts, 2B
 
Betts was one of the year's biggest breakout prospects, a 2011 fifth-round pick who had an unremarkable pro debut in short-season Class A Lowell in 2012, but ripped through both full-season A-ball levels last year and established himself as one of the best middle infield prospects in the game.

He has some early hand movement before he loads his swing, but it's window-dressing and doesn't prevent him from being short and direct to the ball, with good hip rotation and some loft in his finish that could eventually produce 20-homer power. He's a plus runner and at least a 55-grade defender at second, with good range to his right and the athleticism to end up plus there; I know some scouts see him as a potential shortstop if the opportunity were to arise. His best attribute might be his feel for the strike zone; he's very balanced at the plate, even when he sees off-speed stuff, and makes quick adjustments within each at bat like a player with more pro experience would.

He could be an All-Star at second, maybe close to that at short, and despite his short stature there's still upside here because he's such a good athlete that he has untapped potential on both sides of the ball.
 
 89: Matt Barnes, RHP
 
Barnes had a very strong season in Double-A, missing a ton of bats and continuing to develop his curveball and changeup. He's still not at the point at which he's likely to have all three offerings working on the same day.

He shows a low-90s fastball and can add a little more when needed; hitters don't see the ball well out of his hand at all, so he gets a ton of swings and misses on his fastball, even within the zone. His curveball was much better in the second half of the season, a downer breaking ball that he didn't command early but was more effective with later in the season, while his changeup was probably better in the spring and might be a little too hard to be more than an average pitch. He continues to command his fastball better than his off-speed stuff and will probably spend most of 2014 in Triple-A working on the latter.

I see at least a mid-rotation starter here, with a chance to play above that if the secondary pitches come along. Guys who miss bats with fastball strikes like this are pretty uncommon, so I could be easily selling him short.
 

Wingack

Yankee Mod
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
34,360
In The Quivering Forest
Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
Rays are 23. It's harder when you're good.
Yeah no kidding. It is also part of reason the Yankees are in the same position as the Rays.

But it also shines a light on how good the Sox are at developing talent as they have generally been very good too.
 

Again2004

New Member
Jan 9, 2007
207
Rays drafted really poorly during 2008~2012. They have stocked by trading starting pitchers. This offseason they failed to trade David Price. It was doomed that their farm is falling. One of most overrated farm system.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
If Cecchini's downside is Bill Mueller that is pretty darn good (must be a mistake by Law or he'd be ranked much higher).  Bill had a 12-year career and ~.800 career OPS.  One year he led the league in batting, won a silver slugger & finished 12th in the MVP.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,093
And Mueller was a solid if unspectacular defensive 3B before his knees gave way. BBref and FG both have him as a 23+ career WAR player. If that's really Cecchini's floor, holy shit.


KLaw needs to clarify a bit because there's no way that's the worst case scenario. Even the best prospects (a group that does not include Cecchini) have a non-trivial chance of being replacement level or worse. Remember when Andy Marte was the best prospect in the game?
 

Hoplite

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
ALiveH said:
If Cecchini's downside is Bill Mueller that is pretty darn good (must be a mistake by Law or he'd be ranked much higher).  Bill had a 12-year career and ~.800 career OPS.  One year he led the league in batting, won a silver slugger & finished 12th in the MVP.
 
radsoxfan said:
Speaking of Owens, Law calls him a "strike thrower" with good "feel and control".  I thought the walk rate was one of the major concerns, no?
 
Not a fan of Law. He also downgraded Webster for "lack of an above average offspeed pitch" (which seems kind of ridiculous considering he has a plus-plus fastball, a plus change and a slider that's been rated average-above average) and because he didn't "adjust" to major league hitters (in 30 innings). There are also some massive differences in the way he's rating people now versus how he rated players after the draft (Ball fell a ton and Cecchini somehow went from being a top 25 prospect to the 53rd best prospect). And he's one of only two sources I've seen (him and Sickels) to still think Ranaudo's a top 10 prospect in our system.
 

ArttyG12

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
100
Law defined "ceiling" in his chat:
Ceiling. What you might call a realistic optimist's forecast (as opposed to a best case scenario, or what you might call "delusional Cubs fan who thinks Matt Szczur and Junior Lake are superstars" forecast).
 
 
 
I'd think downside would be about the same - a realistic pessimist's take.  Cecchini seems to be a good prospect largely because of his low downside - he's unlikely to be a superstar, but he's very likely to be a big league regular. He (and other writers) can't really be expected to write "He could bottom out as a replacement-level player" when discussing a player's downside, because as you say he'd have to write it for literally every player.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
ArttyG12 said:
Law defined "ceiling" in his chat:
 
 
I'd think downside would be about the same - a realistic pessimist's take.  Cecchini seems to be a good prospect largely because of his low downside - he's unlikely to be a superstar, but he's very likely to be a big league regular. He (and other writers) can't really be expected to write "He could bottom out as a replacement-level player" when discussing a player's downside, because as you say he'd have to write it for literally every player.
 
Right, but there's a substantial gap between "replacement-level player" and Bill Mueller.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Right, but there's a substantial gap between "replacement-level player" and Bill Mueller.
Agreed. I think Mueller's a good and obvious comp, but certainly not a floor. Cecchini might never develop power. He could be Sean Burroughs, a guy with good contact skills but no ability to drive ball. That's his floor.
 

ArttyG12

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
100
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Right, but there's a substantial gap between "replacement-level player" and Bill Mueller.
 
But what's your point?  He's saying the most likely bad outcome for Cecchini is a Mueller, a player who was a bit above average most years, with a couple good years mixed in.
 

Minneapolis Millers said:
Agreed. I think Mueller's a good and obvious comp, but certainly not a floor. Cecchini might never develop power. He could be Sean Burroughs, a guy with good contact skills but no ability to drive ball. That's his floor.
 
Its possible he thinks Cecchini already has a better hit tool or significantly better eye than Burroughs did, in which case without any further development he's already past Burroughs and his floor is higher.
 
I think its reasonable to disagree with his assessment of Cecchini, but I don't see a problem with the methodology or report. 
 

Manramsclan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,371
maufman said:
 
 
For example, there's a very good chance that Henry Owens will never amount to anything in the majors. 
 
Hey mauf, I haven't heard anything like this. Granted, I've been reading fap pieces in the Globe and elsewhere. Is this just a TINSTAAPP related comment?  He's a first round pick, seems to me that he would at least become a useful bullpen arm. Just interested to hear your thought process.
 
As for the Rays system, Law did mention on his most recent podcast that the graduation of prospects had a significant impact on their ranking. He cited Wil Myers as an example. A consensus #1-#5 prospect who graduated and was the Rookie of the Year. Not sure how that dovetails with the likes of Kelly and Gyorko reaching the Padres and only dropping them 5 spots, but I would suspect it is just that the Rays didn't have much beyond Myers(who they didn't draft or develop), while the Padres have a lot of pitching knocking on the door. 
 

Hoplite

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Don't you think that performance from the date you cite (the draft) until the end of the season is reflected in the rankings? He may very well rate them the same he did but other guys impressed more and passed them. Ball didn't exactly blow anyone out of the water in his five game debut.
 
No. Ball threw 7 innings, and I believe Law was asked about the Ball grade in a chat and said it wasn't based on performance.
 
The Ball grade is probably my smallest issue with him. It could be understandable on it's own if he got really bad reports on Ball from scouts, but in combination with saying Owens has good control, the huge fluctuation in Cecchini's ranking, taking issue with Webster not adjusting to major league hitters in 30 innings and not having three plus pitches (most aces don't have three), I find it hard to take Law seriously. He also did a mock draft where he suggested Appel had a realistic chance of falling to the Red Sox.
 

PrestonBroadus Lives

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 21, 2007
280
Hoplite said:
 
No. Ball threw 7 innings, and I believe Law was asked about the Ball grade in a chat and said it wasn't based on performance.
 
The Ball grade is probably my smallest issue with him. It could be understandable on it's own if he got really bad reports on Ball from scouts, but in combination with saying Owens has good control, the huge fluctuation in Cecchini's ranking, taking issue with Webster not adjusting to major league hitters in 30 innings and not having three plus pitches (most aces don't have three), I find it hard to take Law seriously. He also did a mock draft where he suggested Appel had a realistic chance of falling to the Red Sox.
 
The fluctuation in Cecchini's ranking makes sense given that Law specifically stated that he had adjusted his method to place more value on ceiling rather than probability of making the majors. His opinion on Webster is less complicated than you're making it. I've seen other scouting reports list his slider as just average and many have noted his fastball command issues. Regarding adjustments, he's not making a broad statement about Webster's inability to adjust to major league hitters. Law is just pointing out his inability to make minor adjustments from pitch to pitch (probably the source of his fastball command issues). I do agree that the Owens comments about his good control are somewhat puzzling.
 

Hoplite

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
PrestonBroadus Lives said:
 
The fluctuation in Cecchini's ranking makes sense given that Law specifically stated that he had adjusted his method to place more value on ceiling rather than probability of making the majors. His opinion on Webster is less complicated than you're making it. I've seen other scouting reports list his slider as just average and many have noted his fastball command issues. Regarding adjustments, he's not making a broad statement about Webster's inability to adjust to major league hitters. Law is just pointing out his inability to make minor adjustments from pitch to pitch (probably the source of his fastball command issues). I do agree that the Owens comments about his good control are somewhat puzzling.
 
It's certainly possible that his Owens comments fed in to the narrative I had about him as the guy who refused to admit he was wrong about Chris Sale and suggested Appel had a realistic chance of falling to the Red Sox in the draft so now I'm being more critical than usual about the other stuff (Webster, Ball, Cecchini/Mueller).
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
ArttyG12 said:
 
But what's your point?  He's saying the most likely bad outcome for Cecchini is a Mueller, a player who was a bit above average most years, with a couple good years mixed in.
 
 
Its possible he thinks Cecchini already has a better hit tool or significantly better eye than Burroughs did, in which case without any further development he's already past Burroughs and his floor is higher.
 
I think its reasonable to disagree with his assessment of Cecchini, but I don't see a problem with the methodology or report. 
Well if his "methodology" would call a 12 year vet with a career OPS+ of 109 and a batting title a reasonable pessimist's floor then yes, I disagree with the methodology.
 

ArttyG12

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
100
Minneapolis Millers said:
Well if his "methodology" would call a 12 year vet with a career OPS+ of 109 and a batting title a reasonable pessimist's floor then yes, I disagree with the methodology.
 
Is a 109 OPS+ that good?  Reasonably, a Bill Mueller-type career just means decent Avg and with a solid OPB and light power, right?  It certainly seems to me like Cechini would have to fall off a cliff to not end up doing that in the majors.
 
Do you really think "Bill Mueller-type career" has anything to do with a batting title?  Mueller hit above .300 for a full season all of once, it just happened to be in a year when .326 would win a batting title.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
I'm confused by his Bradley ranking given his Bradley commentary. A CF who is 10 runs above average defensive, gets on base at a .360-.380 level, and 10-15 HR's is one of the best players in all of baseball. That basically describes Ellsbury from last year. (The OBP advantage makes up for the lack of steals.) Since Law's description reads like a projection, not a projected ceiling, it is difficult to square him describing Bradley as a, roughly, 6 WAR player with a prospect rank of 51. 
 
This is not a complaint about the ranking. Rankings don't matter, especially since Bradley is not getting traded. But, if Bradley lives up to Law's comments, his ordinal ranking of him will look silly in a few years.



WebRep

 
currentVote
 
 
noRating
noWeight

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
ArttyG12 said:
 

 
But what's your point?  He's saying the most likely bad outcome for Cecchini is a Mueller, a player who was a bit above average most years, with a couple good years mixed in.

 
 
My point--and obviously I'm not alone in this--is that if Law is right, then the ranking seems too conservative. I mean, are you really saying that there are 52 other prospects out there whose downside -- even interpreting that word in the moderate sense you've argued for -- is a player as good as Bill Mueller or better? Doesn't that seem surprising?
 
EDIT: OK, there's a bad assumption in there, I realize, which is that every player ranked higher than Cecchini must have at least as good a downside. If Cecchini is a low ceiling/high floor kind of player--and it seems that way--then his downside could be Bill Mueller while his upside is only, say, Sal Bando, while maybe a higher-ranked prospect has an upside of George Brett (to stay with the 3B concept) but a downside of Fernando Tatis, because he has major developmental hurdles that no one can say for sure he'll clear. I get that.
 
But still, I find the idea of Mueller as a rational-pessismist comp for a #53 guy surprising. YMMV.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
ArttyG12 said:
 
Is a 109 OPS+ that good?
Yes, it is. In fact, if you guaranteed me that Cechini would have Mueller's career, I'd take it in a heart beat. That just doesn't sound like a floor to me, and if it is, then Savin is right - GC should be ranked MUCH higher.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
My point--and obviously I'm not alone in this--is that if Law is right, then the ranking seems too conservative. I mean, are you really saying that there are 52 other prospects out there whose downside -- even interpreting that word in the moderate sense you've argued for -- is a player as good as Bill Mueller or better? Doesn't that seem surprising?
 
EDIT: OK, there's a bad assumption in there, I realize, which is that every player ranked higher than Cecchini must have at least as good a downside. If Cecchini is a low ceiling/high floor kind of player--and it seems that way--then his downside could be Bill Mueller while his upside is only, say, Sal Bando, while maybe a higher-ranked prospect has an upside of George Brett (to stay with the 3B concept) but a downside of Fernando Tatis, because he has major developmental hurdles that no one can say for sure he'll clear. I get that.
 
But still, I find the idea of Mueller as a rational-pessismist comp for a #53 guy surprising. YMMV.
 
You beat me to the obvious critique of your post with your edit.... but I have to assume Law was just being lazy with his "floor" comment.  Or he has a very different definition that most of us.
 
It's probably reasonable to put Cecchini's 50th percentile projection as a Mueller-type career, maybe extremely optimistically as his 25th percentile projection.  Virtually impossible to argue thats the worst he could reasonably do.  Even if he is a low upside guy, the rankings are all out of whack if a guy with a Bill Mueller floor is outside the top 50.
 
Mueller seems like a very reasonable comp for Cecchini, and I think he could just as easily be better as he could turn out worse.
 
The Owens comment is just weird.  It's almost like he saw the huge K rate, but the average velocity, and assumed he has great control or something.  I can't imagine he would be that simplistic and mess up that badly, but I haven't heard anyone describing him a strike-throwing control pitcher. His K rate seems to be from deception and elite off-speed pitches, not great (or even good) control.
 

ArttyG12

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
100
Minneapolis Millers said:
Yes, it is. In fact, if you guaranteed me that Cechini would have Mueller's career, I'd take it in a heart beat. That just doesn't sound like a floor to me, and if it is, then Savin is right - GC should be ranked MUCH higher.
 
I guess I disagree.  A 109 OPS+, in this hitting environment, is about what Brett Gardner did this year, and he hit .273/.344/.416. Or Stephen Drew at .253/.333/.443.  I think either of those at 3rd base with mediocre defense...I'd take it, but I'd be a bit disappointed.
Combine that with the initial disclaimer that he's placing more weight on youth and upside, and the ranking sounds about right to me.
 
moondog80 said:
So what is floor, 30th %ile outcome or so?
 
That is pretty much the crux of the argument - and even that might vary by player.
 

Detts

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,165
Greenville, SC
radsoxfan said:
 
You beat me to the obvious critique of your post with your edit.... but I have to assume Law was just being lazy with his "floor" comment.  Or he has a very different definition that most of us.
 
It's probably reasonable to put Cecchini's 50th percentile projection as a Mueller-type career, maybe extremely optimistically as his 25th percentile projection.  Virtually impossible to argue thats the worst he could reasonably do.  Even if he is a low upside guy, the rankings are all out of whack if a guy with a Bill Mueller floor is outside the top 50.
 
Mueller seems like a very reasonable comp for Cecchini, and I think he could just as easily be better as he could turn out worse.
 
The Owens comment is just weird.  It's almost like he saw the huge K rate, but the average velocity, and assumed he has great control or something.  I can't imagine he would be that simplistic and mess up that badly, but I haven't heard anyone describing him a strike-throwing control pitcher. His K rate seems to be from deception and elite off-speed pitches, not great (or even good) control.
He didn't know where the fastball was going when he was in Greenville.  This has to be utter BS unless he made a huge spectacular awesome leap in AA.  His strike outs were on the offspeed here.
 
That change up, though...holy shit.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
moondog80 said:
So what is floor, 30th %ile outcome or so?
 
Depends how literally you want to take it, but 30% seems too high to me.  
 
Maybe scouts have something specific in mind when they say "floor", but off-hand, I would assume its closer to 10th percentile projection.  
 
If scouts want to convey a 30th percentile projection when they say floor, they should come up with another term.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,367
Law was on the hot stove show on WEEI yesterday with Bradford and Speier. The link is HERE.
 

Kid T

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
793
San Francisco
Hoplite said:
 
It's certainly possible that his Owens comments fed in to the narrative I had about him as the guy who refused to admit he was wrong about Chris Sale and suggested Appel had a realistic chance of falling to the Red Sox in the draft so now I'm being more critical than usual about the other stuff (Webster, Ball, Cecchini/Mueller).
 
In his chat, he was asked who his biggest evaluation miss was and he said it was Sale.  He expanded on that and said it wasn't that he didn't believe in Sale's stuff, but that he didn't think could last as a starter due to injury risk, and would be relegated as a reliever (and on principle, doesn't rate relievers highly).
 
 
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
My point--and obviously I'm not alone in this--is that if Law is right, then the ranking seems too conservative. I mean, are you really saying that there are 52 other prospects out there whose downside -- even interpreting that word in the moderate sense you've argued for -- is a player as good as Bill Mueller or better? Doesn't that seem surprising?
 
EDIT: OK, there's a bad assumption in there, I realize, which is that every player ranked higher than Cecchini must have at least as good a downside. If Cecchini is a low ceiling/high floor kind of player--and it seems that way--then his downside could be Bill Mueller while his upside is only, say, Sal Bando, while maybe a higher-ranked prospect has an upside of George Brett (to stay with the 3B concept) but a downside of Fernando Tatis, because he has major developmental hurdles that no one can say for sure he'll clear. I get that.
 
But still, I find the idea of Mueller as a rational-pessismist comp for a #53 guy surprising. YMMV.
 
I don't think the assumption is that the players rated higher than Cecchini have a similar (or higher) floor at all.  You may have missed Galaman's post reflecting his thoughts on ranking 
 
I've made one adjustment in my ranking philosophy in recent years, favoring higher-upside prospects over lower-ceiling prospects who are closer to the majors
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
ArttyG12 said:
 
I guess I disagree.  A 109 OPS+, in this hitting environment, is about what Brett Gardner did this year, and he hit .273/.344/.416. Or Stephen Drew at .253/.333/.443.  I think either of those at 3rd base with mediocre defense...I'd take it, but I'd be a bit disappointed.
Combine that with the initial disclaimer that he's placing more weight on youth and upside, and the ranking sounds about right to me.
 
 
That is pretty much the crux of the argument - and even that might vary by player.
I think you are severely discounting the value of a slightly above average baseball player.
Those numbers put you as a top 100 offensive player in the league, to say that is a floor for a prospect is pretty high praise. I'd sign up for that from Cecchini right now.
Also if instead of looking at OPS+ we look at Mueller's raw OPS that bumps him up even higher in the current environment to close to a top 50 player.
 
If that is his floor what is his ceiling, Wade Freaking Boggs?
 
Edit:I need to learn how to spell his name I guess.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Byrdbrain said:
Also if instead of looking at OPS+ we look at Mueller's raw OPS that bumps him up even higher in the current environment to close to a top 50 player.
 
Yes, but the basic illegitimacy of doing that is exactly what OPS+ was invented to get around, so why would you do that?
 
 
Kid T said:
 
I don't think the assumption is that the players rated higher than Cecchini have a similar (or higher) floor at all.  You may have missed Galaman's post reflecting his thoughts on ranking 
 
 
You realize that the post of mine you quoted contained an edit acknowledging this exact point? Always good to read what you're arguing with.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Yes, but the basic illegitimacy of doing that is exactly what OPS+ was invented to get around, so why would you do that?
 
Because the statement was that his floor was similar to Mueller but with higher averages and OBPs. Law doesn't bring up adjusted stats at all only the raw stats.
 
As a note I'm of the opinion that is a ridiculously high floor.
 

Hoplite

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
I think Law either misspoke or he bastardized the term "floor". From 1996-2006, Mueller was 15th among third basemen in wRC+ and 11th among third basemen in WAR. So to say that Mueller is Cecchini's floor would be like saying "worst case scenario, Cecchini is a top 10-15 player at his position. Which would essentially make a likely outcome an All-Star and possibly even an MVP caliber player.
 
I think what Law more likely meant was that if Cecchini didn't develop power he'd have the projection of a Bill Mueller type player.
 

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
Hoplite said:
I think Law either misspoke or he bastardized the term "floor". From 1996-2006, Mueller was 15th among third basemen in wRC+ and 11th among third basemen in WAR. So to say that Mueller is Cecchini's floor would be like saying "worst case scenario, Cecchini is a top 10-15 player at his position. Which would essentially make a likely outcome an All-Star and possibly even an MVP caliber player.
 
I think what Law more likely meant was that if Cecchini didn't develop power he'd have the projection of a Bill Mueller type player.
I think you guys are blowing this whole "Bill Mueller floor" thing way out of proportion, not to mention the fact that this post contains a logical leap that is far worse than anything that has been imputed to Law. To wit: how does anything Law said imply that it would be a "likely outcome" for Cecchini to become an "All-Star or possibly even an MVP candidate"? And is there that much of a problem with "floor" and "ceiling" meaning like, best-case and worst-case outcome above some standard of likelihood, rather than absolute best and worst?
 

Hoplite

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
The Best Catch in 100 Years said:
I think you guys are blowing this whole "Bill Mueller floor" thing way out of proportion, not to mention the fact that this post contains a logical leap that is far worse than anything that has been imputed to Law. To wit: how does anything Law said imply that it would be a "likely outcome" for Cecchini to become an "All-Star or possibly even an MVP candidate"? And is there that much of a problem with "floor" and "ceiling" meaning like, best-case and worst-case outcome above some standard of likelihood, rather than absolute best and worst?
 
How is it a leap of faith? Whether floor is interpreted as "worst case" or "30th percentile" or "likely worst case outcome", if Bill Mueller is the floor then what do you think the non-floor projection would look like?
 

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
Hoplite said:
 
How is it a leap of faith? Whether floor is interpreted as "worst case" or "30th percentile" or "likely worst case outcome", if Bill Mueller is the floor then what do you think the non-floor projection would look like?
I dunno, maybe a player not that much better than Bill Mueller? Doesn't automatically follow from a guy's floor that the ceiling is a certain amount higher.
 

Hoplite

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
The Best Catch in 100 Years said:
I dunno, maybe a player not that much better than Bill Mueller? Doesn't automatically follow from a guy's floor that the ceiling is a certain amount higher.
 
I don't think I've ever heard the term "floor" used without the expectation that a likely outcome for a player would be significantly better. And it's not like Cecchini would have to be all that much better than Mueller to be an All-Star caliber player. Mueller had an All-Star caliber season himself.
 

Julius.R

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2010
212
We could always ask Law in his next chat, or send a tweet at him. He generally answers a majority of the questions.