BBTF's Sox Therapy Discussion :: Weekly Minor League Thread: Do the Red Sox have any interesting prospects in A ball?

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. JB H Posted: July 25, 2006 at 06:56 AM (#2111232)

This is the part of the minor league season where things get pretty boring to follow. Pretty much everyone's stat lines are about where they're going to end up except for the guys in rookie ball who are hard to get excited about. Only one big prospect getting promoted mid-season doesn't help. Hopefully Bryson Cox has some crazy 27 Ks in 18 IP Wilmington debut for me to put way too much stock into during the offseason

FWIW, I get the impression that our GCL team is the strongest it's been in a while, although there's no Hanley-type superprospects on it

2. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 26, 2006 at 12:37 AM (#2112128)

I kinda lump Corsaletti with Jay Johnson - another senior draft pick who's hit well without hitting awesome enough to be an actual prospect. Corsaletti has a somewhat better pedigree, and as a tweener, is at least a solid defender in a corner position. And he hasn't been jerked around by the Sox as if he's purely filler. But, you know.

3. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 26, 2006 at 05:02 AM (#2112667)

K. Goldstein with AL East updates:

High Class A Wilmington (6-4; 50-48)

The bloom is rapidly coming off of the rose of second baseman Jeff Natale (.242/.401/.315), who can't get by solely on walks and has gone nearly a month without an extra-base hit. On the hot side is outfielder Jeff Corsaletti, who is 16-for-40 in his last ten games and batting .273/.398/.416 overall, but as a 23-year-old corner outfielder, he projects as no more than a bench player...if that.

Extra bases? We don't need no stinkin' extra bases. Only Lou the Sweet Lip needs them...

4. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 26, 2006 at 05:05 AM (#2112668)

And the obligatory Callaspo update:

2B Alberto Callaspo, Triple-A Tucson (Diamondbacks)

Callaspo is on another roll, with Sunday's five-hit performance as part of Tucson's 28-5 drubbing of Salt Lake representing his fifth consecutive multi-hit game. It's a streak in which he's gone 15-for-27 with a pair of doubles, three triples, a home run, seven runs scored, and nine RBI, upping his season averages to .338/.406/.465. On Friday he played shortstop, on Saturday he played second base, and on Sunday he played third. He probably will have to wait until 2007 to get a crack at a fulltime job, but he could be getting some big at-bats for the once-again contending Diamondbacks in September.

From BA:

Alberto Callaspo
Individual Batting Stats
Team     League     Level     Pos     AVG     OBP     SLG     OPS     
Tucson     PCL     AAA     2B     .337    .404     .463     .868 

5. Famous Original Joe C Posted: July 26, 2006 at 01:19 PM (#2112816)

2003-05 Park Factors (forgive the formatting)

Team R H
Tucson 1.32 1.23
Pawtucket 1.05 1.04

6. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 27, 2006 at 06:40 AM (#2114362)

That's all nice and sweet, Joe C, but have you looked at the 2006 park factors?

Or you just assume they carry over? Which would be a typical dumb thing to do...

7. MM1f Posted: July 27, 2006 at 06:48 AM (#2114369)

But probably not as dumb as putting too much weight in park factors based on 3 or 4 months of ball....so really only 6-8 weeks of play in the park itself

8. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 27, 2006 at 06:53 AM (#2114371)

How so, mm1f? Coors field had played as a severe hitter's park for a long time, but not so much this year. And this is just one example. When you are evaluating half a season's worth of stats, you should look at the park factor for that half a season. Why does it matter to Callaspo how Tucson had played in 2003? Or what does it matter to the Rockies hitters right now how Coors played in 2002?

This year, Tucson has played as a neutral, if not pitchers park, within the PCL. You can witness the home/away splits of AZ's hitters. The reason for that is still unclear, but it appears unusually humid weather in Tucson this year may be the reason. Do you penalize Callaspo for how the park played 2-3 years ago? Or do you evaluate him for how the park has played since HE has played there?

Stats could be useful to those who know how to use them, but you should actually make sure you know what they are telling you...

9. MM1f Posted: July 27, 2006 at 07:03 AM (#2114379)

"Stats could be useful to those who know how to use them, but you should actually make sure you know what they are telling you..."

Which is exactly what i was saying.

My point is that a parks general attributes do not change. After awhile patterns are clear in how in plays and just because a park has held alot of slugfests in a given year does not mean that it is easier to score runs there than it was in the precediing 5-10-whatever years.

Over 3 months is perfectly possible for say, Safeco field, to be home to lots of slugfests just by the way things work out. That does not mean tits all of the sudden easy for a RHB to hit a homer there while it was hard a year ago. its still a #####

Im speaking generally here...to apply itto Tuscon reverse that scoring stuff around. Granted, the humidity i did not know about and seems like it could be part of the change. But your general point that 6 weeks of PFs are worth 3 years for a park that hasn't changed is ridiculous

10. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 27, 2006 at 07:14 AM (#2114383)

But your general point that 6 weeks of PFs are worth 3 years for a park that hasn't changed is ridiculous

Uh, can you actually read? My point is that Joe C is using 2003-2005 PF to explain Callaspo's 2006 stats. My point is that in 2006, Tucson is playing like a neutral or even a pitcher's park. Thus, while someone may argue that Callaspo's 2006 stats could/should be knocked down for being in the PCL, you should not use 2003-2005 PF to justify the correction. Rather, 2006 PF suggest that his stats are a lot more legit than Joe C suggests based on old PFs. Just like CO's hitter's 2006 stats need to be properly evaluated based on 2006 Coors field PF, not 2003-2005 PF.

11. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 27, 2006 at 11:19 AM (#2114412)

My point is that in 2006, Tucson is playing like a neutral or even a pitcher's park. Thus, while someone may argue that Callaspo's 2006 stats could/should be knocked down for being in the PCL, you should not use 2003-2005 PF to justify the correction.

This doesn't follow. A park effect is what it is. Three months of data is a measurement of a park effect, not a park effect itself. It's quite possible for a measurement of park effect, over a few months, to not reflect the true park effect. That's just a fact of statistics.

Clay Davenport, in BP, showed that adjusting players' stats based on one-year park factors added more noise than it removed.

Now, this doesn't mean that Tucson isn't playing as a neutral park this year. It's quite possible that it is. But a measurement of the park effect over a few months is statistically incapable of telling us that.

12. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 27, 2006 at 12:10 PM (#2114418)

To come at it from another direction. The following quote gets at the heart of our disagreement:

When you are evaluating half a season's worth of stats, you should look at the park factor for that half a season.

Absent a significant array of corroborating, independent data, you should never use a half-season park factor. Predictively, it is a useless figure.

13. Famous Original Joe C Posted: July 27, 2006 at 12:51 PM (#2114441)

levski,

I didn't include 2006 park factors because I couldn't find them online. And, as was pointed out here, it's probably better to use 3 years of data for park factors.

Obviously, I agree it would be better to be able to include 2006 data.

While not even taking into consideration that, well, what kevin said in post 13.

14. Famous Original Joe C Posted: July 27, 2006 at 12:51 PM (#2114442)

15. Rally Posted: July 27, 2006 at 12:57 PM (#2114446)

My point is that in 2006, Tucson is playing like a neutral or even a pitcher's park.

How do you know this? I'd love to get my hands on some better minor league park data. All I have is some 1 year factors BA did in 2003 or so, and what Szym posted
Last year, which I'm not sure what year(s) it covers.

16. Kyle S Posted: July 27, 2006 at 12:58 PM (#2114447)

levski, what the hell are you doing posting callaspo's numbers in this thread?

too bad about natale, now that i know he's a HS friend of a co-worker i'm rooting for him. maybe hell figure it out again.

don't the sox have some decent pitching in low A? i think my UVA boy andy dobies is in wilmington still right?

17. Kyle S Posted: July 27, 2006 at 01:03 PM (#2114448)

oh, and because i can't leave well enough alone:

tuscon hitting stats (ba/obp/slg)
home: .293/.368/.456
road: .292/.373/.470

tuscon pitching stats (baa/oba/slga)
home: .267/.328/.372
road: .263/.335/.405

source

18. Rally Posted: July 27, 2006 at 01:15 PM (#2114452)

From my blog last week:
Angel Blog

"Dustin Pedroia: .275/.342/.379 Not bad for a 2B, but he's capable of more than that.
The Cole Hamels of middle infielders. I should start a Dustin Pedroia facts page."

Minorleaguesplits: What a great site! Thanks for that.

Callaspo's a fine prospect himself, and you can't give the credit to his home park, I see he's hitting .373 on the road.

19. Kyle S Posted: July 27, 2006 at 01:17 PM (#2114454)

minor league splits is by the guy who does brew crew ball (he's also a primate, hi jeff if you're reading this thread). it is fantastic. he wrote a program to parse the milb.com game logs and used it to create this website/database.

20. NTNgod Posted: July 27, 2006 at 01:23 PM (#2114459)

Buchholz and Bowden are both excellent prospects and coming fast.

Sally League pitching prospects have a LOOOONG way to go still, obviously.

21. Kyle S Posted: July 27, 2006 at 01:30 PM (#2114465)

here are the league wide stats

Lg      BA     OBP     SLG
PCL   0.268   0.340   0.409
INT   0.260   0.328   0.387

So, about 30 points of OPS on average. Hitters have a roughly 5% advantage in the PCL. A difference, but not a huge one.

22. Rally Posted: July 27, 2006 at 01:58 PM (#2114483)

Pedroia vs Callaspo:

Batting and strike zone judegement:

Callaspo has the edge this year. League difference as Kyle posts is nowhere near 40 points. Pedroia had an edge last year.
I call it even, both are very good, look like future .300 hitters who walk more than they whiff.

Power:

Not much this year for either, but Edge to Pedroia as he's shown some pop in the past. I still think he'll be a
40 2b and 10-15 hr guy in the bigs. He's small but he's a fireplug.

Defense:

? Both have good reps. Pedroia has great hands, makes no errors, not sure if his range will
be any good.

Speed:

Edge to Callaspo. He's about average, not going to be a basestealing threat. Pedroia though is flat out slow.
I've seen him play in person, I've clocked him (twice), he's not a runner. 4.6 seconds home to first.

23. covelli chris p Posted: July 27, 2006 at 02:10 PM (#2114488)

Callaspo has the edge this year.

isn't this the key, though? petunia has hit every year at every stop along the way, while callaspo might be having a breakout year.

24. Rally Posted: July 27, 2006 at 02:25 PM (#2114504)

Callaspo may be having his best year, but when it comes to hitting singles and making contact,
he's always been pretty good. There was never any doubt in his abilities to do those things.

25. Dave Cyprian Posted: July 27, 2006 at 04:38 PM (#2114600)

BP uses a surprisingly harsh tone and stark language while ranking Pedroia the #5 short-stop prospect in all of baseball (with Steven Drew now up):

Pedroia's game is all about making contact and getting on base, and while his walk rate has declined as he has moved up in the system, he's a good enough hitter where pitchers still need to be careful. Defensively, he is what he is--the range is adequate, the arm is just enough, and he makes all the plays he gets to. There's no projection in him at all, and nothing about him is going to get better, but he should be an above-average offensive middle infielder (and no more than that), for a very long time.

26. Dave Cyprian Posted: July 27, 2006 at 04:43 PM (#2114603)

"Nothing about him is going to get any better." Where do they get off declaring that about a 23 year old?

27. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 27, 2006 at 04:49 PM (#2114609)

There's a belief that short players don't develop power as they get older, I think. I have seen a lot of really smart people make this claim, so I'm hesitant to completely reject it. But I can help but be skeptical - shorter players will, on average, have less power at their peak than taller players, but I don't see why they'd have a vastly different shape of acquisition of power.

Pedroia isn't a stringbeany guy, and he has shown moderate power in the minors, so as best as I can tell, it has to be about his height. Is that right?

28. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 27, 2006 at 11:19 PM (#2114946)

Levski, I like you. I've always liked you. But these attempts by you to equate Callaspo with Pedroia as a prospect aren't doing your credibility quotient any good.

Kevin, I like you too. But your BS attempts to dismiss my arguments by just saying "within the PCL" doesn't do much for your credibility quotient.

After posting here a couple of night's ago, I went to calculate the home/away hitting/pitching stats, which I see kyle has presented in this thread already (post 19). I had similar stats suggesting that Tucson is playing as neutral or slight pitcher's park within the PCL this year. The other thing I wanted to calculate was the comparison between the PCL and INT league, which Kyle also posted (#25). While there is some advantage to being in the PCL, let's not throw the "he's in the PCL" argument left and right and act as if that makes our argument for us.

There are several things I like about Callaspo: more speed, better defense, and much more projectability. He's still a skinny guy, and he will add more power as he fills out; in fact, I suspect that his career year is to a large extent due to the fact that he's finally put some meat on the bone. Pedroia... well, his problem is that he's got too much meat on his bone.

I personally think Callaspo will be the better overall player in his prime: better D, better speed; at least similar (probably better) plate discipline, at least similar power. Kevin can be infatuated with Pedroia, it's his prerogative as a Red Sox fan. But let's not start dismissing Callaspo with stupid arguments...

29. Kyle S Posted: July 27, 2006 at 11:33 PM (#2114959)

I agree that Callaspo has more "projectability" left in him, I just wonder at the chances he'll really fill out more. Here's hoping he does for your sake, iksvel.

30. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 27, 2006 at 11:44 PM (#2114962)

He'll fill out, Kyle. AZ is about to grind Shawn Green, mix him in chili and feed him to Callaspo... which will also solve the RF problem at the major league level... :)

The Dbacks front office has really fallen in love with Callaspo; he's hands down Hudson's heir apparent at 2B, and will make a really nice DP combo with Drew for years.

31. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 12:10 AM (#2114980)

Kevin, you're more than welcome to take Pedroia's A+ and AA stats, compare them to Callaspo's, and sleep well at night thinking you've made a great argument. What matters ultimately, however, is how these two players project to do in the majors. And I'm sure that Pedroia's high A numbers automatically make him a lock-in for the Hall of Fame...

There are from a year or two ago, and then there are stats from this year, and then there are things not reflected in stats, such as defense, speed, projectability. You're more than welcome to make virtual love with the 2005 cyber version of Dustin Pedroia; it's pretty safe sex afterall. I'm far more interested in what Callaspo and Pedroia will do in the future...

Then again, I remember when you were also telling me that Pedroia was a better prospect than Stephen Drew. You know, when Drew wasn't hitting in AA while Pedroia was chowing down Kentucky Fried Chicken in Pawtucket. Your argument was bullet-proof. Because, you know, 150 points in OPS is a hel of a lot of projecting to do...

32. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 12:14 AM (#2114982)

LOL. I really didn't see the Jackson cheap shot coming. If only the Sox had Conor on their team...

33. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 12:16 AM (#2114984)

"There are from a year or two ago" = there are STATS from a year or two ago...

34. Kyle S Posted: July 28, 2006 at 12:38 AM (#2115002)

In Callaspo's defense, that's because Tuscon has a very good hitting team. As shown above, it's not an effect of the park.

35. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 12:45 AM (#2115011)

Levski, there are 6 other Sidewinders with at least 200 PA's who have a higher OPS than Callapso.

The Sidewinders are the Blue Jays of AAA; their team is absolutely loaded with talented hitters. They've already lost Drew and Quentin to AZ, Hairston was on the DL for a while, not to mention losing many of its pitchers to the Snakes, and they've continued to absolutely steamroll other teams. Just for comparison's sake, David Murphy would be lucky to be getting at bats off the bench in Tucson...

Anyhow, Kevin, over the years you've claimed that Pedroia is a better prospect than Andy Marte, Stephen Drew and David Wright, among others. Let me just say that I trust Tim McCarver's objectivity in regards to Jeter more than I trust your evaluation of Pedroia...

36. The Hop-Clop Goes On (psa1) Posted: July 28, 2006 at 12:48 AM (#2115014)

minor league splits is by the guy who does brew crew ball (he's also a primate, hi jeff if you're reading this thread

Hi :). Interesting to see this crop up today, as my next minor project is going to be park factors. Aside from not having perfect innings data handy (I could come up with it, but it would be a hassle), I have the data to do component park factors. As has been said in this thread, there are major sample size issues, but it's better than nothing, and could be used in some kind of weighted avg with Dan's 3-year factors. Eventually I'd like to have park adjusted numbers in my splits tables, maybe sooner rather than later. If anybody has any great ideas I should hear or any mistakes I shouldn't make, feel free to drop me a line...i can't promise I'll make it back to this thread, though I'll try to remember to.

37. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 12:49 AM (#2115016)

Kyle, the entire PCL is a frikkin' launching pad.

Kevin, look at post 25. Then think. I know it's a hard thing for you to do. :)

38. NTNgod Posted: July 28, 2006 at 12:53 AM (#2115017)

Kyle, the entire PCL is a frikkin' launching pad.

I wouldn't say the entire league is.

Remember, they absorbed much up of the old American Association (Iowa, Omaha, etc.), split into two conferences, and play an unbalanced schedule (16 games against each team in own conference, 4 games against each team in the other).

39. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 01:00 AM (#2115022)

Great line from BPro '06 about Callaspo:

So, Red Sox fans hate BPro's opinion of Pedroia, but are drinking up their opinion of Callaspo like Kool-Aid? Makes sense...

Typical flip-flopping as excepted from people from/living in New England. If they only had balls to stick to one opinion...

Well, he's having a better year than Drew and Marte, FWIW.

Oh right, therefore he's going to have much more successful major league career.

I mean, watch David Wright stink up the joint once he got exposed to the majors.

40. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 01:42 AM (#2115071)

Kevin:

BPro loves Pedroia:

Dave Cyprian:

BP uses a surprisingly harsh tone and stark language while ranking Pedroia

More NE flip-flopping...

Btw, I assume these PECOTA projections are from before this season. Not to mention that PECOTA is the mother of all projection systems, and is deadly accurate when projecting guys whose majority of stats come from their time in the low minors...

The Dbacks don't (didn't) really have good pitching prospects this year in AAA, except for Nippert, who has had a disappointing campaign. Enrique Gonzalez did pretty well in AAA, despite not being much of a prospect; he's holding his own in the majors right now...

41. philly Posted: July 28, 2006 at 01:47 AM (#2115077)

Hey levski

I've got Nippert on my strat team. What the hell is wrong with him this year? I thought he was a pretty safe pick to be in the AZ rotation at this point. Up until his last start he had just been awful since his one start callup.

42. Darren

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 01:56 AM (#2115079)

Hey, I fixed Levski's stupid post that had messed up the margins of this thread. I could not, however, save the rest of the thread from devolving into idiocy.

43. Kyle S Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:03 AM (#2115084)

don't worry darren, since this is sox therapy i'm sure you're used to it ;)

I've got Nippert on my strat team. What the hell is wrong with him this year? I thought he was a pretty safe pick to be in the AZ rotation at this point. Up until his last start he had just been awful since his one start callup.

what about that dbacks guy who was gonna be at AA this year, i forget his name. nippert's compatriot. he had dirty park adjusted stats last year but has sucked thus far. but yeah both have sucked.

mike e thinks that weather patterns are the culprit for f**ing up park factors around the country (COL at 1.01, RFK at 1.07, etc etc). maybe he's right.

44. philly Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:05 AM (#2115088)

Thanks Darren.

One more thing for levski. Did you know that the sainted Mike Rizzo once toiled for the Sox? I didn't, but I'm putting together a Sox scouts project and sure enough Rizzo was a Sox scout based in Illinois from 1993-1998. I'm not sure, but that might mean the best Sox prospect signed by Rizzo was Aaron Capista or something.

I now hope all Rizzo signed DBacks prospects max out at Aaron bleepin Capista.

45. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:05 AM (#2115089)

I could not, however, save the rest of the thread from devolving into idiocy.

Well, now that you showed up, the descent into idiocy is inevitable. Just kidding, of course.

***

philly, Nippert has been uncharacteristically hittable this year. His peripheral stats are pretty respectable (103K/44B in 105 IP; only 8 homers) but he's given up 124 hits. I haven't heard a good explanation for why he's struggling so much; I do know that the Dbacks are asking him to work a lot more on his offspeed pitches than his fastball, so maybe it's all a part of the learning process. For what it's worth, he had a great start a few days ago...

46. Mike Emeigh

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:08 AM (#2115091)

what about that dbacks guy who was gonna be at AA this year, i forget his name. nippert's compatriot.

Garrett Mock, I think you mean.

mike e thinks that weather patterns are the culprit for f**ing up park factors around the country (COL at 1.01, RFK at 1.07, etc etc). maybe he's right.

47. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:12 AM (#2115096)

Rizzo certainly learned a thing or two by the time he arrived in AZ. Maybe it wasn't Rizzo, but the dumb GMs of the Red Sox, who are to blame for the crappy drafts the Sox had. After all, Rizzo was just a scout and probably had a pretty minimal input in the draft. Especially since the Sox at the time were focused on dominating the Asian market.

And I'm fairly certain Rizzo's legacy in AZ will exceed the greatness of Aaron bleepin Capista. Whoever he is. It'll be interesting to watch Rizzo's work in Washington over the next few years

***

Kyle, you're probably thinking of Garrett Mock. He started off horribly, and like Nippert was very hittable over the first two months despite having fine periphs. Mock has been good over the last couple of months, however. My guess is he'll get his ERA under 4 by the end of the AA season...

48. philly Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:16 AM (#2115103)

Don't tell levski, but I've got Mock too.

He was a pretty common potential breakout pitcher this past winter based on good K and high GB numbers in the CAL. The downside was a ton of hits allowed, but getting out of the CAL and getting some better luck was supposed to fix that.

He preceeded to get coughed around for most of the first two months this year in the SAL. I was ready to give up on him, then he had a fantastic 8 start stretch from 5/29 to 7/5 - 51.7IP, 36 H (see the high BABIP was all luck!), 53/20 K/BB ratio, 3 HR and a 2.61 ERA.

Of course he's subsequently been cuffed around in 2 of his last 3 starts. His overall numbers are quite pedestrian.

49. philly Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:23 AM (#2115108)

Rizzo certainly learned a thing or two by the time he arrived in AZ. Maybe it wasn't Rizzo, but the dumb GMs of the Red Sox, who are to blame for the crappy drafts the Sox had. After all, Rizzo was just a scout and probably had a pretty minimal input in the draft. Especially since the Sox at the time were focused on dominating the Asian market.

And I'm fairly certain Rizzo's legacy in AZ will exceed the greatness of Aaron bleepin Capista. Whoever he is. It'll be interesting to watch Rizzo's work in Washington over the next few years

Capista was a high draft pick in 1997 or so - compensation for Clemens I think - who came from Illinois which was Rizzos area. And I just looked him up and Rizzo did sign him. He sucked and it's all RIzzo fault. Complete fraud.

His tenure with the Sox mostly pre-dated the Asian market excursions.

50. Darren

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:32 AM (#2115116)

philly, you have a way with words that makes me laugh. Now get back to work on draft studies. We need to know if Teahen's breakout makes the Moneyball draft a slam dunk. Chop chop.

51. Kyle S Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:34 AM (#2115118)

mock is who i was thinking of, thanks fellas. i think you meant the southern league, not the SAL (sally league) right philly?

must be nice having "pitching prospects." the braves have approximately zero of those left; joey devine is blowing saves at the beach, jake stevens is going in reverse, lerew scuffled at AAA and got demoted, beau jones and jeff lyman have been mediocre in low A, and matt harrison doesn't strike anyone out.

jeff, if you're still reading this, minor league splits has become my favorite minor league stats site, especially after you added the totals lines again. what made you decide to change back to those? whatever the reason, i'm glad, and the site is fantastic. thank you a million for your great work.

52. Darren

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:36 AM (#2115121)

ditto on what Kyle said. It's through the splits that we can appreciate how Pedroia is truely the greatest prospect ever, so they are very important.

53. Xander Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:39 AM (#2115125)

jeff, if you're still reading this, minor league splits has become my favorite <strike>minor league stats</strike> site.

54. Rally Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:45 AM (#2115130)

There's a belief that short players don't develop power as they get older, I think. I have seen a lot of really smart people make this claim, so I'm hesitant to completely reject it.

Ray Durham is doing a decent job disputing that theory.

I've been looking at the great great minorleaguesplits.com site, and doing some park factors. For battng average this year, Tucson is at 1.00 while Pawtucket is at .99, not much difference. The HR rate at Pawtucket is 1.13 vs .82 for Tucson, but that means very little for players who aren't hitting homers.

That leaves the league difference, which probably cuts Callaspo's 30 point lead in batting average to 20. Given Pedroia's advantage in the past I'd call them even in hitting for average.

I'm with Kevin in that I think Pedroia's the better prospect. He's got an edge in walks and power (mostly doubles) After all, I am the #1 Pedroia fan on this site (non-Red Sox fan division). Kevin, I think you underestimate Callaspo, who can be a pretty good player in his own right. Just because he plays in the PCL doesn't mean you throw his stats in the garbage. The difference in leagues just isn't that great.

Though you need to heavily discount Albuquerque (where Marshall played so many years ago).

Hits HR Runs
1.10 1.45 1.27

55. Rally Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:52 AM (#2115132)

I don't know that it's been weather patterns, exactly - but weather plays more of a role in park factors than is generally credited. It has been extraordinarily warm in the East this spring and summer.

It has, but I don't know if that can explain the park factors. It hasn't exactly been chilly in the west.

56. Darren

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:57 AM (#2115135)

Just wanted to chime in the short guy thing. MCoA notes that Pedroia is stocky, and I think that's part of the reason that it's theorized that he won't develop much more power. He just doesn't have room on his body for the additional bulk needed to add power. Now, contrast that with a guy like Alex Rios, who came up as a lanky guy. As he ages, he can put weight onto that frame without becoming so bulky that he can't move.

That's the general idea, as I understand it. But I think that you are right that there's not much empirical evidence that the theory is right.

57. Darren

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:00 AM (#2115139)

ARM,

I've heard you say that Pedroia is slow several times now, and it sounds like you are basing that on seeing him twice. Isn't that jumping to conclusions a bit quickly? I don't recall any other scouting reports saying he was slow and he didn't look slow the time that I saw him. Maybe you just caught him on some bad days.

58. NTNgod Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:03 AM (#2115141)

Maybe you just caught him on some bad days

or he caught Pedroia after a long night at the local buffett.

59. Darren

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:08 AM (#2115147)

NTN--

I got enough trouble dealing with Levski here. I don't need you chiming and scoring on my favorite players.

Give us a call when Fielder gets under 300 lbs. :)

60. NTNgod Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:14 AM (#2115156)

Give us a call when Fielder gets under 300 lbs. :)

He's trimmed down; he's probably a good 260ish.

Why? You interested in setting up a sumo match between Fielder and Pedroia? :P

61. Darren

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:16 AM (#2115161)

That was a test, NTN, and you failed. You should have come back with Fielder's 5-7 SB success rate, as compared to Pedroia's 0-4. You're slipping.

62. NTNgod Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:19 AM (#2115165)

You're slipping.

It's a function of having one tab open to Primer, and scanning the headlines in another tab...

63. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:29 AM (#2115171)

For battng average this year, Tucson is at 1.00 while Pawtucket is at .99, not much difference. The HR rate at Pawtucket is 1.13 vs .82 for Tucson

However, this fact DOES offer some explanation for the seeming power outage by AZ's hitting prospects in Tucson. If you looked at the split stats for Chris Young and Carlos Quentin, for example, you'll see that they hardly hit any home runs in Tucson. This also makes Hairston's stats all the more impressive, btw...

The great thing about statistics is that they can dispell stupid notions, such as "AZ's hitting prospects are always overrated because they hit in the PCL" or "they suck because they can't even hit in Tucson". Btw, I've heard from locals that the main reason for the tough park in Tucson is the unusually humid summer there; the air is so thick you can slide it with a knife...

If you account for ALL of Callaspo's extra base hits, btw, Pedroia's hitting advantage is less impressive. Callaspo as 18 2b, 10 3b and 4 homers in 405 AB, or 32 XBH in 405 (0.079 XBH/AB) or one XBH every . Pedroia has 25 2b, 3 3b, 4 homers in 334 AB, or 32 XBH in 334 AB (0.096 XBH/AB).

Moreover, Callaspo's BB/K ratio is 47BB/20K in 452 PA, which is 1 K every 22.6 PA; Pedroia's is 40BB/24K in 374 PA, which is 1K every 15.6 PA. I fail to see how Pedroia has an advantage in walks or plate discipline. Callaspo is tougher to strike out and he walks just as much.

All in all, I fail to see the power/walks advantage in Pedroia's favor. I think I've already expressed my thoughts on Callaspo's advantage in defense and baserunning (although not SB, which is surprising as he's fast. Just a poor base stealer, which isn't a problem as he won't run in AZ).

64. Norcan Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:32 AM (#2115173)

Ever since going to Arizona, Rizzo's of course done an excellent job drafting college players but I can't think of any good high school players he's drafted. And since he was also lousy assisting the Red Sox draft high school players as well, he really has a long and terrible trackrecord of scouting high amateur talent. All of which is to say that it doesn't look good for Justin Upton. If he had just stuck to what he does best and taken Alex Gordon, a college player, Arizona would have been much better off.

65. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:32 AM (#2115174)

Sorry for the spelling mistakes. Also, I forgot to add this:

Callaspo: 0.1039 BB/PA
Pedroia: 0.1069 BB/PA

66. Darren

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:36 AM (#2115186)

Alright already. Enough Callaspo therapy.

67. The Hop-Clop Goes On (psa1) Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:46 AM (#2115195)

jeff, if you're still reading this, minor league splits has become my favorite minor league stats site, especially after you added the totals lines again. what made you decide to change back to those?

Thanks. I initially cut the totals lines to avoid raising the ire (and legal team) of MLBAM. I saw what other teams were doing, realized there was no way I was flying under the radar, and figured I could get away with pushing it a little bit. I could probably do up-to-the-minute updates now (rather than 2-3 day lags) but I'm guessing that's why MLBAM is letting me do what I do...I'm not providing what they are.

It's through the splits that we can appreciate how Pedroia is truely the greatest prospect ever, so they are very important.

I've always been devoted to the cause of unbiased research, so I'm glad to hear that.

68. The Hop-Clop Goes On (psa1) Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:47 AM (#2115196)

I saw what other teams were doing

Uh, other SITES. Too much Caballo-trade blogging for me.

69. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:47 AM (#2115197)

Uh, how many high picks has Rizzo spent on high school kids who signed? I recall Sergio Santos, who was rushed, got injured, and failed; and Justin Upton, who's just adjusting to full season pro ball. So I take it you're using Santos as a reason why Upton will fail. You must've majored in logic in college. Great argument.

70. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:49 AM (#2115203)

Darren, I won't stop until kevin offers to trade Pedroia for Callaspo...

But yes, I'll stop with the Callaspo therapy. I feel I've made a point.

71. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:52 AM (#2115207)

Btw, Jeff, let me join the crowd here and thank you for creating a great site. I didn't know about it until recently, then shoewizard sent me the link to it. I'm spending far too much time on it now.

72. Norcan Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:54 AM (#2115208)

I'd be very surprised if Callaspo has a iso slugging over 100 in the majors. He's never shown much padding in the slugging department and if you change some of his high number of triples to doubles since he's not an ultra burner like Reyes, his iso would be around 100. If he can bat around 300, I think he'll be around 340-350/380. His defense sounds like it's superb and if he can be a tough out in important situations because he's so tough to strike out, I guess he wouldn't be a bad player. I always liked following him for his great BB/K ratios when he was a Angel farmhand. Not that he's with Arizona and Levski's rooting for him, I couldn't care less.

73. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:56 AM (#2115210)

LOL, I'm sure Callaspo will now go into major depression knowing Norcan doesn't care for him...

74. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 28, 2006 at 04:10 AM (#2115225)

In order to really like Callaspo's projection, you need to put a lot of faith in two separate small samples:

1) Callaspo's production over his last 400 AB. As noted above, he wasn't very good before these 400 AB.
2) The shift in Tucson's park factor measurement from being a bandbox in a league of bandboxes, to being about neutral in a moderate hitters' league.

It's certainly possible that both of these recorded effects are real, that Callaspo really has developed and that the park really isn't a factor. I'm skeptical on both fronts, and I'm particularly impressed that BTF's own prospect-snark king is setting himself up like this. If Callaspo returns to his career mean - which is not so unlikely - well, it's going to be fun, I think.

75. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 04:13 AM (#2115227)

If Callaspo returns to his career mean - which is not so unlikely - well, it's going to be fun, I think.

Hey, unlike kevin and his "pedroia is better than marte/drew/wright" line, I'll simply eat crow.

76. Rally Posted: July 28, 2006 at 04:37 AM (#2115246)

Maybe you just caught him on some bad days.

Deric McKamey, in the Minor League Baseball Analyst, shows first to home times for most prospects. I looked up Pedroia, and he's at 4.6, just as I clocked him.

Maybe we both saw him on the same bad day, but I doubt it. Pedroia isn't stealing any bases. Speed is not a part of his game. Actually, he couldn't even outrun me. That's OK, the Red Sox don't run much anyway. Dustin can certainly out-hit and out-field me.

77. Spivey Posted: July 28, 2006 at 04:48 AM (#2115252)

Uh, can you actually read? My point is that Joe C is using 2003-2005 PF to explain Callaspo's 2006 stats. My point is that in 2006, Tucson is playing like a neutral or even a pitcher's park. Thus, while someone may argue that Callaspo's 2006 stats could/should be knocked down for being in the PCL, you should not use 2003-2005 PF to justify the correction. Rather, 2006 PF suggest that his stats are a lot more legit than Joe C suggests based on old PFs. Just like CO's hitter's 2006 stats need to be properly evaluated based on 2006 Coors field PF, not 2003-2005 PF.

I've only read part of the thread, so I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseum... but...

You're out of your mind, levski. Sample size is what is most important, so a larger sample is always going to be better, unless... something changes like drastically altering the park or tampering with the baseballs (as in the Colorado situation). So the Rockies PF doesn't apply unless you can bring something like that to the table.

78. 1k5v3L

Posted: July 28, 2006 at 04:56 AM (#2115255)

Well, I know I'm out of my mind, but that's besides the point. Sample size or not, the reality is that Tucson in 2006 is way out of its 2003-2005 norms. Based on my exchanges with people in the area, it appears unusually heavy humidity may be a reason--which in some way could play the same role as the humidor in CO, maybe even more so. Bringing up the Rockies PF in 06 was meant to emphasize that something COULD happen (i.e., humidor in this case) to throw off the park factor.

79. Norcan Posted: July 28, 2006 at 05:03 AM (#2115257)

Since this thread is dealing with other team's prospects, I'd like to mention that it would please me if the Red Sox could some way trade for Dallas Trahern, a pitcher in the Detroit system currently at the Florida State League. His lack of strikeouts--a ridiculously low 3.81 K/9 last year and only 5.45 K/9 this year--look alarming and will probably prevent him from being a no.1 starter but he's gotten 4 times as many groundball outs as flyball outs this year. Whatever level you're at, those kind of numbers transfer over to the big leagues. To go with his groundballing ways, he has very good control, keeps the ball in the ballpark--not always a given with sinkerballers--and he hasn't been killed in the hits allowed department which is a good sign for sinkerballers in the minors. His stuff is reportedly not to shabby either. All in all, a pitcher who produces loads of groundballs, doesn't walk many and doesn't give up many homers looks pretty solid. Maybe a more consistent Derek Lowe.

80. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 28, 2006 at 06:36 AM (#2115290)

The one prospect the Sox need to trade for:

JEREMY

PAPELBON

81. Dave Cyprian Posted: August 01, 2006 at 01:35 AM (#2120824)

Well, I was at the Lowell game tonight way up here in Vermont with a mind to scout Josh Papelbon. But it started raining and they stop selling beer here after the 6th inning which is entirely too early if you really think about it. So I kinda screwed that up.

82. Darren

Posted: August 01, 2006 at 02:43 AM (#2120953)

Good job, Dave.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics

Syndicate