Hugh2

Next stat will be "effective exit velocity" which makes adjustments for the incoming velocity. That's what we see in 2018.

I don't think it's completely meaningless, it's a stat that tells you something so therefore it can be useful to a degree. That ideal is not analogous with a stat being an appropriate way of measuring a player. Like any stat, it usually is more useful with combination of more stats. I agree that it's not really that important, you can have the ability to hit a HR with more exit velocity than Giancarlo Stanton but if you are averaging .200 and K'ing 35% of the time who cares? I think a more effective use of exit velocity would be to look at a players avg exit velocity on all balls hit in play. We all know a HR is going to be leaving the bat at a higher velocity but if a player is constantly hitting a ball with a harder exit velocity then it's because he is squaring up the ball more than other players. That's what it is telling you, just like HR's tells you how many time a guy hits a ball over a fence and BB% tells you how many times per 100 PA's a guy takes a walk. It's a stat, it tells us something. It might not be as useful as other stats but I don't think it is completely meaningless either. Like I said before, it is "the new shiny toy" people are making it out to be a bigger deal than it is.

It's not useless, like any stat it tells you something....and like every other stat alone it is flawed. Exit velocity can be a function of two different things A.) a guys natural ability to hit the ball hard and B.) how well he is squaring up the ball.

Exit velocity is the new shiny toy

It's only one start, but if Kelly can pitch like he did last week then with him and Porcello in mid season form with Price picking it up. All of a sudden this rotation looks pretty good if Erod can come back and pitch like a #3. Still, I'd like to see better depth.

I always took Buchholz for who he was. He was a TOTR starter when healthy but couldn't pitch a full season. He came close a few times but you could write him down for 15-28 starts with a D.L. stint somewhere. The thing is, over the last couple years he hasn't even pitched like a TOTR starter when he has been healthy consistently and the time between his "good" stretches and him pitching bad have grown larger and larger. Yes he still could turn it around I guess, but when you couple my last point with his age and dip in velocity it looks like he very well might be done. At the very least if the Sox aren't done with them you have to think they are close.

I've been a big Clay supporter for a while (well...a mild Clay supporter) but I'm done with him. I hope he gets it together, I'm not going to hate him just because he has durability issues or because his velocity is down but he is hurting this team. Hurry up EROD!!!!

I've been a big Clay supporter for a while (well...a mild Clay supporter) but I'm done with him. I hope he gets it together, I'm not going to hate him just because he has durability issues or because his velocity is down but he is hurting this team. Hurry up EROD!!!!

Seanny boy nice to see you over here. Oddly enough I was contemplating starting a draft thread today. I'm trying to look at this trade from LA's point of view. All things considered Urias and Moncada have very similar ceilings. They are both potential franchise players but on the other side of the diamond. However I've always held the view that all things equal teams tend to value their own guys more, still if LA desired hitting enough and the Sox desired pitching enough you could see this type of trade happening. A similar trade once happened between the Yankees and Mariners when NY sent over Montero for Pineada. However I also tend to go by the rule of "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush" Now Urias isn't proven yet, but he is two levels above Moncada dominating AAA ball right now so that does increase his value compared to Moncada. I would suspect that you'd have to give up a little bit more to get Urias. But Moncada could definitely headline that package in a universe where LA is interested in that type of deal; in this universe I have no ideal if they are.

I've read those comparisons too, and I've seen much contradictory comparisons as well. The problem is we are not truly comparing apples to apples here. A ball is usually a players first real taste of pro ball. Yes there are rookie levels and short season ball but must first round high school draftees spend their first (full) season in Low A and must college first rounders will go to high A their first full year. It's somewhat of a lateral move but at the same time half the guys or more they played with or against in college won't be there with them in high A. Thats why I think comparing high A to college ball makes more sense when we are talking about the best teams like Texas A&M, Florida, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt. But even most D-1 schools are as good as those colleges. Also we are talking about going from a few dozen games to over a 100 games in one season and switching from metal bats to wood bats in many cases too. I've heard that high A is comparable to college too, but I think it's a little trickier than that. I think the average high A team would destroy most D-1 schools, maybe not destroy but they should beat them...but I think most good D-1 schools should beat your average low A team if that makes sense.

That's more of what I'm getting at. Remember the average Low A player is a 22 year old who was drafted either out of highschool and has been in the system for a few years or they are a college draftee that has been in the system for 1-2 years, that's about on par with college ball. I think with someone like Benintendi who played in a big time conference the competition is more comparable to HIGH A ball. It's subjective.

This was one thing that really bothered me about the BDC board, glad to see some level of organization over here.

Espinoza pitched yesterday. 6 IP 2 H 0 R 0 ER 3 K's. Only 67 pitches through 6 innings so he was efficient with 10 ground outs to 3 fly outs. Not only is this kid only 18, but he literally just turned 18 2 months ago. He's the youngest pitcher in A ball and 4 years younger than the average player. If he was a U.S. citizen he would be a senior in high school right now and he's pitching very well against competition thats on the same level as Division one college juniors and seniors. The last time someone was hyped as much as him this early in their professional career was Bogaerts. Still, he's an 18 year old pitcher in low A so a lot can happen but the sky is the limit with this kid.

No, an "auto-matic out" is a very poor way of describing poor offense.

Vas never hit well in the minors but after some time to adjust he always hit good enough to if he carries that same progression to the MLB level he will eventually be an above average MLB hitter (for a catcher) as well. And with his arm and pitch framing skills that just adds too much value to give up behind the plate.

If the league average is so low you're effectively an automatic out then I don't think being league average makes you not an automatic out. Vas has had a couple clutch hits though. I was always pro Swihart long term, because I envisioned his defense becoming average to above average with an elite bat for the position. Now that player still might be in him but I think I've come over to the pro Vasquez camp now. This offense is just too good, we can afford (easily) to have Vasquez in there with what he brings behind the plate defensively; his defense has tremendous value back there. Also, I do think there is room for improvement in his bat as well.

It's a different style, personally I kind of like it. I always thought we had too many threads and too much clutter over at BDC. At time we could literally have 4-5 threads talking about the same exact subject. That made no sense.

You're correct you can be a troll on your favorite teams board....but Slasher is by no means a troll. You're a troll, which is fine....it's is right to do as you please but you are. I don't believe any Sox fan would call Slasher a troll.

Not that I disagree but there is a difference between not having electric stuff and not being able to execute. The outcome might be the same if you can't execute but if you have good stuff the potential for excellence is there. You can't teach 99 MPH, and you can't teach longer fingers being able to spin a breaking ball.

I'm not brushing it aside, I see it, understand it, own it, and still say Bogaerts was heralded as having a higher offensive ceiling back in 2013. He was talked about as a potential middle of the order bat. No one constructs a lineup saying that a guy who would bat #7 as an outfielder should bat #3 as a short stop. You can separate the two, but you should look at the whole package, but that's not my position here. My original point was I thought Bogaerts was perceived as having a higher offensive ceiling in 2013 than Benintendi does now. You say that Bogaerts was heralded as having a strong offensive ceiling because of positional adjustment....I don't disagree with the concept at all. I just think in spite of the position Bogaerts still had one of the highest offensive ceilings in all of prospectidum back in 2013. Consider this, he was promoted to the big leagues as a 20 year old to NOT play short stop. I think Benetendi has a very high offensive ceiling too, I don't think it's higher than Bogaerts, I suppose you disagree, but I just don't see it. What really sparked this was implying that Bogaerts having a higher offensive ceiling than Benitendi puts someone on a different planet. I don't think so, and if it was that obvious I would expect the narrative around Benintendi to be him having an MVP middle of the order bat and even if he's being talked about as such that puts him on Bogaerts level position aside, not the other way around. Bogaerts was rushed much quicker than Benitendi, and because of that I'm not convinced Andrew has the better approach. You can go by the stats which puts AB 2% points better in the BB department and a lower K rate. But Bogaerts also played almost every level 2 years younger than Benintendi and that matters. Now, in Benintendis defense it's not his fault he didn't start this year in Portland but it does matter that Bogaerts came up through the system at a younger age. If Bogaerts played every level a year or two older...he could have very well put up video game numbers, like AB is now. But I think Benintendi has to show something above A ball to be in the same universe as Bogaerts ceiling and in the absence of that track record all you have to go by is tools. And Bogaerts had elite offensive tools as well when he was in the minors. He had elite bat speed, and the ability to make adjustments and square the ball up with back spin against much older pitching and he also has a better physical profile and body type than Andrew Benintendi. Now all that might not matter, but it matters when projecting talent out as a scout in the minor leagues which is one reason why Bogaerts was heralded as having an elite offensive ceiling. If Bogaerts was a CFer instead of a SS....I still think he would have been a top 10 prospect. Now I'll fully admit that last statement is completely subjective but the narrative about him coming up and heralded as a potential middle of the order bat is not.

E-Rod scheduled to pitch tomorrow. I guess it wasnt' that much of a set up, which is for encouraging.

Also please don't keep saying things that I don't understand that I clearly do. I'm well aware of the positional adjustment. I know darn well that a SS and a LFer who have all tools equal that the SS will be regarded much higher than him because of that. My argument was based on the assumption that fielding aside Bogaerts still had a higher ceiling as an offensive player. I see no information from anyone that has led me to believe otherwise. Maybe you have seen something that could persuade someone otherwise...and I'd love to read that.

Listen, I have no desire to get into a pissing argument today. I really don't care about winning an argument. If Benintendi really does have a higher ceiling than Bogaerts and scouts are talking like that now about him F'ng awesome dude. I love reading and learning about these kids and I'm asking you for some information because allegedly you know something I do not. I'm not trying to come of all "ne nur ne nur poo poo" you can't show me proof" no I'm asking you to direct me to these 3 scouts who said Benintendi has a 70 grade overall. As you said before, neither of us are actually scouts or know ourselves and if I could read what you read then I'll probably change my opinion. So I'm sorry you feel that I'm "so set in my ways" actually I'd be more than willing to change my point of view....just help me out a little bit.

Here is BP's top 10 25 and under. I'd be willing to bet Bogaerts or Betts would be #1 on anyones list Top 10 Talents 25 And Under (born 4/1/90 or later) 1a. Xander Bogaerts 1b. Mookie Betts 3. Yoan Moncada 4. Blake Swihart 5. Eduardo Rodriguez 6. Anderson Espinoza 7. Rafael Devers 8. Andrew Benintendi 9. Jackie Bradley, Jr. 10. Henry Owens

Do you have a link to the 3 evaporators who graded him overall as a 70? Last BA had all his tools at 55/50 except his hit tool 70. BP had him overall at 60. mlb.com has him at 55 overall. Keith Law had this to say about him the other day: keith law had this to say about him the other day: "KLaw: I love Benintendi, but everyone is getting way too excited about a college prospect raking in high-A. He might be a superstar - it wouldn't really surprise me at all - but I think we need to see him in AA. The SEC to high-A is kind of a lateral move for a 21-year-old" I'll eat crow....but please show these 3 scouts giving Benintendi an overall 70 grade???? If Benintendi had that high of a ceiling he should have no problem being the top prospect in baseball. And no, it's not because he doesn't play SS because Bryon Buxton had zero problem being the #1 prospect in all of baseball as a CFer. Bogaerts was being talked about as being one of the best players in all of baseball with an MVP ceiling, that is why he was the #2 prospect. 2013 Bogaerts > 2016 Benintendi. It's close....but I don't really see the debate.