Who is Redszone's #6 prospect?

[The DARK]

I voted Stephenson based on his stuff and potential. He's the prospect with the greatest ace potential since Homer Bailey, and that's saying something. His high school numbers were unreal as well.

Boxberger and Corcino are nice, but lets not forget how badly Boxberger struggled in AA at the end of last season. He rebounded quite nicely, but it's a reminder that he's still far from a sure thing. Corcino's season was nice as well, but he was playing in a pitcher's league and had worse stats than Josh Smith. I need to see more out of him before I put him this high.

[bubbachunk]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Well, I've heard that statement about relief pitchers made around here. They supposedly don't have much value.

I've never thought this was a particularly well-reasoned view. Good late inning relievers are very important. They have an important role in the outcome of games. Some make high salaries. Some make the All Star Game. Some even make the Hall of Fame.

If Box becomes the Reds closer for, say, four seasons, he will have a vital impact on games and seasons.

And I think Boxberger has a good chance of holding down a closer or key setup man role for the Reds. Soon.

Doesn't mean anyone has to vote for him. There are other good candidates. But Box's role as closer-in-waiting shouldn't be held against him.

Let's take Mariano Rivera, sure fire hall of famera, as a closer example. His hisest WAR for a single season was 4.8. He only broke 4, two other times in his 17 year career. Or take Eric Gagne's CY Young winning season and see it was only worth 4.3 WAR. So that is why I am going to dock relief pitchers on prospect lists, even the best do not give a ton of value. They are just not on the field enough.

[mace]

Can't believe we're on the second page and nobody has mentioned Torreyes. Just turned 19. Has excelled in A ball. Career average of .364. OBP of .419. Tremendous defensively. Good speed. Low strikeouts. Advanced instincts. Very professional. And most important, the Dayton club took off--I mean, absolutely soared--the moment he joined it.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

I voted for Corcino….again.

For me, the next few have to be (in no particular order): Stephenson, Soto, Torreyes, Cingrani, and Boxberger.

Quite amazing that one of those five will be left out of the top 10. Says a lot about how much depth and talent is within this system. And that’s not even including Sappelt, Frazier, Yormon, Lotzkar, Duran, HRod, LaMarre, Vidal, Rosa, and on and on and on……

Wow. This franchise looks to have a great future.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by bubbachunk

Let's take Mariano Rivera, sure fire hall of famera, as a closer example. His hisest WAR for a single season was 4.8. He only broke 4, two other times in his 17 year career. Or take Eric Gagne's CY Young winning season and see it was only worth 4.3 WAR. So that is why I am going to dock relief pitchers on prospect lists, even the best do not give a ton of value. They are just not on the field enough.

The logic of this position is as follows -- if Mariano Rivera, perhaps the greatest closer, was a Reds prospect he should be docked because he is a reliever. Because of the WAR formula, whatever that formula is.

I think this shows more about the limitations of WAR than anything else.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by bubbachunk

Let's take Mariano Rivera, sure fire hall of famera, as a closer example. His hisest WAR for a single season was 4.8. He only broke 4, two other times in his 17 year career. Or take Eric Gagne's CY Young winning season and see it was only worth 4.3 WAR. So that is why I am going to dock relief pitchers on prospect lists, even the best do not give a ton of value. They are just not on the field enough.

Some would argue that, because of leverage, the actual impact relievers have on wins is much higher than WAR would suggest. Rivera has a career average leverage index of 1.87, meaningful that while his actual peak run prevention may have only been worth ~48 runs above replacement, those runs were 80% more important from a wins perspective. Doing that math would give him an leverage adjusted WAR of 9!

For reference, leverage index, by definition has to equal out to 1. Position players usually have a leverage index right around 1, SP between .9 and 1 and back of the pen relievers in the .4 to .8 range. You could apply leverage to all players to get a leverage-adjust WAR for all players. You'd find that in a given year, the best relievers grade out pretty well with other elite performers.

All that said, I'm not 100% sold on the logic of doing what I just explained. You have to be careful how you use that approach because you don't want to use those adjusted figures to project performance or decide on salaries for relievers. Since a big chunk of their win value would be based on when they guy played (a managerial decision), you wouldn't want to base a guy's salary on that unless you strongly believed that a player who performed similarly in lesser leverage would have zero chance of sustaining comparable performance in high leverage.

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by mace

Can't believe we're on the second page and nobody has mentioned Torreyes. Just turned 19. Has excelled in A ball. Career average of .364. OBP of .419. Tremendous defensively. Good speed. Low strikeouts. Advanced instincts. Very professional. And most important, the Dayton club took off--I mean, absolutely soared--the moment he joined it.

Love him and likely will vote for him earlier than most, but Corcino is a pitcher and had just as good a season.

Pitching is harder to find and he played a full season. Corcino first, Torreyes next, IMO. (Though Sappelt is good as well.)

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Kc61

The logic of this position is as follows -- if Mariano Rivera, perhaps the greatest closer, was a Reds prospect he should be docked because he is a reliever. Because of the WAR formula, whatever that formula is.

I think this shows more about the limitations of WAR than anything else.

Of course he should be. Rivera is the best at his position ever, but his position is something where there is a plethora of very good options to choose from. Theoretically at least, there are a slew of guys who looking at their ERA's and run distributions, would close 85% of the games they are put into over a full season if given the chance. When a whole bunch of guys can be at least 90% as good (given that you hardly ever see anyone go a full season without a blown save) as the best at their position, it means that their overall individual value is going to be lowered because the pool of options is quite large.

[mace]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

Love him and likely will vote for him earlier than most, but Corcino is a pitcher and had just as good a season.

Pitching is harder to find and he played a full season. Corcino first, Torreyes next, IMO. (Though Sappelt is good as well.)

I guess I see it sort of the opposite. I like Corcino a lot, and have liked him since the organization, practically out of the blue, made him a closer in Billings at age 18. But I can't agree that he had "just as good a season" as Torreyes (not that the season past should be the final word in this sort of evaluation). For most of the year, he wasn't even Dayton's best pitcher. First it was Smith, and for a while it was Renken, and toward the end of the season it might have been Mitch Clarke--not to mention the league-best relief staff, led by Hayes. Though his K/BB rate was outstanding and very promising, I really just can't quite equate Corcino's season at age 20 to Torreyes' at age 18.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Of course he should be. Rivera is the best at his position ever, but his position is something where there is a plethora of very good options to choose from. Theoretically at least, there are a slew of guys who looking at their ERA's and run distributions, would close 85% of the games they are put into over a full season if given the chance. When a whole bunch of guys can be at least 90% as good (given that you hardly ever see anyone go a full season without a blown save) as the best at their position, it means that their overall individual value is going to be lowered because the pool of options is quite large.

Yes, but there's a large pool of options for a number of other positions too. Yet we don't discount outfielders, for example.

And while there is a large pool of options for relief pitching generally, IMO the pool of options for superior late innings relievers is smaller.

I happen to believe, and I know this is controversial, that it takes a special ability to pitch well in the late innings out of the pen. I think that special ability cuts down on the size of the pool.

Having said that, all things being equal, I can see favoring starting pitchers in a prospect poll. I cannot see, however, writing off relievers (as some posters do) so that it's virtually impossible for them to be considered in the top rank.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Yes, but there's a large pool of options for a number of other positions too. Yet we don't discount outfielders, for example.

Is there a large pool of outfielders who can be roughly 85-90% as effective as the best outfielders in the game?

And while there is a large pool of options for relief pitching generally, IMO the pool of options for superior late innings relievers is smaller.

There were 83 relievers in baseball last season with a FIP under 3.75. I get a feeling that most of them would convert at least 85% of their save opportunities.

I happen to believe, and I know this is controversial, that it takes a special ability to pitch well in the late innings out of the pen. I think that special ability cuts down on the size of the pool.

That is where we disagree. I happen to think it takes a special ability to NOT be able to pitch in the late innings out of the pen.

Having said that, all things being equal, I can see favoring starting pitchers in a prospect poll. I cannot see, however, writing off relievers (as some posters do) so that it's virtually impossible for them to be considered in the top rank.

I finished up my Top 25 this week. Before I set out, I generally had an idea of where I thought each guy was going to wind up, but what I do is go position by position and create a depth chart in terms of how good a prospect is (I go 7 positions with corner outfield combining LF/RF, then SP and RP) and then start comparing the top player at each position to get the best prospect. Once a guy is added, he is removed from the pool and the players at his position slides up. It helps me organize my thoughts and keep a strong though process going on with who is better than who. Going in, I thought Boxberger would be right around #10, which for me, is pretty darn high. Well, after getting to #10, he wasn't close. It isn't because he isn't good, because in the past, he would have ranked inside the Top 10, I just couldn't justify him over so many other guys. His readiness is outweighed by his limited upside as a reliever, even as a possible closer.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by mace

I guess I see it sort of the opposite. I like Corcino a lot, and have liked him since the organization, practically out of the blue, made him a closer in Billings at age 18. But I can't agree that he had "just as good a season" as Torreyes (not that the season past should be the final word in this sort of evaluation). For most of the year, he wasn't even Dayton's best pitcher. First it was Smith, and for a while it was Renken, and toward the end of the season it might have been Mitch Clarke--not to mention the league-best relief staff, led by Hayes. Though his K/BB rate was outstanding and very promising, I really just can't quite equate Corcino's season at age 20 to Torreyes' at age 18.

With all of that said, Torreyes was hardly ever the Dragons best hitter either. He only played in the second half, plus two games. His OPS was .855 for the season. During the same time, Lutz was at .939 and Vidal was at .890, both much better than what Torreyes did.

Now if we want to toss in age, then we certainly have another argument, but if we do that, don't we have to toss aside the 23 year olds in comparison to the 20 year old Corcino for best pitcher? On a scouting side of things, Corcino is in a different class than Torreyes is IMO. That is what separates the two for me.

[mace]

Good points about the other hitters. That brings up another area that can't really be quantified, but I happen to believe in strongly. Was it coincidence that so many other hitters in the Dayton lineup--including Hamilton--produced so much better during the second half, when Torreyes was there? And was it a coincidence that Dayton was an entirely different team when he was there? I don't know; maybe it was.

I suspect that Torreyes benefited substantially from hitting behind Hamilton. But I also suspect that other Dragons benefited from the presence of Torreyes. That, however, will probably have to remain a matter of conjecture and opinion.

On the age question . . . yes, Corcino was younger than the other pitchers. He should be acknowledged for that. It plays a large part in making him the best prospect on the staff. At the end of the day, though--if we're comparing their seasons--Torreyes was (is) two years younger.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by Kc61

I think Corcino will win this poll, but I went with Box . . .

I don't think he has a chance.

[bubbachunk]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

I don't think he has a chance.

More emoticons!