PDA

View Full Version : Royce Ring


ballclub3
07-01-2005, 02:23 AM
I recently saw Royce Ring pitch at the major league level with the Mets and I have to say that I was underwhelmed by his repertoire of "stuff". He appeared to have just a mediocre fastball and overall his stuff doesn't really seem worthy of a 1st round pick. It concerns me that the White Sox selected this guy in the 1st round when he didn't seem to deserve being drafted that high. Also, this year they drafted RHP Lance Broadway with their 1st round pick, another guy who doesn't have a plus fastball. Now, Broadway may turn out to be a good pitcher for the Sox but I would like to see them draft more pitchers with plus fastballs, especially that high in the draft. What do you folks think?

IA_soxfan
07-01-2005, 02:35 AM
I recently saw Royce Ring pitch at the major league level with the Mets and I have to say that I was underwhelmed by his repertoire of "stuff". He appeared to have just a mediocre fastball and overall his stuff doesn't really seem worthy of a 1st round pick. It concerns me that the White Sox selected this guy in the 1st round when he didn't seem to deserve being drafted that high. Also, this year they drafted RHP Lance Broadway with their 1st round pick, another guy who doesn't have a plus fastball. Now, Broadway may turn out to be a good pitcher for the Sox but I would like to see them draft more pitchers with plus fastballs, especially that high in the draft. What do you folks think?

I will say this, Lance Broadway pitched for here in Wausau, WI last summer for our Northwoods League affiliate team. Most of the kids who play in that league seem to be mediocre college talent at best, and I haven't heard of anybody from the league ever becoming a top tier major league talent. I hope Broadway becomes the first, but I'm not holding my breath.

TaylorStSox
07-01-2005, 03:05 AM
I recently saw Royce Ring pitch at the major league level with the Mets and I have to say that I was underwhelmed by his repertoire of "stuff". He appeared to have just a mediocre fastball and overall his stuff doesn't really seem worthy of a 1st round pick. It concerns me that the White Sox selected this guy in the 1st round when he didn't seem to deserve being drafted that high. Also, this year they drafted RHP Lance Broadway with their 1st round pick, another guy who doesn't have a plus fastball. Now, Broadway may turn out to be a good pitcher for the Sox but I would like to see them draft more pitchers with plus fastballs, especially that high in the draft. What do you folks think?

Part of the reason that Ring was drafted was that he was really close to being ready for the bigs. He was drafted for trade bait IMO.

We ended up getting a hall of famer for him who had an immediate impact on our team. It didn't end up the way that was envisioned but it was an effective draft pick.

CaptUSN
07-01-2005, 08:06 AM
So let's give it a year... And I think he was a 2nd round pick...

Tragg
07-01-2005, 09:36 AM
I will say this, Lance Broadway pitched for here in Wausau, WI last summer for our Northwoods League affiliate team. Most of the kids who play in that league seem to be mediocre college talent at best, and I haven't heard of anybody from the league ever becoming a top tier major league talent. I hope Broadway becomes the first, but I'm not holding my breath.

I saw Lance Broadway pitch a month ago, and he absolutely stymied the first and third round draft choices of the Astros, the third round draft choice of the Rays, and 2 other players drafted.

ondafarm
07-01-2005, 10:42 AM
Ring can be the deal.

I saw Royce Ring pitch with the Barons and he was the real deal. I heard he had surgery and was having some difficulty coming back. He'll be back. His mechanics were really solid.

As for the Sox drafting, I'd say it's pretty good. I wouldn't worry about plus fastball guys, that's one thing that can be taught.

rdivaldi
07-01-2005, 11:00 AM
I would like to see them draft more pitchers with plus fastballs, especially that high in the draft. What do you folks think?

Drafting players based only on radar gun readings is a recipe for disaster.

"Plus fastball" guys drafted as of late = Danny Wright, Jason Stumm, Rylan Reed, Wyatt Allen, and many more...

It's better to find guys who can pitch IMO. Of course you can find guys with "plus fastballs" who can do that, but they're pretty rare.

TDog
07-01-2005, 12:12 PM
Drafting players based only on radar gun readings is a recipe for disaster.

"Plus fastball" guys drafted as of late = Danny Wright, Jason Stumm, Rylan Reed, Wyatt Allen, and many more...

It's better to find guys who can pitch IMO. Of course you can find guys with "plus fastballs" who can do that, but they're pretty rare.

When you're a kid and you throw exceptionally hard, you don't need to pitch.

rdivaldi
07-01-2005, 12:18 PM
When you're a kid and you throw exceptionally hard, you don't need to pitch.

That's true only to an extent. There are plenty of guys in college that throw hard and get battered around. High school of course is a different story. But again, you can only rely on the radar gun so much.

RedPinStripes
07-01-2005, 07:55 PM
Drafting players based only on radar gun readings is a recipe for disaster.

"Plus fastball" guys drafted as of late = Danny Wright, Jason Stumm, Rylan Reed, Wyatt Allen, and many more...

It's better to find guys who can pitch IMO. Of course you can find guys with "plus fastballs" who can do that, but they're pretty rare.

Wyatt Allen............What ever happened to him. i don't hear much accept he cant find the plate.

Podzilla_40
07-01-2005, 09:11 PM
If Broadway can dominate at the high college level like he has without a "plus" fastball, I'm not worried about how he'll develop.

Chisoxfn
07-01-2005, 10:37 PM
The Mets changed his delivery and have turned him into more of a sidewinder and so far the results look good. They are quite happy with him. I agree he was a wasted pick, but the Sox were ahead of the curve in taking college closers early, its just Ring didn't happen to pan out.

Of course Joe Blanton would of looked a lot better, the Sox went the other way. I'm hoping Broadway can develop cause the Sox have just been terrible when it comes to developing 1st round picks.

Luckily they have had a lot more success with the mid to latter round picks.

gosox41
07-01-2005, 10:39 PM
Part of the reason that Ring was drafted was that he was really close to being ready for the bigs. He was drafted for trade bait IMO.

.

I've seen that argument before but I think it was more the fact that he turned out to be good trade bait for a farm system (at the time) that didn't have much. If KW did have every intention of drafting a reliever who is close to being ready for the majors so he can make trades for a pennant race, why only do it one year. It netted good results and they're have been other relievers that a first round pick could have been spent on who could have been traded.


Personally, I think it's a waste to draft a reliever in the first round. But that's a different topic for a different day.



Bob

doublem23
07-02-2005, 01:43 AM
:burly
Radar guns are overrated.

Chisoxfn
07-03-2005, 02:16 AM
I've seen that argument before but I think it was more the fact that he turned out to be good trade bait for a farm system (at the time) that didn't have much. If KW did have every intention of drafting a reliever who is close to being ready for the majors so he can make trades for a pennant race, why only do it one year. It netted good results and they're have been other relievers that a first round pick could have been spent on who could have been traded.


Personally, I think it's a waste to draft a reliever in the first round. But that's a different topic for a different day.



Bob
Tell that to Montreal...err Washington. Last I looked Cordero is paying off in big ways. It also looks like Oakland found a winner in Huston Street.

gosox41
07-03-2005, 02:30 PM
Tell that to Montreal...err Washington. Last I looked Cordero is paying off in big ways. It also looks like Oakland found a winner in Huston Street.


I didn't know Cordero was a 1st round pick. Wasn't Street a supplemental, not that it's a huge difference.

Still doesn't change my opinion. If a team is going to invest a lot of money in a player in the first round then IMHO I'd much rather take my chances on an everyday player or even a starting pitcher.


Bob

ballclub3
07-04-2005, 05:01 AM
Drafting players based only on radar gun readings is a recipe for disaster.

"Plus fastball" guys drafted as of late = Danny Wright, Jason Stumm, Rylan Reed, Wyatt Allen, and many more...

It's better to find guys who can pitch IMO. Of course you can find guys with "plus fastballs" who can do that, but they're pretty rare.


Radar gun readings are actually quite important to scouts. One of the first things a scout wants to know about a pitcher is how hard he throws. If you look at the scouting reports on pitchers, the velocity of their fastball is almost always mentioned. The reason is that a great fastball gives a pitcher a better chance to be dominant at the major league level.

In this year's draft the Sox took Lance Broadway who it has been said has a mediocre fastball. I read all the reports on the players taken in the first round this year and Broadway had the weakest fastball of them all. That to me is a concern. That isn't to say that there are no great pitchers in the big leagues with mediocre fastballs. And Broadway may turn out to be very good but I would like the Sox to make velocity an important factor in who they decide to draft. Pitchers with overpowering fastballs generally have a higher "ceiling" than pitchers who don't throw hard. If a pitcher is a flamethrower but doesn't have much else in his aresenal, he may not succeed as a starter but could possibly be quite effective in the bullpen.

Take a look at all the truly dominant pitchers in the major leagues and you will see that a high percentage of them have plus fastballs. Also, the opposition doesn't like facing pitchers who throw really hard. There is an intimidation factor with a power pitcher who can really rush it up there that a finesse pitcher just doesn't have. So let's stop drafting so many soft tossers and start drafting more guys who can light up the radar gun!

Rex Hudler
07-09-2005, 12:48 AM
Royce Ring never had a "plus" fastball. He was throwing 85-88 when in Birmingham before being traded. He would hit 90 once or twice in each appearance.

Ring was a good AA pitcher and I thought he had solid MLB setup guy written all over him. I still think that is a real possiblity.

Probably not the best 1st round pick, but still much better than many others, say Jason Dellaero for one.

rdivaldi
07-09-2005, 03:29 PM
Take a look at all the truly dominant pitchers in the major leagues and you will see that a high percentage of them have plus fastballs. Also, the opposition doesn't like facing pitchers who throw really hard. There is an intimidation factor with a power pitcher who can really rush it up there that a finesse pitcher just doesn't have. So let's stop drafting so many soft tossers and start drafting more guys who can light up the radar gun!

Nope, can't agree at all with that paragraph. Let's think of the 5 best starters in the AL for the first half of the season (Roy Halladay, Kenny Rogers, Buehrle, Garland, and IMO Garcia), do any of them have "plus fastballs", the answer is a resounding no. The thing that they all can do is throw multiple pitches for strikes. As a matter of fact, look at the top 10 AL pitchers in terms of ERA, I see exactly one who has a "plus fastball" (Colon).

Drafting power pitchers because they are power pitchers is pure folly. Granted I much rather would have had Carillo over Broadway, but that's because he had every bit as good control WITH a "plus fastball".

chaerulez
07-09-2005, 10:37 PM
I recently saw Royce Ring pitch at the major league level with the Mets and I have to say that I was underwhelmed by his repertoire of "stuff". He appeared to have just a mediocre fastball and overall his stuff doesn't really seem worthy of a 1st round pick. It concerns me that the White Sox selected this guy in the 1st round when he didn't seem to deserve being drafted that high. Also, this year they drafted RHP Lance Broadway with their 1st round pick, another guy who doesn't have a plus fastball. Now, Broadway may turn out to be a good pitcher for the Sox but I would like to see them draft more pitchers with plus fastballs, especially that high in the draft. What do you folks think?

I'd take good college trained pitchers that are close to being major league ready and can actually pitch, even if they top out at 90 mph, rather than flamethrowers out of high school. See Kerry Wood and Josh Beckett for example.

ballclub3
07-10-2005, 03:25 AM
Nope, can't agree at all with that paragraph. Let's think of the 5 best starters in the AL for the first half of the season (Roy Halladay, Kenny Rogers, Buehrle, Garland, and IMO Garcia), do any of them have "plus fastballs", the answer is a resounding no. The thing that they all can do is throw multiple pitches for strikes. As a matter of fact, look at the top 10 AL pitchers in terms of ERA, I see exactly one who has a "plus fastball" (Colon).

Drafting power pitchers because they are power pitchers is pure folly. Granted I much rather would have had Carillo over Broadway, but that's because he had every bit as good control WITH a "plus fastball".

Actually, Halladay and Garcia do have above average fastballs. Even Garland's fastball might be a little above average in velocity. You don't have to throw 98 mph to be considered possessing a plus fastball. If you throw 93 mph somewhat consistently that would be considered by many to be a plus fastball. How much more effective could Mark Buerhle be if he threw 95 mph rather than 88 mph? I'm just saying that all other things being equal, when you throw hard you have an advantage. That's why you see scouts so often emphasize the velocity of a pitcher's fastball in their reports. They know that if the guy can add a couple of quality pitches to his arsenal to go with a good fastball, then he could be quite effective at the big league level. It is difficult to appreciably add strength to a pitchers arm. On the other hand, changeups and breaking balls can be taught as can arm angles and release points. Are all of the scouts throughout baseball who look at a prospect's fastball velocity wrong? If so, then I guess we don't need radar guns manufactured anymore.

Daver
07-10-2005, 11:59 AM
The radar gun has ruined more young pitchers than anything else.

rdivaldi
07-10-2005, 12:09 PM
If you throw 93 mph somewhat consistently that would be considered by many to be a plus fastball. How much more effective could Mark Buerhle be if he threw 95 mph rather than 88 mph? I'm just saying that all other things being equal, when you throw hard you have an advantage. That's why you see scouts so often emphasize the velocity of a pitcher's fastball in their reports. They know that if the guy can add a couple of quality pitches to his arsenal to go with a good fastball, then he could be quite effective at the big league level. It is difficult to appreciably add strength to a pitchers arm. On the other hand, changeups and breaking balls can be taught as can arm angles and release points. Are all of the scouts throughout baseball who look at a prospect's fastball velocity wrong? If so, then I guess we don't need radar guns manufactured anymore.

Sorry man, but no scout I've ever spoken to has ever called a 93 mph a "plus fastball". Above average? Yes, definitely. But scouts are looking for 95/96 in describing a "plus fastball".

Also, if changeups and breaking balls can be taught so easily, how come there are so few pitchers out there that can consistently throw them for strikes? There's nothing wrong with looking at the radar gun, but it's a tool, not the be all end all determining factor in grading a prospect.

Again, give me 5 established college pitchers that can throw 3 pitches for strikes over 5 high schoolers with "plus fastballs" or 5 inconsistent college pitchers with "plus fastballs" any day of the week. Power pitching is overrated and a terrible way to judge talent.

ilsox7
07-10-2005, 07:19 PM
Are all of the scouts throughout baseball who look at a prospect's fastball velocity wrong? If so, then I guess we don't need radar guns manufactured anymore.

Baseball and scouting existed for a LONG time before a radar gun ever came around.

TimoPerez
07-10-2005, 08:42 PM
Last season Ring wasn't doing well at Triple A and was demoted to Double A. Supposedly his velocity was down from about 93 to about 87. He wasn't able to overpower anyone anymore so he worked with Rick Peterson(Pitching coach for the Mets) on a side arm delivery. He has since worked his way to the Majors.

Stroker Ace
07-15-2005, 11:55 AM
I recently saw Royce Ring pitch at the major league level with the Mets and I have to say that I was underwhelmed by his repertoire of "stuff". He appeared to have just a mediocre fastball and overall his stuff doesn't really seem worthy of a 1st round pick. It concerns me that the White Sox selected this guy in the 1st round when he didn't seem to deserve being drafted that high. Also, this year they drafted RHP Lance Broadway with their 1st round pick, another guy who doesn't have a plus fastball. Now, Broadway may turn out to be a good pitcher for the Sox but I would like to see them draft more pitchers with plus fastballs, especially that high in the draft. What do you folks think?I'ld love to see the Sox draft a flame-thrower or 2 next year.

diamondkings29
07-15-2005, 04:09 PM
Wyatt Allen you say.........I think both Wyatt and the scout that signed him can both tell you the same thing.......Wyatt is not with the Sox and the scout got fired............

FedEx227
07-17-2005, 12:11 AM
I'll take control and the ability to strike guys out/get grounders over high radar readings anyday...

So let's stop drafting so many soft tossers and start drafting more guys who can light up the radar gun!

Yeah screw Buehrle/Garland/Garcia, might as well trade and make Bobby Jenks our no.1 starter...he can light up a radar gun!

Rex Hudler
07-19-2005, 01:17 AM
Last season Ring wasn't doing well at Triple A and was demoted to Double A. Supposedly his velocity was down from about 93 to about 87. He wasn't able to overpower anyone anymore so he worked with Rick Peterson(Pitching coach for the Mets) on a side arm delivery. He has since worked his way to the Majors.

Once again, Ring was never throwing 93 as a professional. He was throwing 86-88 when the Sox traded him. He would reach 90 only occasionally and never with any consistency (never saw him hit 90 more than twice in an outing).

I always felt that he could be a big league bullpen guy, but never saw him as a closer, despite his success in that role with the Barons. His stuff just does not translate into a big league closer. I did like his bulldog mentality, however, which is why he may stick in the Majors at some point.

ballclub3
07-20-2005, 01:52 AM
By most accounts, Ring was a reach where he was taken in the draft. I don't know if Ring was drafted for trade bait as has been suggested, but if that's the case I'm not real happy with that either. My view is you should draft players who have high potential in the first round, rather than just drafting players who are closer to being major-league ready. In the first round you have to be looking for impact players. Does Ring fit that description? Not in my opinion.

I have a bias toward taking guys with great arms because if they are able to add a couple of decent pitches to go with a great fastball, then you could have something special. Not every pitcher you draft is going to have 3 quality pitches that he can throw consistently for strikes at the time he is drafted. But it is possible to teach a youngster a changeup and a breaking ball and to have command of those pitches. That's not to say that every prospect will be able to do those things even after years of development. But the farm system is such a numbers game anyway. Most prospects you sign will never make it to the big leagues. An even smaller number will accel at the big-league level. I do prefer taking guys with a high "ceiling" and that includes both pitchers and position players. I never thought Ring had a particularly high "ceiling" and I agreed that it was a reach to draft him that high.

When you sign these players, you have years to develop them. Many will fail but that is the nature of the business. Since many of these players won't make it anyway, I think there should be a tendency to skew your selections towards players with great potential.

rdivaldi
07-20-2005, 11:43 AM
I have a bias toward taking guys with great arms because if they are able to add a couple of decent pitches to go with a great fastball, then you could have something special. Not every pitcher you draft is going to have 3 quality pitches that he can throw consistently for strikes at the time he is drafted. But it is possible to teach a youngster a changeup and a breaking ball and to have command of those pitches. That's not to say that every prospect will be able to do those things even after years of development. But the farm system is such a numbers game anyway. Most prospects you sign will never make it to the big leagues. An even smaller number will accel at the big-league level. I do prefer taking guys with a high "ceiling" and that includes both pitchers and position players. I never thought Ring had a particularly high "ceiling" and I agreed that it was a reach to draft him that high.

When you sign these players, you have years to develop them. Many will fail but that is the nature of the business. Since many of these players won't make it anyway, I think there should be a tendency to skew your selections towards players with great potential.

The problem is that you're equating velocity to potential. There's sooo much more to pitching than lighting up a radar gun and there's no historical evidence to suggest that guys that throw hard have a better chance to be successful than guys that do not. You have to look at mechanics, mental makeup, movement, control, etc., etc., etc. Most major leaguers can hit a straight 95 mph fastball with ease.

Velocity does not equal potential IMO and I think most scouts would concur. It is also extremely hard to teach a 20 something year old a new pitch. If it was so easy, everyone would be able to throw changeups and curveballs for strikes with consistency.