SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 7, 2016 16:43:46 GMT -5
I apologize for getting on your case. I'm frustrated because my original point was this: Owens does not need a better fastball. Good fastball velocity is not a requirement for major league success. I gave examples. That's it...that's all I'm talking about. You've tried to take to conversation all over the map, claiming that I'm citing those pitchers as Owens comps, extrapolating my statements, and misrepresenting things like the velocity of Keuchel's fastball or the quality of Johnson's curveball. You invoke Jamie Moyer, then tell me I'm the one doing it and using "another bad example," and then you backtrack on what was intended to be a disparaging comp for Owens because, you know, Moyer was actually pretty good. You haven't provided a single scouting report or bit of data to back up your claims, and you haven't acknowledged when you've misrepresented things, even doubling down on the idea that Johnson has an "elite" curveball, without showing anything other than your description. And in the end, you're still dancing around my actual point: Owens's fastball velocity has little to do with determining his MLB success. That's it. You're free to call me childish if you like, but you haven't provided a scrap of evidence to argue that statement. Of course you don't need fastball velocity (hence I love what Johnson brings to the table) to have success but it is hindering Owens potential ceiling. It'd be nice to have a "Moyer" at the back end but if Owens turns into that then I'll kind of look back and wished Owens could of been more than that. You'll see what I'm talking about with Johnson's curveball soon. It's a plus pitch. I don't think the scouting reports give that pitch he has enough credit. It has tremendous break on it. So we can agree to disagree...I think Eric put it best, and I'm of similar mind that fastball velocity is way down in my list of concerns for his development. And that's because I think his elite change, hopefully improved command, and further development of his slider (or curve) will mean a lot more. His FB going fringy/average to average/solid or even plus will be minor compared to his being able to spot his FB and slider, and thus use his true weapon, the change, most effectively. It's actually interesting that you brought up Jamie Moyer, because he threw 82-84 with his fastball...but he, like Owens, had a terrific changeup (though Owens's is arguably better). Moyer's success after the Bragg trade had far more to do with improved command than adding any velocity. In fact, he lost velocity during his time with the Mariners, but from 1996-2003, he went 126-56. He never won fewer than 13 games in a season in that 8-year stretch, and only once lost ten games. His **average** W-L record in that time was 16-7. That's in the heart of the steroid era. If you look at his first few years with the Cubs, he walked over 4/9IP. After five years he was routinely in the 2BB/9 range. He typically averaged about 5-6 K/9IP. And his FB and CH pitch values (at least later in his career, when the data are available) are actually similar to Owens's. Eric's already posted on Owens's attributes and why he's bullish on Owens. I agree, because based on the successes of other pitchers with weak fastball velocity but truly outstanding other pitches (or movement), I'm not at all concerned with radar gun readings in Owens's case. As for Johnson, I hope your idea of his ceiling comes to fruition. I've seen his curve, and it's solid. I'm not as high on it as you are. I saw Owens's best minor league game in person (8 IP, 11K in AA) and he seemed very unimpressive because he was almost exclusively 90-91 or 80-82 on the radar gun. But (I think it was the Fisher cats) the other teams' hitters were **LOST**. I haven't seen Johnson in person, but I do think he's a "synergy" guy, in that the whole package is likely to be more impressive than the parts alone might suggest. However, he lacks a pitch that remotely approaches Owens's change. Obviously, that can change, as Porcello's new slower CB shows that pitchers, even in-season, can improve the quality and value of given pitch. Certainly, he's got some building blocks. FWIW, Johnson averaged 87.5 mph in his start against Houston: www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=14272&position=POwens averaged nearly 1.5 mph **higher** with his fastball during his MLB time: (89.2) www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=13143&position=PI'm actually not concerned with either's FB velocity, because I think both have sufficient other weapons to build off (Owens's terrific CH and deception, Johnson's solid CB and good command). Regardless of our differences in opinion on the value of FB velocity or the upside of either prospect, I'll say this about McGee: he's a great pitcher, he would make the bullpen better, his salary is likely to be in excess of $10M over two years. I don't know that he would make the bullpen *significantly* better. I think the improvement would be marginal over their current options. Even so, McGee would be terrific depth in case there were injury or underperformance. I just don't think the 1.5-2 years of him at $4-6M AAV is worth five years of a young, cost-controlled lefty starter with an elite secondary (or a young lefty with four average/solid pitches and plus command, for that matter). The last time the Sox had a plethora of young lefties, they traded Tudor and Ojeda away, and both went on to be major contributors to WS-winning teams. Tudor had one of the great seasons of the last 40 years for the '85 Cards. The Sox **REALLY** could've used those guys as 3-4 starters (or 4-5, depending on where you put Oil Can) in '85-'87. It doesn't make fiscal/team-building sense to me to trade a durable young starter who's probably at worst a #4 for a reliever who will be your 3rd/4th option out of the 'pen...at about ten times the cost, and for only two years instead of five.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 7, 2016 17:15:44 GMT -5
Okay fair enough Telson. I want you check out my trade proposal on the Carlos Gonzalez thread and see if you like that idea better.
I think Johnson had 2-3 weeks off during his only start and got injured 2 starts later in the minors. I wouldn't hold too much prudence to that one start. The Sox mismanaged him the whole month of July and arguably could of been the reason why he wasn't pitching in August and September. Was looking forward to seeing him in the big leagues too. It'll probably come when Kelly blows up inevitably again. There's two players I don't care too much for. One of them is Kelly, the other is Castillo.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 7, 2016 17:32:02 GMT -5
Now that's a fair argument. Just because I would trade Owens for MgGee, that doesn't mean I expect the Sox to. Starting pitching depth is important too but if the Sox are fine in that area come end of July, it's something we could all look out for. I don't see a lineup upgrade coming in July (unless it's a rental type, maybe a Carlos Gonzalez) and I don't see a rotation upgrade because of the price to get that kind of upgrade (unless it's a pitcher on a expiring contract). So lefty reliever is a obvious option from my point of view as of now (all of that can change quickly however). As the bullpen is constructed now, they don't need MgGee. I actually think the Sox bullpen is better than the yankees because they have more quality depth. I was just thinking along the lines of future needs of this club down the road if everything breaks right. Of course the Sox rotation could break down with Buchholz going down or being ineffective and Kelly being terrible. In which case the Sox might actually be in the market for starting pitching depth (though I personally think the Sox are okay depth wise rotation and bullpen wise). The Sox have 8-9 starters in aaa and the majors and they have an extra 2-4 arms in the bullpen as options too (Light, Hembree, Barnes maybe workman at the end of the year). I hear you. It's just that when it comes to getting out lefties Robbie Ross held them to around a .650 OPS. Carson Smith and Koji Uehara held them under a .600 OPS. Tommy Layne dominates lefties. How much better is McGee going to be to make it worth giving up a guy who probably has a good future in Owens? I just don't see it. Between Ross, Uehara, Smith, and Layne, the Sox should be able to handle lefties. I didn't even check the splits, but I'm sure Kimbrel handles them, too and you know he has the 9th inning. Anything can happen, but I doubt it will be the ability to get LH batters out in the 7th or 8th that would be their undoing. For that to happen, Farrell would have to get overly stubborn about keeping Tazawa in. This year he has better established options. Yeah there's no doubt that if everything breaks right the bottom 5th worst bullpen in the league will be one of the 5 best. Hopefully Koji can hold up. He's probably the key to all of that. Don't get me started on John Farrell. I don't think he's the future answer for a manager in this organization. The Sox won a world series in 2013 despite all the mistakes he made. Hopefully he can handle this "bulletproof" bullpen but he's already started by making me mad about player's roles already. Like for example, why is it set in stone that Koji is already only a 8th inning guy? If there was 2-3 lefties in the 7th, why would it not make sense to bring him in then? He's really the most effective lefty specialist the Sox have with his splitchangeup. If there was 2-3 righties in the 8th it would make a ton of sense to bring in Tazawa or Smith too. I just don't get the guy. What's wrong with mixing and matching like everyone else does in baseball? The ONLY inning that should be guaranteed is Kimberl's ninth.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 7, 2016 17:57:06 GMT -5
I hear you. It's just that when it comes to getting out lefties Robbie Ross held them to around a .650 OPS. Carson Smith and Koji Uehara held them under a .600 OPS. Tommy Layne dominates lefties. How much better is McGee going to be to make it worth giving up a guy who probably has a good future in Owens? I just don't see it. Between Ross, Uehara, Smith, and Layne, the Sox should be able to handle lefties. I didn't even check the splits, but I'm sure Kimbrel handles them, too and you know he has the 9th inning. Anything can happen, but I doubt it will be the ability to get LH batters out in the 7th or 8th that would be their undoing. For that to happen, Farrell would have to get overly stubborn about keeping Tazawa in. This year he has better established options. Yeah there's no doubt that if everything breaks right the bottom 5th worst bullpen in the league will be one of the 5 best. Hopefully Koji can hold up. He's probably the key to all of that. Don't get me started on John Farrell. I don't think he's the future answer for a manager in this organization. The Sox won a world series in 2013 despite all the mistakes he made. Hopefully he can handle this "bulletproof" bullpen but he's already started by making me mad about player's roles already. Like for example, why is it set in stone that Koji is already only a 8th inning guy? If there was 2-3 lefties in the 7th, why would it not make sense to bring him in then? He's really the most effective lefty specialist the Sox have with his splitchangeup. If there was 2-3 righties in the 8th it would make a ton of sense to bring in Tazawa or Smith too. I just don't get the guy. What's wrong with mixing and matching like everyone else does in baseball? The ONLY inning that should be guaranteed is Kimberl's ninth. I'm not sure but I think with Koji, given his age, they want him to be prepared for an exact situation, a start of an inning, as opposed to trouble springing up and suddenly he's needed. I think he needs the time to warm up. They'll probably mix and match more in the 7th and have Carson Smith as well. Nobody is saying the bullpen is bullet-proof, but it's clearly better than it was last year. Hands down. I don't know if Farrell can handle the pen well or not, but he certainly has better options than he did the last couple of years. Hopefully he uses them well. I'm not saying he's Earl Weaver in his prime, but I've seen managers screw the Sox out of division titles (Zimmer), pennants (Little), and Championships (McNamara and Johnson), so the fact that they did win with Farrell tells me he did something right. After all since 1919 only Tito and Farrell can say they were World Championship managers with the Sox. A ton of others could never say that. That's something.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 7, 2016 18:15:33 GMT -5
I apologize for getting on your case. I'm frustrated because my original point was this: Owens does not need a better fastball. Good fastball velocity is not a requirement for major league success. I gave examples. That's it...that's all I'm talking about. You've tried to take to conversation all over the map, claiming that I'm citing those pitchers as Owens comps, extrapolating my statements, and misrepresenting things like the velocity of Keuchel's fastball or the quality of Johnson's curveball. You invoke Jamie Moyer, then tell me I'm the one doing it and using "another bad example," and then you backtrack on what was intended to be a disparaging comp for Owens because, you know, Moyer was actually pretty good. You haven't provided a single scouting report or bit of data to back up your claims, and you haven't acknowledged when you've misrepresented things, even doubling down on the idea that Johnson has an "elite" curveball, without showing anything other than your description. And in the end, you're still dancing around my actual point: Owens's fastball velocity has little to do with determining his MLB success. That's it. You're free to call me childish if you like, but you haven't provided a scrap of evidence to argue that statement. Of course you don't need fastball velocity (hence I love what Johnson brings to the table) to have success but it is hindering Owens potential ceiling. It'd be nice to have a "Moyer" at the back end but if Owens turns into that then I'll kind of look back and wished Owens could of been more than that. You'll see what I'm talking about with Johnson's curveball soon. It's a plus pitch. I don't think the scouting reports give that pitch he has enough credit. It has tremendous break on it. It does have very good break. There are 161 pitchers who threw 35 or more curves last year while throwing 60 IP, and Johnson's break, based on his one game of data, would rank him 37th. However, it's also really slow, 25th slowest. And the two are just about equally as important. The combination is actually well below average, ranking about 109th. Now, BrooksBaseball's numbers have him ranking even higher for movement, about 26th, and it's quite possible that their data can be used because it's simply park-adjusted. That would boost his rank to about 101. Now, if I went into the numbers deeper, I think I'd find that velocity is more complicated than in this simple model (in which I correlated curve effectiveness to velocity and movement, and verified that horizontal versus vertical movement didn't matter, and that you can actually go down to just 35 curves thrown before the data gets too noisy to use). My guess is that his curve would project to be yet closer to average, quite possibly enough to earn a 50 grade. But there's a reason scouts don't grade it as a plus pitch, and that's because most MLB hitters can hit a big-breaking curve decently if it's slow.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 7, 2016 18:41:51 GMT -5
Of course you don't need fastball velocity (hence I love what Johnson brings to the table) to have success but it is hindering Owens potential ceiling. It'd be nice to have a "Moyer" at the back end but if Owens turns into that then I'll kind of look back and wished Owens could of been more than that. You'll see what I'm talking about with Johnson's curveball soon. It's a plus pitch. I don't think the scouting reports give that pitch he has enough credit. It has tremendous break on it. It does have very good break. There are 161 pitchers who threw 35 or more curves last year while throwing 60 IP, and Johnson's break, based on his one game of data, would rank him 37th. However, it's also really slow, 25th slowest. And the two are just about equally as important. The combination is actually well below average, ranking about 109th. Now, BrooksBaseball's numbers have him ranking even higher for movement, about 26th, and it's quite possible that their data can be used because it's simply park-adjusted. That would boost his rank to about 101. Now, if I went into the numbers deeper, I think I'd find that velocity is more complicated than in this simple model (in which I correlated curve effectiveness to velocity and movement, and verified that horizontal versus vertical movement didn't matter, and that you can actually go down to just 35 curves thrown before the data gets too noisy to use). My guess is that his curve would project to be yet closer to average, quite possibly enough to earn a 50 grade. But there's a reason scouts don't grade it as a plus pitch, and that's because most MLB hitters can hit a big-breaking curve decently if it's slow. Does the data show what he can do with it? It's not even about the speed or mostly movement for me. It's the fact that he can change the direction (12-6 or 1-7) and speed of the pitch which would give it a better grade. It's also the fact that he can put it anywhere he wants. He spots the pitch beautifully. Of course Johnson has good overall command of all his pitches but it's even more impressive with a curveball that drops off a table like that.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 7, 2016 19:03:46 GMT -5
Yeah there's no doubt that if everything breaks right the bottom 5th worst bullpen in the league will be one of the 5 best. Hopefully Koji can hold up. He's probably the key to all of that. Don't get me started on John Farrell. I don't think he's the future answer for a manager in this organization. The Sox won a world series in 2013 despite all the mistakes he made. Hopefully he can handle this "bulletproof" bullpen but he's already started by making me mad about player's roles already. Like for example, why is it set in stone that Koji is already only a 8th inning guy? If there was 2-3 lefties in the 7th, why would it not make sense to bring him in then? He's really the most effective lefty specialist the Sox have with his splitchangeup. If there was 2-3 righties in the 8th it would make a ton of sense to bring in Tazawa or Smith too. I just don't get the guy. What's wrong with mixing and matching like everyone else does in baseball? The ONLY inning that should be guaranteed is Kimberl's ninth. I'm not sure but I think with Koji, given his age, they want him to be prepared for an exact situation, a start of an inning, as opposed to trouble springing up and suddenly he's needed. I think he needs the time to warm up. They'll probably mix and match more in the 7th and have Carson Smith as well. Nobody is saying the bullpen is bullet-proof, but it's clearly better than it was last year. Hands down. I don't know if Farrell can handle the pen well or not, but he certainly has better options than he did the last couple of years. Hopefully he uses them well. I'm not saying he's Earl Weaver in his prime, but I've seen managers screw the Sox out of division titles (Zimmer), pennants (Little), and Championships (McNamara and Johnson), so the fact that they did win with Farrell tells me he did something right. After all since 1919 only Tito and Farrell can say they were World Championship managers with the Sox. A ton of others could never say that. That's something. Yeah but you can do the same in the 7th as opposed to the eighth. I'm not so sure what difference a whole inning makes. It's just infuriating to me. Put your team in the best position to win, not to define roles and stick to them like a stubborn mule. I just hope it doesn't cost the Sox many games because the Sox had to mix and match in the 7th without Koji when he could of provided the best option for the 7th.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 7, 2016 20:29:12 GMT -5
I'm not sure but I think with Koji, given his age, they want him to be prepared for an exact situation, a start of an inning, as opposed to trouble springing up and suddenly he's needed. I think he needs the time to warm up. They'll probably mix and match more in the 7th and have Carson Smith as well. Nobody is saying the bullpen is bullet-proof, but it's clearly better than it was last year. Hands down. I don't know if Farrell can handle the pen well or not, but he certainly has better options than he did the last couple of years. Hopefully he uses them well. I'm not saying he's Earl Weaver in his prime, but I've seen managers screw the Sox out of division titles (Zimmer), pennants (Little), and Championships (McNamara and Johnson), so the fact that they did win with Farrell tells me he did something right. After all since 1919 only Tito and Farrell can say they were World Championship managers with the Sox. A ton of others could never say that. That's something. Yeah but you can do the same in the 7th as opposed to the eighth. I'm not so sure what difference a whole inning makes. It's just infuriating to me. Put your team in the best position to win, not to define roles and stick to them like a stubborn mule. I just hope it doesn't cost the Sox many games because the Sox had to mix and match in the 7th without Koji when he could of provided the best option for the 7th. The point is that Koji gets more time to warm up if he has to start an inning rather than put out a fire toward the end of the inning. Koji has no major platoon differential so you don't have to mix and match with him. It's like he's a closer, except for the 8th inning, so really it's not the same in the 7th as opposed to the 8th. Farrell would obviously rather match up earlier in the game than later in the game when he has pitchers with little platoon differential. It does make sense.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 7, 2016 23:22:41 GMT -5
It does have very good break. There are 161 pitchers who threw 35 or more curves last year while throwing 60 IP, and Johnson's break, based on his one game of data, would rank him 37th. However, it's also really slow, 25th slowest. And the two are just about equally as important. The combination is actually well below average, ranking about 109th. Now, BrooksBaseball's numbers have him ranking even higher for movement, about 26th, and it's quite possible that their data can be used because it's simply park-adjusted. That would boost his rank to about 101. Now, if I went into the numbers deeper, I think I'd find that velocity is more complicated than in this simple model (in which I correlated curve effectiveness to velocity and movement, and verified that horizontal versus vertical movement didn't matter, and that you can actually go down to just 35 curves thrown before the data gets too noisy to use). My guess is that his curve would project to be yet closer to average, quite possibly enough to earn a 50 grade. But there's a reason scouts don't grade it as a plus pitch, and that's because most MLB hitters can hit a big-breaking curve decently if it's slow. Does the data show what he can do with it? It's not even about the speed or mostly movement for me. It's the fact that he can change the direction (12-6 or 1-7) and speed of the pitch which would give it a better grade. It's also the fact that he can put it anywhere he wants. He spots the pitch beautifully. Of course Johnson has good overall command of all his pitches but it's even more impressive with a curveball that drops off a table like that. Certainly the plus command of the pitch is a huge strength, but the command of a given pitch, in a scout's grade, is relative to his overall command (and is very rarely better than overall command). And Johnson's sole strength as a pitcher is that he has plus command of all his pitches, with potential for plus-plus. Having plus command of an ordinary curve, though, does not give you a plus curve. IOW, when folks grade a curve, they're talking about the combination of velocity and bite, and then they'll dock it if the guy can't command it. Looking at his one game of data and comparing it to a Buchholz game and a Porcello game, he has more velocity range than Porcello but less than Buchholz. Except for four outliers, ditto for his range of movement. He did throw three baby curves -- not 12-6, more like 12 breaking nearly straight down but just to the middle of the clock -- and threw them all for strikes, and he also threw one that was 2-8, also for a strike. Those might be variants he can use consciously, or they may have been flukes. I'm not knocking the guy. I like him a lot, and I think he's underrated because guys with his profile -- plus or better command of a bunch of average pitches --- are often underrated. Now, the curve may be impressing you with the way it drops off the table, and so you're here arguing that his curve is better than scouts say it is, but the scouts know what you don't, and what the data shows very clearly: that kind of movement poses no special problem to MLB hitters when a curve is thrown so slowly. His command of the pitch, of course, is genuinely impressive.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 8, 2016 2:13:19 GMT -5
I decided to withhold judgement on Johnson because of the inflammation that ended his season. I've only watched a few of his minor league performances on lousy video, and that one game he pitched in the majors. That isn't enough to begin to get an idea of who he is, at least for me. It may have been skewed by the injury in any case so that game goes into the mental scrap pile.
Hopefully, he gets settled in at AAA and makes his way up sooner, rather than later. I'd like to see how he does without the arm fatigue.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 8, 2016 8:06:31 GMT -5
Yeah but you can do the same in the 7th as opposed to the eighth. I'm not so sure what difference a whole inning makes. It's just infuriating to me. Put your team in the best position to win, not to define roles and stick to them like a stubborn mule. I just hope it doesn't cost the Sox many games because the Sox had to mix and match in the 7th without Koji when he could of provided the best option for the 7th. The point is that Koji gets more time to warm up if he has to start an inning rather than put out a fire toward the end of the inning. Koji has no major platoon differential so you don't have to mix and match with him. It's like he's a closer, except for the 8th inning, so really it's not the same in the 7th as opposed to the 8th. Farrell would obviously rather match up earlier in the game than later in the game when he has pitchers with little platoon differential. It does make sense. The only thing I remember about koji is that every time the Sox warmed him up they wanted to bring him into the game and not waste a any throws he had to make. Smith should be nasty though. Big Texan with great movement and velocity. Tazawa should be handled better also, as you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 8, 2016 8:15:02 GMT -5
Does the data show what he can do with it? It's not even about the speed or mostly movement for me. It's the fact that he can change the direction (12-6 or 1-7) and speed of the pitch which would give it a better grade. It's also the fact that he can put it anywhere he wants. He spots the pitch beautifully. Of course Johnson has good overall command of all his pitches but it's even more impressive with a curveball that drops off a table like that. Certainly the plus command of the pitch is a huge strength, but the command of a given pitch, in a scout's grade, is relative to his overall command (and is very rarely better than overall command). And Johnson's sole strength as a pitcher is that he has plus command of all his pitches, with potential for plus-plus. Having plus command of an ordinary curve, though, does not give you a plus curve. IOW, when folks grade a curve, they're talking about the combination of velocity and bite, and then they'll dock it if the guy can't command it. Looking at his one game of data and comparing it to a Buchholz game and a Porcello game, he has more velocity range than Porcello but less than Buchholz. Except for four outliers, ditto for his range of movement. He did throw three baby curves -- not 12-6, more like 12 breaking nearly straight down but just to the middle of the clock -- and threw them all for strikes, and he also threw one that was 2-8, also for a strike. Those might be variants he can use consciously, or they may have been flukes. I'm not knocking the guy. I like him a lot, and I think he's underrated because guys with his profile -- plus or better command of a bunch of average pitches --- are often underrated. Now, the curve may be impressing you with the way it drops off the table, and so you're here arguing that his curve is better than scouts say it is, but the scouts know what you don't, and what the data shows very clearly: that kind of movement poses no special problem to MLB hitters when a curve is thrown so slowly. His command of the pitch, of course, is genuinely impressive. I just disagree with the scouts but maybe that's just me. When you can mix and match a pitch like that, it can be devistating. Of course he has to mix and match everything since that's his profile and that's why he has such a feel for pitching. I love Brian Johnson's stuff, my second favorite potential Sox this year only second to Mookie.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Feb 8, 2016 8:58:06 GMT -5
Speaking of trade value (pitching) at midseason, how is our defense shaping up in Pawtucket? I'm not sure aside from Leon, Chris/Devon Marrero, Craig, Marco Hernandez, Coyle. We all saw how good our pitching looked after the AS break when we had a better defense in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 8, 2016 12:43:05 GMT -5
I decided to withhold judgement on Johnson because of the inflammation that ended his season. I've only watched a few of his minor league performances on lousy video, and that one game he pitched in the majors. That isn't enough to begin to get an idea of who he is, at least for me. It may have been skewed by the injury in any case so that game goes into the mental scrap pile. Hopefully, he gets settled in at AAA and makes his way up sooner, rather than later. I'd like to see how he does without the arm fatigue. Yeah, this is me, too. While I've generally been a Johnson booster, I didn't see much in that game to get all that excited about ... his fastball was below average, for sure, and to be a guy with plus command of a bunch of average pitches, I think fastball has to be one of them. But, like you, I threw out that game completely. I still think he can be a useful guy, but I think both his floor and his ceiling are lower than Owens.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 8, 2016 13:32:10 GMT -5
I moved some Gonzalez/McGee-specific discussion to that thread in the trade proposal subforum.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 8, 2016 23:03:51 GMT -5
The point is that Koji gets more time to warm up if he has to start an inning rather than put out a fire toward the end of the inning. Koji has no major platoon differential so you don't have to mix and match with him. It's like he's a closer, except for the 8th inning, so really it's not the same in the 7th as opposed to the 8th. Farrell would obviously rather match up earlier in the game than later in the game when he has pitchers with little platoon differential. It does make sense. The only thing I remember about koji is that every time the Sox warmed him up they wanted to bring him into the game and not waste a any throws he had to make. Smith should be nasty though. Big Texan with great movement and velocity. Tazawa should be handled better also, as you mentioned. I think Smith was an outstanding pickup, given that the Sox have young starting pitchers who should be able to approximate Miley (at a fraction of the cost), and Smith's near-elite results last year. My only concern with him is his slider-heavy repertoire. That said, with him, Kimbrel, and Tazawa for a few years, I like the 'pen. With Light, Jerez, and Martin (and maybe Ysla), they've got some talent on the way. With Owens, Johnson, and Elias, the starting depth is awfully good too.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Feb 9, 2016 8:34:45 GMT -5
I'd like to add two things we've been discussing about Owens last season while he was still at Pawtuckett:
First: He got better. The best way to see this is looking at the BBs. He clearly was having troublw with FB-command and if I recall right, he used his change much less on purpose compared to his seasons in the lower minors. That he was able to get better while continuing to throw with a limited repertoire gives me hope that he kept improving.
Second: If I remember right he was - at least at times - trying to pitch to contact to get deeper into games. That in part can decribe the loss in Ks, I think. Now we'll have to see if he'll be able to find a middle ground where he get's Ks while pitching deep into games. Judging from some of his starts, where he was elite in gaining swings-and-misses, it at least is not out of the picture. For me, his start against the Mariners is still fascinating: 10/1 K/bb while also giving up 10 hits. Recalling the report from Aöex Speier he was either making them look like children or getting crushed. The fascinating thing abpit him is the width between his floor and his ceiling. I won't stop dreaming about him getting at least a 2 for at least 2 more seasons.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 9, 2016 18:48:40 GMT -5
I'd like to add two things we've been discussing about Owens last season while he was still at Pawtuckett: First: He got better. The best way to see this is looking at the BBs. He clearly was having troublw with FB-command and if I recall right, he used his change much less on purpose compared to his seasons in the lower minors. That he was able to get better while continuing to throw with a limited repertoire gives me hope that he kept improving. Second: If I remember right he was - at least at times - trying to pitch to contact to get deeper into games. That in part can decribe the loss in Ks, I think. Now we'll have to see if he'll be able to find a middle ground where he get's Ks while pitching deep into games. Judging from some of his starts, where he was elite in gaining swings-and-misses, it at least is not out of the picture. For me, his start against the Mariners is still fascinating: 10/1 K/bb while also giving up 10 hits. Recalling the report from Aöex Speier he was either making them look like children or getting crushed. The fascinating thing abpit him is the width between his floor and his ceiling. I won't stop dreaming about him getting at least a 2 for at least 2 more seasons. As a tall, lanky lefty with difficulty commanding his fastball, Owens is the prototypical late-bloomer. Cliff Lee...who also struggled with fastball command until his late-20s. In fact, Lee also is a changeup artist with a middling fastball. His first 60 innings, in 2002-2003, look quite a bit like Owens's debut. And Lee struggled for several years with solid contact, too many walks, and too many taters: www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1636&position=PIf you look at Lee's 7-year minor league career, he had 496 Ks in just 444 innings, with just 356 hits but *203* walks. His ERA was 3.36...with a WHIP of 1.26, 4.1 BB/9, 10.0 K/9, and just under a HR per 9 (0.8). And on arriving in the majors, he averaged 88.8 mph on his fastball, just a hair less than Owens, but basically comparable compared to league average. Like Owens, Lee had a slider and curve as his third and fourth pitches. He later developed a cutter as his command and control improved. Henry Owens's minor league career? In 518 innings (just four seasons), he had an ERA of 3.30, a WHIP of 1.20, with 572 Ks (9.9/9IP) and 230 BB (4.0/9IP), and 0.6 HR/9IP. It's surprising (and exciting, because Owens is better in nearly every category) to me how **eerily** similar those two are, down to age on arrival in the majors, repertoire, and results. So for anyone telling me that Owens's ceiling is a #3, look again at Lee's first few seasons, including his first full year, with 81 walks in about 180 innings, followed by some serious trouble with the longball and a lot of hard contact. By 30, he was coming off of a 22-3, 2.54 season and was putting up xFIPs in the low-3s. Now, there's a lot to get in the way of Owens becoming Cliff Lee (or Jamie Moyer, who was arguably better than Lee during his 126-56 8-year peak). But I think it's a huge mistake to say his ceiling is anything else, because they've been almost identical through age 23, right down to their repertoire, velocity, and stuff (with Owens marginally better).
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 9, 2016 18:57:29 GMT -5
If you're using Lee as your example, half the league has ace potential. Lee, mid-career, found pinpoint command, a devastating cutter, AND extra fastball velocity. Everyone is an ace if they develop those attributes. It's exceedingly rare that they do, however.
You can't just comp Owens to highly successful versions of himself. It's like comping RDLR to Pedro. Short! Right handed! Great velo! Great changeup! **Eerily** similar, one might say.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 9, 2016 21:05:22 GMT -5
Right, if every tall, lanky lefty has the ceiling of Cliff Lee (or even Jamie Moyer), you've gutted every bit of usefulness of the concept of a "ceiling."
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 9, 2016 22:36:15 GMT -5
Right, if every tall, lanky lefty has the ceiling of Cliff Lee (or even Jamie Moyer), you've gutted every bit of usefulness of the concept of a "ceiling." No, just the ones with essentially identical minor league records, nearly identical repertoires, and very, very similar stuff. You're using a reduction to absurdity as the crux of your "argument."
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 9, 2016 22:47:43 GMT -5
If you're using Lee as your example, half the league has ace potential. Lee, mid-career, found pinpoint command, a devastating cutter, AND extra fastball velocity. Everyone is an ace if they develop those attributes. It's exceedingly rare that they do, however. You can't just comp Owens to highly successful versions of himself. It's like comping RDLR to Pedro. Short! Right handed! Great velo! Great changeup! **Eerily** similar, one might say. Lee started throwing a cutter in his second full season. It didn't coincide with his success. He also didn't "suddenly" develop pinpoint control, either. He improved it over time, a chance he was afforded because he had good enough stuff (and results, not to mention relative stamina and durability) that the Indians kept him in the rotation. RDLR didn't have the minor league career that Pedro did, nor did he have similar results at a similar age. Rubby also had UCL repair, which threw their timelines completely out of whack. You're ignoring the whole of the statistical similarities to construct a straw man argument based on extrapolating the less compelling fraction of the argument. I'm not claiming that Owens's 50% is Lee, but I am saying his 10% is. He's been ranked fairly consistently prior to last year in the top 25-45, two years running. He's not "just any pitcher," he's a talented guy with a terrific secondary and a solid one. His 50% is probably right around a 3, his 90% around a 5. I will give you that Lee's FB velocity increase is unusual, to say the least. He peaked at about 2 mph over his early-career velo. How much of that was strength/conditioning, and how much was improved command leading to his not needing to "take a little off just to get it over," I'm not sure. I do know that his velocity improved nearly in concert with his walk rate dropping. I do lend some credence to the idea that pitchers trying to be too "fine" get stiff with their mechanics and lose a little velocity. Most very good pitchers' success depends on excellent command (combined with good stuff). To me, Owens fits the profile of a pitcher who can improve his command significantly, partly because he has in the past. His FB may never be great, but his change already is and his SL has plus-or-better potential and is already solid-average. Command is the only significant hurdle holding him back, and I don't think a 1-in-10 chance that he gets to 60-65 is unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 9, 2016 23:40:59 GMT -5
Right, if every tall, lanky lefty has the ceiling of Cliff Lee (or even Jamie Moyer), you've gutted every bit of usefulness of the concept of a "ceiling." No, just the ones with essentially identical minor league records, nearly identical repertoires, and very, very similar stuff. You're using a reduction to absurdity as the crux of your "argument." So guys who throw in the high-80s/low-90s, have a good changeup, and were good but not great in the minors? That's not enough for me to conclude that Owens has a 10% chance of becoming Cliff Lee or that he has the same chance of being Cliff Lee as he does of being a fifth starter. The odds of a 23-year-old pitcher with 45 present command improving it to 65 command are much, much lower than that (almost by definition; an improvement of two standard deviations is, what, 2.1% odds?).
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 10, 2016 1:01:31 GMT -5
Again, you're attempting to make my point a generalized reference rather than acknowledging that their minor league repertoires and results are nearly identical. Also, your use of the Z score there to estimate outcome is flawed. Without going too deep into it, using a Z score assumes a large randomly selected population with a normal distribution, which is a pretty big supposition for a highly selected, non-randomly distributed population of professional baseball players. And grade assignments aren't placed on a curve. Scouts give them based on eyeballing it, with the population increasingly skewed high as one rises through the minors. But even if we were to take the assumptions to permit percentile estimates for specific outcomes to be the case, a 10% outcome is the summation of all possibilities: adding new pitches, increasing effectiveness of the slider and/or fastball, etc., and not just the rare case of his improvement being the sole product of his developing near-elite command of his good-to-very-good stuff. I would argue that, at one standard deviation per outcome, he might have a 15% chance of developing a full standard deviation increase in his fastball and slider grades. Or a 15% chance of improving his command by a full grade and a 15% chance of his curve becoming solid-avg instead of fringy. The composite outcomes would be 2.25% for each, but they're additive. Of course, this is highly simplistic, but the point is, there's more than one way to skin this cat.
I'm bullish on Owens. I fully admit it. But you're still using a reduction to absurdity to argue your point. You've created an estimated theoretical percentage outcome based on assumptions inconsistent with the statistical theory you're basing that outcome on. And you've failed to account for additional outcomes. Besides, I've heard you say that you think of Owens now as a 4/5. Where, then, are your 10/50/90 outcomes? And are they really all that outrageously different from mine? I've said before that I envision Owens as an unlikely, but potential, 2 or 1a. That's the category I'd put Lee in. Or Glavine (who was incredibly consistent for a long time). Or Moyer, in his best years...though he was more a very good 2. Or Pettite (2) Or Lester (more 2, and also with a similar minor league career as Owens).
Throw out your Z scores, because we all know that scouting grades are not normally distributed and, in particular, the population is non-random, particularly as attrition claims players on their climbs through the minors. If you want to argue *wholly* based on analytics, you'd be better served looking at all LH starters who made the majors at, say, 23 or younger in the last 20 years or so. You could whittle it down to those with more than 8K/IP in the minors, and a career minor league ERA less than, say, 3.75. I'm pretty sure that at least one in 20 went on to become excellent pitchers. And it's really not all of a stretch to me to say, hey, I just have a good feeling about Owens so I think he's twice as likely as those guys.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 10, 2016 1:16:19 GMT -5
FWIW, using my range (60-65), your command grade (45, which I'd agree with) and presuming all of the assumptions required to estimate %ile based on Z-score, there's a 6.7% chance of Owens developing 60 command and 2.3% for 65. So, based on *all comers* (the closest we'll get to our random population), I said 10% when really, it's statistically 6.7% to fall in my quoted range. I don't think that's particularly outrageous, given the number of assumptions about the population characteristics that have to be made. Heh...maybe that he's a tall, lanky lefty with a history of improving his command/control and with a good work ethic buys me the last 2.3%?
|
|
|