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 dirtywater43 on Feb 23, 2016 4:37:44 GMT -5
I have a pretty interesting discussion that's really tied into this spring training and is one of the very few competitions in camp (This subject probably deserves it's own thread). Now this discussion may extend even further out of spring training (just like with the catching situation) because they want to give Kelly one LAST chance at a starting opportunity, but here are my thoughts on it.
The 5th starter spot. Joe Kelly vs. Henry Owens.
Here's what Joe Kelly has proven through his whole career of starting games with the Sox (through my eyes)- -He usually is a below quality starting pitcher -He has a hard time getting past the fifth inning (a bullpen killer) -He has a hard time staying healthy -He has no control
Even during Kelly's "good stretch" he was only averaging 5 1/3 innings in his 8-1 run. That was the same 5 1/3 innings he averaged all season long.
Here's what Henry Owens did in his first 10 games and has proven in his minor league career so far (I'm going to throw out the last game of the year since he was pitching in freezing temperatures and pitching in 20+mph wind speeds in that game [terrible pitching conditions])- -He is durable -He can usually last at least 6 innings of work. -He has control issues at times -He has a strong minor league track record with good numbers to back it up -His change up grades better than any other pitch Kelly has -He is a good number 4 or 5 starter (right now) in the big leagues with number 3 starter upside
You can look at the stats through his first 10 starts and completely throw away his last start, which again he was pitching in freezing temperatures that day with 20+mph winds (not ideal pitching conditions).
His record through that time-
4-3 with a 3.84 era with 46 strikeouts in 58 2/3 innings. That added along to the fact that to that point he gave up 52 hits in 58 innings (less than a hit per inning).
That's a major league pitcher. Owens belongs on this starting staff more than Joe Kelly. I hope this competition that Farrell has been talking about this spring training truly is real because frankly I clearly think Owens is a better starting pitcher.
The best I hope from out of Joe Kelly at this point is that he turns into Wade Davis (a below average 5th starter that turns into a good setup reliever). I don't see Kelly turning into a Cliff Lee, Curt Schilling, or even Carlos Carrasco at this point as a starter.
Thoughts? Would like to hear what the advanced metrics has to say compared with 2015 Owens minor and major league numbers versus Kelly's major league starting numbers with his time on the Sox. Brought this subject here because I thought this would be the best message board to discuss this with. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Feb 23, 2016 11:04:16 GMT -5
I don't buy this Kelly-as-Wade-Davis thing which people keep bringing up. Why do people assume Kelly is a late inning stud if he doesn't work out as a starter?
Davis doesn't just throw the ball hard, he misses bats with his fastball. Kelly has never even gotten in the same zip code as Wade Davis' final year in Tampa (12% SwStr%). Its not like Kelly has this overpowering fastball that he struggles to complement with other pitches. He's got a bunch of pretty good pitches and no obvious two-pitch mix to whittle them down to.
Now if Owens deserves the 5th starter slot and wins it from Joe, that's great. But can someone explain to me why I should expect Kelly's stuff to play up in the bullpen?
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Feb 23, 2016 11:05:48 GMT -5
I would say Owens definitely has more upside potential to be something more than a 4/5——which is all that Joe Kelly is going to give you. Does Joe Kelly have options left? I'm not 100%, but basically that is all that matters at this point——that Owens has options and Kelly doesn't. With Buchholz, Price, Porcello and Rodriguez entrenched in the top 4, it makes no sense to put Owens at 5 unless he's demonstrably better than Kelly. That doesn't seem to be the case just yet.
However my ideal is that Owens wipes out AAA batters the first month and they move Kelly to the bullpen where he might potentially shine. In a small career sample Kelly has shown to be significantly better in relief and with Johnson and Owens knocking on the door I hope they would explore that more.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Feb 23, 2016 11:14:09 GMT -5
But can someone explain to me why I should expect Kelly's stuff to play up in the bullpen? He strikes out more guys and walks fewer in relief relative to when he starts and he has shown a really good slider.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 23, 2016 11:49:17 GMT -5
I more or less agree, although I'll throw a few caveats in there:
Wade Davis is an interesting comp, because I think that's what most people on here (and Boston fans in general) hope Kelly would be if moved to the 'pen. However, there's a fundamental difference between the two. Davis struggled as a starter due to middling stuff. He didn't throw very hard, his breaking stuff was kinda flat, he had four pitches but none really had "bite." He also nibbled some, from what I remember, probably due to not trusting his stuff. He just flat-out didn't have the constitution to start, kind of like Gagne or, to some extent, Tom Gordon. But Davis's stuff improved tremendously in short outings. His FB was suddenly 95-97, not 91-92, and became a weapon. His slider got sharper (although he ditched it for a cutter with the Royals), and his CB more consistent. He also dropped his CH because he didn't need a fourth pitch. Kelly's different. You're absolutely dead-on about his inability to go deep. It's infuriating. But it's not because, like Davis, he lacks the stuff while he's starting. It's that he lacks the efficiency. Whether it's his command, pitch mix, or consistency (or a combination, or something else), he just wastes too many pitches per inning. So, while you might be right, and he may just not be suited to start, the limiting factor is different from Davis. It also makes me wonder how much better Kelly would be out of the 'pen. He's still going to have the same command, pitch mix, etc issues. Wade Davis has been arguably the best reliever in baseball the last two years, so it's a pretty high bar. Personally, I really have no idea what they should do with Kelly, although my inclination is to give him at least one more year as a starter. He was a college closer, and didn't make the majors until 24, so his developmental curve is arguably a little delayed. More than anything, he needs innings. He's had injury issues but nothing serious with his arm. Maybe he's another Buchholz and just gets lots of nagging injuries, but it's tough to say at this point. However, I he hasn't shown clear signs of putting it together by 29 (June 2017), then they need to try to salvage some value by putting him in the 'pen and hoping he's good enough to extend or trade.
Owens, I think, may win the spot outright. I think his FB command issues are largely related to youth and inexperience. He seems dedicated, and it's reasonable to expect him to improve at least some. Better command might also lead to better stuff, if he's been "guiding" the ball. But, Owens certainly can do his learning in AAA. Kelly does have an option, so maybe he goes down instead. Kelly has limited control time left...maybe it's important to evaluate him in MLB?
Mostly, I think ST will shake things out. If one of them doesn't grab the job, or lose it, based on performance, I think odds are Kelly stays and Owens goes to AAA. I can also see Kelly on a very short leash if Owens (or Johnson) is killing it in Pawtucket. The bullpen is light years ahead of last year, but if someone gets hurt, it may force a move of Kelly. I don't think it's a discussion that can be styled without playing games, and probably ones that matter.
FWIW, this is a terrific "problem" to have: two talented AAA-MLB level SPs trying to break in and a guy who averages 95 with three other reasonably useful pitches as the incumbent #5. And, a bullpen so stacked with talent that said incumbent, if moved, would be a 3rd or 4th (or even 5th) option.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 23, 2016 12:32:20 GMT -5
You know what's weird here? Usually it's the veteran who is the safe bet and the rookie who presents upside, but I'm not sure that's the case here. I'm pretty positive Owens is ready to be a #4 today but I don't see him ever being much more than a durable mid-rotation guy (which is awesome! I'm high on him!) Kelly's stuff is so fierce that it's easy to see why people would want to keep trying him as a starter - there's really great upside that's still there. But it's over a 50% chance that he flames out and ends up a reliever or injured.
Daniel Bard has seemingly instilled this terrifying fear that bullpen-to-starter conversions are disasters so once they move someone to the bullpen, it is for forever. So I think it has led to them doing everything they can to preserve quantity of starters over the last four years, at the expense of quality in both the rotation and the bullpen. So yeah, I'd go for Owens in the rotation. And while I don't think the idea of keeping Kelly in the rotation over him is insane on it's own, I'm worried that the process that leads to that decision is flawed. And that's a deeper problem than a one vs. one talent evaluation disagreement.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 23, 2016 14:38:21 GMT -5
I think Owens is the safer option and I think his upside is more of a 2/3 then a 4/5. I mean he is a 4/5 today with 50 innings in the majors. But if it's close between Owens and Kelly I give Kelly the 5th spot and tuck Owens in AAA knowing he'll make a ton of starts in the majors. After the end of last year I really want to know if Kelly turned a corner or just had a hot streak. I want to give Kelly one last good chance at being a starter before moving him to pen. I wouldn't want to keep moving him from rotation to pen.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Feb 23, 2016 14:48:32 GMT -5
I feel like there is some long tenured, invested in his development, beloved prospect tinted glasses in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 23, 2016 15:19:10 GMT -5
Henry Owens also came into camp "in the best shape of his life." I know that's usually the spring training motto for baseball players, but if that means Owens increased even a little bit of his velocity, then he's golden. Still I think he's light years ahead of Kelly as a starter, even if he didn't. I'm sick of watching Kelly blow up, get easily flustered, or try to make it past the 5th but can't.
Tazawa can blame Kelly (and Masterson) last year for his fatigue because neither could go deep into games.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 23, 2016 15:38:25 GMT -5
I also think that Joe Kelly would be winning a job out of reputation and perceived "potential" and I don't believe that should happen. The guy is what 27/28 and he hasn't put it together in the big leagues yet as a starter. There are enough experiments on this team (Hanley at first), I don't want to see Kelly lose his first 3 games of the year because he's pitching poorly because we all know he can't consistently start. Outside of a stretch of that illustrious 8-1 last year (sarcasm), he has really yet to prove anything as a starter for the Sox or even as a big league starter. Even that 8-1 stretch wasn't that good as I pointed out, Porcello had a much better turn around in my opinion last year. At least Porcello gives them innings. Not to mention that Kelly once again landed on the dl at the end of the year (something a lot of people forget).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 23, 2016 16:56:34 GMT -5
I also think that Joe Kelly would be winning a job out of reputation and perceived "potential" and I don't believe that should happen. The guy is what 27/28 and he hasn't put it together in the big leagues yet as a starter. There are enough experiments on this team (Hanley at first), I don't want to see Kelly lose his first 3 games of the year because he's pitching poorly because we all know he can't consistently start. Outside of a stretch of that illustrious 8-1 last year (sarcasm), he has really yet to prove anything as a starter for the Sox or even as a big league starter. Even that 8-1 stretch wasn't that good as I pointed out, Porcello had a much better turn around in my opinion last year. At least Porcello gives them innings. Not to mention that Kelly once again landed on the dl at the end of the year (something a lot of people forget). I don't think it's fair to characterize Joe Kelly as a player who has "yet to prove anything." Here are Kelly's career stats as a starting pitcher in the major leagues: - 73 GS, 409 IP (~5.6 IP per game)
- 6.2 K/9, 3.5 BB/9, 0.8 HR/9, 51.1% GB
- 3.89 ERA, 4.18 FIP, 4.18 xFIP
Granted, a lot of that came in the NL and in a pitcher's park, so on a league- and park-adjusted basis, it's not super impressive (eyeballing it, I think it's something like 10% below league average on a per-inning basis). But that's a useful back-of-the-rotation pitcher, albeit one you're not getting a ton of innings from. Kelly has certainly yet to prove that he's more than that, but he also has more of a track record of being at least an acceptable back-end starter than Henry Owens does.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Feb 23, 2016 17:25:23 GMT -5
Whoever wins the spot won't let it up, because Bannister (and guidance from Price) will turn that player into a Cy Young frontrunner.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 23, 2016 21:05:18 GMT -5
I also think that Joe Kelly would be winning a job out of reputation and perceived "potential" and I don't believe that should happen. The guy is what 27/28 and he hasn't put it together in the big leagues yet as a starter. There are enough experiments on this team (Hanley at first), I don't want to see Kelly lose his first 3 games of the year because he's pitching poorly because we all know he can't consistently start. Outside of a stretch of that illustrious 8-1 last year (sarcasm), he has really yet to prove anything as a starter for the Sox or even as a big league starter. Even that 8-1 stretch wasn't that good as I pointed out, Porcello had a much better turn around in my opinion last year. At least Porcello gives them innings. Not to mention that Kelly once again landed on the dl at the end of the year (something a lot of people forget). I don't think it's fair to characterize Joe Kelly as a player who has "yet to prove anything." Here are Kelly's career stats as a starting pitcher in the major leagues: - 73 GS, 409 IP (~5.6 IP per game)
- 6.2 K/9, 3.5 BB/9, 0.8 HR/9, 51.1% GB
- 3.89 ERA, 4.18 FIP, 4.18 xFIP
Granted, a lot of that came in the NL and in a pitcher's park, so on a league- and park-adjusted basis, it's not super impressive (eyeballing it, I think it's something like 10% below league average on a per-inning basis). But that's a useful back-of-the-rotation pitcher, albeit one you're not getting a ton of innings from. Kelly has certainly yet to prove that he's more than that, but he also has more of a track record of being at least an acceptable back-end starter than Henry Owens does.
Okay I was probably exaggerating on the whole useless part. His game is probably better served in the nl if he was to continue starting but I don't trust the guy in the al east. In his 35 starts with Boston he has a ERA close to 4.50. That's pretty much a full season to gauge what he is as a starter in Boston. I truly think Owens could easily surpass those numbers while giving the team more innings because he's more durable and he should last longer in games. Joe Kelly's best role is probably what the Cardinals were doing I'm his first two years as a pro and that was a swingman out of the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 23, 2016 23:02:09 GMT -5
I also think that Joe Kelly would be winning a job out of reputation and perceived "potential" and I don't believe that should happen. The guy is what 27/28 and he hasn't put it together in the big leagues yet as a starter. There are enough experiments on this team (Hanley at first), I don't want to see Kelly lose his first 3 games of the year because he's pitching poorly because we all know he can't consistently start. Outside of a stretch of that illustrious 8-1 last year (sarcasm), he has really yet to prove anything as a starter for the Sox or even as a big league starter. Even that 8-1 stretch wasn't that good as I pointed out, Porcello had a much better turn around in my opinion last year. At least Porcello gives them innings. Not to mention that Kelly once again landed on the dl at the end of the year (something a lot of people forget). Carlos Carrasco was absolutely atrocious at 25-26, just a passable bullpen arm at 27, and blossomed at 28. His isn't all that unusual a story, either. Some guys just take a while to figure out how to pitch, not just throw. Kelly is relatively inexperienced, with about half the total (minor/major league) career innings of most starters his age. Kelly's stuff suggests that he should get a lot more swings&misses. Maybe Bannister can help him with angles or changing sight lines, or Vasquez comes up and calls games right for him. Doesn't mean he should be guaranteed a rotation spot, but it's certainly something to consider.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 23, 2016 23:11:45 GMT -5
I also think that Joe Kelly would be winning a job out of reputation and perceived "potential" and I don't believe that should happen. The guy is what 27/28 and he hasn't put it together in the big leagues yet as a starter. There are enough experiments on this team (Hanley at first), I don't want to see Kelly lose his first 3 games of the year because he's pitching poorly because we all know he can't consistently start. Outside of a stretch of that illustrious 8-1 last year (sarcasm), he has really yet to prove anything as a starter for the Sox or even as a big league starter. Even that 8-1 stretch wasn't that good as I pointed out, Porcello had a much better turn around in my opinion last year. At least Porcello gives them innings. Not to mention that Kelly once again landed on the dl at the end of the year (something a lot of people forget). Carlos Carrasco was absolutely atrocious at 25-26, just a passable bullpen arm at 27, and blossomed at 28. His isn't all that unusual a story, either. Some guys just take a while to figure out how to pitch, not just throw. Kelly is relatively inexperienced, with about half the total (minor/major league) career innings of most starters his age. Kelly's stuff suggests that he should get a lot more swings&misses. Maybe Bannister can help him with angles or changing sight lines, or Vasquez comes up and calls games right for him. Doesn't mean he should be guaranteed a rotation spot, but it's certainly something to consider. Really name more pitchers who break out like Carrasco has that late in his career. Carrasco is a outlier.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 23, 2016 23:16:49 GMT -5
Can anyone name me when Kelly has thrown 150 innings in a season either?
Because Henry Owens fell one inning shy of 160 innings in 2014 and had over 180 innings in 2015.
Isn't the minimum requirement that you want our of a number 5 starter is to give the team innings at least?
Joe Kelly just doesn't do that.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 24, 2016 0:01:30 GMT -5
Carlos Carrasco was absolutely atrocious at 25-26, just a passable bullpen arm at 27, and blossomed at 28. His isn't all that unusual a story, either. Some guys just take a while to figure out how to pitch, not just throw. Kelly is relatively inexperienced, with about half the total (minor/major league) career innings of most starters his age. Kelly's stuff suggests that he should get a lot more swings&misses. Maybe Bannister can help him with angles or changing sight lines, or Vasquez comes up and calls games right for him. Doesn't mean he should be guaranteed a rotation spot, but it's certainly something to consider. Really name more pitchers who break out like Carrasco has that late in his career. Carrasco is a outlier. Jamie Moyer won 233 games after age 30. Dave Stewart became the A's ace at age 29-30. Dazzy Vance didn't essentially even make the majors until after 30, but won a bunch of SO titles. Al Leiter wasn't very good until 29 or 30. Randy Johnson was downright bad until he harnessed his ridiculous stuff at 28. Cliff Lee had a good season at 26, but didn't become *Cliff Lee* until he was 28-29. Curt Schilling had his first good season at 25. Same with Roy Halladay (both were HS draftees who worked predominantly as starters throughout their development (although Schilling had a couple years of relief at 23-24). Max Scherzer had a good season at 25 (similar to Kelly's first year), then busted out at 26. And that's only a list of guys who were **really** good after blossoming. There are a whole host of others who were #2-caliber, like Leiter, after blossoming in their late-20s. Hell, one of the greatest stretches of pitching ever over four years came from a guy who was a control and command nightmare until everything clicked at 27: Sandy Koufax. Carrasco isn't the exception, beyond that he's an exception for being a very good pitcher. Most pitchers, of any type, don't get to that level, regardless of age. Kelly has HALF as many career innings as most of those guys listed above at the same age, because he was a college closer, pitched out of the pen as a rookie, and had a knee injury as a sophomore. The list of pitchers who were just "OK" for 3-5 years before they became very good, excellent, or transcendent is remarkably long. I would argue that *most* pitchers need at least 2-3 near-full seasons, and often 4-5, before they reach their potential. Middling performance in their first 3-4 years **clearly** doesn't mean a pitcher will never thrive. They might not, but most pitchers don't become #2 or better starters. Kelly, however, has had no decline in his (very good) stuff, and he has a clear issue with command, limited experience (in part due to injuries), and efficiency issues probably related to pitch selection. Those are all eminently addressable problems. I'm not saying I think he should be granted immunity and handed the rotation spot. I'm saying that, if you were running a team, you'd have given the bum's rush to a whole host of pitchers, including a number of HOFers, because their development tested your patience. It strikes me that you're being entirely ruled by emotion, and not considering Kelly's specific circumstance.
|
|
|
Post by ajs1994 on Feb 24, 2016 0:11:40 GMT -5
Carlos Carrasco was absolutely atrocious at 25-26, just a passable bullpen arm at 27, and blossomed at 28. His isn't all that unusual a story, either. Some guys just take a while to figure out how to pitch, not just throw. Kelly is relatively inexperienced, with about half the total (minor/major league) career innings of most starters his age. Kelly's stuff suggests that he should get a lot more swings&misses. Maybe Bannister can help him with angles or changing sight lines, or Vasquez comes up and calls games right for him. Doesn't mean he should be guaranteed a rotation spot, but it's certainly something to consider. Really name more pitchers who break out like Carrasco has that late in his career. Carrasco is a outlier. Off the top of my head, Carrasco, Arrieta, Kluber, Colin Mchugh, Cliff Lee took a few years if I recall correctly. CJ Wilson. Wandy Rodriguez. But i agree that while it does happen, it's not the norm and should not be expected that Kelly is suddenly going to become one of those examples. I'm fine with him as a fifth starter/depth, but I don't expect anything more than that.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 24, 2016 0:22:35 GMT -5
John Tudor is another, who broke out at 29-30. Adam Wainright's first big year (14-12, but with 200 ip and pretty solid peripherals) was at 26. Orel Hershiser didn't even make the majors until he was 25, but then went on a tear for a stretch. Teddy Higuera made the majors at 26, finally, and had *himself* a pretty good streak.
Kelly made the majors at 24. He was a swingman for two years and got only 240 innings by the time he was 26. By comparison, Owens had about 180 last year combined. Kelly may be "old," but he's relatively inexperienced. He'll start this year still 27 (28 in June).
You're also overemphasizing *age* over *experience*. Some of the pitchers I listed may have broken out at 25 or 26, but in probably every case, I'd bet they had more career IP (college/minors/majors) than Kelly.
If Kelly had made the majors at 22, and he were now 25 going on 26, would that change your thinking? If so, I think you're too focused on the absolute of "age" and not enough on "pitching experience."
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 24, 2016 0:39:40 GMT -5
Really name more pitchers who break out like Carrasco has that late in his career. Carrasco is a outlier. Off the top of my head, Carrasco, Arrieta, Kluber, Colin Mchugh, Cliff Lee took a few years if I recall correctly. CJ Wilson. Wandy Rodriguez. But i agree that while it does happen, it's not the norm and should not be expected that Kelly is suddenly going to become one of those examples. I'm fine with him as a fifth starter/depth, but I don't expect anything more than that. That's the point: there isn't a "norm," because great pitchers (or just very good ones) are rare. Some who are good flame out (Ramon Martinez, Steve Avery, Doc Gooden, hopefully not Jose Fernandez) despite success when they're young. Some blossom later. Some (Kershaw, Sale probably, Pedro, Clemens...although he took 3 years to get rolling) are good young and keep it up. For every Fernandez, there's a Frank Viola (good season at 26, followed by two clunkers, and then a stretch of dominance from 29-32 or so) there's a Stephen Strasburg (still hasn't put it together, really, despite four years and some flashes), or a Fernando Valenzuela (done at 26). Throwing 94-99 with a nice change and curve and an average slider isn't the norm, either. That's what makes Kelly so frustrating: he's either got Nuke Laloosh syndrome ($20M arm and 25 cent head, adjusted for inflation), or he just needs to sort out his "feel" and get a catcher who knows how to sequence his pitches. But you can't teach his stuff. Experience and good coaching/catching should help with the rest.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 24, 2016 1:38:02 GMT -5
Carlos Carrasco was absolutely atrocious Really name more pitchers who break out like Carrasco has that late in his career. Carrasco is a outlier. Also: David wells 27 (really, early 30s) Ron Guidry 26/27 Mike Scott (struggled for five years, then had a huge five-year run starting at 29) Chuck Finley, who finally learned to miss bats at 26/27 Chris Carpenter, 29 AJ Burnett (three years of MLB struggles before his first breakout at 25...subsequently reinvented himself several times) Zack Grienke (four years of struggles, a good year at 25, a great one at 26, then more struggles until 29, then a run of dominance) Arrieta, Kluber, Kuechel have all been mentioned too.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 24, 2016 2:27:53 GMT -5
Really name more pitchers who break out like Carrasco has that late in his career. Carrasco is a outlier. Also: David wells 27 (really, early 30s) Ron Guidry 26/27 Mike Scott (struggled for five years, then had a huge five-year run starting at 29) Chuck Finley, who finally learned to miss bats at 26/27 Chris Carpenter, 29 AJ Burnett (three years of MLB struggles before his first breakout at 25...subsequently reinvented himself several times) Zack Grienke (four years of struggles, a good year at 25, a great one at 26, then more struggles until 29, then a run of dominance) Arrieta, Kluber, Kuechel have all been mentioned too. Problem with that is that you just named some of the best pitchers in the past 25 years. Joe Kelly isn't one of those kind of pitchers unless a borderline miracle happens.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 24, 2016 2:34:12 GMT -5
John Tudor is another, who broke out at 29-30. Adam Wainright's first big year (14-12, but with 200 ip and pretty solid peripherals) was at 26. Orel Hershiser didn't even make the majors until he was 25, but then went on a tear for a stretch. Teddy Higuera made the majors at 26, finally, and had *himself* a pretty good streak. Kelly made the majors at 24. He was a swingman for two years and got only 240 innings by the time he was 26. By comparison, Owens had about 180 last year combined. Kelly may be "old," but he's relatively inexperienced. He'll start this year still 27 (28 in June). You're also overemphasizing *age* over *experience*. Some of the pitchers I listed may have broken out at 25 or 26, but in probably every case, I'd bet they had more career IP (college/minors/majors) than Kelly. If Kelly had made the majors at 22, and he were now 25 going on 26, would that change your thinking? If so, I think you're too focused on the absolute of "age" and not enough on "pitching experience." Owens would easily surpass Kelly's innings total if he didn't go back the minors by the age of 26. Each of the past two years Owens innings total has climbed 20+ innings a season. With that kind of pace he could easily be scheduled to reach 200 innings if the Sox wanted to do that with Owens. This guy would be the perfect 5th starter for this team right now. That would give the rotation three 200 + inning guys, which is nice since we all know who Buchholz is and Eduardo will probably have a innings cap this year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 24, 2016 4:16:00 GMT -5
A quick answer:
-- The IP per start thing is meaningless. You don't want your #5 starter to pitch the 6th inning, facing guys for the 3rd time and tiring a bit, if your alternative is a fresh Junichi Tazawa, or Layne or Ross against LHB. That might be desirable if the rest of the rotation were not good at occasionally going 7, but we have that. And Kelly's splits by times around the order actually suggest he could go deeper in games than he has. He can go 6 or even 7 if the bullpen is shot and outpitch almost any 5th starter. He doesn't because a bullpen guy is usually available and always a better option.
-- I think Owens is likely to pass Kelly at some point in this year, and I think you may well see Kelly traded next winter to make room for Owens. But right now, in ST, this question is entirely moot. You give Kelly a shot at the 5th starter job and find out just how good he is, and you send Owens to AAA to work on a variety of things. And if Kelly struggles early as a starter, I think you probably see him swapping roles with Wright before you see a permanent Owens callup.
-- Speaking of which, one interesting thing to watch: will Owens at Pawtucket pitch so well that he moves past Wright as the 6th starter? How soon might that happen?
Now, there is a scenario where Bannister's got a tweak for Owens' FB comand, and his BSOHL adds 1 or 2 mph, and he just utterly dominates AAA for 5 or 6 starts, and looks so good doing so that you start to see scouts re-assessing him, and he forces his way into the rotation. We'll see.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 24, 2016 4:21:45 GMT -5
Also: David wells 27 (really, early 30s) Ron Guidry 26/27 Mike Scott (struggled for five years, then had a huge five-year run starting at 29) Chuck Finley, who finally learned to miss bats at 26/27 Chris Carpenter, 29 AJ Burnett (three years of MLB struggles before his first breakout at 25...subsequently reinvented himself several times) Zack Grienke (four years of struggles, a good year at 25, a great one at 26, then more struggles until 29, then a run of dominance) Arrieta, Kluber, Kuechel have all been mentioned too. Problem with that is that you just named some of the best pitchers in the past 25 years. Joe Kelly isn't one of those kind of pitchers unless a borderline miracle happens. Umm ... none of those guys were that "kind of pitcher" at Kelly's age and/or amount of experience (which is indeed the more important criterion). That's the point of the list, which you asked for. And Kelly does indeed have stuff that would make him perfectly credible if he started getting those results.
|
|
|