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.
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 24, 2016 4:38:37 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. No. He's your least good starter. You don't want him pitching a lot of innings, because all the relievers are better than him. I can't tell whether you're stuck in the past, or misinterpreting what you've heard about "inning-eaters." A guy who is only league-average (and Kelly is probably a bit better than average right now) can give you unexpected extra value if he can go deep in games without serious decline. Those guys are usually 3rd starters on below-average staffs and 4th starters on good ones, hence, mid-rotation guys, and if you have one who can go 7 when needed, that's a plus. It's not really a requirement in this day and age, though. Wade Miley fits that description, and has some small extra potential value to a team with a thin bullpen, because he averages 200 innings a year. But it's not that big a deal, because the extra 20 innings he gives you are not particularly good innings. Most true 5th starters are below-average, though, and you don't want them "giving the team innings" at all. You want them to keep you in the game, and you hope your offense can score some runs and get you to the 6th with a lead, and then you go to your pen.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 24, 2016 5:01:20 GMT -5
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. He doesn't have their command either though and probably never will.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 24, 2016 5:08:45 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. No. He's your least good starter. You don't want him pitching a lot of innings, because all the relievers are better than him. I can't tell whether you're stuck in the past, or misinterpreting what you've heard about "inning-eaters." A guy who is only league-average (and Kelly is probably a bit better than average right now) can give you unexpected extra value if he can go deep in games without serious decline. Those guys are usually 3rd starters on below-average staffs and 4th starters on good ones, hence, mid-rotation guys, and if you have one who can go 7 when needed, that's a plus. It's not really a requirement in this day and age, though. Wade Miley fits that description, and has some small extra potential value to a team with a thin bullpen, because he averages 200 innings a year. But it's not that big a deal, because the extra 20 innings he gives you are not particularly good innings. Most true 5th starters are below-average, though, and you don't want them "giving the team innings" at all. You want them to keep you in the game, and you hope your offense can score some runs and get you to the 6th with a lead, and then you go to your pen. I want my fifth starter to have the potential to be a number 3 or 4 though with innings potential. Kelly has shown no signs of that and hasn't to this point and might never will. At this point, I want this team to stop pretending this guy is a starter and put him in the position to be the best player possible, and that's a player coming out of the bullpen. That way he doesn't have to pretend to blow people away with a 94-96 mph fastball and he actually CAN blow people away with a increased 97-100 mph fastball.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 24, 2016 5:22:31 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. Wait so splits suggests that he can go deeper in games, but then the actual numbers don't actually say that and then it's meaningless if he doesn't? You know that you just completely contradicted yourself in a matter of three sentences, right? I think it is important to have Kelly going into the 6th inning of games, especially earlier in the year to save all those bullpen arms for later in the year when you REALLY need those arms. Is it really a lock that the rest of the rotation outside of Price and maybe Porcello is a lock for 7 innings a game? I don't think so. If the point is moot then why would Farrell mention anything about it and why would Owens come in thinking he has a real shot in the rotation? I think the competition is real and I think there's a real chance Owens surpasses Kelly by the end of spring training, if not by the beginning of May.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 24, 2016 5:56:35 GMT -5
This is just how I feel about the situation-
If Owens were to win the job out of spring training and he were to struggle at some point in the beginning of the season, then it wouldn't bother me at all. I would chalk it up as development and growing up in the big leagues, at some point he's going to have to go through it. It minus well be in a year filled with a bunch of question marks around anyways.
If Kelly struggles in the beginning of the season, then I will lose my mind because I have seen this three years in a row. Watching Kelly blow up or get flustered by the 5th inning because he walked the bases loaded and he's up to 95 pitches, it will be like watching a rerun of last season. This guy was bad enough to get demoted when the Sox needed him. I don't trust this guy at all. Okay there are past examples of guys putting it together later in their career but Kelly has shown no signs of getting better. When he's going good, he usually ends up in the DL for some reason. When he's going bad (usually the case), he's walking the park, getting hit hard, and wearing down a bullpen.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 24, 2016 6:11:34 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. No. He's your least good starter. You don't want him pitching a lot of innings, because all the relievers are better than him. I can't tell whether you're stuck in the past, or misinterpreting what you've heard about "inning-eaters." A guy who is only league-average (and Kelly is probably a bit better than average right now) can give you unexpected extra value if he can go deep in games without serious decline. Those guys are usually 3rd starters on below-average staffs and 4th starters on good ones, hence, mid-rotation guys, and if you have one who can go 7 when needed, that's a plus. It's not really a requirement in this day and age, though. Wade Miley fits that description, and has some small extra potential value to a team with a thin bullpen, because he averages 200 innings a year. But it's not that big a deal, because the extra 20 innings he gives you are not particularly good innings. Most true 5th starters are below-average, though, and you don't want them "giving the team innings" at all. You want them to keep you in the game, and you hope your offense can score some runs and get you to the 6th with a lead, and then you go to your pen. Yeah, I think dirtywater's criticism of Kelly is overly harsh. By emphasizing innings-eating for a 5th starter, which Kelly has not done much of, you stress his (apparent) weakness, and ignore his apparent strength in his last nine game, which was getting people out without giving up many runs. And you've criticized his last nine games, and then referred back to your criticism as though it were decisive, when in fact all you criticized was his not going deep into games. If he had not had those last nine games, which seem to be a result of changes they recommended, I'm sure the Sox would not be as optimistic about Kelly as they are. They seem also to be appropriately cautious about this optimism.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 24, 2016 7:21:36 GMT -5
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. He doesn't have their command either though and probably never will. Neither did they, and they ended up developing it. You asked for a list of pitchers and you got one. The list is exactly why you don't give up on Kelly.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 24, 2016 8:24:32 GMT -5
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. In 35 starts with Boston, he has 195.2 IP, a 4.60 ERA, 4.31 FIP, 4.36 SIERA and 1.3 fWAR and 1.3 bWAR. That's not great, but it's acceptable from your fifth starter, and there's no guarantee that Owens can outperform him. Can anyone name me when Kelly has thrown 150 innings in a season either? In 2012, between the majors and the minors, he threw 179.1 innings despite making eight appearances out of the bullpen, which just about matches Owens' career-high, and last year, he threw a combined 153.1 innings between the majors and the minors. Also remember that a lot of the reason for Kelly's lack of innings is because he's been jerked around between the rotation and the bullpen for most of his career. He's not a guy like Buchholz who has never stayed healthy for a full season. He had DL stints in 2014 and 2015, and all pitchers are injury risks to one extent or another, but there's otherwise little reason to think that he can't give them 180 innings this year.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 24, 2016 8:46:50 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. Well if you're going to use minor league innings for Owens, you need to use them for Kelly too. He threw 179.1 innings in 2012 between AAA and the majors and 153.1 between the two levels last year. (Bah, jmei got it first) There is absolutely no reason yet to think that Owens is any sure bet to give you more innings than Kelly. He averaged less than 6 innings per start in the majors himself (63 in 11 starts, which is pretty comparable to Kelly's 409 in 73 starts). You can't just compare one player's minor league numbers to another player's major league numbers like you're trying to do here.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 24, 2016 11:40:54 GMT -5
I feel like there is some long tenured, invested in his development, beloved prospect tinted glasses in this thread. Agreed. I just don't think the strengths that got Owens to the major leagues last year will make him any more than a #5 at best - which is nothing to sneer at. I just don't believe that his deception and his plus breaking pitch are enough when presented to major league hitters with regularity. I've not been a believer in Owens at higher levels at all. Kelly is a two pitch pitcher with some serious heat, but the control and location come and go. I'd still rather take my chances with him as a #5 as a 98 mph FB with control and hitting the catcher's target (especially up in the strike zone) has been a much more successful tool in MLB than deception. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It could be that both are bullpen arms within two years.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 24, 2016 11:43:04 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. My point was that Owens (and a lot of other pitchers) have/had a lot more experience at any given age than Kelly. Compare their minor league innings totals. And, Kelly was a closer in college and a swingman for two years, followed by an injury. What I'm trying to get at is that I think Kelly, while 27, has really only had the pitching experience of a 23-24 year old. So I think focusing on his age, and then discounting him because he's had mixed results in his 3.5 years in the majors, is a mistake. I've already had a very, very lengthy discussion with you of why I like Owens. I actually find it surprising that you're supporting him here, because you were very down on him before, largely because of his FB velocity. I made an argument against discounting Owens's upside as being low simply because he lacks velocity. Well, Kelly has velocity but not a ton of pitching experience. I'm not arguing for either one, because to me that makes no sense. It can only be determined by performance. But I think it's a mistake to discount either. In essence, I find your argument against Kelly to be similar to your one against Owens. You seem to view them as static entities, as if they can never be anything other than what they are today. For Owens, I gave you a list of great pitchers with poor velocity. Here I'm giving you an even more extensive list of pitchers who didn't put it all together until 25-30. Most pitchers don't become "good", or "good" would have to be redefined. Only 20% of pitchers in the league can be in the top 20% of pitchers in the league. So success stories are rare. That's what the 4/5 rotation spots are ideally for: guys like Kelly, or Owens, or Johnson even, who need a chance to take their lumps and see what they can do. Obviously, at some point the team will find a better option, but until then Kelly is a perfectly serviceable #5 starter, and if he turns out not to be, Owens, Johnson, or someone else will take his place. Personally, I think giving Bannister and Vasquez a year with Kelly will be a make-or-break. He may never come around, but the odds that he does don't really fall off the cliff, to me, until he's around 30.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 24, 2016 11:57:44 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. We went through the exact same thing with Owens. You're using a completely circular argument. Step back, and consider: 1) None of those pitchers was anything but ordinary-a bust-until they broke out 2) I named examples to *disprove that Carrasco is the exception to the rule*. I named a ton of examples that show that **lots of excellent pitchers are late bloomers**, and 3) there would be absolutely zero point in ***listing pitchers who stayed mediocre*** That is entirely contrary to the exercise, and 4) At no point did I say "Joe Kelly IS going to be a great pitcher. What I said was *that just because Kelly is 27 does not mean he can't become a great (or just good) pitcher. So, to recap: A) Re: Henry Owens, **A big FB is absolutely not a prerequisite for MLB success** B) Re: Joe Kelly, **Pitchers who struggle in their first 3-5 MLB seasons despite quality stuff often go on to significant success, even after 25-27** C) Re: The Owens-Kelly argument, IMO it is all mental self-abuse until there's current data (ST at least) to support a choice
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 24, 2016 12:15:39 GMT -5
Really name more pitchers who break out like Carrasco has that late in his career. Carrasco is a outlier. I'm just reposting this, so you remember your request. I named something like 20. You asked for "more pitchers who break out like Carrasco." Then you say the examples were too good. That's the DEFINITION of "breaking out." You don't "break out" into mediocrity. SMH... You say Kelly won't ever be any good. You used to say Owens wouldn't be any good. Odds are, most pitchers aren't good. I gave you a huge list of "miracles," which means they're not miracles. They happen often enough that I can pretty much top-of-my head throw out a ton of examples. It's unfair to "expect" Kelly to suddenly morph into Ron Guidry. But it's **incorrect** to say that he can't. I personally think Kelly will most likely top out as a solid #3, and probably just as likely be a 4/5. But, I think he should be given every opportunity to break out, because he has the stuff to do it, and Owens has options. I just don't think the 5 spot is going to break this team (though it might help make it).
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Feb 24, 2016 12:29:10 GMT -5
Kelly versus Owens is a bit of a false narrative, it is more like Kelly versus the field, with the field being Wright (who is out of options), Elias (who has two years major league experience with okay numbers), Brian Johnson, who despite the injury last year has looked ready, and Owens. All of the field has enough experience and enough questions about consistency to be considered equal contenders for 5th starter. I have been a big defender of Owens in the past, and have high hopes for him, but he's no sure bet to be ready this spring. I am also eager to see Johnson healthy in Boston. Elias could step in as the swing man if Wright earns the 5th spot, and Johnson and Owens would get a chance even if they went to Pawtucket, so it's all good (except the knuckle-haters would cyber-puke all over the board if Wright was in the rotation). It matters less to me who ends up as 5th starter than the simple fact that there is competition; it is a refreshing change from years past.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 24, 2016 12:47:44 GMT -5
And Mike Scott was definitely that kind of pitcher. I'm not bullish on Kelly personally, but Scott is the perfect world projection (and one that I hadn't thought of myself, good pickup there telson). Guy with outstanding stuff and great all-around tools who went from not missing enough bats to missing enough bats to missing A LOT of bats.
EDIT: Ugh I definitely missed a page here. Why don't you have a next page button at the bottom to help me from appearing foolish, proboards?
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 24, 2016 15:20:00 GMT -5
He doesn't have their command either though and probably never will. Neither did they, and they ended up developing it. You asked for a list of pitchers and you got one. The list is exactly why you don't give up on Kelly. When and not a matter of if but when he starts failing again, I'll want Owens or Johnson for that matter up as soon as possible. This guy is a disaster. He was arguably the worst pitcher on this staff last year except for maybe Masterson.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 24, 2016 15:23:33 GMT -5
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. In 35 starts with Boston, he has 195.2 IP, a 4.60 ERA, 4.31 FIP, 4.36 SIERA and 1.3 fWAR and 1.3 bWAR. That's not great, but it's acceptable from your fifth starter, and there's no guarantee that Owens can outperform him. Can anyone name me when Kelly has thrown 150 innings in a season either? In 2012, between the majors and the minors, he threw 179.1 innings despite making eight appearances out of the bullpen, which just about matches Owens' career-high, and last year, he threw a combined 153.1 innings between the majors and the minors. Also remember that a lot of the reason for Kelly's lack of innings is because he's been jerked around between the rotation and the bullpen for most of his career. He's not a guy like Buchholz who has never stayed healthy for a full season. He had DL stints in 2014 and 2015, and all pitchers are injury risks to one extent or another, but there's otherwise little reason to think that he can't give them 180 innings this year. Only he's never done it, and he's more likely to break down versus giving you those innings. He's had a chance the past two years and he keeps turning into Buchholz. People rip on Buchholz but Clay already had a 180+ inning season by Kelly's age. You need innings out of your rotation, even if it's your 5th best starter.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 24, 2016 15:33:04 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. Well if you're going to use minor league innings for Owens, you need to use them for Kelly too. He threw 179.1 innings in 2012 between AAA and the majors and 153.1 between the two levels last year. (Bah, jmei got it first) There is absolutely no reason yet to think that Owens is any sure bet to give you more innings than Kelly. He averaged less than 6 innings per start in the majors himself (63 in 11 starts, which is pretty comparable to Kelly's 409 in 73 starts). You can't just compare one player's minor league numbers to another player's major league numbers like you're trying to do here. Okay he did it once last year with me forgetting how long he was in the minors last year after being so terrible in the big leagues. Just would of liked to seen the guy finish the year strong. I hate it when people say that Kelly finished last year strong when in fact, he didn't finish the year at all.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 24, 2016 15:34:18 GMT -5
This guy is a disaster. He was arguably the worst pitcher on this staff last year except for maybe Masterson. Last year, in 134.1 IP, Kelly had a 4.82 ERA, 4.18 FIP, and a 4.23 SIERA, which was worth 1.2 fWAR and 1.0 bWAR. That's not great production or anything, but it's far from a disaster. For instance, it's probably better than Owens' 4.57 ERA, 4.28 FIP and 4.66 SIERA in 63 IP last year. Only he's never done it, and he's more likely to break down versus giving you those innings. He's had a chance the past two years and he keeps turning into Buchholz. People rip on Buchholz but Clay already had a 180+ inning season by Kelly's age. You need innings out of your rotation, even if it's your 5th best starter. I don't buy that he's any more likely to break down than, say, Owens. His top three years, by IP: 179.1, 153.1, 124. Owens' top three years by IP: 185.1, 159, 135.
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Feb 24, 2016 16:06:12 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. Problems with this line of thinking: 1. Joe Kelly was so bad last year you really need to give him starts to "see how good he is"? You don't know how good he is today? I do. Not very. Could that change at some point? Yes, absolutely but as of right now he is a bad pitcher. Terrible starting pitcher. This is based on his past performance. 2. Paraphrasing but DD has said performance is what matters. So if Owens is better he should get the 5th spot. Period. If Kelly ends up pitching out of the pen or gets a start because someone gets hurt, and pitches well, then you give him another shot. But at least he would have earned it. On the mound in a real game. 3. Henry Owes is better than Joe Kelly and Brian Johnson may be as well. So if you put Owens in AAA you have to have two things happen to get Johnson up. So two things have to happen for you to just start your best rotation? Makes zero sense. Think it is the right thing to start BJ in AAA based on his injury last year, but the point is, if he is ready and someone is needed it should be him if he is better than Kelly.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Feb 24, 2016 16:23:55 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. Problems with this line of thinking: 1. Joe Kelly was so bad last year you really need to give him starts to "see how good he is"? You don't know how good he is today? I do. Not very. Could that change at some point? Yes, absolutely but as of right now he is a bad pitcher. Terrible starting pitcher. This is based on his past performance. 2. Paraphrasing but DD has said performance is what matters. So if Owens is better he should get the 5th spot. Period. If Kelly ends up pitching out of the pen or gets a start because someone gets hurt, and pitches well, then you give him another shot. But at least he would have earned it. On the mound in a real game. 3. Henry Owes is better than Joe Kelly and Brian Johnson may be as well. So if you put Owens in AAA you have to have two things happen to get Johnson up. So two things have to happen for you to just start your best rotation? Makes zero sense. Think it is the right thing to start BJ in AAA based on his injury last year, but the point is, if he is ready and someone is needed it should be him if he is better than Kelly. Wasn't Joe Kelly lights out last year when he returned to the rotation until he was shut-down for the season?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 24, 2016 17:43:52 GMT -5
Problems with this line of thinking: 1. Wasn't Joe Kelly lights out last year when he returned to the rotation until he was shut-down for the season? In goo's defense, Kelly's peripherals were only marginally better, and he wasn't pitching all that much deeper in games. He went 8-1 with a low-3 ERA, but the underlying data suggest that he was mostly lucky vs being very unlucky to start the year. However, the improvement did coincide with some changes in approach, particularly FB usage and (I think) increased CH/CB vs SL. I still contend that Kelly's relative ineffectiveness is related to poor command and sequencing and that what he needs above all else is repetition.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 24, 2016 19:37:19 GMT -5
His batting average on the balls in play during that stretch - that underlying data - doesn't bear that out. It was at .329 and that's a bit above his career number which is .300. Just my take, but he seemed to be finishing his pitches with better command, and using a much improved sequencing at the end of the season. I don't have much in the way of evidence to back that up outside of the fact that in none of those games did he walk more than 3 batters and he only did that twice.. So I should run off to BrooksBaseball to check out those games. I think he, and the other pitchers, were helped enormously by having much better outfield defense, and decent infield defense as well.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Feb 24, 2016 23:45:50 GMT -5
I remember back in the day (2006) when we had a bunch of starting pitching we had Schilling, Beckett, Wakefield, Matt Clement, David Wells, Bronson Arroyo, Jon Lester waiting in the wings.
Everyone was worried what we were going to do with so much pitching. In fact people called it too much. So we ended up trading Bronson Arroyo for Wily Mo Pena. That solved our issues Schilling, Beckett, Wakefield, Clement and Wells was a solid starting 5.
But Clement was terrible and ended up on starting 12 games that year due to a bum shoulder. Wells was coming off knee surgery and was also horrible. He only gave us 8 starts that year. So we ended up trotting out Kyle Snyder (10 starts), Lenny DiNardo (6 starts), Jason Johnson (6 starts), Kason Gabbard (4), Kevin Jarvis (3), David Pauley (3) and Devern Hansack (2). Finally Lester got called up in June to stabilize the rotation a bit.
But morale of the story is, you can never have enough pitching. I have no doubt Kelly and Owens will pitch a lot for the Sox this year.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 25, 2016 2:08:37 GMT -5
Neither did they, and they ended up developing it. You asked for a list of pitchers and you got one. The list is exactly why you don't give up on Kelly. When and not a matter of if but when he starts failing again, I'll want Owens or Johnson for that matter up as soon as possible. This guy is a disaster. He was arguably the worst pitcher on this staff last year except for maybe Masterson. You must be a joy at family gatherings. Seriously, though...I'm giving you a hard time simply because you seem to be arguing beliefs, not ideas supported by facts. In every discussion I've seen you voice your opinions, you've made up your mind going in, and absolutely no evidence will sway you. It's like you have visceral black-or-white, good-or-bad, binary reactions to players or situations, and everything you discuss is in absolutes, rather than along a spectrum. And there's little internal consistency. You (rather vehemently) claimed that Owens was relegated to being a 4/5 unless he added a couple mph to his fastball, but then claimed Brian Johnson was destined for great things...despite essentially identical FB velocity. You went on to tout Johnson's CB and command as reasons for his assured success. That was diametrically opposed to your rationale for why Owens was limited...you had just argued that it was his velocity, and not command/secondaries that were holding him back. On top of that, you were essentially arguing that he *could* increase his FB velocity (which is actually pretty uncommon after 24...most pitchers historically peak at 22, drop slightly at 25, then again slowly from 30-33)...but that he couldn't improve his control/command (which is actually quite common). Here, in discussing Kelly, you're basically denying that pitchers often succeed despite struggling throughout their early/mid-20s. I gave you an **extensive** list of almost 30 pitchers--several of them HOFers, and most of the rest easily among the top 5-10 in MLB at their peaks, which **completely disproved** your argument. Your response (after trying desperately to backtrack or deflect) is to simply say "well Kelly can't do that." Again, it's black or white, and it's what you **believe**, regardless of fact or nuance. All of which is well and good, but it makes for incredibly dull discussion. It's like trying to discuss evolutionary biology with a creationist or viral immunology with an anti-vaccine advocate. Their mind is made up, and nothing anyone says will change it. In fact, they're only interested in the discussion as a way to speak their beliefs, and they simply deny any external input. The result is that the other person gets bored and just...shrugs, says "whatever," and stops listening. While I appreciate your getting involved in, even starting, discussions, in the end, facts are facts and beliefs are beliefs. The best discussions on here arise when people differentiate the two.
|
|
|