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.
4/25-4/28 Red Sox vs. Braves Series Thread
|
Post by rafael on Apr 29, 2016 21:35:56 GMT -5
After a bunch of stinkers, I'd say Buchholz's spot in the rotation is in jeopardy with E-Rod coming back from injury. It really isn't. Owens will be optioned. Yeah, I completely forgot about Owens, who isn't pitching well at all. I like Buchholz as much as the next guy, but he hasn't been good by any means. He's certainly capable of turning it around, but the clock is ticking.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 29, 2016 22:29:32 GMT -5
It really isn't. Owens will be optioned. Yeah, I completely forgot about Owens, who isn't pitching well at all. I like Buchholz as much as the next guy, but he hasn't been good by any means. He's certainly capable of turning it around, but the clock is ticking. You will check out the Sox-Yankees thread, right? Owens pitched very well.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 30, 2016 5:27:09 GMT -5
Yeah, I completely forgot about Owens, who isn't pitching well at all. I like Buchholz as much as the next guy, but he hasn't been good by any means. He's certainly capable of turning it around, but the clock is ticking. You will check out the Sox-Yankees thread, right? Owens pitched very well. Owens pitched quite wildly, was lucky to get by with just 3 BB and had several near-HBP to only 3 K. The end result was good but to say he pitched "very well" to get there is quite the overstatement.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 30, 2016 5:48:21 GMT -5
You will check out the Sox-Yankees thread, right? Owens pitched very well. Owens pitched quite wildly, was lucky to get by with just 3 BB and had several near-HBP to only 3 K. The end result was good but to say he pitched "very well" to get there is quite the overstatement. If you mean that he had his change working, and batters swinging at it when they should have laid off, that's true, but that's his stock-in-trade. And the curve was a thing of beauty. He pitched very well.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,248
|
Post by radiohix on Apr 30, 2016 5:55:02 GMT -5
Owens pitched quite wildly, was lucky to get by with just 3 BB and had several near-HBP to only 3 K. The end result was good but to say he pitched "very well" to get there is quite the overstatement. If you mean that he had his change working, and batters swinging at it when they should have laid off, that's true, but that's his stock-in-trade. And the curve was a thing of beauty. He pitched very well. Wow, we mut've watched a different game then.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,966
|
Post by jimoh on Apr 30, 2016 6:01:40 GMT -5
There were 5 (count them 5) players with 7+ fWAR last year. Harper, Trout, Goldschmidt, Donaldson, Votto. The chances of Bogaerts, who has yet to put up a season of 800 OPS being a 7 WAR player are black swan territory. If you took most of the posts seriously on this board, it must come as a shock that the Red Sox ever lose. Get a grip, people 5 players: OF, OF, 1b, 3b, 1b. Xander at SS does not have to hit as well as Harper, Trout, Goldschmidt, Donaldson, Votto. And by looking only at last year you get only big big names, whereas if you look back a few years you get names like Headley, Braun, Crawford, Zobrist, Hanley, Grady Sizemore, Derrek Lee, and much further back Jeter (or more recently a 6.6 from Jeter). Also GG-types like Pedroia, Utley, Cano, Beltre. Xander putting up a 7 WAR is neither a lock not black swan territory. (Getting to 7 WAR and staying there for a few years admittedly seems unlikely.)
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 30, 2016 6:34:56 GMT -5
If you mean that he had his change working, and batters swinging at it when they should have laid off, that's true, but that's his stock-in-trade. And the curve was a thing of beauty. He pitched very well. Wow, we mut've watched a different game then. You're both not wrong. In Gammo's words: Peter Gammons @pgammo 11m11 minutes ago Henry Owens' 32 of 46 CU/CB for Ks will work when he gets more than 13 of 32 FB for Ks, lets it go and goes from 87 back ro 93
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 30, 2016 11:15:34 GMT -5
Yeah, I completely forgot about Owens, who isn't pitching well at all. I like Buchholz as much as the next guy, but he hasn't been good by any means. He's certainly capable of turning it around, but the clock is ticking. You will check out the Sox-Yankees thread, right? Owens pitched very well. Unfortunately, he won't get 5 double plays in most games he pitches and will wind up with worse results. The five includes the strikeout/caught stealing.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 30, 2016 12:44:35 GMT -5
Owens pitched quite wildly, was lucky to get by with just 3 BB and had several near-HBP to only 3 K. The end result was good but to say he pitched "very well" to get there is quite the overstatement. If you mean that he had his change working, and batters swinging at it when they should have laid off, that's true, but that's his stock-in-trade. And the curve was a thing of beauty. He pitched very well. I don't normally disagree with you Norm, but Owens wasn't good last night. He came out of it ok because he stranded a bunch of baserunners, which we all know isn't a trick any pitcher can pull off for long. But really: his K/BB was no good, his velo was no good, he didn't generate swings out of the zone (20.4 %) or swings and misses (5.4%), he didn't generate soft contact (17.7%)... I could go on but I just can't anything promising in this start.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Apr 30, 2016 13:36:23 GMT -5
Owens pitched quite wildly, was lucky to get by with just 3 BB and had several near-HBP to only 3 K. The end result was good but to say he pitched "very well" to get there is quite the overstatement. If you mean that he had his change working, and batters swinging at it when they should have laid off, that's true, but that's his stock-in-trade. And the curve was a thing of beauty. He pitched very well. You're one of the fairest posters here Norm, but I think you're giving him way too much credit. He was mostly lucky. Just like we shouldn't read much into a guy getting hit in one game, we shouldn't ignore him getting away with poor location and plain luck. His change is great, the command is awful.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 30, 2016 16:45:21 GMT -5
Honestly, I like the way he got out of jams - we watched that last year as well. Is it luck? Perhaps. We can look at the evidence and say he may have some idea how to pitch, also. Can he induce double plays? Time to go visit BrooksBaseball and see which pitches were thrown on those. If it's random it was probably luck, but maybe not. Also he shut down both the switch hitters - Beltran & Teixeira - and McCann as well, which isn't all that easy to do. No surprise on the first two, since they switched to bat right-handed against him and he has that reverse split. Are we coming to a time when switch hitters will have enough information to selectively decide which way to bat against a given pitcher? That could hurt him if he can't grow out of that.
I think he's had some success (not a lot but some) because he's an unknown quantity. Will he be much easier to hit when he becomes "known"? Outside of Rodriguez' HR, I don't think there was a lot of hard contact against him - bunt and seeing-eye singles don't count. That stuff seems to be part of his biggest weakness - along with the control of course - and that's his inexperience. The commentators were saying that bunt was his, last night, and it probably was. He needs to pick up on that part of the game in the majors.
I think there's a bit more to find out about Owens, but even at 23 he does seem to be able to gut it out when he has to and I like that very much.
|
|
|