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.
Hiring better pitching coaches
|
Post by wcsoxfan on May 24, 2017 16:02:38 GMT -5
I'm sorry but it's not like you think it was. He was just fine at AA, AAA and majors in 2014 and 2015. His huge BB spike was in 2016 after they changed hid delivery again. I would buy what you said but he was just fine against more advanced hitters in 2014 and 2015. Are you really trying to argue he wasn't? That's really not what I said at all... Owens improved a lot from 2011 to 2014. The improvements are clear statistically and they were obvious if you watched him. Owens worked tirelessly, and the staff worked tirelessly with him, during that time, getting the lower body and his landing spot consistent. I'm not sure what your theory is with Owens, but the implication seems to be that he got to where he was on natural talent and his career was going fine through 2015 and then went backwards when the staff decided to mess with him. That just isn't how it went down. His delivery has been a work in progress from the moment they drafted him. The problem that Owens faced when he reached the majors is that his fastball is too hittable, and that hitters can recognize secondaries so they were able to lay on it. That's the reason they've been working on his delivery - without improved fastball command, there just isn't going to be major league success. Rebuilding a delivery is tough and it's leading to more walks. But here's the issue - his approach that was successful before he reached the majors wasn't going to work in the majors. This isn't a situation where if left alone, Owens would've been a just fine back-end starter. He got killed with his old delivery. [/b] I don't have a dog in this fight, but this statement is incorrect. He had a 4.57 ERA, 4.28 FIP and 5.01 xFIP over 63 innings in MLB in 2015 which would make him a solid back of the rotation pitcher if he could sustain it. His fastball graded as only below average (-1.02 /100) by pitch/fx but was much worse (-4.1 /100) over 22 innings in 2016. I understand you feel he would have performed worse going forward as MLB hitters learned to sit on his fastball and his numbers did dip slightly after August (especially his k rate) but at the end of a long season in a small sample size, I don't believe a conclusion can be drawn from this slight dip. Chris pointed out he had HR issues but a HR/9 of 1.0 was not alarming (all HR came in Fenway which may have been an issue or SSS noise). In 2016 his HR/9 ballooned to 2.05 and his current AAA HR/9 of 1.28 is by far the highest of his MiLB career. The frustration comes from seeing a pitcher who over 63 MLB innings looked like a solid back of the rotation starter but is no longer close to that. It's possible that further changes were necessary to maintain his MLB success or develop him into a mid rotation starter, but it has been 1.5 years and there's no sign of him turning the corner. Maybe it's too early now, but unless there's progress by the end of the year then I think we can declare any post 2015 changes made by the coaches a failure.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on May 24, 2017 16:21:59 GMT -5
Also, in 2015 Owens had a swinging strike rate of 12.2% which ranked 15th in MLB for all starters that pitched at least 50 innings (ahead of Price, Tanaka, Harvey, Greinke, Salazar, Strasburg, etc.). At the very least, this suggests that major league caliber guys were not laying off his secondaries as much as some are recalling. Not sure entirely where I stand in the debate but it seems reasonable to suggest that Owens' 2015 performance was at least backend starter worthy. I remember thinking so at the time. It seems like a stretch to say he got killed.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 24, 2017 20:09:46 GMT -5
I'm sorry but it's not like you think it was. He was just fine at AA, AAA and majors in 2014 and 2015. His huge BB spike was in 2016 after they changed hid delivery again. I would buy what you said but he was just fine against more advanced hitters in 2014 and 2015. Are you really trying to argue he wasn't? That's really not what I said at all... Owens improved a lot from 2011 to 2014. The improvements are clear statistically and they were obvious if you watched him. Owens worked tirelessly, and the staff worked tirelessly with him, during that time, getting the lower body and his landing spot consistent. I'm not sure what your theory is with Owens, but the implication seems to be that he got to where he was on natural talent and his career was going fine through 2015 and then went backwards when the staff decided to mess with him. That just isn't how it went down. His delivery has been a work in progress from the moment they drafted him. The problem that Owens faced when he reached the majors is that his fastball is too hittable, and that hitters can recognize secondaries so they were able to lay on it. That's the reason they've been working on his delivery - without improved fastball command, there just isn't going to be major league success. Rebuilding a delivery is tough and it's leading to more walks. But here's the issue - his approach that was successful before he reached the majors wasn't going to work in the majors. This isn't a situation where if left alone, Owens would've been a just fine back-end starter. He got killed with his old delivery. I'm not implying it was natural talent, just whatever they did in 2016 really messed him up and they have yet to fix it. He never got killed with his old delivery. Where do you get that? He would just have games were he was wild, overall he was in no way getting killed. How was his fastball too hittable? What you're saying just doesn't match up with 2014 and 2015. If anything he would just walk his way to a short start. Like you said he had 4 straight years of improving, so I really wouldn't have messed with him. Whatever they were doing was working. In 2015 he was just fine to be a backend starter, so I just don't agree with your theory.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 24, 2017 20:17:05 GMT -5
I don't have a dog in this fight, but this statement is incorrect. He had a 4.57 ERA, 4.28 FIP and 5.01 xFIP over 63 innings in MLB in 2015 which would make him a solid back of the rotation pitcher if he could sustain it. His fastball graded as only below average (-1.02 /100) by pitch/fx but was much worse (-4.1 /100) over 22 innings in 2016. I understand you feel he would have performed worse going forward as MLB hitters learned to sit on his fastball and his numbers did dip slightly after August (especially his k rate) but at the end of a long season in a small sample size, I don't believe a conclusion can be drawn from this slight dip. Chris pointed out he had HR issues but a HR/9 of 1.0 was not alarming (all HR came in Fenway which may have been an issue or SSS noise). In 2016 his HR/9 ballooned to 2.05 and his current AAA HR/9 of 1.28 is by far the highest of his MiLB career. The frustration comes from seeing a pitcher who over 63 MLB innings looked like a solid back of the rotation starter but is no longer close to that. It's possible that further changes were necessary to maintain his MLB success or develop him into a mid rotation starter, but it has been 1.5 years and there's no sign of him turning the corner. Maybe it's too early now, but unless there's progress by the end of the year then I think we can declare any post 2015 changes made by the coaches a failure. His xFIP- in 2015 was 124. That's a stretch as a #5 starter. If there was a reason to think he'd continue to depress HR/FB rates then I guess I can see the frustration, but this idea (not yours) that he was good in 2015 and they screwed with him doesn't really hold up either. I'll concede that "got killed" was something of an exaggeration (though he did have three starts where he gave up seven runs). Also - when did he start adjusting his delivery? Going back through articles, it looks like most of the stuff about him trying to streamline his delivery, particularly the part where he brought his arms over his head, was this past offseason and spring training. I'm really not sure what the coaches might've done with him from his 2015 stretch of squinting and seeing a fifth starter, and his poor 2016 run. And it's worth noting that he got called on early in 2016 in part because he'd been very good in his first three starts for Pawtucket. So it's not like he showed up a mess in 2016 after some radical coaching overhaul. ... Anyway, I've kind of gotten away from my initial point. Without being able to say for sure whether Owens struggles the last two years have anything to do with coaching or something they may or may not have done wrong, I'm very confident that the work the coaching staff put in with Owens was a big reason for his improvement from 2011 to 2014. He improved a lot during that time. And again, I'll contrast with the approach they took with a couple pitchers (Light most notably) where they had them shelve their best pitch entirely to try to make sure they weren't relying on it. That's a specific thing the Red Sox development staff did that I think was a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 24, 2017 20:19:28 GMT -5
Miguel Gonzalez, Alex Wilson, Frankie Montas (tbd) That's stretching "blossoming" quite a bit, but 2 of the 3 have provided some MLB value, and Montas is still a talent Gonzalez was in the Angels system for 3 years, was picked in R5 and missed two full seasons due to injury, then spent two years with the Red Sox before going to Baltimore as a free agent. I'm not sure he was even in this system long enough for them to take credit or blame for him either way. Alex Wilson was on a development path to what he is now when he was traded, no? Our report for him at the time of the trade says "Projects as a middle releiver at the major-league level, with the ceiling of a 7th-8th inning setup man in peak seasons." He's basically topping out that projection that was on him. As for Montas, take a look at what he was doing in Greenville when they traded him - he had helium and was starting the climb into what he became. Again, projection we had said he could be a late-inning, high-leverage reliever but was so far off he was hard to project. www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=owensI'm sorry but it's not like you think it was. He was just fine at AA, AAA and majors in 2014 and 2015. His huge BB spike was in 2016 after they changed hid delivery again. I would buy what you said but he was just fine against more advanced hitters in 2014 and 2015. Are you really trying to argue he wasn't? I think you're taking too positive a view of his 2015 numbers in particular. The walks went up in 2016, yes. That's irrefutable. But his walk rate was never good. It's not like it went from good to bad. It went from bad to worse. However, 2015 was his lowest strikeout rate of his career and at the major league level he gave up 7 home runs in 63 innings. He was also allowing too many hits generally. I can't quite remember what the mechanical adjustments were in 2016. Do you have any links on that? www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/clubhouse_insider/2016/04/henry_owens_to_start_for_red_sox_on_sunday_in_place_of_joeJust one I found quickly, I remember a ton of talk about back when it happend. I'm not just looking at 2015, but 2014. He spent two full years at AA, AAA and majors. I'm sorry but for a backend starter that was a rookie his numbers were just fine. Then bam 2016 and 2017 he has highest walk numbers of career by a wide margin.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on May 25, 2017 8:31:41 GMT -5
sarasoxer, a couple questions: 1) Did this prospect who was traded become anything, or did he wash out? And fwiw, pre-Epstein is kind of irrelevant here, no? The lack of developing pitching only goes back to whenever you consider Lester and Papelbon "developed." 2) Many of the guys the Rays get credit for producing have come from trades. It's just that nobody thinks of them that way because they trade for minor leaguers. As an organization they really stopped drafting and developing their own talent a long time ago, but nobody noticed because of the young guys they were getting when they traded their vets. If we're going to give the Rays credit for, say, Chris Archer, then we'll need to do the same with the Red Sox and Eduardo Rodriguez. Right now Cobb is their only starter they've drafted/signed and developed themselves, with Colome, Alvarado, and Stanek the only ones in the bullpen. For the hitters, it's just Longoria, Beckham, and Kiermaier. The Red Sox current roster has much more truly homegrown talent (Barnes, Scott, Taylor, Vazquez, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Benintendi, Bradley, Betts, Marrero, Travis). And one comment - there's no way the Red Sox "don't teach anything" to their players. That's insane. I know you're only passing along an anecdote someone else said, but... I'm guessing there's a bit of sour grapes in there from a guy sick of being in "Fort Misery." Hey Chris thanks for the input. I have watched the Sox since the late 50s during which time, with a few exceptions, we did not have great pitching. To me baseball, so steeped in tradition, was slower than other sports to explore advanced techniques/training. Epstein excited because he was young and part of a new breed eschewing the 'old ways'...... I don't remember the pitcher who commented on inadequate instruction but he was quoted in the Globe. This was at least 20 years ago. My impression was that he was pretty good but of course his comment may have been sour grapes. I remembered it though because it dovetailed with my feeling that baseball and the Red Sox were anachronistic. True or not Epstein represented to me the championing of a new, more modern course. On your final point, I was not impugning the Sox for not teaching now. I know they do. Bannister by all accounts is at the forefront. Great. If we can improve by acquiring the best teaching talent, let's allocate the bucks.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on May 25, 2017 8:38:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on May 25, 2017 8:44:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 25, 2017 12:25:08 GMT -5
I don't have a dog in this fight, but this statement is incorrect. He had a 4.57 ERA, 4.28 FIP and 5.01 xFIP over 63 innings in MLB in 2015 which would make him a solid back of the rotation pitcher if he could sustain it. His fastball graded as only below average (-1.02 /100) by pitch/fx but was much worse (-4.1 /100) over 22 innings in 2016. I understand you feel he would have performed worse going forward as MLB hitters learned to sit on his fastball and his numbers did dip slightly after August (especially his k rate) but at the end of a long season in a small sample size, I don't believe a conclusion can be drawn from this slight dip. Chris pointed out he had HR issues but a HR/9 of 1.0 was not alarming (all HR came in Fenway which may have been an issue or SSS noise). In 2016 his HR/9 ballooned to 2.05 and his current AAA HR/9 of 1.28 is by far the highest of his MiLB career. The frustration comes from seeing a pitcher who over 63 MLB innings looked like a solid back of the rotation starter but is no longer close to that. It's possible that further changes were necessary to maintain his MLB success or develop him into a mid rotation starter, but it has been 1.5 years and there's no sign of him turning the corner. Maybe it's too early now, but unless there's progress by the end of the year then I think we can declare any post 2015 changes made by the coaches a failure. His xFIP- in 2015 was 124. That's a stretch as a #5 starter. If there was a reason to think he'd continue to depress HR/FB rates then I guess I can see the frustration, but this idea (not yours) that he was good in 2015 and they screwed with him doesn't really hold up either. I'll concede that "got killed" was something of an exaggeration (though he did have three starts where he gave up seven runs). Also - when did he start adjusting his delivery? Going back through articles, it looks like most of the stuff about him trying to streamline his delivery, particularly the part where he brought his arms over his head, was this past offseason and spring training. I'm really not sure what the coaches might've done with him from his 2015 stretch of squinting and seeing a fifth starter, and his poor 2016 run. And it's worth noting that he got called on early in 2016 in part because he'd been very good in his first three starts for Pawtucket. So it's not like he showed up a mess in 2016 after some radical coaching overhaul. ... Anyway, I've kind of gotten away from my initial point. Without being able to say for sure whether Owens struggles the last two years have anything to do with coaching or something they may or may not have done wrong, I'm very confident that the work the coaching staff put in with Owens was a big reason for his improvement from 2011 to 2014. He improved a lot during that time. And again, I'll contrast with the approach they took with a couple pitchers (Light most notably) where they had them shelve their best pitch entirely to try to make sure they weren't relying on it. That's a specific thing the Red Sox development staff did that I think was a mistake. Out of the 11 starts you can look at his 3 bad ones or the 6 starts where he gave up one or fewer runs. Now maybe my memory is going but didn't he have a horrible spring training in 2016 mainly due to walks? He got called up early 2016 because he was pitching ok, but the walks were a big issue. There was a huge spike in his walks after two years of pitching in AA, AAA and the majors. I'm not trying to say they never helped him, but whatever they did after the 2015 season really messed him up. He put up walk numbers that were like 50% higher than he had ever had before at any level. He went from a 4 year stretch of getting better, to 1 and 1/3 years of the worst walk rate of his career.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on May 28, 2017 14:41:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 29, 2017 5:18:04 GMT -5
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on May 29, 2017 6:41:23 GMT -5
Great article. Thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on May 29, 2017 7:24:32 GMT -5
Very interesting thread. Some very interesting thoughts presented. It appears that the sox have trouble developing pitching. Point well taken about current pitching coaches in the system. When a company like GE does not produce results they replace people. Why have the sox not done that? Chris knows that his web site is dependent on getting info from these people so he HAS to defend them. Teams like the Rays get prospects from other organizations and bring them to the majors. Lots of teams do that, Erod and example for the sox. BUT, the rays can trade for lots of prospects but the ones they seem to target have a high rate of success. What are they looking for? And consistently seem to find? Metrics are always a topic of discussion on this site and the fact there seems to be times we go overboard with them. But why are some pitching coaches able to get more out of players and develop more. All teams have access to the same data. Look at the 4 coaches mentioned above along with Dave Duncan and what do they see and what to they do that all the others don't. When Willis came on board I questioned his resume. He has worked with some excellent vet pitchers. I have not seen where he develops any young pitchers. He was also a close buddy of Farrell. How has the pitching been since he arrived? I think the point is well taken that the sox have the resources to spend on developing better pitching. Data and metrics certainly help with this. Maybe present staff needs to turn over. Maybe the scouting and the front office need to look at what they want from draft picks. Maybe fenway has a huge influence on what we need for pitching
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 29, 2017 7:43:02 GMT -5
Chris knows that his web site is dependent on getting info from these people so he HAS to defend them. Just a couple things: 1) The statement that we rely on Red Sox coaches for information is untrue. So is the statement that anything I say publicly is influenced by our relationship with the organization. I've been plenty critical of the team publicly. While we have developed good relationships with people within the organization and will occasionally ask administrative questions (biographical data, "where is...?" type stuff), they sure aren't giving us anything significant like inside information or scouting info. Why would they give that to us, of all the outlets they could share information with, right? 2) I don't know that I've been defending anyone in this thread, have I? I've agreed with the general premise that the team hasn't developed pitching and that the development side is worth examining. I've also pointed out that the problem might be they just haven't had the players either (which, by the way, would be a criticism of the amateur scouting department, not really a defense of the team). 3) The Rays point was made to bring up something that many here pointed out years ago - that the reputation they'd gained as an organization that excelled at player development had persisted for much longer than that reputation's truth had. I'd argue that their ability to trade their players fit other useful players when they got too expensive is a credit to their team-building and not their player development, and the latter is what's being discussed here.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on May 29, 2017 12:38:31 GMT -5
Chris knows that his web site is dependent on getting info from these people so he HAS to defend them. Just a couple things: 1) The statement that we rely on Red Sox coaches for information is untrue. So is the statement that anything I say publicly is influenced by our relationship with the organization. I've been plenty critical of the team publicly. While we have developed good relationships with people within the organization and will occasionally ask administrative questions (biographical data, "where is...?" type stuff), they sure aren't giving us anything significant like inside information or scouting info. Why would they give that to us, of all the outlets they could share information with, right? 2) I don't know that I've been defending anyone in this thread, have I? I've agreed with the general premise that the team hasn't developed pitching and that the development side is worth examining. I've also pointed out that the problem might be they just haven't had the players either (which, by the way, would be a criticism of the amateur scouting department, not really a defense of the team). 3) The Rays point was made to bring up something that many here pointed out years ago - that the reputation they'd gained as an organization that excelled at player development had persisted for much longer than that reputation's truth had. I'd argue that their ability to trade their players fit other useful players when they got too expensive is a credit to their team-building and not their player development, and the latter is what's being discussed here. Chris you are very defensive today. The coaches work with you every day. You want a good working relationship. that relationship does not include inside info or scouting reports. No organization would give you that. Defending and saying anything bad are two different things. If you have nothing good to say saying nothing is golden. Well said team building and player development are different. The sox build the team with buying pitching such as sales. The rays choose to buy minor league prospects with what they think have high ceilings because of their limited resources. Fine line , but good point. If I understand your point. Betts is player development and erod is not because it is team building and Baltimore developed erod. Bottom line is the sox have the financial resources to improve upon their track record of bringing lester's to the league and not trade 2 super prospects to get a sales.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 29, 2017 15:55:28 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean by "the coaches work with you every day." They don't at all. I'm curious what you mean by that.
Typically, we don't hit the locker room after games for interviews or anything unless we have a writer doing a feature and need interviews for that. I think the last time I talked to a coach was Fenster in 2015. I just really have never taken anything useful out of those conversations, and it's generally much more difficult to get, say, a hitting or pitching coach to talk to you for any significant length of time.
And for whatever it's worth, I tried to word that graf so that it didn't come off as defensive by the way. Failed apparently. That's on me. Was just trying to say that in a "point of information" type way.
By the way, you were the one who said I was defending them. That's why I asked if I was, because I didn't think so. I don't say anything bad because I don't know for sure of anything that I should say about them that's bad. Absence of praise is certainly a thing, but I'd go with absence of opinion - I'm not close enough to know that the coaching has been subpar or the scouting has been subpar or what. That's all.
Again, I just don't know what you're getting at still, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on May 29, 2017 19:16:53 GMT -5
I do not think the coaches are to blame as much as it is a lack of an organizational philosophy.
It starts with the scouts and cross checkers. What type of pitchers are we drafting and trying to develop?
Then comes the organization's development strategy, which I think is is sound from looking at it on the outside.
I think that after the season, management needs to examine their organizational philosophy in regards to how they scout, draft and develop pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on May 30, 2017 5:04:19 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean by "the coaches work with you every day." They don't at all. I'm curious what you mean by that. Typically, we don't hit the locker room after games for interviews or anything unless we have a writer doing a feature and need interviews for that. I think the last time I talked to a coach was Fenster in 2015. I just really have never taken anything useful out of those conversations, and it's generally much more difficult to get, say, a hitting or pitching coach to talk to you for any significant length of time. And for whatever it's worth, I tried to word that graf so that it didn't come off as defensive by the way. Failed apparently. That's on me. Was just trying to say that in a "point of information" type way. By the way, you were the one who said I was defending them. That's why I asked if I was, because I didn't think so. I don't say anything bad because I don't know for sure of anything that I should say about them that's bad. Absence of praise is certainly a thing, but I'd go with absence of opinion - I'm not close enough to know that the coaching has been subpar or the scouting has been subpar or what. That's all. Again, I just don't know what you're getting at still, I guess. Lets move on. I am missing something here that is not worth discussing. The main point is where is the short fall in the development of pitching in the sox organization. Somewhere, in the front office, the scouts for the draft, or the pitching coaches. Something is missing to continue to miss year after year on development of pitchers for the bigs. It does seem that in today's piles of available data and metrics that the sox can couple their financial resources with the right people and system to improve in this area of pitching development.
|
|
|