|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 11, 2014 17:16:27 GMT -5
Splitters are far from the new cutter. It's not a trend at all - if anything the trend is to not throw them. Japanese pitchers do but in the US it's taboo to teach a kid the splitter.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 11, 2014 18:31:11 GMT -5
It's not just that it's taboo (though there is still a lingering suspicion that it causes elbow injuries). It's that few American coaches and players know the pitch well enough to teach it.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on May 3, 2014 17:08:43 GMT -5
“@brianmacp: Henry Owens's first two starts: 12 2/3 IP, 0 ER, 18 K, 2 BB. Henry Owens's last four starts: 22 IP, 15 ER, 17 K, 11 BB.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 13, 2014 14:05:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 13, 2014 14:12:44 GMT -5
Excerpt (and a little cold water for all you still believing this guy can one day be a #1 or #2 starter): I see the prospect over the long-haul projecting towards the back of a rotation, where he can provide a lot of innings and value as a reliable, complimentary piece of a good staff.Nothing to sneeze at, certainly, but if Ben is being called by any GMs who covet Owens and believe he'll be a #1 or #2 starter, it may be time to talk trade and maximize return on perceived value before he shows otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 13, 2014 14:39:34 GMT -5
Excerpt (and a little cold water for all you still believing this guy can one day be a #1 or #2 starter): I see the prospect over the long-haul projecting towards the back of a rotation, where he can provide a lot of innings and value as a reliable, complimentary piece of a good staff.Nothing to sneeze at, certainly, but if Ben is being called by any GMs who covet Owens and believe he'll be a #1 or #2 starter, it may be time to talk trade and maximize return on perceived value before he shows otherwise. Sell high on Owens and Cecchini
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 13, 2014 15:15:33 GMT -5
Excerpt (and a little cold water for all you still believing this guy can one day be a #1 or #2 starter): I see the prospect over the long-haul projecting towards the back of a rotation, where he can provide a lot of innings and value as a reliable, complimentary piece of a good staff.Nothing to sneeze at, certainly, but if Ben is being called by any GMs who covet Owens and believe he'll be a #1 or #2 starter, it may be time to talk trade and maximize return on perceived value before he shows otherwise. Sell high on Owens and Cecchini I wonder if Owens, Webster, Cecchini and one of Swihart/Vazquez is enough to get Stanton at the deadline. Marls may start to flat spin toward earth now that Fernandez has gone down. I have a feeling Swihart's a do not touch but the rest of those guys I could see going.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 13, 2014 15:59:04 GMT -5
Sell high on Owens and Cecchini I wonder if Owens, Webster, Cecchini and one of Swihart/Vazquez is enough to get Stanton at the deadline. Marls may start to flat spin toward earth now that Fernandez has gone down. I have a feeling Swihart's a do not touch but the rest of those guys I could see going. Swihart and Betts are off limits for me. Barnes is borderline. I'm also holding onto some of the wildcards like Devers, Rijo, Mercedes and Margot. Unfortunately, I bet those are the guys everyone demands in any trade.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on May 13, 2014 16:07:16 GMT -5
Excerpt (and a little cold water for all you still believing this guy can one day be a #1 or #2 starter): I see the prospect over the long-haul projecting towards the back of a rotation, where he can provide a lot of innings and value as a reliable, complimentary piece of a good staff.Nothing to sneeze at, certainly, but if Ben is being called by any GMs who covet Owens and believe he'll be a #1 or #2 starter, it may be time to talk trade and maximize return on perceived value before he shows otherwise. Sell high on Owens and Cecchini Well, as high as you can....I agree. To me Owens is a lot like Doubront with his command issues.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on May 13, 2014 18:33:12 GMT -5
In the report with PB it said if his fastball gets up he can get hit. That's exactly what I saw with Owens against Trenton. It was at least 4-5 rockets in the first few innings with them. He got hammered when the ball was up.
I have Barnes higher on my depth chart at this point. You can't teach a 97 mph fastball. Barnes has more potential to improve in my book. Owens will have to keep the ball down or he will get body slammed and mlb hitters probably will be able to hit his fastball even if it is generally down.
All that said, if Owens does develop excellent control he will be fine. All Barnes needs to do is get at least one more secondary pitch which is effective. A cutter, a split, a slider...etc. One would think that over time he will be able to do that. His fastball command is decent right? He seems to be pitching more to contact this year, or maybe it's just my imagination.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on May 13, 2014 19:46:02 GMT -5
A good scouting report makes you feel as though you have seen the player even though you haven't. Chris' report as usual does just that.
I wonder, however if the Sox might consider having Owens throw another pitch like a cutter. A cutter would give Owens another weapon versus righties. It would compliment his already plus changeup well by busting righties inside while his changeup fades away.
Overall I think the report gives good reason for optimism. A lefty with a plus change pitches in the majors for a very long time.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 13, 2014 20:31:31 GMT -5
A good scouting report makes you feel as though you have seen the player even though you haven't. Chris' report as usual does just that. I wonder, however if the Sox might consider having Owens throw another pitch like a cutter. A cutter would give Owens another weapon versus righties. It would compliment his already plus changeup well by busting righties inside while his changeup fades away. Overall I think the report gives good reason for optimism. A lefty with a plus change pitches in the majors for a very long time. A scouting report that ranks our 3rd prospect as a 4th starter leaves us disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on May 13, 2014 20:35:52 GMT -5
A good scouting report makes you feel as though you have seen the player even though you haven't. Chris' report as usual does just that. I wonder, however if the Sox might consider having Owens throw another pitch like a cutter. A cutter would give Owens another weapon versus righties. It would compliment his already plus changeup well by busting righties inside while his changeup fades away. Overall I think the report gives good reason for optimism. A lefty with a plus change pitches in the majors for a very long time. A scouting report that ranks our 3rd prospect as a 4th starter leaves us disappointed. I still think he can be better then A 4th. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on May 13, 2014 20:58:44 GMT -5
A good scouting report makes you feel as though you have seen the player even though you haven't. Chris' report as usual does just that. I wonder, however if the Sox might consider having Owens throw another pitch like a cutter. A cutter would give Owens another weapon versus righties. It would compliment his already plus changeup well by busting righties inside while his changeup fades away. Overall I think the report gives good reason for optimism. A lefty with a plus change pitches in the majors for a very long time. A scouting report that ranks our 3rd prospect as a 4th starter leaves us disappointed. Mellon has never been particularly high on Owens. Owens is confounding to scouting types; lots of success without traditional stuff. Mellon is just being consistent and safe. The current write-up is as much about Mellon and his place in the industry as it is about Owens. Time really will tell.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 13, 2014 21:07:21 GMT -5
For the love of Mary, there are no o's in Chris Mellen's last name.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 13, 2014 21:25:02 GMT -5
A scouting report that ranks our 3rd prospect as a 4th starter leaves us disappointed. Mellon has never been particularly high on Owens. Owens is confounding to scouting types; lots of success without traditional stuff. Mellon is just being consistent and safe. The current write-up is as much about Mellon and his place in the industry as it is about Owens. Time really will tell. Parks has never been high on Owens either. For the record, I'm way higher on Barnes than I am on Owens and always have been.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on May 13, 2014 21:31:44 GMT -5
A good scouting report makes you feel as though you have seen the player even though you haven't. Chris' report as usual does just that. I wonder, however if the Sox might consider having Owens throw another pitch like a cutter. A cutter would give Owens another weapon versus righties. It would compliment his already plus changeup well by busting righties inside while his changeup fades away. Overall I think the report gives good reason for optimism. A lefty with a plus change pitches in the majors for a very long time. A scouting report that ranks our 3rd prospect as a 4th starter leaves us disappointed. Then you aren't being realistic. Go look up BA org prospect lists from 5 years ago. How many got a solid major league starter or better out of their third best prospect. Not many. Owens due to his change is going to be in a major league rotation. In fact out of the big six pitchers, I would say he has the best chance of having value. That's really really good. Unfortunately as expected when someone writes a report that doesn't rate a prospect as highly as they would like some attack the messenger. That's really low class. Owens does well at lower levels because he throws a pitch AA hitters simply aren't used to. Further they don't hammer his pitches up in the zone as often as a major league hitter would. You want to refute Chris do more than the old scouts are stupid line. Owens doesn't "confound" scouting types at all. He simply has stuff that plays up better in AA.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 13, 2014 22:01:56 GMT -5
A scouting report that ranks our 3rd prospect as a 4th starter leaves us disappointed. Then you aren't being realistic. Go look up BA org prospect lists from 5 years ago. How many got a solid major league starter or better out of their third best prospect. Not many. Owens due to his change is going to be in a major league rotation. In fact out of the big six pitchers, I would say he has the best chance of having value. That's really really good. Unfortunately as expected when someone writes a report that doesn't rate a prospect as highly as they would like some attack the messenger. That's really low class. Owens does well at lower levels because he throws a pitch AA hitters simply aren't used to. Further they don't hammer his pitches up in the zone as often as a major league hitter would. You want to refute Chris do more than the old scouts are stupid line. Owens doesn't "confound" scouting types at all. He simply has stuff that plays up better in AA. For one, we're spoiled. For two, I've had Barnes ahead of Owens pretty much since Barnes was drafted because of his fastball.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on May 13, 2014 22:19:40 GMT -5
A scouting report that ranks our 3rd prospect as a 4th starter leaves us disappointed. Then you aren't being realistic. Go look up BA org prospect lists from 5 years ago. How many got a solid major league starter or better out of their third best prospect. Not many. Owens due to his change is going to be in a major league rotation. In fact out of the big six pitchers, I would say he has the best chance of having value. That's really really good. Unfortunately as expected when someone writes a report that doesn't rate a prospect as highly as they would like some attack the messenger. That's really low class. Owens does well at lower levels because he throws a pitch AA hitters simply aren't used to. Further they don't hammer his pitches up in the zone as often as a major league hitter would. You want to refute Chris do more than the old scouts are stupid line. Owens doesn't "confound" scouting types at all. He simply has stuff that plays up better in AA. You went way out there, but nobody called scouts stupid (well, at least not in the last page or so). What I did say was that Mellen was safe and consistent, which is pretty far from stupid. Nobody should be surprised or disappointed that Owens doesn't get rave scouting reports, he never has. Chris is writing for a major scouting outlet, came from fan site, and has a reputation to create. Saying that he is orthodox is not attacking, it is a reflection of how he scouted here, where that got him, and how he has scouted since.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on May 13, 2014 23:31:36 GMT -5
Your posts sound like attacks on the writer to me. They imply that only stick in the muds with old school "orthodox" scouting methods will see him as a #4 starter. Whom he works for is a reflection of nothing more than his talent and knowledge. All writers at BP write what they see and are encouraged to do so. His evalution is a reflection of what he saw. Nothing more.
What unorthodox methods should be used to evaluate Henry Owens and why would they come to a different conclusion? Further why should they be used on this particular player? There is nothing unorthodox about Owens. He doesn't throw a unique pitch or an unusual pitching motion. He throws one very traditional pitch very well.
Further you are incorrect. Owens, who was a first round pick, has always scouted well. Not a ton of minor leaguers can throw a plus major league change. He just doesn't currently scout as well as his statistics would suggest.
You make it sound like he's some indy league hopeful that no one thinks can play.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on May 13, 2014 23:40:45 GMT -5
Jimed....yeah you bet we're spoiled.
I think the main difference between Barnes and Owens is risk. Owens is more likely to hold his own in the majors. It's a tough choice but, a lefty with a plus change? Gimme. But liking the plus fastball better is certainly defensible.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 14, 2014 11:29:08 GMT -5
Barnes v Owens is an interesting comparison because they are so different. Do you value the dominating FB with work-in-progress secondary pitches, or the dominating change-up with sub-par FB velocity and command? You can dream on both (Barnes solidifies his curveball and gets his change up to average; Owens sharpens his command and improves the power on his curve), and in both cases, you've got a good major league starter. But you can also see a downside to each where they don't develop and then they are ... relievers? Not even that?
To me, I actually think Barnes is more likely to have a long major league career because I suspect he could be a valuable reliever right now with that fastball; a Mike Timlin career seems within reach without too much projection. But Owens has a bit more chance to be a major league starter because of that change, and I just think he's still more projectable. He certainly has had greater stretches of dominance in his career.
By the way, Mellen's write up is solid. It's silly to break these things down into "right" or "wrong" ... it's just one view from a knowledgable guy, a data point in our understanding of Owens. Major league teams employ cross-checkers for a reason ... there's no mathematical certainty to this - although you may be fooled by the numerical ratings - and no one is THE authority on scouting.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 14, 2014 11:34:28 GMT -5
For me, Owens absolutely has to have good command and control to be a good pitcher because hitters are going to sit on his fastball if he doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on May 14, 2014 11:50:32 GMT -5
For the love of Mary, there are no o's in Chris Mellen's last name. I agree with Mollon's analysis. All of the industry write-ups assume improved velocity and improved command. Right now; he seems to me to be a LHP with serious issues locating his fastball who gets by with a deceptive delivery and good offspeed pitches. But those things don't play well together in MLB. You need to work off of your fastball (see Diasuke and Buchholz for opposing examples) and deceptive deliveries only work for a short time.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on May 14, 2014 12:24:18 GMT -5
For me, Owens absolutely has to have good command and control to be a good pitcher because hitters are going to sit on his fastball if he doesn't. That pretty much applies to every pitcher ever.
|
|