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 okin15 on Jul 15, 2014 12:17:53 GMT -5
I have always said a cutter because it busts opposite side hitters up and in forcing a lot of weak contact. It would compliment his change well because it moves in the opposite direction forcing hitters to look for secondary pitches on both sides of the plate. Unlike the splitter, if thrown properly, it puts minimal stress on the arm. Doesn't have an up and in pitch and a down and away pitch go against the suggestions laid out in some article posted by JMei a month or so ago? I'm not really criticizing the comment, just wondering if I got enough out of that article to discuss the comment in that context. Anyone else have a thought related to that?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 15, 2014 12:26:33 GMT -5
Speier has an article on Owens today. Nothing that should surprise close followers of the system, but there are some nice quotes from Henry and the scout who signed him. According to Jed Hoyer in 2005, this was precisely what the Sox considered ideal makeup: upbeat, positive, well-liked guy who would run over his grandmother to win a game. IOW, Pedro Martinez (my insight, not something Jed said). And to balance that comp, the kid Jed was extolling as fitting that bill perfectly was Michael Bowden.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 15, 2014 13:03:10 GMT -5
I have always said a cutter because it busts opposite side hitters up and in forcing a lot of weak contact. It would compliment his change well because it moves in the opposite direction forcing hitters to look for secondary pitches on both sides of the plate. Unlike the splitter, if thrown properly, it puts minimal stress on the arm. Doesn't have an up and in pitch and a down and away pitch go against the suggestions laid out in some article posted by JMei a month or so ago? I'm not really criticizing the comment, just wondering if I got enough out of that article to discuss the comment in that context. Anyone else have a thought related to that? Hard up and in, then offspeed down and away, is good, exactly as per conventional wisdom. Hard stuff down and away can get you in trouble, especially if paired with offspeed up and in. As Lester has shown, you can throw the cutter inside to hitters of both handedness.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 15, 2014 13:17:10 GMT -5
Sorry about the delay -- I couldn't even make it through the home run derby without going back to bed, and have a doctor's appointment at 9:20 AM tomorrow. Which is to say, between the first and second appointment of the first day I had free! My doc, who used to do checkups for Sox minor leaguers, has a photo of Fenway as one wall of his office, and he will always book me immediately so we can talk about the team.
Well, partly that, and maybe my symptoms sound really serious.
Feel better, Eric.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Jul 15, 2014 13:52:53 GMT -5
Fascinating breakdowns and discussion in here. Thanks guys.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 15, 2014 15:35:27 GMT -5
You certainly can but it is a pitch that is meant to bust up opposite side hitters. The pitch is known to be thrown more often by lefties, especially those that don't throw all that hard, for two reasons. First obviously, they are facing opposite side hitters more often. Secondly, many of those opposite side hitters are looking for a fastball on the inner third that they can hammer. If you don't throw all that hard a cutter can cause those hitters to swing themselves into a weak flyball to left.
Owens, however is going to use that changeup as his main weapon versus righties which will fade to the firstbase side. He'll probably want to keep his fastball away too. So a cutter will give hitters an inside pitch to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 15, 2014 19:05:13 GMT -5
On John Tudor's velocity, mentioned here before, I was sitting next to the guy with the radar gun in Yankee stadium, and he was often hitting 92-94 that inning with the Redsox
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 15, 2014 22:25:38 GMT -5
So why isn't he coming instead to lefties with the deuce? To a lefty a tight curve with good rotation is nearly unhittable inside?
|
|
|
Post by thebogeyman on Jul 16, 2014 20:19:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 16, 2014 22:31:54 GMT -5
I am not sure what qualifications Chris Crawford has as a scout, Let's put it this way. At least this year Crawford didn't throw a grade on Owens' non-existent slider.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 17, 2014 0:38:30 GMT -5
So why isn't he coming instead to lefties with the deuce? To a lefty a tight curve with good rotation is nearly unhittable inside? He probably is. A curve is a good oitch to throw to same side hitters. According to reports he sonetimes flashes a plus. tight curve biut also a big lolipop curve which major leaguers will probably lay off of. It needs work. It's hard to work on things when you are striking out 10 dudes a night. though
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 17, 2014 6:16:30 GMT -5
I am not sure what qualifications Chris Crawford has as a scout, Let's put it this way. At least this year Crawford didn't throw a grade on Owens' non-existent slider. The command comments reeks of scouting the box score to me. Crawford may have seen Owens but he hasn't sat on him for "weeks" at a time in order to make that assessment.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 17, 2014 6:49:51 GMT -5
Anything on ESPN is for hype purposes only. I truly don't believe anything that organization puts out. I'm not down on Henry O. Just ESPN.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 17, 2014 7:18:08 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with that assessment of Owens, but Chris Crawford is not a scout or a guy whose opinion of prospects should carry much weight.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Jul 17, 2014 8:14:23 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with that assessment of Owens, but Chris Crawford is not a scout or a guy whose opinion of prospects should carry much weight. What are the qualifications for the people that Sox Prospects has scouting. and your qualifications, while you are at it, since you are so judgmental. Not saying they do not have qualifications, but they should make them clear. They do not seem to work for any team or are professional scouts, but what do I know.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 17, 2014 8:29:00 GMT -5
The idea is to actually go and watch players play, as the hammer mentions. There are people on this site who spend a bit of time doing just that. When writers or broadcasters make claims that don't hold water, about Owens imaginary slider, or Bradley's rag arm, they need to be called out. That isn't expertise, it's hot air.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 17, 2014 9:05:18 GMT -5
Interesting note from this podcast between Alex Speier and Theo. Theo talks about scouting and drafting Owens, and mentions that as far back as the time he was drafted, the front office noticed and valued his deception and his "invisible fastball." Theo specifically mentions that the deception in his delivery allows Owens to get swings-and-misses and mis-hits on his fastball despite its pedestrian velocity. (The whole podcast is worth a listen-- lots of reminiscing about the 2011 draft (Barnes, Swihart, Owens, Bradley, Betts, Golson, the other guys they were considering for their early picks) and general tidbits about the front office's philosophy. For instance: Theo notes that contrary to the popular belief that they do so, the front office does not consciously try and "diversify" their drafts.)
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 17, 2014 9:14:34 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with that assessment of Owens, but Chris Crawford is not a scout or a guy whose opinion of prospects should carry much weight. What are the qualifications for the people that Sox Prospects has scouting. and your qualifications, while you are at it, since you are so judgmental. Not saying they do not have qualifications, but they should make them clear. They do not seem to work for any team or are professional scouts, but what do I know. Crawford's specialty has always been amateur scouting. However, he gets shoehorned into having to write about prospects because ESPN isn't going to pay him to write just about amateurs. The interest isn't there that there is for football and basketball. The equivalent would be if someone from this site suddenly had to write about prospects from another team: you'd know a little, but the depth of knowledge would be shallower and the first-hand experience would be lacking. Also, I don't mean this in a defensive way, but I'm curious: given how often you crap on the people who work for this site, why do you even come here? I'm not saying we expect everything we write on the site to be taken as gospel, but your default reaction to anything we do seems to be "well who the hell are you?" I just don't get why you would waste your time here. Anyway, there are legit questions to raise about Crawford. The thing James was referring to is the top 10 Crawford did for his own site that graded Owens's slider (he doesn't really have one) and have JBJ a 60 grade on his defense this offseason. It was... questionable.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 17, 2014 9:27:03 GMT -5
Interesting note from this podcast between Alex Speier and Theo. Theo talks about scouting and drafting Owens, and mentions that as far back as the time he was drafted, the front office noticed and valued his deception and his "invisible fastball." Theo specifically mentions that the deception in his delivery allows Owens to get swings-and-misses and mis-hits on his fastball despite its pedestrian velocity. (The whole podcast is worth a listen-- lots of reminiscing about the 2011 draft (Barnes, Swihart, Owens, Bradley, Betts, Golson, the other guys they were considering for their early picks) and general tidbits about the front office's philosophy. For instance: Theo notes that contrary to the popular belief that they do so, the front office does no consciously try and "diversify" their drafts.) Perfect. Trade Owens and Mookie for Bryant and we'll call it even, Theo. Btw, the 2011 draft may be one of Theo's top 5 accomplishments as GM.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 17, 2014 16:52:15 GMT -5
I don't have insider but Keith Law has posted his top 50. Brian MacPherson ?@brianmacp 11m Law's rankings mirror those of BA, BP in that Owens and Swihart are clearly the best two Red Sox prospects left in the minors. Marc Normandin ?@marc_Normandin 11m @brianmacp As well as Betts having theoretically ranked higher than the rest on all three. Brian MacPherson ?@brianmacp 16m .@keithlaw on Boston's Blake Swihart: "He's their catcher of the future, perhaps as soon as this time next year. Owens at 23, Swihart at 27. Owens: "Owens doesn't throw hard, mostly 90-92 but up to 94 whenever he needs it, succeeding with tremendous deception in his delivery and one of the minors' best changeups, which has made him more effective against right-handed hitters than lefties throughout his pro career. His breaking ball is soft but good enough to get some lefties out, although it could be a solid-average pitch for him if he tightens it up and gets more velocity on it. He doesn't have the high ceiling of the arms above him on this list. But if his fastball command improves, he'll be a #2 or very good #3 starter for the Sox." First time I've heard a professional evaluator say that he's got a good shot to be a #2 That's a significant (though not insurmountable) "if." Without it does he me he isn't even a "very good #3 starter?" - one could certainly infer that.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 17, 2014 16:53:55 GMT -5
Maybe getting into semantics, but let's be careful: "could be if he does things he hasn't done yet" isn't "a good shot." Improving fastball command isn't a development gimme or anything. Still probably the highest projection we've seen lately though. Perhaps this is also semantics, but Owens clearly has improved his command, it is a thing that he has done, or his standing in the industry would not have improved so much in the past year. Right, but the implication is he needs more improvement to be the very good 3/2.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Jul 17, 2014 17:15:52 GMT -5
Maybe getting into semantics, but let's be careful: "could be if he does things he hasn't done yet" isn't "a good shot." Improving fastball command isn't a development gimme or anything. Still probably the highest projection we've seen lately though. Perhaps this is also semantics, but Owens clearly has improved his command it is a thing that he has done, or his standing in the industry would not have improved so much in the past year. Unless you have watched Owens extensively, I think this is where some get command and control mixed up. I'd say we have seen signs (aka boxscores) suggesting Owens control has improved, but that does not necessarily translate to better command. It's nice to have video or read recent firsthand reports where there's evidence he's not only throwing for more strikes, but consistently staying down in the zone and hitting his spots. Everything recently has been positive, which is fantastic, but I would like to see him tested against AAA/AAAA guys who do not have much trouble handling a belt high fastball that's technically a strike.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Jul 17, 2014 18:29:04 GMT -5
Eh. When you talk about a pitcher in the moment, the distinction between command and control is useful, critical even. But when a pitcher is basically in the process of cutting his walks/9 in half, do you really want to say he is only making strides in his control? Isn't it also reasonable to say he is making strides in improving his command? Because the way I see it, you cannot have command without control. Like I said, semantics. The bigger picture is that Owens has improved his ability to locate his fastball, period. FWIW, this link: www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=20590 talks about Owens "developing command," not "developing control." This link, by the way, gives Owens the upside of a #2 starter, and it is from 2013. There had been some discussion in the Owens thread about how nobody (legit) had ever given Owens an upside better than a #3.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 17, 2014 22:53:29 GMT -5
Perhaps this is also semantics, but Owens clearly has improved his command it is a thing that he has done, or his standing in the industry would not have improved so much in the past year. Unless you have watched Owens extensively, I think this is where some get command and control mixed up. I'd say we have seen signs (aka boxscores) suggesting Owens control has improved, but that does not necessarily translate to better command. It's nice to have video or read recent firsthand reports where there's evidence he's not only throwing for more strikes, but consistently staying down in the zone and hitting his spots. Everything recently has been positive, which is fantastic, but I would like to see him tested against AAA/AAAA guys who do not have much trouble handling a belt high fastball that's technically a strike. I agree the only way to scout a player is to see the player on the field performing several times.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 18, 2014 7:19:16 GMT -5
Eh. When you talk about a pitcher in the moment, the distinction between command and control is useful, critical even. But when a pitcher is basically in the process of cutting his walks/9 in half, do you really want to say he is only making strides in his control? Isn't it also reasonable to say he is making strides in improving his command? Because the way I see it, you cannot have command without control. Like I said, semantics. The bigger picture is that Owens has improved his ability to locate his fastball, period. FWIW, this link: www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=20590 talks about Owens "developing command," not "developing control." This link, by the way, gives Owens the upside of a #2 starter, and it is from 2013. There had been some discussion in the Owens thread about how nobody (legit) had ever given Owens an upside better than a #3. Well, the difference is that we have reports (namely, Ian Cundall on the latest SP podcast) that while Owens has improved his control, his command continues to lag behind. He reportedly still struggles to hit his catcher's mitt and misses high with his fastball. You're right that an improvement in control usually also means an improvement in command, but according to Ian, his command has improved much less than his walk rate has, and he still has to make considerable continued improvements in his command to reach his ceiling. Again: noone is saying he hasn't improved his command, but the improvements have been more limited than just looking at his walk rate might suggest, and he has a lot left to improve on.
|
|
|