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 Guidas on Jul 22, 2014 17:37:54 GMT -5
Still a very significant "if." Implication also - or at least one could infer from that language - that if he doesn't improve command (command improvement for many guys is not easy and it often is what separates a guy from being a starter from a reliever) and the curveball he is less than a #3. Also this excerpt provide a little more reality to his skill set: Owens’ changeup is arguably his only plus pitch, but he uses it so effectively that it helps makes his two-seam fastball seem harder...The curveball has always been a pitch that comes and goes for Owens, but on Saturday it was effective. At 72-74 mph, Owens’ curveball is at the slower end of the scale, which gives hitters more time to react and read the pitch out of his hand. If he’s not precise with his location or he gets around the ball, it’s liable to be a below-average pitch that could get crushed. Yet Owens shows feel to manipulate spin on his curveball with big, rainbow break, so it can be an average pitch when it’s on.So in short, he has 1 plus pitch, everything else is average or less, his command wavers and if his curve is off, which happens more than occasionally, it can get crushed. So, yeah, why I think this guy will never be more than a #3 and realistically expect him to be a 5. I do hope he fixes everything and exceeds expectations but I just won't believe it until I see it at the MLB level. I'd be very surprised if #5 pitchers could put up the stats in double a Owens provides right now, given his age I'd imagine your projection is very low, even comparable to the scouting reports. Well, this guy comes to mind. ERA was a bit higher but K/9 was 9.90 and K:BB was 4.64:1 - all in AA and he was just 6 months older than Owens at the time: www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=fossum001cas
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jul 22, 2014 19:55:23 GMT -5
Owens just turned 21 before AA. Fossil was 23 plus a few month. Owens AA Era is better. It looks like fossil was brought up too soon. But I do not recollect his games.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 22, 2014 20:04:02 GMT -5
We've said it a number of times: He's still in Portland because there's no room in Pawtucket. The second someone gets traded, be it from the majors or Pawtucket, he'll be up. Don't worry. I guess I didn't realize that was for sure the answer. It's hard to tell when you're speaking for the team, or the site, or yourself sometimes. That sounds snarky and like I'm joking, but it's not. I really didn't realize that was something you knew. I never speak "for the team," for what it's worth. If something was told to me by a source, I say as much. In this case, just look at the situation. It really doesn't require too much analysis. There are five prospects in the Pawtucket rotation and probably little chance Owens will play in the majors this year. There's no need to rush him to Pawtucket. I will try to say "in my opinion" or the like more if it's that confusing. Sorry about that.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 22, 2014 22:52:20 GMT -5
In his last start Owens was staked to am 8 to zip lead and he spends the next inning working on the curve and only gives up two runs. That is impressive, especially considering the opponents knew what was coming.
Still I would not mind seeing him work a slider into his pitching. It only takes about 30 minutes to learn and gives him an element lacking in his current arsenal.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 23, 2014 8:26:45 GMT -5
Owens just turned 21 before AA. Fossil was 23 plus a few month. Owens AA Era is better. It looks like fossil was brought up too soon. But I do not recollect his games. I thought Owens just turned 22? Fossum turned 23 the January of his first full AA year. Also if you remember, Fossum was on Theo's "untouchable" list early on and being buzzed about by the org as having "Ace" potential. All that changed pretty quickly once the opportunity to obtain Schilling appeared but there are some similarities to the stuff and hype. As I recall, Fossum only had one plus pitch, as well.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 23, 2014 8:26:58 GMT -5
Old friend Chris Mellen has a detailed scouting report on Owens for BP (should be available without a subscription): www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=24226Same kind of stuff we've been hearing from scouts. Projection of a 4th starter, ceiling of a 3rd starter. Needs to improve fastball command (will miss in the middle of the zone and up) and get a more consistent third pitch.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 23, 2014 8:29:06 GMT -5
Old friend Chris Mellen has a detailed scouting report on Owens for BP (should be available without a subscription): www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=24226Same kind of stuff we've been hearing from scouts. Projection of a 4th starter, ceiling of a 3rd starter. Needs to improve fastball command (will miss in the middle of the zone and up) and get a more consistent third pitch. Great - everyone go rip Mellen now and tell him his eyes are bad too for saying this guy has a probable ceiling of a 3 and looks more like a 4. Don't know where I've heard such things before. INCONCEIVABLE!
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 23, 2014 8:35:10 GMT -5
Owens just turned 21 before AA. Fossil was 23 plus a few month. Owens AA Era is better. It looks like fossil was brought up too soon. But I do not recollect his games. I thought Owens just turned 22? Fossum turned 23 the January of his first full AA year. Also if you remember, Fossum was on Theo's "untouchable" list early on and being buzzed about by the org as having "Ace" potential. All that changed pretty quickly once the opportunity to obtain Schilling appeared but there are some similarities to the stuff and hype. As I recall, Fossum only had one plus pitch, as well. I think he's referring to last year. Henry made his debut in Portland late last year. Turned 21 last July.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Jul 23, 2014 8:36:03 GMT -5
For the past few years we have heard about how the sox system has tons of major league quality arms. Interesting that when it shakes out none of them project to be first or second starters. A system that produces a long line of 3,4 and 5 starters is o.k. but certainly nothing special.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Jul 23, 2014 9:24:16 GMT -5
For the past few years we have heard about how the sox system has tons of major league quality arms. Interesting that when it shakes out none of them project to be first or second starters. A system that produces a long line of 3,4 and 5 starters is o.k. but certainly nothing special. Forget it. No sense arguing with some of these guys. They are amateurs like us, not that there is anything wrong with that. You hit one of their inconsistencies, but it wouldn't matter to them. But so what. Doesn't change anything about the Sox's system. Make up you own mind for your own purposes. This board has some good info and opinions. Take it for what it is worth. Make your point but go on. I know it is hard not to express what you believe, but this is not the place to take it seriously.
|
|
|
Post by onbase on Jul 23, 2014 9:36:07 GMT -5
When I saw Owens last year he threw a mix of fastball speeds (4 seam and 2 seam?), a change up in high seventies, and that looper thing around 68MPH. From memory it was the fastball that got hit, nothing else. In May this year I saw what Sarasoxer described, mostly fastball and change up. Last Saturday, I saw what Mellen described - the curve at 72-74. That particular velocity was absent in the other two starts. During the warmups, he missed badly with a pitch and turned to the coach. From the body language, they discussed something about the way his wrist was rolling over, and it seemed to solve the problem. So I think the conclusion that, given a large lead, he was working on his curve is pretty clear. That didn't surprise me based on what I've read here, but the increase in velocity did. Since he threw so few of the slower ones in the previous games, I don't think I can say it was an improvement. What I can say is that it appears Henry is still a work in progress, he knows it and seems to be loving it.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jul 23, 2014 9:52:39 GMT -5
I suppose if one were to define 1 & 2 (starting) pitchers as special, then 3, 4, 5 SP's are not special. If OK is the category below special, then our pitching prospects are OK. We should think in terms of filling out the roster. A free-agent 3 SP goes for around $15M/yr, perhaps 10M for a 4 and 5M for a 5. So if the system can produce a 3, 4, 5 SP every 3-4 years, that would be 30M/yr of FA salaries saved, more than enough to get a 1/2 SP. Sure it would be nice to have a 1/2 SP prospect, but in terms of filling out a roster under the salary cap, its the same.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 23, 2014 11:22:55 GMT -5
I don't necessarily buy that this crop of pitchers won't produce a number one or two. As astute as Chris and the staff of sox prospects are remember that this is all a still shot of how their projection appears at this moment. Pitchers, even older ones are tremendously variable- look at how Josh Beckett has appeard nearly done for years and suddenly has picked it up, younger pitchers are much more erratic- on the upside as well. Remember a year ago when it seemed quite likely that Rubby D. "projected" quite likely as a reliever, and now has the greatest ceiling as a starter of any young Sox currently in the rotation. Henry Owens could pick up a slider, or put on 15 more pounds and add to his sitting velocity. Anthony Renaudo could perfect his slider, perhaps add a cutter, Matt Barnes could tighten up his secondaries; perhaps Wright, given his progression- and it has been consistent since he's converted to knuckleball- may surprise and have an excellent career, and Brian Johnson has some potential. I've read here for many years, but even given the exquisite sabermetric skill of staff and posters, to think that an accurate- as opposed to relatively accurate portrayal of exactly what these starters will all be is hubris, and I'm optimistic that given the numbers of potential starting prospects here, we will have some nice surprises!
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 23, 2014 11:30:47 GMT -5
And I omitted Alan Webster, who has made great progress every year, and does have perhaps the best stuff of them all already in place.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 23, 2014 12:33:43 GMT -5
I don't necessarily buy that this crop of pitchers won't produce a number one or two. As astute as Chris and the staff of sox prospects are remember that this is all a still shot of how their projection appears at this moment. Pitchers, even older ones are tremendously variable- look at how Josh Beckett has appeard nearly done for years and suddenly has picked it up, younger pitchers are much more erratic- on the upside as well. Remember a year ago when it seemed quite likely that Rubby D. "projected" quite likely as a reliever, and now has the greatest ceiling as a starter of any young Sox currently in the rotation. Henry Owens could pick up a slider, or put on 15 more pounds and add to his sitting velocity. Anthony Renaudo could perfect his slider, perhaps add a cutter, Matt Barnes could tighten up his secondaries; perhaps Wright, given his progression- and it has been consistent since he's converted to knuckleball- may surprise and have an excellent career, and Brian Johnson has some potential. I've read here for many years, but even given the exquisite sabermetric skill of staff and posters, to think that an accurate- as opposed to relatively accurate portrayal of exactly what these starters will all be is hubris, and I'm optimistic that given the numbers of potential starting prospects here, we will have some nice surprises! Certainly anything is possible but don't you think it's more useful to discuss the most likely outcome as opposed to hoping and praying on magic beans? As for DeLarosa is appears to me that you are reinterpreting history. Most believe that he has the stuff to become an excellent starter,(good velocity, plus change, multiple pitch mix etc). The issue is if he has the command and stamina to be a full time starter, never mind a front line starter. Quite frankly we don't know that yet.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 23, 2014 12:47:43 GMT -5
And I omitted Alan Webster, who has made great progress every year, and does have perhaps the best stuff of them all already in place. Please God, let this be posted by a GM who has great prospects to trade.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 23, 2014 13:06:40 GMT -5
And I omitted Alan Webster, who has made great progress every year, and does have perhaps the best stuff of them all already in place. Please God, let this be posted by a GM who has great prospects to trade. If the league valued anyone in our crop of minor league starters with top of the rotation potential they'd have been traded by now.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jul 23, 2014 13:07:06 GMT -5
I don't necessarily buy that this crop of pitchers won't produce a number one or two. As astute as Chris and the staff of sox prospects are remember that this is all a still shot of how their projection appears at this moment. Pitchers, even older ones are tremendously variable- look at how Josh Beckett has appeard nearly done for years and suddenly has picked it up, younger pitchers are much more erratic- on the upside as well. Remember a year ago when it seemed quite likely that Rubby D. "projected" quite likely as a reliever, and now has the greatest ceiling as a starter of any young Sox currently in the rotation. Henry Owens could pick up a slider, or put on 15 more pounds and add to his sitting velocity. Anthony Renaudo could perfect his slider, perhaps add a cutter, Matt Barnes could tighten up his secondaries; perhaps Wright, given his progression- and it has been consistent since he's converted to knuckleball- may surprise and have an excellent career, and Brian Johnson has some potential. I've read here for many years, but even given the exquisite sabermetric skill of staff and posters, to think that an accurate- as opposed to relatively accurate portrayal of exactly what these starters will all be is hubris, and I'm optimistic that given the numbers of potential starting prospects here, we will have some nice surprises! Certainly anything is possible but don't you think it's more useful to discuss the most likely outcome as opposed to hoping and praying on magic beans?As for DeLarosa is appears to me that you are reinterpreting history. Most believe that he has the stuff to become an excellent starter,(good velocity, plus change, multiple pitch mix etc). The issue is if he has the command and stamina to be a full time starter, never mind a front line starter. Quite frankly we don't know that yet. I think this depends on the context. When asking the question of "Will the Red Sox develop a 1 or 2 starter from their current crop of AA/AAA pitchers?", you are definitely better off looking at the range of possible outcomes for each rather than the most likely outcome for each. You're a pretty good stats guy, so I don't need to tell you this, but if you have 5 guys with only a 15% chance of being a 1 or 2 there is actually a ~55% chance that one of them will develop into a 1 or 2.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 23, 2014 13:25:56 GMT -5
That's not what he's talking about though.
An outcome that has a 15% chance of happening is still withing two standard deviations of the expected outcome and is very realistic and probably reflected in the scouting report. But he's talking about something unexpected happening that you can't put an assign a probability to, and can't be reflected in the scouting report, like Owens adding 15 llbs and throwing 95. These types of things do happen in baseball, Matt Harvey adding a plus plus slider is an example, but they aren't worth discussing unless you are wishcasting.
We should also remember the whirlpool principal when it comes to prospects. Baseball is a hard game, it's hard on your body, and there are plenty of world class athletes with great desire to be on top. For this reason unexpected outcomes tend to be negative not positive. I would imagine most are overestimating the chance that any individual starter becomes a 1 or a 2 and underestimating the chance that none of them start 50 games in the majors.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 23, 2014 13:30:24 GMT -5
Didn't Owens hit 94 in a recent start?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 23, 2014 13:38:57 GMT -5
Didn't Owens hit 94 in a recent start? If you listen to the most recent soxprospects podcast Owens seems to throw harder when he's in jams and can get to 93-94 maybe once or twice a game. In general he's going to be pitching with below average fastball velocity, which means he's going to have to keep the ball mostly in the lower part of the zone to be effective. He's not been able to do that consistently.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 23, 2014 13:48:34 GMT -5
Didn't Owens hit 94 in a recent start? If you listen to the most recent soxprospects podcast Owens seems to throw harder when he's in jams and can get to 93-94 maybe once or twice a game. In general he's going to be pitching with below average fastball velocity, which means he's going to have to keep the ball mostly in the lower part of the zone to be effective. He's not been able to do that consistently. Sounds like he's doing well at keeping the ball down with 47.4-24.6% GB/FB ratios
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jul 23, 2014 14:05:23 GMT -5
If Owens has not been able to be effective, then perhaps the rest of EL pitchers who have been less effective than Owens should be sent down to low A to learn how to pitch. We should sent the EL hitters downs as well since they cannot hit an ineffective pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 23, 2014 14:14:25 GMT -5
sean (boston)
keith, how do you grade Owens' fastball and is the deception good enough to offset lower velocity and maintain his K rates in the big leagues? Klaw (1:20 PM)
Average. Outstanding deception and plus-plus change-up help him.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 23, 2014 14:51:18 GMT -5
average fastball and outstanding deception don't go together.
|
|
|