|
Post by okin15 on Jul 23, 2014 14:52:37 GMT -5
Same 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. oh god, Casey Kelly argument all over again. At least Mellen was wrong and I was right and Kelly turned into an ace.... oh crap.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jul 23, 2014 15:13:28 GMT -5
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. Is it? I don't mean that to be a snarky, rhetorical question... I'm genuinely curious. And I guess I'm more wondering about the discussion of pitchers that we tap into rather than the professional scouting report to which we have no direct access. I find the public discussion of pitchers to have insufficient respect for the edge cases, partly because punditry of all types reward faux certainty. But maybe not. And I wonder if the professional scouting reports are less certain and have a wider range of outcomes in them. Yeah, this is a good point. If you could run a book on prospects, betting consistently on the downside would probably make you a lot of money. Doesn't necessarily tell us anything about each individual case, but overall, I think it'd be a fairly strong bias.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 23, 2014 15:17:09 GMT -5
Same 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. oh god, Casey Kelly argument all over again. At least Mellen was wrong and I was right and Kelly turned into an ace.... oh crap. So is the argument that Owens is going to need TJS or is this unresolved?
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 23, 2014 15:28:13 GMT -5
oh god, Casey Kelly argument all over again. At least Mellen was wrong and I was right and Kelly turned into an ace.... oh crap. So is the argument that Owens is going to need TJS or is this unresolved? Hehe. Were you here when we had like a 3 month running argument about Kelly's fastball velocity vs command with regatds to his ceilingand how you define an ace and scouting vs numbers? I know we've had baby versions since then, but never all rolled into one before. I'm pretty sure that the main goal of the moderators is to never ever ever let that happen again. It's as bad as asking your girlfriend's good friend you've just met how many months pregnant they are; ie. that kind of never ever ever ever.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 23, 2014 15:59:58 GMT -5
I am speaking more of the public writeups of the players. A good writeup of a player should give you a pretty good idea of upside and the chance of reaching that upside. I thought that Chris' writeup of Owens' did that even though he didn't specifically say what the probability was of Owen's becoming a #2. It seemed far less than 15% to me.
I don't know exactly how a professional scout might writeup a player but according to interviews with Jason Parks it's not that much different than what they do at BP.
There are some aspects that you can't really scout and hence can't put a probability on. Sure there is always a non-zero chance that a pitcher could suddenly master an unhittable pitch as Mike Scott did for a time in the mid 80s and drastically change his profile. But it's not really worth discussing in a credible analysis of the Red Sox system. I don't agree with the idea that because the Red Sox have many pitchers who profile as mid to the back rotation guys that they are bound to get at least one guy who gets lucky and suddenly is much better than expected. It's possible for sure, but not really realistic.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 23, 2014 16:16:44 GMT -5
Then there are guys like Mark Buehrle who were hardly even considered prospects and he has almost 200 wins now.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Jul 23, 2014 16:53:09 GMT -5
Same 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. oh god, Casey Kelly argument all over again. At least Mellen was wrong and I was right and Kelly turned into an ace.... oh crap. Casey Kelly never struck out the number of batters that Owens has, and hasn't walked as few MLB players as he did in the minors probably from pitching around them more often. I always thought Kelly was overrated. Two totally different pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 23, 2014 19:02:58 GMT -5
Moonstone,
While I agree with your whirlpool principle of the downside likelyhood of prospects being greater, to state that given a large pool of midrotation starters will not greatly increase the likelyhood of an unexpected upside surprise runs in the face not only of Chavez earlier probability comment but an article earlier in the year by Alex Speir which reflected Ben Cherrington's strategy being based upon this very outcome as a result of those prospect numbers. Of course you cannot individually prognosticate these unlikely upswings, but they occur all the time.
Juan Pena was a parallel to Owens. For those who remember him, he was drafted late and outpitched his ceiling the whole way. He was Owens size, but a righty without much velocity, but good deception and began brilliantly in the majors before, yes succumbing to the injury downside.
The overall point here is that within the context of prognosticating an entire pitching staff I believe it is too easy to get stuck into "forecasting hubris"- the tools used here are as fine as any ever, but pitchers have great variability on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 23, 2014 22:13:48 GMT -5
I still struggle to understand why he is not pitching in Pawtucket.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 23, 2014 22:59:03 GMT -5
I still struggle to understand why he is not pitching in Pawtucket. He's blocked. It's not complicated.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 24, 2014 4:58:32 GMT -5
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. Not if our FO thinks the same... Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Jul 24, 2014 9:40:31 GMT -5
Owens is hard to understand. Scouts and analysts consistently say that he misses high in the zone, but he gets away with it. It'd be one thing if he threw 98 and could just blow it by many hitters, but he doesn't. I kind of thought 90 and high with unexceptional movement was supposed to get crushed at any level of baseball. Yet here Owens is at AA, dominating consistently despite that flaw.
Why can he get away with this when almost everybody else can't? I'm not trying to start another discussion about deception here - I've read the thread and heard the arguments for and against. But is there something else? The stats have just never seemed to match up with the scouting for Owens.
I'd love to have an inside look at what specifically the Sox see in him. Because the scouts see a #3/#4 ceiling, yet the Sox have reportedly made him untouchable in trades, and that doesn't match up either. Looking forward to his eventual promotion - he's an interesting case to follow to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 24, 2014 13:58:37 GMT -5
I can't imagine his rankings both here and around the league would dictate front offices thinking he had the ceiling of a 3/4. With the way he's dominated every level he looks poised to be a 1 on a second division team or a 2 on a first division team, sort of like Lester before the last couple of years (I AM NOT SAYING HE'S COMPARABLE TO LESTER).
|
|
|
Post by westcoastfan on Jul 24, 2014 15:58:35 GMT -5
Okay, been watching this site and had to reply. Have followed Owens for years. A little history. As a high school sophmore he led a braves scout team with all under classmen to the WWBA championship and was named most valuble pitcher. It was the first time in the tourneys history an under class team had won. The team was led by Tom Batista who eventually signed Owens for the Red Sox. As a Junior he was named an Aflac all american and pitched in the Aflac game. Others on the team were guys like Robert Stepehnson, Archie Bradley, Jose Fernandez and Daniel Norris. Owens was the only pitcher to retire his side in order all by strike out even though his velo wasnt as high as others. Owens was named Cal Hi sports Mr. Baseball his senior year . He was also the cif southern section Player of year. To give you an idea of the competition he faced in so cal , the year he was drafted there were more kids drafted from the cif southern section than every state in the country except texas and florida. In other words so cal is still the hot bed of talent. He was then drafted 36th (in any other year he would have gone much higher) by Theo Epstein. The sox felt he didnt need to pitch in gcl and sent him home. Last year he was sent (as you know) right to full season ball. You all know about this year. To me it is laughable reading posts where people are trying to find out why Owens is so effective while only throwing 90 mph. The radar gun has become the equivilent of the 40 yrd dash in football. Far too much emphasis is put on it...The guy can pitch...its as simple as that. Last year the Tigers faced the Giants in the world series. In each game the Tigers starting pitcher threw harder than the Giants starting pitcher. The Giants swept the Tigers and the Giants starters dominated. High velocity matters most if you are a reliever. A starter needs much more. Arnoldis Chapman is a perfect example..throws 100mph but failed miserably as a starter because a starter needs to be able to get thru a line up 3-4 times and 100mph straight as a string doesnt cut it. How many times does Clayton Kershaw hit 95? Owens has hit that this year but is far more effective at 91 with movement. I mean his last game there wasnt even a ball hit to the out field. And thats not the first time thats happened. I would recommend everyone go back and watch on milbtv his last start. You will see his fastball cut in on left handers. He has a natural cut on his four seam fastball. Its all about the movement. Even the scouting reports that knock him for fast ball velo mention how has his ball has late life / run. The Red sox brass must just roll in laughter when the bloggers project him as a #4. Theres a reason he was paid a higher signing bonus than Barnes and Bradley....and he hasnt been traded. Henry Owens will one day be in the discussion of best pitcher in baseball. Sit back and enjoy it.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 24, 2014 16:10:17 GMT -5
Other than the word "greatly", I agree with this sentence. I am not saying that that the likelyhood is zero, it's just a lot lower than you think it is.
I can't comment on what Alex said as I am not sure what article you are referring to.
Tony I am confused as to what you are getting at here. Juan Pena pitched a total of two major league games and according to his baseball reference page, was never ranked in the BA Top 100. I do recall during that time that Duquette would hype up many of the team's prospects who really weren't that good to hide that his entire minor league operation was a joke.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 24, 2014 16:11:48 GMT -5
Okay, been watching this site and had to reply. Have followed Owens for years. A little history. As a high school sophmore he led a braves scout team with all under classmen to the WWBA championship and was named most valuble pitcher. It was the first time in the tourneys history an under class team had won. The team was led by Tom Batista who eventually signed Owens for the Red Sox. As a Junior he was named an Aflac all american and pitched in the Aflac game. Others on the team were guys like Robert Stepehnson, Archie Bradley, Jose Fernandez and Daniel Norris. Owens was the only pitcher to retire his side in order all by strike out even though his velo wasnt as high as others. Owens was named Cal Hi sports Mr. Baseball his senior year . He was also the cif southern section Player of year. To give you an idea of the competition he faced in so cal , the year he was drafted there were more kids drafted from the cif southern section than every state in the country except texas and florida. In other words so cal is still the hot bed of talent. He was then drafted 36th (in any other year he would have gone much higher) by Theo Epstein. The sox felt he didnt need to pitch in gcl and sent him home. Last year he was sent (as you know) right to full season ball. You all know about this year. To me it is laughable reading posts where people are trying to find out why Owens is so effective while only throwing 90 mph. The radar gun has become the equivilent of the 40 yrd dash in football. Far too much emphasis is put on it...The guy can pitch...its as simple as that. Last year the Tigers faced the Giants in the world series. In each game the Tigers starting pitcher threw harder than the Giants starting pitcher. The Giants swept the Tigers and the Giants starters dominated. High velocity matters most if you are a reliever. A starter needs much more. Arnoldis Chapman is a perfect example..throws 100mph but failed miserably as a starter because a starter needs to be able to get thru a line up 3-4 times and 100mph straight as a string doesnt cut it. How many times does Clayton Kershaw hit 95? Owens has hit that this year but is far more effective at 91 with movement. I mean his last game there wasnt even a ball hit to the out field. And thats not the first time thats happened. I would recommend everyone go back and watch on milbtv his last start. You will see his fastball cut in on left handers. He has a natural cut on his four seam fastball. Its all about the movement. Even the scouting reports that knock him for fast ball velo mention how has his ball has late life / run. The Red sox brass must just roll in laughter when the bloggers project him as a #4. Theres a reason he was paid a higher signing bonus than Barnes and Bradley....and he hasnt been traded. Henry Owens will one day be in the discussion of best pitcher in baseball. Sit back and enjoy it. I'd love to be very, very wrong on him so I'll save this post. What year will he be among the best pitchers in baseball, btw? I want to make sure I have tickets.
|
|
|
Post by westcoastfan on Jul 24, 2014 16:15:46 GMT -5
I will just repost this once a year. Its comical to go back and read the early posts on this thread. The ones that say he will get hammered in AA are the best.
Great pitchers pitch and are starters Hard throwers throw and end up as relievers.
Its like every 'scout' on this site refuses to believe this kid is something special.
Hes just lucky I guess. I mean why would you think a kid who leads the Eastern League in EVERY thing cant be a number 1 or 2? I get the wins mean nothing argument...even though the kid is 36-14 in his career.
I am no scout but here is what I look for in a pitcher.
1. batting average against. This equates to Stuff. And Stuff isnt velo...stuff is stuff. Stuff causes swings and misses and weak contact.
2. k's per 9 innings. This equates to stuff (see above)
The it factor plays a role too....theres a reason why he sets no hit records in salem.....scoreless innings records in Portland. And you might note how he pitches against the other top prospects when they match up...whether its AJ Cole , Aaron Sanchez, Jessie Biddle, and most recently Daniel Norris. He flaat out dominated those games even above his usual standards...and those pitchers seem to crumble in those meetings.
so keep on knocking and he will just keep on rocking.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 24, 2014 16:17:48 GMT -5
Ummm because the two of them were college players who had almost no leverage and Owens' was a high school player who did?
To be short, we all know you can be successful if you throw in the high 80s low 90s and yes I know that Greg Maddux didn't throw hard. The point being made by professionals, "not amateur bloggers", who have seen him play in person is that if you have less velocity you have to keep your fastball down or else it's going to get hit hard in the majors. Owens' hasn't consistently done that and that's the issue.
|
|
|
Post by westcoastfan on Jul 24, 2014 16:19:15 GMT -5
I'd love to be very, very wrong on him so I'll save this post. What year will he be among the best pitchers in baseball, btw? I want to make sure I have tickets. No you wouldnt. You would never love to be wrong about anything and that is obvious from your posts. Your posts regarding Ownes make me think he stiffed on a autograph one time or something.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Jul 24, 2014 16:35:14 GMT -5
Chris Hatfield Chris Hatfield PSA: Henry Owens is a great prospect. But anyone saying he'll replace Lester next yr or saying anyone says that isn't informed on subject. I was wondering if Speier was going to get a free pass on this. I like Speier's work, and I am pretty optimistic about Owens, but expecting any 22 year old pitching prospect to do what Lester has done over the past year is crazy talk. Maybe in a few years, maybe. But you would have to work for the Marlins to actually build a 2015 or even a 2016 roster around expectations of Owens being comparable to Lester. Numbers here.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 24, 2014 16:39:13 GMT -5
There's no chance Hatfield was referring to Alex with that tweet and I saw the latter on TV the other night specifically say that Owens is not a Lester replacement.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jul 24, 2014 17:01:03 GMT -5
Look how long it took Lester to be a Lester replacement.
|
|
|
Post by onbase on Jul 24, 2014 17:36:41 GMT -5
To be short, we all know you can be successful if you throw in the high 80s low 90s and yes I know that Greg Maddux didn't throw hard. The point being made by professionals, "not amateur bloggers", who have seen him play in person is that if you have less velocity you have to keep your fastball down or else it's going to get hit hard in the majors. Owens' hasn't consistently done that and that's the issue. Do we have access to pitch location / results charts for Owens (or any other pitchers)? I could be completely wrong, but having seen 3 of his starts, I need hard evidence to be convinced he's more effective when he keeps his fastball down.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jul 24, 2014 18:41:56 GMT -5
To be short, we all know you can be successful if you throw in the high 80s low 90s and yes I know that Greg Maddux didn't throw hard. The point being made by professionals, "not amateur bloggers", who have seen him play in person is that if you have less velocity you have to keep your fastball down or else it's going to get hit hard in the majors. Owens' hasn't consistently done that and that's the issue. Do we have access to pitch location / results charts for Owens (or any other pitchers)? I could be completely wrong, but having seen 3 of his starts, I need hard evidence to be convinced he's more effective when he keeps his fastball down. Does anyone, anywhere on planet earth need "hard evidence" to be convinced that when someone throws 89 MPH they can't leave the ball up??? Henry Owens aside, that rings true for any pitcher. Even guys who throw harder.
|
|
|
Post by onbase on Jul 24, 2014 19:14:06 GMT -5
Do we have access to pitch location / results charts for Owens (or any other pitchers)? I could be completely wrong, but having seen 3 of his starts, I need hard evidence to be convinced he's more effective when he keeps his fastball down. Does anyone, anywhere on planet earth need "hard evidence" to be convinced that when someone throws 89 MPH they can't leave the ball up??? Henry Owens aside, that rings true for any pitcher. Even guys who throw harder. Up where? In? Out? In the zone? Above the zone? It matters. He got hit hard tonight and it was up in the zone, in the middle. That obviously won't work. But farther in or farther up and it's a different story. EDIT: I agree his command needs improvement, I'm just not convinced up is terrible especially after reading the previously posted link on what makes deception work. I'm intrigued by Owens and love watching him. I'm a fan. But I have no idea what he'll be in MLB.
|
|