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 tonyc on Jul 24, 2014 19:18:45 GMT -5
Moon,
I agree with you- as soon as I typed the word "great" likelyhood, it didn't sit right, but I'd personally go with Chav's around 55% likelyhood that with 5 or so mid-rotation prospects, one may become a 1 or 2.
Regarding Juan Pena, check out these stats, carefully considering the age related progression: Age Level ERA Whip 19 A 2.96 0.97 20 A+ 2.96 0.98 20 AA 4.73 1.33 21 AAA 4.38 1.37 22 AAA 4.12 1.188 22 Boston 2-0 0.69 13IP 9H 3BB 15K The point here is that there are some instructive parallels to Henry Owens- Juan was almost identical in size, 6'5" 210 and on an age related basis was ahead of him, but on a similar track. He was brought up and pitched two games brilliantly dominant. His arm was then toast, finishing his career other than some poor minor league games. As you pointed out he probably would not have made a top 100 prospect list- in fact note that he was drafted in the 27th round- And this is the parallel. The sox scouts through his progression were noting that he did not have good velocity and was surprising everyone and performing more like a first round pick. When he came up and blew away major league batters, and before as well, scouts were saying "do not look at the radar gun with him, they are not getting good looks... pay more attention to the poor swings and weak contact the batters are getting."
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 24, 2014 19:41:42 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. lol - dude I'm a lifelong Sox fan. I want ALL these guys to succeed and exceed their projections. In fact, in 2007, I HATED the JD Drew pick-up and ripped him continually. Then, when we played Cleveland in the playoffs and Drew came up with the bases loaded I posted flippantly to never cut on him again if he hit a granny here - and he DID. I shut up about Drew after that. My impression of Owens is solely based on having seen him live a few times last year and a few times this year. I played into my freshman year of college and I've seen a lot of baseball. I'm no scout - and have been wrong on guys before - but I just don't see the #2 or #1 that some others here are hoping for. In my experience, #1s and #2s are rare. I'm not as hopped on velo as other guys, but I do believe virtually all number 1/2s possess at least two plus pitches and good to excellent control. It's very tough to be a #1 or #2 with only 1 plus pitch and middling control, and improving control is the bane of any pitching prospect. That's it. Owens himself seems like a great guy. He has funny tweets. He has a chip on his shoulder. I would LOVE for him to exceed his projections by professional scouts and my own impressions. Really. Because that would mean the Sox have a weapon to use against the AL East for the next 6 years. But, in my opinion, sadly, that is not what Owens will be. Oh and I don't ask for autographs or do selfless. I'll remember well enough if I met someone famous or who I respected. If no one believes me that's their problem. Cheers, eh.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jul 24, 2014 22:29:12 GMT -5
Nice honest post, Guidas. Perhaps this is more feeling/hope than logic, but I'm getting that Owens will surprise us based on some combo of 1. West coast fan's assessment of his movement, and as a pitcher with an elite attitude, will continue to learn different ways to effectively spin pitches as he advances- be it tighter curves, cutters or sinkers (I can remember the amount of movement when Derek Lowe generated when he began pitching with the sox, granted sinkers, but other pitches too- and he was topping out in the upper 80's at that point- similar build to Owens). 2. The next few years his metabolism will slow, enabling him to put on a bit more weight and slightly increase the velocity.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jul 25, 2014 0:51:16 GMT -5
I haven't seen Owens pitch and I respect the opinion of those who have, and most who have seen him pitch very much are slightly less enthusiastic (somewhat understated) than those who haven't seen him. However, I cannot think of another pitcher who has been as dominant in the minors as Owens has who did not become a good pitcher, a really solid starter, in the majors. That doesn't mean there haven't been some, but I can't think of any.
Remember Jamie Moyer? He was with the Sox for a brief time and then went on to have close to a Hall of Fame career. I don't know that he ever threw a pitch above 90 MPH or had any pitch that would have been rated as plus. Of course, he did have great command. And that probably is what will make the difference with Owens. If he perfects really good command, I think he will be a big winner in the majors.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 25, 2014 7:19:22 GMT -5
I haven't seen Owens pitch and I respect the opinion of those who have, and most who have seen him pitch very much are slightly less enthusiastic (somewhat understated) than those who haven't seen him. However, I cannot think of another pitcher who has been as dominant in the minors as Owens has who did not become a good pitcher, a really solid starter, in the majors. That doesn't mean there haven't been some, but I can't think of any. Phil Hughes says hi.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 25, 2014 7:24:04 GMT -5
I haven't seen Owens pitch and I respect the opinion of those who have, and most who have seen him pitch very much are slightly less enthusiastic (somewhat understated) than those who haven't seen him. However, I cannot think of another pitcher who has been as dominant in the minors as Owens has who did not become a good pitcher, a really solid starter, in the majors. That doesn't mean there haven't been some, but I can't think of any. Phil Hughes says hi. Is Clay Buchholz still considered really solid?
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 25, 2014 7:35:00 GMT -5
Buchholz is inconsistent but had a couple of very good years. Hughes has essentially been league average, more or less, since he came into the majors.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 25, 2014 8:52:04 GMT -5
I think even that's very high and I think Chav was just using 15% per pitcher as an example. Becoming a #1 or #2 in the big leagues is freaking hard and the Hughes and Buccholz examples highlight that. I would even say a guy like Archie Bradley has a only a 20-25% chance of hitting that bar.
I am aware that he pitched well in the minor leagues but there are tons of guys who have done that and were not nearly as successful in the majors for whatever reason. The bottom line is though he well in the majors, he only did that for two starts. That's not nearly enough time for hitters to adjust. You can't extrapolate what his major league career would have been had he not been hurt, he might of very well been a very ordinary starter in part because he was a soft-tosser.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 25, 2014 9:01:19 GMT -5
Buchholz is inconsistent but had a couple of very good years. Hughes has essentially been league average, more or less, since he came into the majors. Right I think the point is that neither pitcher has been as good in the majors as they were in the minors. They are both not really great examples as both guys were hard throwers who were much more highly regarded than Owens' is today. Yet there are tons of examples of soft tossers who pitched well in the minors yet weren't nearly as good in the majors. Lenny Dinardo, Kirk Saarloos, and John Halama are three examples off the top of my head. Owens' is a better prospect than these guys for sure as he at least has a plus change, but there was a similar refrain heard from those who looked at their dominating stat lines and declared scouts who doubted them idiots.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 25, 2014 9:09:59 GMT -5
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jul 25, 2014 10:33:01 GMT -5
That is a great article, thanks. I forgot about his changeup. It has been a while since I saw him pitch, but I recall being unhappy when the Sox didn't keep him.
Incidentally, if you thought I implied that those scouting Owens were idiots for giving him lower ratings than his record might indicate, it would be a wrong impression. I think they should be taken seriously and should dampen the enthusiasm a little bit. It will be a better test of him when he gets to Pawtucket.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 25, 2014 11:00:15 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. Yeah I need hard evidence, especially when the perceived difference in velocity between a high inside fastball and a low outside changeup could be over 20 mph with identical arm slots. That reduces players to outright guessing with very few players with the ability to adjust on a wrong guess.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 25, 2014 11:44:20 GMT -5
I haven't seen Owens pitch and I respect the opinion of those who have, and most who have seen him pitch very much are slightly less enthusiastic (somewhat understated) than those who haven't seen him. However, I cannot think of another pitcher who has been as dominant in the minors as Owens has who did not become a good pitcher, a really solid starter, in the majors. That doesn't mean there haven't been some, but I can't think of any. Phil Hughes says hi. I also posted Casey Fossum's minor league numbers a few pages back. His AA campaign very similar to Owens'.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 25, 2014 12:05:15 GMT -5
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. Yeah I need hard evidence, especially when the perceived difference in velocity between a high inside fastball and a low outside changeup could be over 20 mph with identical arm slots. That reduces players to outright guessing with very few players with the ability to adjust on a wrong guess. The problem with Owens is that literally every scouting report on him (including this latest one from Chaz, which explicitly remarks on his wildness within the zone) notes that he still has inconsistent command and frequently misses his spots. If he could hit that high inside corner every time with his fastball, his projection would be a lot higher, but he can't right now and might never be able to. I do genuinely think Owens' deception makes his fastball appear faster than his radar velocity, and it has clearly been a swing-and-miss pitch for him. But major league hitters will crush even poorly located fastballs with plus velocity, and he needs to continue to improve his fastball command to be more than a mid-rotation guy. That's the real area to watch.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 25, 2014 12:32:31 GMT -5
Yeah I need hard evidence, especially when the perceived difference in velocity between a high inside fastball and a low outside changeup could be over 20 mph with identical arm slots. That reduces players to outright guessing with very few players with the ability to adjust on a wrong guess. The problem with Owens is that literally every scouting report on him (including this latest one from Chaz, which explicitly remarks on his wildness within the zone) notes that he still has inconsistent command and frequently misses his spots. If he could hit that high inside corner every time with his fastball, his projection would be a lot higher, but he can't right now and might never be able to. I do genuinely think Owens' deception makes his fastball appear faster than his radar velocity, and it has clearly been a swing-and-miss pitch for him. But major league hitters will crush even poorly located fastballs with plus velocity, and he needs to continue to improve his fastball command to be more than a mid-rotation guy. That's the real area to watch. I definitely agree that his command needs to improve, which is the main reason he should be promoted yesterday so his mistakes get punished more. But if he did increase command, I think his fastball can play up in the zone when added to the crazy good changeup, regardless of the radar gun.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 25, 2014 12:36:24 GMT -5
That is a great article, thanks. I forgot about his changeup. It has been a while since I saw him pitch, but I recall being unhappy when the Sox didn't keep him. Incidentally, if you thought I implied that those scouting Owens were idiots for giving him lower ratings than his record might indicate, it would be a wrong impression. I think they should be taken seriously and should dampen the enthusiasm a little bit. It will be a better test of him when he gets to Pawtucket. No I don't think you were specifically implying as such, but I have heard a lot of variations of the "scouts are stupid" meme in this thread from posters who have never seen Owens pitch. Many similar things were said about the three guys I referenced and others. My point about Moyer overall is that trying to become a top pitcher without top velocity is kinda like trying to compete in the Indy 500 in an old beat up Chevy. Yes you can do it, and yes it's been done but it's very difficult and to do it you need a whole lot of other things going for you as Moyer did. If you end up getting the Moyer book, and enjoy it defintely let us know!
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 25, 2014 12:38:14 GMT -5
Increasing his command would involve pitching up in the zone far less.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 25, 2014 12:43:00 GMT -5
Increasing his command would involve pitching up in the zone far less. Not when it's on purpose. Fastball up and in appears 10+ mph faster to hitters than low and away. A 90 mph fastball from Owens appears to be 95 up and in. A 78 mph change up low and away appears to be 73. The difference between those two pitches makes it almost impossible to hit him without guessing, given good command.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 25, 2014 12:56:37 GMT -5
You can definitely have success pitching up on the zone. It's easier to get swings-and-misses and popups, and guys like Matt Cain and Jered Weaver and Chris Young show that you can do so despite less-than-elite velocity. See, e.g.: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/chris-young-go-look-at-the-research-again/The problem is that it leaves you little margin for error. Balls up in the zone are more likely to go for extra-base hits, and they're rarely hit for ground balls (which go for singles more often, but will also frequently go for double plays and are rarely extra-base hits). That means you have to locate well, because if you miss and throw a pitch in a guy's wheelhouse, he's going to hit it a long way.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 25, 2014 13:53:12 GMT -5
You can definitely have success pitching up on the zone. It's easier to get swings-and-misses and popups, and guys like Matt Cain and Jered Weaver and Chris Young show that you can do so despite less-than-elite velocity. See, e.g.: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/chris-young-go-look-at-the-research-again/The problem is that it leaves you little margin for error. Balls up in the zone are more likely to go for extra-base hits, and they're rarely hit for ground balls (which go for singles more often, but will also frequently go for double plays and are rarely extra-base hits). That means you have to locate well, because if you miss and throw a pitch in a guy's wheelhouse, he's going to hit it a long way. Absolutely, but to do that it's all about changing eye-level and hitting the mitt when you go up above mid thigh. That requires very good control. Which brings us back to the reason at present he's a 3 at best and likely less.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 25, 2014 14:07:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 25, 2014 14:09:41 GMT -5
See my post from above. If you look at the pitch fx charts guys without great velocity who pitch up in the zone tend to pitch away with the four seam not up and in.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 26, 2014 0:49:31 GMT -5
In my mind his fastball does not have a lot of movement, so when he misses his spots, he gets killed or walks the world.
When he learns to command the fastball on the black on both sides of the plate, he will be the hunter instead of the hunted.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 28, 2014 0:02:17 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. You're leaving out a wee little detail or three in the Fossum saga. As in, it's entirely wrong. He was never hyped as a minor leaguer. He came into the 2002 season projected as a reliever, and the #5 prospect in a terrible system deservedly ranked 28th (assuming no one could have known then about Youkilis' future). He indeed had just one plus pitch: great curve, but the fastball "rarely tops 90" (according to the BA scouting report I just read, and which shocked me). He then came out of the pen throwing (IIRC) 92-94 and with a much improved change, put up great numbers, and was sent down to Pawtucket to be stretched out as a starter. He came back and made 12 starts (plus a 7-inning relief appearance) and put up even better numbers. He finished with a 76 ERA-, 79 FIP-, 81 xFIP-, and 3.34 SIERA -- the 15th best FIP-, the 11th best xFIP- and 8th best SIERA among 142 pitchers with 100 IP or more. So he actually did pitch like an ace as a rookie, and that's when the buzz happened. He then pitched the next year with shoulder tendonitis so bad it eventually required offseason surgery. The reason why the Diamondbacks took him as the centerpiece of the Schilling trade was not that they were gambling on an overhyped prospect, but because they were (not unreasonably) figuring that he'd return to something like his 2002 form after the surgery. But it never happened. You can argue that the Red Sox evaluation after 2002 was either all wrong or a conscious hype job, that the Diamondbacks scouting job on him in 2002 was also all wrong, that the rookie season was in fact a tremendous fluke of some sort, and that the shoulder surgery was completely successful and that he was the same, secretly lousy pitcher afterwards. Or that he was indeed a potential, even, probable ace, whose career was ruined by a shoulder injury from which he never recovered despite surgery ... but either way, he's not a comp for any kind of top prospect, because he never was one. It just occurs to me now that the added velocity might have been related to the shoulder injury. But it would have been hard to see that coming.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,983
Member is Online
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 28, 2014 6:12:09 GMT -5
My memories of how Casey Fossum was viewed as a minor leaguer are very different, as are Google's. He was viewed as a starter from day one, with LHRP being a floor or a way to get him to the (weak) major league team right away. His performance in A-ball in 2000 was quite good, and he moved up very quickly. His change needed work, but he was not a one-pitch pitcher: "his best pitch is a hard slider". In 2001 in AA he was 117.2ip 102h 28bb 130k 1.105whip 9.9k/9. He was hyped--and part of the hype was that the big-league team had only only Pedro who was striking out as many as Fossum, and their other prospects did not have high k-rates. In 2001 he made 6 relief appearances, then started his last 7 games. He did start 2002 as a reliever. I was excited by him, and amused by his Sandy Koufax delivery. SFGATE: "Last year [2000, first full year], he ... began to command attention on Yawkey Way. He led all Class A pitchers with 143 strikeouts in 149 1/3 innings. And his three shutouts included the no-hitter in August, in which he struck out 16, walked only two, and allowed no runner past first base." BBA: Strengths: Fossum reminds scouts of Jimmy Key. He can reach 91-92 mph with his fastball, and his best pitch is a hard slider. He has very good command, lots of confidence and a sound delivery. He destroyed lefties in 2000, limiting them to a .105 average with no homers in 95 at-bats. Weaknesses: Fossum’s changeup is improving, but it still needs some more work .... The Future: Fossum is the only true prospect among lefthanders who pitched in full-season ball for the Red Sox in 2000. He’ll start next season in Double-A and has an outside chance to reach Boston by the end of the year. At worst, he’ll make a good situational reliever. BBA FSL top 20: Fossum will get every opportunity to be a big league starter but also would be an effective lefty bullpen specialist. www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Fossum-is-making-case-to-Red-Sox-2943476.phpwww.baseballamerica.com/online/leagues/mlb/redsox/01top10.htmlwww.baseballamerica.com/online/minors/00fsltop10.html
|
|
|