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 jmei on May 29, 2015 11:01:40 GMT -5
Owens needs to improve his command a ton to even come close to Lee/Glavine, which I guess is possible, but is unlikely enough to not really be worth discussing IMO.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 29, 2015 12:20:25 GMT -5
Just about any pitcher who improves their command to the level of Lee/Glavine would be as successful as Lee/Glavine. So Owens is about as unlikely to do that as anyone else.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 30, 2015 10:14:01 GMT -5
It is too much data to put here, but look at the pitching stats on this site and sort them by innings pitched and then compare Owens and Rodriguez. The similarity of their records is remarkable with one notable exception - walks.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 30, 2015 14:02:01 GMT -5
Just about any pitcher who improves their command to the level of Lee/Glavine would be as successful as Lee/Glavine. So Owens is about as unlikely to do that as anyone else. Everyone understands that a pitcher is very unlikely to add significant velocity once they're out of their teens, but improved command is the dream that never dies. See: Kelly, Joe.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 30, 2015 14:12:04 GMT -5
Just about any pitcher who improves their command to the level of Lee/Glavine would be as successful as Lee/Glavine. So Owens is about as unlikely to do that as anyone else. Everyone understands that a pitcher is very unlikely to add significant velocity once they're out of their teens, but improved command is the dream that never dies. See: Kelly, Joe. I don't think that is true about velocity, if you mean pitching velocity, not just raw, uncontrolled velocity. Kelly is throwing harder now than ever before - probably too hard for his ability to command pitches. Many pitchers develop velocity in their early 20s as their bodies become stronger and more mature, and they improve their command. This is particularly true of tall but thin teenagers. But you are absolutely right about command. That is THE key to pitching success. And that showed this week with Rodriguez and I think it will show with Johnson when he gets a chance. If Owens develops really good command he might be better than either of them.
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on May 30, 2015 18:25:48 GMT -5
Joe Kelly is a bust. Look at the Cardinals and the young arms they have developed in Lynn, Wacha and the traded SMiller. You think if Kelly had promise he would have been traded for an aging Vet.
Kelly and Craig will go down as one of the worst trades in Sox history due to the 1 year left at 500K for Lackey and the Craig contract. Cherington on notice!
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 30, 2015 18:30:50 GMT -5
1. Including Shelby Miller there kind of undermines your argument, doesn't it? They traded him, too. It shows they are willing to trade value to get value, as they did with Kelly. 2. In sentence one, Lackey is dismissed as an "aging Vet" but then in sentence two trading him was the dumbest thing Cherington has ever done. Okay.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on May 30, 2015 18:32:11 GMT -5
Now that we have that out of the way, lets make sure this thread stays about Henry Owens, who was having a very encouraging start through 5 2/3 IP tonight before getting hit a little.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 30, 2015 18:39:12 GMT -5
Joe Kelly is a bust. Look at the Cardinals and the young arms they have developed in Lynn, Wacha and the traded SMiller. You think if Kelly had promise he would have been traded for an aging Vet. Kelly and Craig will go down as one of the worst trades in Sox history due to the 1 year left at 500K for Lackey and the Craig contract. Cherington on notice! You are kidding, right? How about Bagwell for Larry Anderson, or the trades of Jim Lonborg, Fred Lynn, Sparky Lyle, Curt Schilling and Brady Anderson, Freddy Sanchez, etc. There are a bunch of really bad trades in Sox history and I didn't include the sale of the Babe. I think you will see that Kelly is going to be a good pitcher for the Sox, quite possibly out of the bullpen. Lackey basically was persona non grata with the Sox and he isn't doing all that great for St. Louis. The Sox took a chance on Craig. It was a reasonable chance. Sometimes they work out. Sometimes they don't, but if a team is unwilling to have the courage to take chances, the odds are good that it is a bad team. Life is like that. You have to be willing to take chances if you want to achieve great things. If they don't work out, at least you tried. Not trying is not an option if you have any ambition.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 30, 2015 18:47:07 GMT -5
Seriously, this is the Owens thread, not the Joe Kelly thread. Any further Kelly-related discussion is going to get deleted.
|
|
Smittyw
Veteran
Posts: 1,290
Member is Online
|
Post by Smittyw on May 30, 2015 18:51:57 GMT -5
Now that we have that out of the way, lets make sure this thread stays about Henry Owens, who was having a very encouraging start through 5 2/3 IP tonight before getting hit a little. Best of all, only one walk.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on May 30, 2015 19:04:47 GMT -5
Now that we have that out of the way, lets make sure this thread stays about Henry Owens, who was having a very encouraging start through 5 2/3 IP tonight before getting hit a little. Best of all, only one walk. And that came at the very end. He had zero walks through 5 2/3. Not a lot of strikeouts, but he was getting a lot of groundouts.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 30, 2015 20:37:08 GMT -5
Texting with Ian, sounds like he's still throwing a lot more curves than changeups.
At this point, I'm willing to give him a mulligan on whatever his stats look like while he's doing this. We said this on the podcast that we recorded today, but it's a credit to him that he's committing to trying to develop the curve and slider and not just falling back into throwing the changeup whenever he gets in trouble.
Part of me wonders if they should've taken the changeup away from him lower in the minors, to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 1, 2015 20:45:21 GMT -5
Let's say Owens never develops that fastball command. What would happen in the bullpen if he threw mainly changeups and pitched backwards with fastballs to keep hitters off balance? Well, Trevor Hoffman was pretty successful from the right with an 88mph fastball and working backwards off of the changeup.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 1, 2015 20:54:09 GMT -5
Owens needs to improve his command a ton to even come close to Lee/Glavine, which I guess is possible, but is unlikely enough to not really be worth discussing IMO. Yet people discuss him adding velocity, which is far less likely. The point is simply that he has the raw stuff to be very, very good, provided he improves his command. He doesn't need to get to Lee/Wainright/Buehrle levels of command to have success, but as a very young LH whose body composition is still changing, and who is very tall, lanky, and working on secondary pitches, I think it's just as fair to say his command is likely to improve significantly as it is to think that it won't appreciably. With clean, low-effort mechanics, and the issues mentioned above (not to mention prior major leaps in command/control improvement), he fits the prototype of the pitcher who sees dramatic improvement in command and, as a result, success.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 1, 2015 21:08:30 GMT -5
Owens needs to improve his command a ton to even come close to Lee/Glavine, which I guess is possible, but is unlikely enough to not really be worth discussing IMO. Yet people discuss him adding velocity, which is far less likely. The point is simply that he has the raw stuff to be very, very good, provided he improves his command. He doesn't need to get to Lee/Wainright/Buehrle levels of command to have success, but as a very young LH whose body composition is still changing, and who is very tall, lanky, and working on secondary pitches, I think it's just as fair to say his command is likely to improve significantly as it is to think that it won't appreciably. With clean, low-effort mechanics, and the issues mentioned above (not to mention prior major leaps in command/control improvement), he fits the prototype of the pitcher who sees dramatic improvement in command and, as a result, success. Owens is more likely to gain Lee/Glavine-esque command than he is to add velocity? C'mon, man. Noone is saying his command can't improve. His command is going to have to improve significantly to be even a mid-rotation starter. And just about noone improves their command three grades (three standard deviations), which is what it'd take to put him in the Lee/Glavine category.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 1, 2015 21:14:54 GMT -5
In fairness, he did say that Owens doesn't need to get Lee/Wainright/Buehrle levels of command.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 1, 2015 21:16:22 GMT -5
In fairness, he did say that Owens doesn't need to get Lee/Wainright/Buehrle levels of command. Fair enough, but (a) I'm reacting to that first statement, in which he literally says the opposite of that and (b) noone has ever said that his command can't improve, just that it's not really worth discussing "what if his command becomes Lee/Glavine-esque."
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 1, 2015 21:18:15 GMT -5
In fairness, he did say that Owens doesn't need to get Lee/Wainright/Buehrle levels of command. And noone's saying his command can't improve. Just straw-man comedy hour up in here. That is true
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 1, 2015 21:21:12 GMT -5
Yet people discuss him adding velocity, which is far less likely. The point is simply that he has the raw stuff to be very, very good, provided he improves his command. He doesn't need to get to Lee/Wainright/Buehrle levels of command to have success, but as a very young LH whose body composition is still changing, and who is very tall, lanky, and working on secondary pitches, I think it's just as fair to say his command is likely to improve significantly as it is to think that it won't appreciably. With clean, low-effort mechanics, and the issues mentioned above (not to mention prior major leaps in command/control improvement), he fits the prototype of the pitcher who sees dramatic improvement in command and, as a result, success. Owens is more likely to gain Lee/Glavine-esque command than he is to add velocity? C'mon, man. Noone is saying his command can't improve. His command is going to have to improve significantly to be even a mid-rotation starter. And just about noone improves their command three grades (three standard deviations), which is what it'd take to put him in the Lee/Glavine category. I think I was quite clear when I said it was unlikely he would develop that degree of command, specifically noting that those two were ace-caliber pitchers and Glavine a HOFer. I then said that I could see Owens being a solid number 2. At no point did I claim that developing 70-level command was likely. You're either misreading or exaggerating/misrepresenting what I said. I've seen him pitch in person (last July 6, so it was a particularly good start) and despite having what looked like "OK" stuff, there were only three or four good swings against him the whole game. He's not someone who hitters are particularly comfortable against. If his command goes from 45 to 55, I think he's capable of being a legitimate 1st-division 3. A 60 and he might be a 2. The reality is that ANY 2 or 1 in the game has excellent command, and they almost invariably improved significantly from their youth. Look at Halladay, *Randy Johnson*, Lee, Wainright, even Kershaw (who always had pretty solid command). That's the point...MLB success is dependent on command. Guys with great stuff and great command become aces. Guys with mediocre stuff and great command become Mark Buehrle or Jamie Moyer. Guys with good stuff and good command fall in the middle. I don't think it's a stretch to think it's *reasonably* possible that Owens develops good command, particularly given his history of having done so before.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 1, 2015 21:22:29 GMT -5
In fairness, he did say that Owens doesn't need to get Lee/Wainright/Buehrle levels of command. Fair enough, but (a) I'm reacting to that first statement, in which he literally says the opposite of that and (b) noone has ever said that his command can't improve, just that it's not really worth discussing "what if his command becomes Lee/Glavine-esque." Please, feel free to demonstrate where you saw me explicitly say that I think Owens WILL or is even LIKELY TO do that.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 1, 2015 21:28:25 GMT -5
At no point did I claim that developing 70-level command was likely. You're either misreading or exaggerating/misrepresenting what I said. Me: "Owens needs to improve his command a ton to even come close to Lee/Glavine, which I guess is possible, but is unlikely enough to not really be worth discussing IMO." You: "Yet people discuss him adding velocity, which is far less likely." Me: LOL Not sure how else to read that. To be fair, I'm just being nit-picky and grumpy, so I'll drop it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 1, 2015 21:44:35 GMT -5
At no point did I claim that developing 70-level command was likely. You're either misreading or exaggerating/misrepresenting what I said. Me: "Owens needs to improve his command a ton to even come close to Lee/Glavine, which I guess is possible, but is unlikely enough to not really be worth discussing IMO." You: "Yet people discuss him adding velocity, which is far less likely." Me: LOL Not sure how else to read that. To be fair, I'm just being nit-picky and grumpy, so I'll drop it. That's why I said "come close to" and made a point in my initial post that Lee and Glavine were aces and I hoped for Owens to become a number two. My initial point was simply that lefties with middling fastballs and good changes as their number one secondary are the type of pitchers that have a history of MLB success out of proportion to their representation. I was stating it would not be unheard of for Owens to approach that level of command. Glavine, Lee, even Jaime Moyer all fit that "type" (avgFB, +CH) and had great success. I'll toss Lester (though he went CH to cutter) and Hamels in there...all had questionable command/control early in their careers. I'm simply saying that people being down on Owens for his avg FB/middling command (and this includes me) are overlooking the fact that he fits in a class of pitcher that seems to have unusual success provided they can stick in the majors for a few years and improve their command. I agree with you that pitchers who do this are rare (or there'd be a lot more 16-8, 3.10 pitchers out there), but I'm trying to say that I think his reasonable ceiling is being underrated given his stuff...OK FB but with great deception and a plus-plus CH.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 1, 2015 21:54:17 GMT -5
I wish Eric would show up and give an analysis of LH starters that fit that prototype. The more I think of it the more they seem overrepresented in pitching staffs.
FWIW, Brian Johnson is probably a much better bet to reach 70 command, but his stuff is just OK. Eduardo Rodriguez looks like a future ace to me, and not just because of the one start. I posted something earlier this year stating he worked 93-96 and was roundly shot down, but that's exactly what he did the other night. In fact, he averaged a full mph higher FB velocity than any LH starter in the game. He also has very good control (barely 1 BB/9 overall this year) and pretty good FB command, with a legit plus CH and an OK slider. At just two months past his 22nd birthday, I think he's a reasonably safe bet to continue improving his command and secondaries. With Rodriguez/Owens/Johnson, I think the Sox have their 1/2/3 of the future, and I love their left-handedness. I think it bodes well for their chances of success.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 1, 2015 21:58:35 GMT -5
I think the Sox have their 1/2/3 of the future, Don't set your expectations this high. There have been about 100,000 times in baseball history where a team had three really good looking starting pitching prospects. There have been 99,999 times that it didn't quite work out, and there was the 1991 Atlanta Braves.
|
|
|