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 jchang on Aug 29, 2013 12:23:19 GMT -5
I think Owens has made excellent progress over the last 2 years. In beginning 2012, Owens would quickly get 9 outs, then get hit in the 4th or 5th inning. Towards the end of 2012, he showed better ability to get through 5 innings. Over the 22 starts (& 1 non-start?) he average 4.5 inning per game. His overall stats for 2012 were good but not special, except for the insane SO/9. However, if you consider his pattern of quick outs until getting hit in the last inning, there was reason to be hopeful. 2013 was great for Owens. Over 25 games, an average of 5.2 innings per game. I don't think the number of off games were anything to worry about. His SO/9 held at over 11! OK, his BB/9 increased to 4.67, high among EL leaders (I can't get milb.com to show cross league leaders?). but his WHIP is fully competitive with the EL and CAL elite, because he gave up ridiculously few hits. Hence, I do see that he has control problems. It is only the tantalizing possibilities of a pitcher with such a high SO rate and low opponent BA, that if his walk rate was even just average.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 29, 2013 12:27:51 GMT -5
Owens' low opponent BA is due in part to a high strikeout rate but also to a very low BABIP. Unless he's getting lots of popups, that's unlikely to be sustainable at the major league level, which is a worry of mine.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 29, 2013 12:29:44 GMT -5
I'm not worried about the velocity for two reasons: one, it's actually fine, as jmei points out, for a lefty to sit 90-92mph, especially with excellent secondary stuff; and two, all 91mph are not created equal. He's very tall with excellent deception in his delivery which takes a crucial fraction of a second off the time between when the batter picks up the ball and when it gets to the plate. Sure, but if he found a few extra MPH on his fastball it's not like he would stop being tall. If he can make 91 look like 95, then he can make 94 look like 98. The fact that he has hight an deception doesn't reduce the utility of velocity. It really ALL comes down to control with Owens for me. If he tightens it up significantly to where he's above average, he could be an ace. Average command makes his ceiling a solid, mid-rotation guy on a team like the Sox. And so on down the line ... down to "doesn't improve at all, and he floats around as a reliever teams take a chance on." I'd more or less agree with this, although there's no way he's an "ace" under any circumstances. But while extra velocity would be nice, improved command is an absolute necessity.
|
|
|
Post by ikonos on Aug 29, 2013 13:29:05 GMT -5
He is bound to increase his velocity by a tick or two as he fills up over the next couple of years. As he does, there is potential the movement on his stuff might get effected/reduced until he learns to cope with that increased velocity. As a prospect watcher it is important to remember few if any will have a straight ascent to Majors. Even our current "ace" Buchholz had ton of troubles before he could harness his talent. So there is no point in comparing HO to elites at this stage. Just sit back, enjoy and dream he could be the ace we are all waiting for since Pedro.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Aug 29, 2013 13:37:12 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't disagree with the velocity point. I'm just saying it's sorta secondary to me. Sure, faster is better. That pretty much goes without saying. Miguel Cabrera would be a better player if he could run like Jacoby Ellsbury (side point: the run Jacoby scored last night was ridiculous. He was almost stride for stride with the ball). I just don't think it's necessary for Owens to gain velocity to have a very high ceiling as a starter.
As for the "no way he's an 'ace'" ... eh, pretty meaningless discussion that has no real end, I guess, now that I start to respond. I think if he somehow gains above-average-to-plus control on his FB, then he could be. But, honestly, that's probably like saying, "If Garin Cecchini could have plus power, he'd be a consistent All-Star." Possibly true, completely unknowable, and not really likely enough to bother thinking about, let alone arguing about.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 29, 2013 15:09:08 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't disagree with the velocity point. I'm just saying it's sorta secondary to me. Sure, faster is better. That pretty much goes without saying. Miguel Cabrera would be a better player if he could run like Jacoby Ellsbury (side point: the run Jacoby scored last night was ridiculous. He was almost stride for stride with the ball). I just don't think it's necessary for Owens to gain velocity to have a very high ceiling as a starter. As for the "no way he's an 'ace'" ... eh, pretty meaningless discussion that has no real end, I guess, now that I start to respond. I think if he somehow gains above-average-to-plus control on his FB, then he could be. But, honestly, that's probably like saying, "If Garin Cecchini could have plus power, he'd be a consistent All-Star." Possibly true, completely unknowable, and not really likely enough to bother thinking about, let alone arguing about. It's a pointless discussion if you want to debate the definition of "ace". But regardless of what some like to believe, there's a definition there, and roughly speaking it means you're one of the 5-10 best starters in baseball. And Owens isn't that guy, at all. That's not a knock on him, but he's just not.
|
|
|
Post by njsox on Aug 29, 2013 16:42:53 GMT -5
Completely off-topic, but you youngsters may be amused, or shocked, or dismayed, to know that Maddux was completely underappreciated as a Cub, because, really and truly, no one understood park effects. No writers, few GMs. He was a FA and I thought the Sox should go to to any lengths to sign him, because he had secretly been an ace or near-ace for four years (averaging 119 ERA+ and 4.4 WAR) and at age 26 had become the best pitcher in baseball. And although he was coming off a CY when the Braves signed him, I don't recall that there was that much competition for him. He was regarded as a very good pitcher who was just coming off one great year, instead of a great pitcher who was coming off a mind-blowing one. The Yankees offered a boatload for him and he took less to go to the Braves. He definitely was highly coveted.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 29, 2013 17:01:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by westcoastfan on Aug 29, 2013 18:09:31 GMT -5
Fenwaythehardway youre right....it is a pointless discussion with you. Whats Owens got to do for you to think he could be an ace? Strike oout everyone he faces? Only let a ball get hit to the out field every third game? Would you say he was one of the top 5-10 pitchers in the Double AA? Would he be considered the ace of the Sea Dogs? Was he the ace of Salem? Why dont you pay attention to what the catchers who have caught him say? But what would they know? The kid has been nails since the second month of his pro career but there will always be contrarians out there for the sake of it. As I stated earlier, the radar gun has become far too important. A player should ultimately be judged on their results. Owens' numbers are due to the fact that he has great stuff. Thats what Cherington , his coaches and managers say. And great stuff doesnt mean great velocity...it means great stuff. And great stuff means movement and swing and miss capability. He is an ace now. He will be an ace in the future.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 29, 2013 18:17:19 GMT -5
And the Cubs had offered him in mid-season slightly more than the Braves eventually did. The idea that nobody except one heroic sabermetrician knew that Maddox was not "a very good pitcher who was just coming off one great year," but "a great pitcher" is pretty much total nonsense. People didn't know park effects, didn't know that Wrigley Field was easy to hit in? C'mon.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 29, 2013 18:23:44 GMT -5
Fenwaythehardway youre right....it is a pointless discussion with you. Whats Owens got to do for you to think he could be an ace? Strike oout everyone he faces? Only let a ball get hit to the out field every third game? Would you say he was one of the top 5-10 pitchers in the Double AA? Would he be considered the ace of the Sea Dogs? Was he the ace of Salem? Why dont you pay attention to what the catchers who have caught him say? But what would they know? The kid has been nails since the second month of his pro career but there will always be contrarians out there for the sake of it. As I stated earlier, the radar gun has become far too important. A player should ultimately be judged on their results. Owens' numbers are due to the fact that he has great stuff. Thats what Cherington , his coaches and managers say. And great stuff doesnt mean great velocity...it means great stuff. And great stuff means movement and swing and miss capability. He is an ace now. He will be an ace in the future. He's going to be one of the ten best pitchers in baseball? Because if that's what you're saying, I'm going to move on from arguing with you and start asking for a cash bet.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 29, 2013 18:34:00 GMT -5
I don't know too many aces with Owens' walk rates.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Aug 29, 2013 19:04:26 GMT -5
so long as walks + hits per IP is elite, it doesn't matter if you get it the hard way. For a pitch who can get that many swing and miss, I imagine there will be many poor contacts as well, so low BABIP is not a fluke after 129.1 innings = 388 outs - 161 SO for 227 outs on BABIP vs 78 hits. I think his current grade of 6 - above average, is fair, the but the upside of 7 is still possible.
|
|
|
Post by westcoastfan on Aug 29, 2013 19:17:37 GMT -5
I dont know of too many pitchers who lead their organizations starters in wins, era, strike outs, batting average against, ops against, are second in whip ,who arent considered an ace. As far as the walk rate, you might want to see how many of those walks came on 3/2 pitches which is another reflection of his swing and miss stuff. If the batter cant hit the ball and put the ball in play then the walk rate will be higher. The walk rate will go down in the bigs because guys will actually be able to make contact and thus 'get themselves out' but right now batters are over matched. I would also point out that amongst all the top strike out guys in the minors Owens has give up the least home runs...Only one hr since early May. I would think that there would also be an allowance for even more improvement, thus I wonder how someone today can say without doubt that he couldnt be an ace. Right now he is the best pitcher in the Eastern League at 21 years old. He was the best pitcher in the Carolina league this year. Or is the best pitcher in each league the guy with the 3-10 record with the 6.98 era , 268 opponents batting average, but throws a nice straight 97 mph fast ball. Like I say...97mph toward the plate, 120mph as it goes over the left field fence
|
|
|
Post by ikonos on Aug 29, 2013 19:42:15 GMT -5
I dont know of too many pitchers who lead their organizations starters in wins, era, strike outs, batting average against, ops against, are second in whip ,who arent considered an ace. As far as the walk rate, you might want to see how many of those walks came on 3/2 pitches which is another reflection of his swing and miss stuff. If the batter cant hit the ball and put the ball in play then the walk rate will be higher. The walk rate will go down in the bigs because guys will actually be able to make contact and thus 'get themselves out' but right now batters are over matched. I would also point out that amongst all the top strike out guys in the minors Owens has give up the least home runs...Only one hr since early May. I would think that there would also be an allowance for even more improvement, thus I wonder how someone today can say without doubt that he couldnt be an ace. Right now he is the best pitcher in the Eastern League at 21 years old. He was the best pitcher in the Carolina league this year. Or is the best pitcher in each league the guy with the 3-10 record with the 6.98 era , 268 opponents batting average, but throws a nice straight 97 mph fast ball. Like I say...97mph toward the plate, 120mph as it goes over the left field fence Not sure if that explain the walk rate. By your description those batters should be getting out by SO or weakly hit PO/GO. I get your enthusiasm for HO and many here share it but this might be stretching it a bit.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Aug 29, 2013 19:49:01 GMT -5
Keith Law wants in the discussion:
JR (Sarasota)
What is Henry Owens ceiling? 89-92 and still misses a ton of bats---late movement? Klaw (2:03 PM)
Been throwing harder than that, plus hitters do not see the ball out of his hand. Ceiling is probably a 2.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 29, 2013 20:08:16 GMT -5
I dont know of too many pitchers who lead their organizations starters in wins, era, strike outs, batting average against, ops against, are second in whip ,who arent considered an ace. You're scouting the stats. Don't.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Aug 29, 2013 20:55:01 GMT -5
Fenwaythehardway youre right....it is a pointless discussion with you. Whats Owens got to do for you to think he could be an ace? Strike oout everyone he faces? Only let a ball get hit to the out field every third game? Would you say he was one of the top 5-10 pitchers in the Double AA? Would he be considered the ace of the Sea Dogs? Was he the ace of Salem? Why dont you pay attention to what the catchers who have caught him say? But what would they know? The kid has been nails since the second month of his pro career but there will always be contrarians out there for the sake of it. As I stated earlier, the radar gun has become far too important. A player should ultimately be judged on their results. Owens' numbers are due to the fact that he has great stuff. Thats what Cherington , his coaches and managers say. And great stuff doesnt mean great velocity...it means great stuff. And great stuff means movement and swing and miss capability. He is an ace now. He will be an ace in the future. Not a minor leaguer, especially in A ball.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 29, 2013 23:43:07 GMT -5
And the Cubs had offered him in mid-season slightly more than the Braves eventually did. The idea that nobody except one heroic sabermetrician knew that Maddox was not "a very good pitcher who was just coming off one great year," but "a great pitcher" is pretty much total nonsense. People didn't know park effects, didn't know that Wrigley Field was easy to hit in? C'mon. OK, selective memory was at work here! 1) With very few exceptions, baseball writers didn't know park affects and didn't get how good he was with the Cubs. Baseball writing was dominated by old school guys like Tracy Ringolsby. Imagine that there were no Gordon Edes, and that almost everyone had insight on the level of Cafardo and Shaughnessy. I just happened to find some quotes from Shaughesssy's 1989 season preview, where he called the Astros rotation "formidable" but noted that the team didn't score enough runs, concluding "No new story here." Of course, the previous year the Astros, when not playing in the Astrodome, had ranked second-worst in road ERA and fourth best in road OPS. (The CHB also suggested we trade Boggs (8.2 WAR) and John Dopson (acquired that winter, 1.9 WAR) to the Mariners for Mark Langston (3.34 ERA, 5.6 WAR) and 3B Jim Presley (635 OPS, -0.8 WAR). Boggs had 5 HR and 58 RBI; Pressly 14 and 62, so Dan clearly thought we were getting a decent chunk of Boggs' value back.) 2) The Red Sox (or Lou Gorman specifically) didn't understand park affects. The Sox, always desperate for pitching, did not go after Maddux, presumably because they thought he would be overpaid. This was a regime that never understood what Beehive Stadium was doing to hitters at New Britain, who sent Sam Horn back there after he'd actually had a very good park-adjusted year, and who traded Jeff Bagwell two years previously because they had no idea that his park-adjusted line at New Britain was astounding. 3) Obviously by this time, a good many GMs did understand park affects. 3) Clearly I didn't follow Madduux's free agency closely, once I realized the Sox weren't interested. I won't assert that I'd forgotten he turned down more money from the Yankees, because I'm not sure if I ever knew that to begin with!
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 30, 2013 0:36:43 GMT -5
It's a pointless discussion if you want to debate the definition of "ace". But regardless of what some like to believe, there's a definition there, and roughly speaking it means you're one of the 5-10 best starters in baseball. And Owens isn't that guy, at all. That's not a knock on him, but he's just not. Logically, a #1 starter is one of the top 15 starters in baseball, which is to say only the first division clubs have one (and the second division clubs lack a #5). So an ace would be a guy who can be counted on to be a #1, because he's shown that talent consistently when healthy ... and there are probably 10 of those at any given time. I'm pretty sure the claim that Owens can never be such a guy (which was even stronger in another post of yours) is logically indefensible. Let me try to demolish it. You're talking about a guy whose current strengths are tremendous deception that seems to add a few effective mph to his 92-93 FB (as reported in ST and in Chris Mellen's 6/4 report here; he appears to have lost 1 or 2 mph as the season has worn on), and a projects-as-70 change. He is certainly capable of adding a few mph as he fills out. Guys do that all the time; John Lester went from 88 to 93 in two years. The odds may be against it, but we're looking at so many guys that it's fair to say that it happens routinely. As I demonstrated upthread with the breakdown of tall LHP pitching prospects, he is certainly capable of halving his walk rate. Both Sabathia and Sale did it, roughly. Again, the odds are against it, but if it happened, no one would be confused or, perhaps, even surprised ... just very pleased. Again, we've seen it happen. He is perfectly capable of improving the projects-as-50 curve to a 60. Happens all the time. He is perfectly capable of adding a fourth average to plus pitch, the way Buchholz added his cutter (after junking his slider) at the MLB level. And we're not even thinking here about this hypothetical pitch becoming a weapon equal to any in his repertoire, the way it did for Clay. Well, the guy I've just described is about as good as Johan Santana (another guy who halved his walk rate) in his prime. Probably better, when you add the deception. His best-case ceiling (or "cathedral ceiling" if you wan to be too clever poetic ) is pretty obviously the best pitcher in baseball. The odds against it are slim, but "all" it would take is the combination of the first two things above and maybe one of the other two, each of which has a chance that's probably in the 10% - 50% range. And if his best-case ceiling is that high, I think his realistic ceiling is clearly top 10 pitcher in baseball. And a final argument: I don't know how anyone watching Koji Uehara could continue to think that deception isn't real, and that Owens' is instead some kind of smoke and mirrors that will suddenly cease to play at the MLB level. MLB players have not been selected to pick up the ball more quickly out of the hands of the very few pitchers who have plus deception. That's going to play the same everywhere. So, if you could magically translate his deception into the extra mph that it is equivalent to ... is there a soul on the planet that would doubt that he has #1 ceiling? A 21 y/o wild LHP who already sits 95-96 (with ordinary deception) and is developing a deadly change and good slow curve, and at age 20/21 was 2nd (to 23 y/o Danny Winkler) in K rate in all of high-A, and after a late-season promotion is second among all AA starters with 20+ IP (to another 23 y/o, Danny Salazar) ... but somehow doesn't have ace ceiling? C'mon, get real.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 30, 2013 5:30:37 GMT -5
And the Cubs had offered him in mid-season slightly more than the Braves eventually did. The idea that nobody except one heroic sabermetrician knew that Maddox was not "a very good pitcher who was just coming off one great year," but "a great pitcher" is pretty much total nonsense. People didn't know park effects, didn't know that Wrigley Field was easy to hit in? C'mon. OK, selective memory was at work here! 1) With very few exceptions, baseball writers didn't know park affects and didn't get how good he was with the Cubs. Baseball writing was dominated by old school guys like Tracy Ringolsby. Imagine that there were no Gordon Edes, and that almost everyone had insight on the level of Cafardo and Shaughnessy. I just happened to find some quotes from Shaughesssy's 1989 season preview, where he called the Astros rotation "formidable" but noted that the team didn't score enough runs, concluding "No new story here." Of course, the previous year the Astros, when not playing in the Astrodome, had ranked second-worst in road ERA and fourth best in road OPS. (The CHB also suggested we trade Boggs (8.2 WAR) and John Dopson (acquired that winter, 1.9 WAR) to the Mariners for Mark Langston (3.34 ERA, 5.6 WAR) and 3B Jim Presley (635 OPS, -0.8 WAR). Boggs had 5 HR and 58 RBI; Pressly 14 and 62, so Dan clearly thought we were getting a decent chunk of Boggs' value back.) 2) The Red Sox (or Lou Gorman specifically) didn't understand park affects. The Sox, always desperate for pitching, did not go after Maddux, presumably because they thought he would be overpaid. This was a regime that never understood what Beehive Stadium was doing to hitters at New Britain, who sent Sam Horn back there after he'd actually had a very good park-adjusted year, and who traded Jeff Bagwell two years previously because they had no idea that his park-adjusted line at New Britain was astounding. 3) Obviously by this time, a good many GMs did understand park affects. 3) Clearly I didn't follow Madduux's free agency closely, once I realized the Sox weren't interested. I won't assert that I'd forgotten he turned down more money from the Yankees, because I'm not sure if I ever knew that to begin with! It's good to see some admission that one of your heroic tales is wrong, but you're still making very bad arguments. You argued that people didn't understand park effects and did not understand that Maddox was very good in Wrigley Field. Citing extreme examples like Lou Gorman on a bizarre minor park he'd never seen and Dan Shaughnessy on the Astrodome does not help; this is like saying "human beings can't hit curveballs" and then citing three guys who can't. Even scouts whose idea of statistics was to count the empty bottles in the morning to see how much they drank knew that Wrigley Field, which was on everyone's cable TV screen every day, was small, with a low fence, just as everyone knew 60 years ago that it was very impressive for a RHH to hit 46 hrs in Yankee Stadium. And your "presumably" on why the Sox did not go after Maddox has no value whatsoever; maybe they, unlike the Yankees, knew he would not pitch in the Northeast (I am not asserting this--just saying you have no evidence). We all have selective memories; it's one reason we should be careful about telling stories in which we are the lone hero.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 30, 2013 7:39:39 GMT -5
So, if you could magically translate his deception into the extra mph that it is equivalent to ... is there a soul on the planet that would doubt that he has #1 ceiling? A 21 y/o wild LHP who already sits 95-96 (with ordinary deception) and is developing a deadly change and good slow curve, and at age 20/21 was 2nd (to 23 y/o Danny Winkler) in K rate in all of high-A, and after a late-season promotion is second among all AA starters with 20+ IP (to another 23 y/o, Danny Salazar) ... but somehow doesn't have ace ceiling? C'mon, get real. So basically you're saying that the entire scouting community has no ability to judge or account for deception? I mean, deception is great and all, but ok, translate his fastball to 95-96. There's a TON of pitchers who throw 95 and aren't aces. I don't know if you know this, but MLB hitters can destroy 95. Sure, if you want to imagine the absolute best case scenario, where everything improves and nothing degrades, then I guess he could theoretically reach ace status. But the thing is, when you're talking about a perfect world scenario to get him to that level, you're actually making the case that he's not going to get to that level. Because we don't live in a perfect world.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 30, 2013 7:52:03 GMT -5
This thread combines two of the worst types of discussions that continually re-occur on these boards-- "what is an ace" and "what is his ceiling". Lets move away from these mostly semantic discussions. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 30, 2013 7:57:34 GMT -5
I like Owens, but here is the problem, as I see it: several pitchers are excellent even though they only throw 89-92. Quite a few pitchers succeed with walk rates over 12%. I can't think of any who succeed with both.
In the minors, Owens deception and pitchability play up, as does his plus curve and change against the type of hitters who are in Double-A or High A because they can't hit a curve or identify a change. In the majors though? Where pitch recognition and plate discipline are key skills, those players are going to see those pitches coming. If he misses in the zone with his fastball, those pitches are going to be punished, because major league hitters will know that it's a fastball, and if it's 91 they are going to destroy it.
The comparison with a guy like Uehara because he throws 89-91 doesn't hold any water. He's walked 4% of his batters. He's putting his fastball and his splitter exactly where he intends. A pitcher can succeed without hitting spots, and he can succeed without a plus fastball, but I'm not sure he can succeed without both.
That's why, for me, Owens is still behind Ranaudo, Barnes, and Webster. Maybe his perfect-world projection is higher, but there's just a much, much higher chance that he doesn't reach it. That shouldn't be taken as an insult - he's a top eight prospect in a very deep system, he's a young pitcher in Double-A, and may have the highest upside of any pitcher in the system. It's just my feeling that he's much further away from success than his dominance at Salem would lead us to believe.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Aug 30, 2013 9:03:24 GMT -5
This thread combines two of the worst types of discussions that continually re-occur on these boards-- "what is an ace" and "what is his ceiling". Lets move away from these mostly semantic discussions. Thanks. And that, my friend, is why I called it a pointless discussion to try to head it off at the pass. I'm sorry for my part in introducing it ... In the end, it seems that everyone is finding different ways of saying that Henry Owens needs to improve his command.
|
|
|