|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 31, 2014 13:15:04 GMT -5
Bye Lack. According to nearly every other player you where a absolute classy guy and you provided for us past year. Wish you well
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 31, 2014 11:41:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 31, 2014 9:57:32 GMT -5
See You Later LesTerrific!
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 23, 2014 4:40:25 GMT -5
He caught my eye - following this awesome site - last year when he delivered week in week out and aside from some bumps on the road in the first few weeks is on it again. Since he really is holding his own in double a I think he deserves his own thread.
What do you think will he become?
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 22, 2014 16:12:49 GMT -5
Owens: his plus changeup and deception make his fastball play up, gets late swings even on high-80s velo. He'll throw his changeup in any count, throwing it for strikes or doubling up on it (but he needs to keep it down). The curveball comes and goes-- it's league-average when it plays up, but in its slower range, hitters can read its spin and either let it go or crush it. His control has improved, and if he continues to improve his command and his curveball, he could be a #2 or #3 starter. Swihart: athletic, good footwork and hands, 1.91 pop time, two-way threat with above-average potential. 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. Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 21, 2014 10:03:59 GMT -5
Happy birthday from Germany Henry. Rooting for you. The unearned-run stat just another nice detail about the promise of this nice piching prospect!
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 20, 2014 13:49:57 GMT -5
Without ever having him seen play his throwing percentages of the last two years indicate he has got a good arm and a quick release and good awareness. Would be great if someone who has see him can tell, if this is true.
Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 20, 2014 5:50:05 GMT -5
Just saw the Pawtuckett box score: cecchini in lf!? Did that happen before?
Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 19, 2014 13:38:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 18, 2014 11:37:58 GMT -5
with that caveat, the overall impression was that he had improved his control and perhaps by extension, his command. If you read any of the three posts above yours, it would be pretty clear that you don't improve the latter by extrapolating from an improvement of the former. It seems very likely that there is a connection between both. It was pointed out before. Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 17, 2014 7:45:15 GMT -5
When Koji retires, why not co-closers? Manage the 8th and 9th with Tazawa and Miller. Using Miller in the 8th if some lefties coming up. Holding him until the 9th if they will be up then. Same with Tazawa. If righties in the 8th, use him there. Let Miller close. If lefties in the 8th, let Miller handle them and Tazawa close. Would like to keep both since it appears Breslow has fallen off the cliff. Have to think an injury there. He's too good to be this bad. I like that in theory, just think it would be hard to manage.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 17, 2014 2:48:25 GMT -5
Before I type what I'm about to type, let's try not to stray from the topic because it has topic derailer potential written all over it. I don't know what the Sox brass will conclude but one thing I'm pretty sure they will think about is moving Pedroia to left field. It has nothing to do with Pedoia's capabilities at second where he's clearly an elite second baseman. Fact is though, Dustin has a 3-4 year history of injuries which haven't kept him out of the lineup but have given plausible explanations of lower than expected production. If we take the reasonable assumption that left field would make Pedroia far less likely to have a minor injury, we have to ask, what's more valuable, Petey as a healthy left fielder or an often times injured second baseman ? Phew, I'd say the latter... It's not a given Dustin gets his power back and playing that at lf seems just problematic. At 2B his defense alone makes him a valuable player... Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 15, 2014 7:09:17 GMT -5
Owens not Webster just missed. Whoops. I shouldn't be posting here while working, multitasking is just not my thing...
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 15, 2014 5:00:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 15, 2014 4:05:56 GMT -5
1. Bogaerts 2. Webster 3. Betts 4. Swihart
While I get the sentiment that nobody should be untoucheble, I really think it's that much better to win with players you developed. I mean, a whole lot of reason the yankees of the 90s will be considered all time greats is they had Jeter, Mariano, Posada grown under their eyes.
I think those four players have the potential to be great. And, to add: Two of those (Webster and Betts) could really shatter their projections (they already did, partly), and wouldn't that be a great story? Man, maybe I just love underdog-stories...
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 14, 2014 10:25:57 GMT -5
I think it's very interesting to see Hank being aware of the doubts about his projection. This and the quotes form Battista seem to prove or at least hint that Owens isn't your typical pitching prospect but, as Pedro said in ST a "natural". I for my part still believe he will be able to stay ahead of his projections even at the Major league level. He just does seem to have something which is not easy to figur out by scouting him on a few opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 9, 2014 10:58:34 GMT -5
Just to deny any misunderstanding: I totally respect Ians opinion as well, he is the professional and I really have no clue at all. I just really try to understand the whole thing a bit more...
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 9, 2014 8:42:29 GMT -5
Exactly this: Can we make the assumption that the current scouts maybe learned from Buchholz massratings (to a larger context, given his phases of domination, the've maybe not been so wrong then) and therefore are more modest in Henrys rating? I totally get the arguments and think they're right. They just seem to be a much better indicator for Henrys floor rather than his ceiling. If he adds anothe pitch and shapens that curve some more, that's where I see his ceiling and I still think it's hard to think this would translate in a 3. And it's not like we doubters of this rating are alone in it: Pedro calls him a "natural", Marrero said he's "the next Kershaw". Those two examples are not scouts but I bet they know their business...
Going further, I think part of the very carful usage of the #1 and even the #2 rating is, that scouts seem to be very cautios. A sign could be that Ian was very quick by counting not enough current pitchers pitching on a #1 to #2 ranking and had to correct himself immediatly. Maybe there are more pitcher out there who are able to pitch like aces at least for 1 or 2 seasons than we feel like there are?
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 9, 2014 2:36:12 GMT -5
I have to say, there really was nothing new. And the worst part is: I'm still not able to understand why Owens, if he still is having problems with command, is able not only to cut the walk rate but at the same time doesn't give up more hits! If Ian would've explained such details I'd be more than willing to follow his points, but this was really only a rant about only scouting box scores (deservingly) but not really explaining, why the box score might fool us. Now I still don't know what Owens does so extremely well to fool all these hitters in double a and why it doesn't play in the bigs. It's not like the average pitcher with the ratings Ian gave Owens is putting up the same show at this level...
Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 7, 2014 8:23:18 GMT -5
He's probably not the best pitching prospect in the minors, for the simple reason that he has a limited arsenal, and #1 starters are almost always guys with four decent pitches. So I'm not rejecting the reality that scouting information can tell us that guy A will lose more when he moves up to MLB than guy B. Owens is a guy A, because he's a 2 1/2 pitch pitcher. He obviously has a #1 ceiling, because adding an effective fourth pitch is sometimes not that hard -- at a similar point in his career Buchholz didn't have his cutter, which has actually become his best pitch (and, I think, barely had the slider that he later turned into the cutter). Until Owens develops a fourth pitch, though, I'd project him as a #2. So is it that hard to believe that some people would give the same exact description you just did but conclude with a 3 and not a 2? It just seems like much ado about nothing, especially when these labels are so arbitrary and nebulous. I could imagine the scouts Eric (and others, including me) is not understanding in their rating wouldn't give Hank a #1 ceiling and therefore the debate goes on and on. It's rather less the rating about him now than his chances succeeding in the bigs (esprecially how much success he's going to have), a debate nearly completely about potential for the future. It might be nitpicking, but at the same time it's what I really don't understand: Given his age and his success against other prospects, why would we shy away from thinkin that he at least can gain in terms of better ability compared to the players he is competing right now? You nearly have to think he'll stop getting better to defend a #3 rating given his domination at the current level. Looking at the smooth transition of Ranaudo, Workman and to a lesser degree Barnes afer their promotions and including, that they haven't been nearly as dominant compared to Owens, he could be a potential #4 in the bigs already.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 5, 2014 9:18:45 GMT -5
But that's the thing: Eric mentiones often enough a possible reason for the outcome of the scouting report and by no means said it was a bad one. He just implied there might be a factor, and in the large picture an unusual one, that is not included in it.
But I agree that I'd feel much safer about his poential playing out in the show if he could add a fourth pitch. And of course continue to sharpen his command. I don't think it'd be necessary to add speed to his fastball. One of the good things about Hank is that I don't fear for his arm to explode like you can see with many other young SPs...
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 5, 2014 7:47:22 GMT -5
Eric with all due respect you aren't being honest. Those who think Owens is a future 3 or 4 have been very explicit about why they feel that way. Lack of plus fastball command or velocity, and the lack of a really good breaking pitch. Younger players will swing and chase his secondary offerings.more often. You have also falsely stated that Owen's deception is being ignored because they don't understand it. This is also false. The deception is cited all the time. For you to continually make these.false claims about others is really arrogant and insulting. Especially when they have seen the player play and you haven't Could you please stop making these false claims? As eric already defended himself against your claims (which really wasn't necessary since they've been completely withput reasin), I won't do the same. But please: Just because someone states an opinion about a phenomenon which for many of us is not really undestandeble (Hank being this successful relative to his age and competition but still being rated very very cautionary) and giving reasonable and relatively new explanations for his theory, I just don't get how you can attack him being arrogant and lying all the time. To give you a hinch: Your behavior doesn't make him look bad but yourself. To get back on topic: Given how bad he must have looked in his last start relative to his better starts (I'm referring to Phils reports) I expected a really bad statline. Seeing him only given up 2 runs and nearly getting a QS could show, in my opinion, that he's able to ballte through a game and being successful even without having his best stuff. Another sign why the "3" rankings seems to low to me, given that it'd be the average line for a 3 and not one, where a typical "3" has a bad day...
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 3, 2014 8:21:47 GMT -5
I'm generally indifferent to the Twitter as a platform, but the key is to just not follow the people who post that drivel. You get to pick what you see. So 90% of my feed is interesting, and the other 10% is Marc Normandin talking about wrestling. Thx, now I know it was a good decision to resist to follow him.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 3, 2014 8:17:58 GMT -5
Based on these ratings and considering the defensive ability of Swihart and Coyle, Mookie while he played in Portland it really is interesting if some of the very good reuslts of our SP at Portland are supported by this advanced defense. It will be interesting to see if with the promotion of Marrero maybe a slight bump in the results of our SP are to follow.
|
|