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.
8/27 ML Gameday Thread: DSL Game 2; Owens for the Dogs
|
Post by jmei on Aug 27, 2013 23:44:58 GMT -5
I am thinking Miller's real weakness today is lack of confidence, leading to wild pitches, not physical lack of control? I don't know why this fallacy continues to exist with wild pitchers like Daisuke and Miller. They don't walk a lot of guys because they aren't confident in their stuff. They walk a lot of guys because they cannot repeat their mechanics consistently and lack command and control of their pitches.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 27, 2013 23:53:20 GMT -5
I am thinking Miller's real weakness today is lack of confidence, leading to wild pitches, not physical lack of control? I don't know why this fallacy continues to exist with wild pitchers like Daisuke and Miller. They don't walk a lot of guys because they aren't confident in their stuff. They walk a lot of guys because they cannot repeat their mechanics consistently and lack command and control of their pitches. The urge to put them on the psychiatrist's couch, instead of on the mound and watching video, persists.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Aug 28, 2013 0:17:49 GMT -5
I am thinking Miller's real weakness today is lack of confidence, leading to wild pitches, not physical lack of control? I don't know why this fallacy continues to exist with wild pitchers like Daisuke and Miller. They don't walk a lot of guys because they aren't confident in their stuff. They walk a lot of guys because they cannot repeat their mechanics consistently and lack command and control of their pitches. Yes, yes, yes.. Add on that Miller is very tall, has had his entire mechanics torn down and rebuilt multiple times that left them so awful? I recall one time seeing them with Florida he was falling down nearly after each pitch and his velocity was sitting 89-91. The team has done an outstanding job of putting video to work getting Andrew back to his old UNC self. What the team now has is as good as it will ever get and Miller is a prime example of why despise teams tinkering with pitchers who have outstanding success mechanics in the 1st place. Something else.. Remember when Boston 1st got Miller and Bard was jam up? They were friends at UNC, but Bard was still on his game and Miller was the one with messed up mechanics and now it's the other way around. Have wondered if Miller could help work with Bard on his old UNC mechanics?
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Aug 28, 2013 7:42:04 GMT -5
Point was more that its easy to dream on potential, and get disappointed in what you have currently. I dont know how Miller comps to Owens as a prospect, but then again, i never said he did, don...
FWIW, Miller had better velo, but never had full consistent seasons, never got a lot of innings at one level, etc. i do think its sort of a 'rich get richer' sort of thing... Better teams can afford to wait and let guys come on their own. Xander forced his way to Boston, same with Workman who was just consistent and good everywhere he went. The 2014 rotation looks pretty decent-to-good depending on health, without Ranaudo/Webster (the next two guys up). Though Owens may have already passed up Barnes on e depth chart, he can continue to grow, get better, develop pitches/take risks in a low pressure environment, and come up in 2015 sometime. If he can add velocity, he will have every opportunity to do it. I just have to caution myself against the 'if' game and just appreciate the season he is having, with great numbers at a good age at AA.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Aug 28, 2013 9:14:12 GMT -5
I don't know why this fallacy continues to exist with wild pitchers like Daisuke and Miller. They don't walk a lot of guys because they aren't confident in their stuff. They walk a lot of guys because they cannot repeat their mechanics consistently and lack command and control of their pitches. The urge to put them on the psychiatrist's couch, instead of on the mound and watching video, persists. The power bats that strike out too much and refuse to learn better strike zone judgement need some company. Call it group therapy.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 28, 2013 10:23:38 GMT -5
Agree on Miller's problems being mechanical, but Daisuke really did seem to have approach issues. I'm hesitant to call it a psychological or confidence problem because that's pretty far out of my league, but he pitched more aggressively with runners on base than with the bases empty. In his first two seasons (i.e. the ones that were good) he had an 11.2% walk rate with nobody on and a 10.6% walk rate with men on base, which seems even more backwards when you consider that the walk rate with nobody on base (2013 numbers) is 7.1% and with men on it is 8.9%. Which makes sense - pitchers try to pound the strike zone with nobody on, and pitch more cautiously when a home run hurts more. It's possible that his delivery was just more repeatable from the stretch, but Daisuke had a compact motion that seems like it would've lent itself to a consistent release point.
EDIT: More from the "Daisuke Matsuzaka was the most frustrating pitcher I've ever watched and there are no lessons to be gained from him" file. In 2008, leadoff batters had a .233/.356/.329 line, while batters after that were .203/.310/.323. 174 PAs is something a tad short of a full sample, but good lord that was agonizing.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Aug 28, 2013 20:08:16 GMT -5
I had a friend who was quite a good poet ... did she dream of getting a poem in The New Yorker? Of course she did, and she got at least one personalized rejection of the "this is good, please keep sending us stuff" variety. But I don't think she was disappointed, since she was literally selling everything she wrote to various small press mags. You ought to dream of Olympian heights, and be satisfied with whatever good you do get. Gotta say, as the husband of a similarly-successful poet, the use of the word "selling" in that context amuses me.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 29, 2013 11:27:24 GMT -5
I had a friend who was quite a good poet ... did she dream of getting a poem in The New Yorker? Of course she did, and she got at least one personalized rejection of the "this is good, please keep sending us stuff" variety. But I don't think she was disappointed, since she was literally selling everything she wrote to various small press mags. You ought to dream of Olympian heights, and be satisfied with whatever good you do get. Gotta say, as the husband of a similarly-successful poet, the use of the word "selling" in that context amuses me. LOL! Yeah, she was still living with her parents after graduating college. I think those mags tended to pay $25 or so a pop, being self-published labors of love. But she didn't have a single poem (or short story) getting moldy in a trunk; I occasionally had to remind her how unusual that was. She'd even polished up the stuff she'd written in high school and published it all.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Aug 29, 2013 11:37:22 GMT -5
Oh yeah, it's great to be able to publish. My wife gets published routinely, and I always remind her how rare that is ... what little money there is is in the major prizes, though. And I've seen the process of those prizes fairly close up; it's not exactly a strict meritocracy.
|
|
|