People are amazing our rotation has been the worse in baseball. Now we're complaining about a top 30 prospect who has potential to be a solid pitcher on this staff for the next 5 plus years. Just stop.
Henry Owens to Debut Tuesday 8/4
- Thread starter Marbleheader
- Start date
Hamels is a good comp because of his dominant change up. He works in the 89-94 range, consistently 91-92. Scouting reports have Owens at 88-92; we will see if he's toward the high or low end of that range. Right handers throw on average 2 mph harder than lefties, 91 vs 89. That would put Owens at average or better. If Owens change up is as advertised, it will be more about commanding the strike zone than his fastball.
Only 2 of the top 30 (qualified) pitchers in ERA have a BB/9 above 3. (Volquez and Martinez) The average fastball velocity of the top 30 pitchers is just over 92, they walk about 2.3 batters per 9 innings and strike out a batter every inning. Owens averaging 90 mph would be fine for a lefty - walking more than 3 per 9 is much worse.
Only 2 of the top 30 (qualified) pitchers in ERA have a BB/9 above 3. (Volquez and Martinez) The average fastball velocity of the top 30 pitchers is just over 92, they walk about 2.3 batters per 9 innings and strike out a batter every inning. Owens averaging 90 mph would be fine for a lefty - walking more than 3 per 9 is much worse.
Looking forward to Owens getting some starts under his belt. The team could certainly use some top end pitching, but all quality pitching is useful and valuable and necessary. If he can fit in the mix somewhere -- even at the back end -- then that's a big win.
As for DH3 you must remember that he's looking at this through the prism of his own desires. He wants to watch a good team now not later. In that light the youth movement is not terribly useful. Plus he's looking to get a rise. So chill out.
As for DH3 you must remember that he's looking at this through the prism of his own desires. He wants to watch a good team now not later. In that light the youth movement is not terribly useful. Plus he's looking to get a rise. So chill out.
jk333 said:
If he's anything like Johnson, he'll probably be on the lower end of that range. I suppose in retrospect Johnson's lower-than-advertised velocity may have been related to his elbow issue.
Given Owens' height (and presumably arm length) I'm guessing he'll have decent extension, releasing the ball closer to the plate than a shorter-armed pitcher. That could add up to a few extra MPH of perceived velocity to the hitter, as the hitter has slightly less time to track the ball since it's being released closer to the plate. Looking at the picture in this thread, it actually doesn't look like Owens gets as much extension on his landing foot as I'd hoped, but maybe just his arm/frame length could steal him an extra MPH or so. Plus the threat of the changeup should help. We'll see.
So what youre saying is if he displaces some other guy who hasn't been serviceable and doesn't have the upside, its a lateral move at worst? I'd agree.Plympton91 said:
jk333 said:
Hamels' throws his fastball at an average velocity of 92+ MPH. The difference of 2 MPH is huge sometimes. I like Owens but placing expectations on him of guys like Hamels and Lester is unrealistic. He lacks that raw power to dominate like that.
Regarding the Sox not being able to withstand a couple seasons of mediocrity for Owens, I vehemently disagree. This team is going to have to ride out some of its crap contracts, and to do so they need cheap innings from cost-controlled starters. They will not just be able to buy their way into a competent rotation, barring Punto Trade 2.0. So if they are going to have to fill out the back of the rotation with cheap arms, Owens is as good as anyone.
jscola85 said:
It's funny, though: his average of 92.1 (for both this year and 2014) is the highest of his career. He's actually throwing harder in his thirties. His average over his first five full seasons (ages 24-28) was 90.8, which is closer to what we've been led to expect for Owens.
jscola85 said:
2 mph can be huge, agreed. But in terms of comparison, Lester averages 92.4 mph on his fastball with cutter, curve and sliders his next most common pitches before the change-up. Hamels averages 91.1 mph on his fastball and his changeup is his second most used pitch. Hamels is the more appropriate comp for Owens. You're correct about the velocity and Hamels would be a ceiling for Owens but it doesn't look too outlandish to me. Lester is a different type of pitcher.
Edit - See Savin Hillbilly's post above. The 91.1 is for all PitchFx data per fangraphs. It will be exciting to see what Owens does pitch at given how much we've built it up in this thread!
That's Hamels' career number. He's been at 92 MPH on his four seam fastball the last two years. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of his cutters were mis-classified as fastballs and therefore hurting his fastball velocity. Just go watch a Hamels start - he rarely dips below 90. I suspect at least 50% of the fastballs we see from Owens sit 88-89. That's not an indictment on him, but I suspect he will be ~2 MPH below where Hamels sits. When you start looking at starters who can dominate with a fastball below 90 MPH, the list gets quite short, lefty or not.
Owens' fastball averaged 92 mph, touching 94 and dipping below 90 only twice. His location was not impressive -- he grooved numerous pitches in the first inning, and when he missed, he missed by too much to tempt the batter. Still the velocity separation is just as advertised, the movement on the slider is excellent, and the deception is very promising.
He looked decent. The stuff was maybe even a notch better than expected, but wow does he work up in the zone with his fastball.
Not only does that seem to be a bad place to put a mediocre heater, but he seems to be giving away his height advantage. He has been a flyball pitcher at AAA, so something to think about.
Not only does that seem to be a bad place to put a mediocre heater, but he seems to be giving away his height advantage. He has been a flyball pitcher at AAA, so something to think about.
jscola85 said:
Right, but why is that more relevant, for purposes of comparison with a 23-year-old Owens, than his velocity in his first few years?
Well he started with shaky command (and some bad BABIP luck) and ended by telegraphing a changeup. But in between he mowed down the Yankees in New York. I think it was an excellent beginning, even if there's still plenty of work to be done before he can truly establish himself. Not sure what more you could have (realistically) wanted.
It wasn't a spectacular start but he did enough to keep his team in the game. The same cannot be said for the bullpen gas can brigade.
He certainly threw a lot of pitches way upstairs. He also threw a fair number of pitches in the heart of the zone--and didn't get hurt on any of them. Oddly, all the damage the Yankees did was on pitches out of the zone--outside or low--to RHH:
Have to like what we saw, first inning jitters, but settled down. Got in trouble at the end when he grooved an 0-2 pitch down the middle to Young and then threw a very predictable 2-2 change-up to ARod. Probably nitpicking but maybe an experienced catcher/Vasquez provides better game calling in that situation.
One thing of concern is his control of his fastball with men on base plus I don't recall seeing his move to first (good or bad?). Maybe being 6'6" he doesn't have the body control out of the stretch just yet?
Either way I look forward to seeing him pitch the rest of the way in another lost season.
One thing of concern is his control of his fastball with men on base plus I don't recall seeing his move to first (good or bad?). Maybe being 6'6" he doesn't have the body control out of the stretch just yet?
Either way I look forward to seeing him pitch the rest of the way in another lost season.
Velocity was really encouraging, though missed his spots a fair bit. Didn't fully appreciate just how much he was working high in the zone until seeing that chart. Will be interesting to see if that's a trend that continues. Wei Yin Chen has had some pretty good success with similar stuff by spotting his fastball in the upper part of the zone.
The Yankees hitters interviewed after the game were mostly complimentary after the game, though perhaps that's just being polite.
The Yankees hitters interviewed after the game were mostly complimentary after the game, though perhaps that's just being polite.
How sad is it that after one start, you could make an argument that he is the 3 or 4th best pitcher on the 25 man roster. I am sure he will catch the suck from the rest of the pitching staff.Soxfan in Fla said:
jscola85 said:
These are very likely related as he was probably overthrowing. It was definitely an encouraging first start, though.
Is that the hitters sitting on his changeups in certain situations? Seemed like they were going to the well a lot. And also like something he can avoid pretty easily once he settles in and his command is there.Savin Hillbilly said:
I think the new slider is a really big deal.
I saw Owens a lot in Portland, and came to the conclusion that everything hinged on his curveball, which is so-so. On days when he couldn't throw that pitch for strikes, hitters would take the curve, sit on the fastball and take the change. He'd still rack up the Ks, but only by pitching really deep in counts, throwing too many pitches and issuing too many walks. The deception on the change was good enough that he wouldn't get hammered, but it clearly wasn't going to be sustainable against batters with the bat speed and pitch recognition to wait on the change and drive it. But on days when he had the curve working, he could pair it with the fastball early in counts for strikes, get ahead, and then get all sorts of whiffs, popups and poor contact on the change when hitters had to swing at apparent strikes.
The slider gives him both a backup plan for the curveball and another out pitch against lefties. If he could start to locate the slider in under the hands of righties, Andrew Miller style, it could add another dimension, and (I think) it could raise his ceiling quite a bit.
I saw Owens a lot in Portland, and came to the conclusion that everything hinged on his curveball, which is so-so. On days when he couldn't throw that pitch for strikes, hitters would take the curve, sit on the fastball and take the change. He'd still rack up the Ks, but only by pitching really deep in counts, throwing too many pitches and issuing too many walks. The deception on the change was good enough that he wouldn't get hammered, but it clearly wasn't going to be sustainable against batters with the bat speed and pitch recognition to wait on the change and drive it. But on days when he had the curve working, he could pair it with the fastball early in counts for strikes, get ahead, and then get all sorts of whiffs, popups and poor contact on the change when hitters had to swing at apparent strikes.
The slider gives him both a backup plan for the curveball and another out pitch against lefties. If he could start to locate the slider in under the hands of righties, Andrew Miller style, it could add another dimension, and (I think) it could raise his ceiling quite a bit.
All of this #3 or #4 type starter...a lot depends on the staff you're on. A #3 or 4 on this team this spring or summer could still be garbage. A 3 or a 4 on a Cardinals or Mets team right now, that would be something.
Owens could turn out to be really something. Someone mentioned Bumgarner. I would love to see Owens as somewhat of a sidewheeler too, hiding the ball for a long time from both RHBs and LHBs. But, he has to do what he has to do and that's not his style.
Owens could turn out to be really something. Someone mentioned Bumgarner. I would love to see Owens as somewhat of a sidewheeler too, hiding the ball for a long time from both RHBs and LHBs. But, he has to do what he has to do and that's not his style.
I thought he handled himself well and liked what i saw. Very happy he seemed to reign it in after the shaky first. I was listening to the Yankee broadcast last night and they were saying it would be a good idea to get him out of the game in the 5th. Good for the psyche and not have him face the top of the order one more time.
I agreed at the time....apparently Farrell did not.
He deserved better.
I agreed at the time....apparently Farrell did not.
He deserved better.
nvalvo said:
I agree. To lefties it can be a swing-and-miss pitch (he got Ellsbury swinging on it twice last night); he just has to keep it down and out of the middle of the zone. And it will help him vary his approach to hitters as he faces them a third or fourth time in a game.
The slider has lots of horizontal movement (from -1" to -9"), rather like a Dice-K slurve, and looks like it would be tough on LHB. Ellsbury is not usually especially vulnerable to lefties, but he looked badly fooled on those swings. The chart, though, suggests that its movement is not that easy to control, so I doubt that he'll ever be able to bust RHB inside with the slider. He's more likely to hit the batter.Savin Hillbilly said:
Well no shit. John Smoltz used to be a #3. That's not what they mean.Al Zarilla said:
Here's a good write up on it from BA ((via SBN ). http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/8/7/3226335/defining-1-2-3-4-5-starters
Owens certainly seems a #3 at this point. That's not to say he can't rise up, but that's the definition they are working with when they call him that.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Interesting writeup, and it shows how important it is to define terms before you start talking about who they do and don't apply to. Their definition of a #1 is very restrictive, I suspect more so than what most fans mean by it: "These are the guys who end up in the Hall of Fame if they last long enough." I would guess there are normally not more than about a half-dozen pitchers active at any given time who have a realistic shot at the Hall, and I would certainly expect that there would normally be more than a half-dozen #1's.
Also, it seems like there's a slight gap between their #2 definition and their #3, because the way they define the former sounds kind of 1.5-ish, and the way they define the latter sounds kind of 3.5-ish. I mean, Lieber, Tapani, Radke, yeah, OK. but Garland? Blanton? Westbrook? Those seem more like 4's. It's not clear to me where in their structure you would fit a Derek Lowe, for instance. In my own mental scheme I'd call him a #2, but I don't think he's good enough to qualify in their scheme. Yet he's clearly better than the guys they give as #3 examples.
Well OK, I'd never seen such a definition. Do you think it has caught on though? How do you fit Randy Johnson in there? I don't think you could say he ever had plus/plus command, but he was certainly an ace. His stuff was so nasty that hardly anybody could hit it, e.g., his slider, no matter where he put it. Outlier, I guess.Papelbon's Poutine said:
Al Zarilla said:
I think it has caught on among people who follow prospects at least semi-seriously because it's the standard that the prospect pundits use. It's what soxprospects.com uses. So when they're calling Henry Owens "a solid number three with a chance for more" they're talking about a guy who could be the best starter in a decent rotation if he hits his upside. That's a guy you can pitch in the first game of a playoff series and sometimes have the edge in the pitching matchup and even if you don't, you're not being completely outclassed.
But people see the "number three" terminology and, especially in Boston, they assume that means he's never going to be better than the third best pitcher in a decent rotation, and that's just nuts.
Now Owens probably isn't going to hit his ceiling, but that doesn't mean he can't be a damn good pitcher.
I think the pertinent takeaway is that if things go well, Owens will become a guy you can have as one of your four starters in a playoff series. The #1/2/3 stuff is a bit of semantics, especially for a team desperate for help both in the front and back of the roatation.
One other note now that his start vs. Detroit is confirmed - NYY and DET rank 2nd and 3rd, respectively, against lefties this in OPS. Certainly a bit of trial by fire for him in the first taste of the majors, and something to factor in when evaluating his early performance. His next normal turn would be home vs a much less dangerous Seattle lineup, at least.
Henry Owens' second start is today. His first one was spoiled by the bullpen, but there were quite a few things to like about it. I appreciated his changeup maps:
Great location, and drew lots of fouls and called strikes. Looking forward to his start today.
Great location, and drew lots of fouls and called strikes. Looking forward to his start today.
Owens struck out 10 and allowed 10 hits in his August 16 start.
Alex Speier writes in his 108 stitches email:
Alex Speier writes in his 108 stitches email: