PDA

View Full Version : Josh Fogg


Vsahajpal
05-11-2002, 09:42 PM
Beat Unit a week ago, beats Oswalt today, amazing, 5-1, 2.47 ERA


Whoulda thunk it?

:KW

not me!

kermittheefrog
05-11-2002, 09:54 PM
Okay another contest idea. Pick the date Fogg gets caught scuffing the ball. I'm taking May 21st.

DrCrawdad
05-11-2002, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
Beat Unit a week ago, beats Oswalt today, amazing, 5-1, 2.47 ERA Whoulda thunk it?


Vic, question for you - Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus & scouts - what was there opinions on Josh Fogg before his tear in the 2002 season?

- DrCrawdad

Vsahajpal
05-11-2002, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad


Vic, question for you - Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus & scouts - what was there opinions on Josh Fogg before his tear in the 2002 season?

- DrCrawdad

last year, from Baseball America:

Background: A closer at Florida, Fogg has been used almost exclusively as a starter with the White Sox. They initially placed him in that role to get him more work but have become intrigued by his potential as an innings-eating, end-of-the-rotation starter. He has had three solid seasons as a pro, going 26-18, 3.06 overall and leading the Southern League with 192 innings in 2000.

Strengths: Fogg has outstanding command, averaging just 2.5 walks per nine innings in the minors. He has an outstanding slider and a decent changeup, and he isn’t afraid to throw his offspeed pitches when behind in the count. He’s an intelligent pitcher who works to hitters’ weaknesses.

Weaknesses: In a system loaded with hard throwers, Fogg has finesse stuff. His fastball touches the low 90s but often is in the high 80s. He doesn’t operate with much margin for error.

The Future: After spending a season and a half at pitcher-friendly Birmingham, Fogg may face a tough adjustment at Charlotte, which plays in a bandbox. His chances to advance are more difficult in this system than they would be in others.

kermittheefrog
05-11-2002, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad


Vic, question for you - Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus & scouts - what was there opinions on Josh Fogg before his tear in the 2002 season?

- DrCrawdad

I know you asked Vic but I can easily field this one. No one has been particularly impressed with Fogg. The consensus is he can pitch but he doesn't have good enough stuff to have longterm success as a starter. I'm hoping they're right and he comes back to Earth cuz I don't think I can stand watching the guy be one of the best pitchers in the NL.

DrCrawdad
05-11-2002, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I know you asked Vic but I can easily field this one. No one has been particularly impressed with Fogg. The consensus is he can pitch but he doesn't have good enough stuff to have longterm success as a starter.

The cry, especially from Cub fans, is going to be (if it isn't already) that the White Sox traded away a great pitcher in Fogg. Well that's why I wondered how many so-called baseball experts predicted that Fogg would have this kind of success in MLB? I don't remember Fogg being on the top of all the so-called experts Can't Miss Lists.

- DrCrawdad.

kermittheefrog
05-11-2002, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad


The cry, especially from Cub fans, is going to be (if it isn't already) that the White Sox traded away a great pitcher in Fogg. Well that's why I wondered how many so-called baseball experts predicted that Fogg would have this kind of success in MLB? I don't remember Fogg being on the top of all the so-called experts Can't Miss Lists.

- DrCrawdad.


No one had a clue Fogg could do this. He can't possibily keep it up.

DrCrawdad
05-11-2002, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
No one had a clue Fogg could do this. He can't possibily keep it up.

That's what I find interesting.

Say for example that Fogg wins 20 games, people will say that the Sox blew it, which would be true. But couldn't you also say that the all baseball know-it-alls blew it as well since none of them predicted great things from Fogg?

- DrCrawdad.

Vsahajpal
05-12-2002, 12:21 AM
I liked him before the trade, actually, but had no idea this would happen. He was damn good during his limited time with the Sox a season ago:

11 games
13 1/3 IP
17 K
3 bb
2.02 ERA
.556 OPS against

And he was dominant during winter ball this past year, filthy.

guillen4life13
05-12-2002, 12:25 AM
personally the only reason i didn't like the trade at the time is because lowe had become one of the real necessities on this staff. i think he'd be a huge help now, possibly as a starter.

baggio202
05-12-2002, 03:31 AM
you guys are missing the point the p[oint of the ritchie trade....you trade 3 prospect/mediocre pitchers for 1 mediorce pitcher...chance are 3 to 1 that 1 of those other pitchers will develop into a better pitcher than the 1 you traded for...

all last year williams was saying if we have enough prospects...eventually enough of them will pan out...the more numbers you throw in the mix the better your chances of finding a winner....he should have took his own advice

you know its gonna be a bad trade because ritchie has pitched as good as any time in his career...he has had like 6 quality starts out of 7.. an era right at 3.00...and right now it looks like a bad trade...ritchie isnt gonna pitch all year with an era of 3..he will eventually take his poundings too..and when his era is back up over 4 this trade will really look bad

Vsahajpal
05-12-2002, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by baggio202
you guys are missing the point the p[oint of the ritchie trade....you trade 3 prospect/mediocre pitchers for 1 mediorce pitcher...chance are 3 to 1 that 1 of those other pitchers will develop into a better pitcher than the 1 you traded for...

all last year williams was saying if we have enough prospects...eventually enough of them will pan out...the more numbers you throw in the mix the better your chances of finding a winner....he should have took his own advice

you know its gonna be a bad trade because ritchie has pitched as good as any time in his career...he has had like 6 quality starts out of 7.. an era right at 3.00...and right now it looks like a bad trade...ritchie isnt gonna pitch all year with an era of 3..he will eventually take his poundings too..and when his era is back up over 4 this trade will really look bad

ah, the myth of the proven veteran...

Tragg
05-12-2002, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by baggio202
you guys are missing the point the p[oint of the ritchie trade....you trade 3 prospect/mediocre pitchers for 1 mediorce pitcher...chance are 3 to 1 that 1 of those other pitchers will develop into a better pitcher than the 1 you traded for...



Exactly - and that happened in the clayton and osuna deals as well (although fewer young players were given) - mediocre veterans for young talent. I've been waiting for ages for the sox to maybe swap some of their youthful pitching overlead for someone else's youthful shortstop/centerfielder overload.
Doiing the opposite of the Williams philosophy were key ingredients in building the Sox in the late 1980s for their nice run for most of the 1990s.

Garrison
05-12-2002, 11:50 AM
I don't think that we can blame the experts at baseball america for not predicting Fogg's success. Shouldn't the White Sox staff and scouts figured it out for themselves?

soxtalker
05-12-2002, 12:23 PM
The contributors to the board seem to be divided into two groups -- pro-trade and against-trade. A week or two ago, I saw a lot of pro-trade comments, as the Sox were winning, and Ritchie was doing fairly well. I'm not sure that Ritchie's performance has changed dramatically, but Fogg (and to a lesser extent Kip Wells) keep pitching well, while the Sox are in dire need of more pitching.

I sense that the pro-trade posters really want to win NOW, which most of us would agree with. However, a trade is never guaranteed to work. Having many promising young players in the system at least gives us a good chance that some of them will become top performers. I guess that I really like seeing the young players develop, and I'd like to see a team that is constantly improving.

I personally wasn't happy with the trade, even if Ritchie does well and Fogg, etc. don't do quite as well as they are. What pains me most about the trades is that our farm system has deteriorated significantly (e.g., look at BP America ranking). I used to get very frustrated with Scheuler, as he seemed to take forever to make a trade. Most of those that he did make cost our farm system little, and he was able to find talent (e.g., Eldred). KW seems to be very aggressive with his trades, but what is the cost in the next few years?