PDA

View Full Version : Josh Stewart


misty60481
01-09-2004, 01:15 PM
I thought last year that Josh Stewart was supposed to be next Buehrle I know he got hurt but isnt he making comeback??

hftrex
01-09-2004, 01:22 PM
He was hit just below his collarbone by a line drive. Not much since on his condition or if he'll ever get to play again with the Sox.

Rex Hudler
01-09-2004, 01:30 PM
Josh developed a medical condition after getting hit which limited his blood flow. I cannot recall the name of the condition but he was having difficulty with numbness in his hands and fingers because the blood was not circulating properly. I am no doctor, but I was told that sometimes this problem corrects itself, other times it does not.

I have not heard an update since last season, so I don't know his current situation. He may be ready for ST or he may never pitch effectively again.

That said, I do think that calling Josh Stewart "the next Buehrle" is a bit of an unfair expectation.

depy48
01-09-2004, 02:15 PM
then would we rather have neal cotts or josh stewart, both lefty starters...

Rex Hudler
01-09-2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by depy48
then would we rather have neal cotts or josh stewart, both lefty starters...

Depends on who is pitching better at the time. LOL

Seriously, Cotts ceiling is much higher.

MarkV
01-09-2004, 07:02 PM
Cotts has no command of the strike zone. If Josh Stewart is healthy, he has a much bigger upside than Cotts. The only reason Stewart was dubbed the next Buehrle was because they have the same type of throwing style.

SoxxoS
01-09-2004, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
Cotts has no command of the strike zone. If Josh Stewart is healthy, he has a much bigger upside than Cotts.


No he doesn't. Stewart was healthy at the beginning of the season, and he wasn't good.

Cotts has "ace" stuff and "ace" potential. He is arguably the #1 pitching prospect in the organization.

MarkV
01-09-2004, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
No he doesn't. Stewart was healthy at the beginning of the season, and he wasn't good.

Cotts has "ace" stuff and "ace" potential. He is arguably the #1 pitching prospect in the organization.

Where did you see his ace stuff and ace potential? Was it when he was walking everybody he faced?

Oh I know! It was the game Cotts started against the Yankees! He was chosen to pitch over our ace Buehrle, so he surely must be an ace!

Daver
01-09-2004, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS


Cotts has "ace" stuff and "ace" potential. He is arguably the #1 pitching prospect in the organization.


That could be argued to death the way you worded it.Arnie Munoz has put up some great numbers as a releiver,so why couldn't he be considered the top pitching prospect?

Kris Honel has better stuff and mound prescence than Cotts does,but he is two years away from pitching at this level,so why couldn't he be considered the top pitching prospect?

I could continue but I won't.

Daver
01-09-2004, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
Where did you see his ace stuff and ace potential? Was it when he was walking everybody he faced?

Oh I know! It was the game Cotts started against the Yankees! He was chosen to pitch over our ace Buehrle, so he surely must be an ace!

How many times have you seen him pitch aside from his breif callup?

MarkV
01-09-2004, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Daver
How many times have you seen him pitch aside from his breif callup?

I saw him at the Futures Game, some college games, and some minor league games. You can't defend the fact that he just walks too many guys. His stuff is above average, but if he can't throw strikes, what's the point?

Daver
01-09-2004, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
I saw him at the Futures Game, some college games, and some minor league games. You can't defend the fact that he just walks too many guys. His stuff is above average, but if he can't throw strikes, what's the point?

I'm not defending anything,but there are many that will base an argument on numbers without ever seeing the player actually play the game,to me that is a hollow argument.

I would not at this time consider Neil Cotts the best Sox pitching prospect.

MarkV
01-09-2004, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I'm not defending anything,but there are many that will base an argument on numbers without ever seeing the player actually play the game,to me that is a hollow argument.

I would not at this time consider Neil Cotts the best Sox pitching prospect.

Just to add, I think Manuel really screwed his confidence pitching him in that Yankee game. I don't have his exact AFL numbers on me, but I believe he pitched pretty well. That could be a good sign.

Randar68
01-09-2004, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
Where did you see his ace stuff and ace potential? Was it when he was walking everybody he faced?

Oh I know! It was the game Cotts started against the Yankees! He was chosen to pitch over our ace Buehrle, so he surely must be an ace!

He has great movement and deception in his delivery. I wouldn't go so far as to say "Ace", but 2 or 3 Starter potential is a very realistic assessment. I'm sorry, but judging a kid only by a short late-season pennant-run call-up to the majors or a Baseball America stat sheet is about as useful as a hand full of horse manure.

He has some mechanical consistency issues to work out, but the mechanics he showed at the major league level and just completely losing his release point wa snot indicative of the rest of his season OR his entire minor league career. Control Problems? TO some degree, but what was shown in his 3 or 4 starts was nothing similar to what he had in his AA starts all season. Every start he had in the majors, he had no more than 2 pitches (often less than that) that were working for him. Most of the times I saw him or know people who saw him in AA, he had 3 or 4 pitches working.

NOBODY hits the ball hard off of him and his Opp. OBP was one of the lowest in the minors despite his mechanical issues (which are more easily corrected in a soft-tosser than someone who relies on velocity)

Randar68
01-09-2004, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by misty60481
I thought last year that Josh Stewart was supposed to be next Buehrle I know he got hurt but isnt he making comeback??

I can say without a doubt that anyone who said "Josh Stewart is the next Mark Buehrle" is a card-carrying MORON.

Rex Hudler
01-09-2004, 09:22 PM
Good post randar..........

Cotts indeed has higher upside than Josh Stewart. Upside equals how far someone could reach. There is no debate that Cotts wins there.

For the record, I probably saw 10-12 starts from Cotts last year. Cotts indeed struggled with command in AA, however it was nowhere near as bad as it was in Chicago. The Sox messed Cotts up before Yankee Stadium, trying to teach him to throw a cutter after his first start, rather than allowing him to pitch the way he got the promotion in the first place. The Yankee Stadium debacle just finished his year.

Cotts has the stuff to be a #3 or possibly #2 starter. He knows how to pitch and although he walked a lot of hitters, his BB:K ratio was more than 3:1. In the 3 starts immediately before his promotion, he looked as if his control issues were gone. He dominated those three starts, including taking a no-hitter into the 8th inning in one.

Neal will definitely need to corral his command issues to be successful in the Show, there is no doubt about that. If he does, then Sox fans will be very happy.

Rex Hudler
01-09-2004, 09:29 PM
Kris Honel has better stuff and mound prescence than Cotts does

I'm not knocking Honel because I think he probably is the Sox top prospect by a slim margin, but I would argue that. I'll believe it when Honel starts hitting and topping 90 consistently. His curveball is excellent, but I question his ability to throw it for strikes at a higher level, without hanging it. It has serious 12-6 bite. The one game I saw him pitch, a lot of guys swung at it even though it was down out of the zone. I'd rather him miss low than high, but similarly to Cotts high fastball, I question how effective it will be in the bigs.

munchman33
01-09-2004, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I'm not knocking Honel because I think he probably is the Sox top prospect by a slim margin, but I would argue that. I'll believe it when Honel starts hitting and topping 90 consistently. His curveball is excellent, but I question his ability to throw it for strikes at a higher level, without hanging it. It has serious 12-6 bite. The one game I saw him pitch, a lot of guys swung at it even though it was down out of the zone. I'd rather him miss low than high, but similarly to Cotts high fastball, I question how effective it will be in the bigs.

Because it is 12-6, as you described, it will work in the bigs. Curves with that much movement look a lot higher to the batters than they actually end up. And besides, its an out pitch, setup by the fastball. He only has to throw it with two strikes.

Rex Hudler
01-09-2004, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
Because it is 12-6, as you described, it will work in the bigs. Curves with that much movement look a lot higher to the batters than they actually end up. And besides, its an out pitch, setup by the fastball. He only has to throw it with two strikes.

That pitch is a very difficult pitch to throw in the Majors and has little margin for error. It has seen a bit of a comeback recently since they have expanded the strike zone upward somewhat. Regardless, he will have to at least show he can throw it for a strike without hanging it or it will not be effective.

Daver
01-09-2004, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I'm not knocking Honel because I think he probably is the Sox top prospect by a slim margin, but I would argue that. I'll believe it when Honel starts hitting and topping 90 consistently.

I have no use for the radar gun,nor do I judge pitching talent based on gun readings,because it has no place in baseball.

Please alert me the next time Tom Glavine or Greg Maddux break 87 on the gun,it may be a first.

duke of dorwood
01-09-2004, 10:01 PM
Example-Koch throws 90 & over.

Rex Hudler
01-09-2004, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I have no use for the radar gun,nor do I judge pitching talent based on gun readings,because it has no place in baseball.

Please alert me the next time Tom Glavine or Greg Maddux break 87 on the gun,it may be a first.

Go ahead and take the high road, but guys like Maddux and Glavine are teh exception, not the rule. Kris Honel was not drafted in the 1st round because he didn't break 90. If losing velocity is not a potential warning sign to you, then live in your dream world.

Velocity very much gives a pitcher more margin for error. Not all successful pitchers throw 90-95mph, but a helluva lot more of them get the chance because they do. I happen to think the radar gun is overrated and it is not an end-all in terms of evaluating pitchers, but to ignore it is quite naive.

And actually, Maddux used and Glavine used to hit 89-91 quite consistently or at least when they needed to. Is it a coincidence that they seem to throw 85-87 now and are less successful the past couple of years? Perhaps

Daver
01-09-2004, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Go ahead and take the high road, but guys like Maddux and Glavine are teh exception, not the rule. Kris Honel was not drafted in the 1st round because he didn't break 90. If losing velocity is not a potential warning sign to you, then live in your dream world.

Velocity very much gives a pitcher more margin for error. Not all successful pitchers throw 90-95mph, but a helluva lot more of them get the chance because they do. I happen to think the radar gun is overrated and it is not an end-all in terms of evaluating pitchers, but to ignore it is quite naive.

And actually, Maddux used and Glavine used to hit 89-91 quite consistently or at least when they needed to. Is it a coincidence that they seem to throw 85-87 now and are less successful the past couple of years? Perhaps

This post has me laughing.


Jamie Moyer won twenty games last season,and barely throws in the low 80's.Velocity is a gauge of arm strength,nothing more and nothing less,some pitchers can use it more effectivley than others,I'll take a guy that can pitch over a guy that throws hard and misses his location,the laws of physics tell me that the the harder the ball arrives at the plate adds to the distance it travels when it is hit.

And I can tell you first hand Kris Honel never threw harder than 91 in HS,and he did it rarely.

Rex Hudler
01-09-2004, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Daver
This post has me laughing.


Jamie Moyer won twenty games last season,and barely throws in the low 80's.Velocity is a gauge of arm strength,nothing more and nothing less,some pitchers can use it more effectivley than others,I'll take a guy that can pitch over a guy that throws hard and misses his location,the laws of physics tell me that the the harder the ball arrives at the plate adds to the distance it travels when it is hit.

And I can tell you first hand Kris Honel never threw harder than 91 in HS,and he did it rarely.

Keep naming guys like that........ I'm sure you may even make it up to 10 or 12 by the time you have discovered all of the "exceptions". That will prove your point big time, Daver.....

The funny thing is, you and I are not far off on our opinions of the radar gun, but if you want to continue trying to prove it has no legit place in baseball, then go for it. Show how smart that theory is, cause it has no wings and won't fly.

Daver
01-09-2004, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler


The funny thing is, you and I are not far off on our opinions of the radar gun, but if you want to continue trying to prove it has no legit place in baseball, then go for it. Show how smart that theory is, cause it has no wings and won't fly.

I'm not trying to prove anything,I am giving my opinion on the radar gun and how useful it is on judging pitching talent.The gun is a tool that has been abused and overused,it has in many ways replaced the value of true scouting,and evaluating pitchers on talent.Feel free to disagree with me all you want,I don't intend to change my opinion.

Rex Hudler
01-09-2004, 11:23 PM
The gun is a tool that has been abused and overused,it has in many ways replaced the value of true scouting,and evaluating pitchers on talent. With that, I agree.......

because it has no place in baseball. With that, I do not..... You were either overemphasizing your point or just naive. Every single MLB team, scout and college (D-I) uses the radar gun as one tool to rate pitchers. Some overemphaisize it and I will not argue that point with you. But it does have it's place.

It's like saying looks don't matter when it comes to the opposite sex. That's BS, because they do. Are they the most important thing? No.... Are they the only thing that matters? No.... But there has to be some physical attraction between two people, so they do matter on some level. That level is not the same with everybody, but it still matters.

Daver
01-09-2004, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler


With that, I do not..... You were either overemphasizing your point or just naive. Every single MLB team, scout and college (D-I) uses the radar gun as one tool to rate pitchers. Some overemphaisize it and I will not argue that point with you. But it does have it's place.



I have no use for the radar gun when it comes to HS and college pitchers,for the simple fact that there are so many of them that have thrown themselves into senseless injuries trying to put up impressive gun numbers,to increase their stock in the draft.

I can see the gun being used as a tool at the pro level,but it should be banned from the Amateur ranks.

Rex Hudler
01-09-2004, 11:44 PM
Now we are making progress........ ;-)

hose
01-09-2004, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Keep naming guys like that........ I'm sure you may even make it up to 10 or 12 by the time you have discovered all of the "exceptions". That will prove your point big time, Daver.....

The funny thing is, you and I are not far off on our opinions of the radar gun, but if you want to continue trying to prove it has no legit place in baseball, then go for it. Show how smart that theory is, cause it has no wings and won't fly.


Tommy John said that he would never had been drafted if he was coming out of high school today. The reason is because he doesn't fit the hard throwing pitcher that the scouts are looking for.

The radar gun is nothing more than a tool and all teams use them.
I think the problem with the gun is that teams get locked into a mind set of mph which they base their pitching prospects on. I believe there would be many more examples of Maddux , Glavine, and Moyer types in MLB if teams were willing to draft and develope "pitchers".

Rex Hudler
01-09-2004, 11:58 PM
The radar gun is nothing more than a tool and all teams use them.
I think the problem with the gun is that teams get locked into a mind set of mph which they base their pitching prospects on. I believe there would be many more examples of Maddux , Glavine, and Moyer types in MLB if teams were willing to draft and develope "pitchers".

Well said........ Hell, I might have made it if they would draft RH's that only threw 84-86! LOL

Chisoxfn
01-10-2004, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I'm not knocking Honel because I think he probably is the Sox top prospect by a slim margin, but I would argue that. I'll believe it when Honel starts hitting and topping 90 consistently. His curveball is excellent, but I question his ability to throw it for strikes at a higher level, without hanging it. It has serious 12-6 bite. The one game I saw him pitch, a lot of guys swung at it even though it was down out of the zone. I'd rather him miss low than high, but similarly to Cotts high fastball, I question how effective it will be in the bigs.

Like Rex, I have no doubt that Honel's curveball is good enough to pitch in the majors. Its downright filthy the few times I've watched him pitch. But like you, I'd agree that velocity is a concern. On the plus side, the curveball will definately keep hitters fooled, but how much can he really fool them. His fastball rarely tops 90-91 from what I've seen. I'd say he's consistently 89 although he has the size to definately throw harder as he continues to develop. I think the key to Honel will be either increasing his velocity to the point he can get away with throwing the high fastball or develop another quality secondary pitch that hitters will confuse for his fastball to keep people really off guard.

And its ridiculous to say Stewart has more upside that Cotts. Stewart has to have pinpoint control to suceed. He has minimal movement and no stand out pitch. Cotts, while he doesn't have an amazing arm (velocity wise) has great movement and really mixes his pitches. His curveball is still very weak, but if he can continue building up secondary pitches and get his cutter down (the new pitch he's working on) as well as improve his control, he could be pretty darn good.

I'd ignore his stats in the AFL considering he's mainly working on a new pitch and a more consistent delivery.

Chisoxfn
01-10-2004, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by Daver
I'm not trying to prove anything,I am giving my opinion on the radar gun and how useful it is on judging pitching talent.The gun is a tool that has been abused and overused,it has in many ways replaced the value of true scouting,and evaluating pitchers on talent.Feel free to disagree with me all you want,I don't intend to change my opinion.

The radar gun stops some players from getting chances, but as a whole, it is definately a valuable tool. Like it or not (And I am not a big believer in the radar gun) velocity makes a difference because it allows you to get away with mistakes. Pitchers without that velocity have to be damn good and thats quite rare to find, especially out of a minor leaguer.

If a pitcher doesn't have a good fastball, then I think they need a lot of very good secondary pitches to keep hitters off guard as well as pinpoint control.

Fastball isn't a necessity, but its an added bonus.

Chisoxfn
01-10-2004, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Well said........ Hell, I might have made it if they would draft RH's that only threw 84-86! LOL

Well Ryan Wing is my favorite prospect that fits the bill. He's never talked about much, but having seen him pitch, the kid is for real. Wing is probably my favorite pitcher in the organization that I've seen watch. I also liked Rupe a whole lot, until he was dealt and am pretty high on Brandon McCarthy and Emencio Pacheco as well as Cotts and Honel.

I think Majewski is a big time sleeper prospect. The kid has a sick arm, but he still has to put together other pitches.

gosox41
01-10-2004, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
No he doesn't. Stewart was healthy at the beginning of the season, and he wasn't good.

Cotts has "ace" stuff and "ace" potential. He is arguably the #1 pitching prospect in the organization.

If Cotts is considered the number 1 pithing propsect this organization has, then the farm system is in worse shape then I thought.

I will go on record right now saying Cotts has potential to be good. Bue that's all it is right now. A ton of potential.

Bottom line is Cotts will turn the corner when is BB's drop in the minor leagues. Once he learns the control he needs is when he'll become a good major leaguer.

The question is, can you teach control? He is basically a 24 year old pitcher. Still a prospect, but in 2 years he'll fall in the suspect category.

Bob

gosox41
01-10-2004, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Chisoxfn
Well Ryan Wing is my favorite prospect that fits the bill. He's never talked about much, but having seen him pitch, the kid is for real. Wing is probably my favorite pitcher in the organization that I've seen watch. I also liked Rupe a whole lot, until he was dealt and am pretty high on Brandon McCarthy and Emencio Pacheco as well as Cotts and Honel.

I think Majewski is a big time sleeper prospect. The kid has a sick arm, but he still has to put together other pitches.

Hasn't Majewski been traded and resigned on this team about 3 times. Why doesn't some team give him a shot?

Bob

Rex Hudler
01-10-2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Hasn't Majewski been traded and resigned on this team about 3 times. Why doesn't some team give him a shot?

Bob

He was traded to the Dodgers and then traded back to the Sox a few years ago. Last year he was chosen in the Rule 5 draft by Toronto and spent a good part of ST with them before being sent to the Minors. Per the Rule 5 draft guidelines, the Sox then were able to purchase him back from Toronto (for half of what the BJ's paid to get him) and they did so.

Gary has a live arm, but physical conditioning has always been a concern with him. I never saw him in 2003, so I do not know if those concerns are still an issue or not.

Chisoxfn
01-10-2004, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
He was traded to the Dodgers and then traded back to the Sox a few years ago. Last year he was chosen in the Rule 5 draft by Toronto and spent a good part of ST with them before being sent to the Minors. Per the Rule 5 draft guidelines, the Sox then were able to purchase him back from Toronto (for half of what the BJ's paid to get him) and they did so.

Gary has a live arm, but physical conditioning has always been a concern with him. I never saw him in 2003, so I do not know if those concerns are still an issue or not.
When I saw him, I talked to a few people in Charlotte and they said he had been improving in those areas. All I know is he's got a throwback closer mentality and he shows no fear on the mound.

I've never understood why the Sox have always moved him around, but I think now they realize what they have in him. He'll get a shot in spring training, but I don't think he's quite ready. If he can get a solid-good secondary pitch, he has a shot to be a future closer, imo.

His fastball is hard and moves. Its whicked.

misty60481
01-10-2004, 02:27 PM
Who is this Pacheco who was 12 - 2 --2.56 ERA at Birmingham last year--his stats look very good

Rex Hudler
01-10-2004, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by misty60481
Who is this Pacheco who was 12 - 2 --2.56 ERA at Birmingham last year--his stats look very good

Enemencio Pacheco is quite the story. He was acquired from the Rockies for Sandy Alomar Jr. in 2002. He was so-so at best for the Sox after the trade that year. Although he had a live arm, he was considered lazy and not highly regareded.

He landed a job with the Barons in AA after spring training, but was tagged as the first guy to be sent back down to Winston-Salem when a move had to be made. He was basically a mop-up guy in the Barons bullpen at the beginning of the year. He got into a few games early in the year and had success and he began to get more meaningful innings out of the bullpen as a long reliever.

After a few injuries and Tetsu Yofu getting called up to AAA, they asked Pacheco to step in for a spot start. He threw very well and continued in the rotation until others got healthy. The fact that the Barons starters never really got healthy combined with Pacheco's success he continued in the rotation, pitching well but being overshadowed by Cotts and Yofu (he returned from Charlotte and also joined the rotation).

As the season progressed, Pacheco began to develop. Pitching Coach Juan Nieves was able to get him to buy into working harder between starts and taking conditioning seriously. Pacheco gradually got better and better. By the second half of the season, he was consistently throwing 92-94 and topping out at 96. The Barons were 20-4 in games he started.

He was the starter for the Barons in the opening game of the SL Playoffs and completely dominated an excellent Hunstsville lineup (Brewers) on the road. He faced the minimum 27 batters, allowing just one walk and two singles. One of the funners was thrown out stealing and the other two were erased on double play balls. He struck out 9. He followed that performance by tossing four shutout innings on short rest in Game 5 of the playoffs, but unfortunately Huntsville won that game and advance to the Championship series.

Pacheco has a good slider and a decent to solid changeup. He has a tendency to be inconsistent within the strike zone although he doesn't walk many hitters. He can be absolutely dominant one inning and then throw very hittable pitches the next. Throwing in the mid 90's gave him a good margin for error so he didn't get hurt too often. If he continues to understand the virtues of working hard and doing the little things, he has a very good chance to succeed in the Majors. If not, he could become a one-year wonder. FWIW, many people (names excluded) felt he was more ready to be promoted to Chicago than Cotts was last year.

The Sox should feel very lucky to have Pacheco. He was reportedly in the pool of minor leaguers that Texas had to choose from after the Everett trade. The game after the Everett trade was made, Pacheco was absolutely dominant with no Rangers scout in the stands. They had a scout present for his next start which was solid, yet nothing like the pervious one. He could become a "diamond in the rough" if he succeeds. His is a story of how things can all of a sudden come together for a guy. He went from being an after-thought and roster filler for a minor league team to being added to the 40-man roster and being voted the Barons Most Valuable Pitcher in one season. Not too shabby.

maurice
01-12-2004, 02:53 PM
Thanks for the comprehensive report on Pacheco, Rex.

SoxOnTop
01-12-2004, 04:32 PM
Can we stop comparing any minor leaguers to Jamie Moyer? I don't plan on culitivating a guy until he is 36 before he becomes a good MLB pitcher. Despite his impressive performance now, the guy was 34 years old before he showed any kind of consistancy.

Plus, I don't see any wiley veterans on our staff that will be passing on pitching secrets to a young soft tosser. Say what you want about David Well (I know I haven't said many good things), in his short stint here he taugh Mark Buerhle quite a bit about the finer points of pitching in the big leagues.

Randar68
01-13-2004, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Chisoxfn
Like Rex, I have no doubt that Honel's curveball is good enough to pitch in the majors. Its downright filthy the few times I've watched him pitch. But like you, I'd agree that velocity is a concern. On the plus side, the curveball will definately keep hitters fooled, but how much can he really fool them. His fastball rarely tops 90-91 from what I've seen. I'd say he's consistently 89 although he has the size to definately throw harder as he continues to develop. I think the key to Honel will be either increasing his velocity to the point he can get away with throwing the high fastball or develop another quality secondary pitch that hitters will confuse for his fastball to keep people really off guard.

Here's where I disagree.

Pure velocity is utterly useless if a pitcher knows how to change speeds. You have less margin for error, no doubt, but the difference in velocity between the various pitchers in a pitcher's arsenal is the most important aspect of a pitcher's velocity, not whatever his max is.

Throwing a change-up 5 mph slower than your fastball doesn't do jack. It's all about keeping hitters off balance with their timing and moving their eyes all over the plate.

Hangar18
01-13-2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
He has great movement and deception in his delivery. I wouldn't go so far as to say "Ace", but 2 or 3 Starter potential is a very realistic assessment. I'm sorry, but judging a kid only by a short late-season pennant-run call-up to the majors or a Baseball America stat sheet is about as useful as a hand full of horse manure.

He has some mechanical consistency issues to work out, but the mechanics he showed at the major league level and just completely losing his release point wa snot indicative of the rest of his season OR his entire minor league career. Control Problems? TO some degree, but what was shown in his 3 or 4 starts was nothing similar to what he had in his AA starts all season. Every start he had in the majors, he had no more than 2 pitches (often less than that) that were working for him. Most of the times I saw him or know people who saw him in AA, he had 3 or 4 pitches working.

NOBODY hits the ball hard off of him and his Opp. OBP was one of the lowest in the minors despite his mechanical issues (which are more easily corrected in a soft-tosser than someone who relies on velocity)

wow, this is a good ML Scout type assessment of Cotts. These are things that we should know before we count him out just yet .... thanks for the info

Rex Hudler
01-13-2004, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Here's where I disagree.

Pure velocity is utterly useless if a pitcher knows how to change speeds. You have less margin for error, no doubt, but the difference in velocity between the various pitchers in a pitcher's arsenal is the most important aspect of a pitcher's velocity, not whatever his max is.

Throwing a change-up 5 mph slower than your fastball doesn't do jack. It's all about keeping hitters off balance with their timing and moving their eyes all over the plate.

All of the above is true..... However, if a guy can mix speeds based on a 93 mph fastball he will have more margin for error than a guy that throws 89.

Just as important than changing speeds is location. So there are a lot of things involved other than velocity. But velocity is not useless. Some guys can work around not having it and others that have it never learn to pitch. But all things being equal, I'll take the guy that throws harder.

Randar68
01-13-2004, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
All of the above is true..... However, if a guy can mix speeds based on a 93 mph fastball he will have more margin for error than a guy that throws 89.

Just as important than changing speeds is location. So there are a lot of things involved other than velocity. But velocity is not useless. Some guys can work around not having it and others that have it never learn to pitch. But all things being equal, I'll take the guy that throws harder.

The only difference in the success level is that guys who throw harder are more easily converted to releif roles. As starters, a majority of major league pitchers that are any good don't throw any harder than 91-92 mph on any type of consistent basis. Most operate in the 89-91 range. I'll take a 89 mph fastball with movement or life to it over an Alan Embree Express 95 mph fastball that's straight as an arrow 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

hold2dibber
01-13-2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Here's where I disagree.

Pure velocity is utterly useless if a pitcher knows how to change speeds. You have less margin for error, no doubt, but the difference in velocity between the various pitchers in a pitcher's arsenal is the most important aspect of a pitcher's velocity, not whatever his max is.

Throwing a change-up 5 mph slower than your fastball doesn't do jack. It's all about keeping hitters off balance with their timing and moving their eyes all over the plate.

What is your assesment (or anyone else's) of Honel based upon those criteria?

Randar68
01-13-2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
What is your assesment (or anyone else's) of Honel based upon those criteria?

There's a reason he's one of the top 2 pitchers in the organization. Control is his specialty and that nasty knuckle-curve highlights it. With Kris, 91-92 mph is plenty of velocity. Using his change-up a bit more effectively is hopefully something he improves on. Daver is more knowledgeable about the movement on his pitches than I am, but he doesn't throw straight.

Side note: A cutter would be a devastating addition for Kris Honel with the other pitches he throws...