Owens is for real
by Roberto on Mar 26, 2011 1:55 PM EDT
Email
PrintGreat article over on Pirates Prospects. In it Tim Williams says that those of us who equate Rudy Owens with Zach Duke have our heads up some place really bad (or haven't seen Owens pitch).
I've seen Owens more than anyone not affiliated with the Pirates. I saw him a lot in 2009 when he was a soft tossing left hander, throwing 88-91 MPH. I saw him in Altoona in the early part of the 2010 season, when he was carrying his success over to the higher levels. I saw him later in the year when he saw his velocity increase to 90-93 MPH, absolutely dominating opposing hitters. Today I saw him throwing 91-93 MPH, and continuing his domination.
Maybe it's time to get excited.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rudy Owens
may just be the key to the Pirates success in the near future. All our top pitchers will be young guys and will most likely be monitored closely early on. It will be up to a guy like Owens to carry the work load as a veteran of the staff (hopefully this is true by 2013-2014)
We have to unify and watch our flag ascend!
Aside from Pirates scouts..
I’m not sure there’s anyone I’d trust more than Tim when it comes to this stuff.
Although, even if he’s right, there’s still no guarantee that the success will translate to the majors (obviously).
Some of us have been saying Owens is the real deal for 2-3 years.....
All of the silly Zach Duke-comparisons are going to be proven just that…..silly. All of the whining about his supposed lack of strikeouts aren’t supported by his, you know, actual results, either.
If he pitches anything like Zach Duke, I will gladly eat crow. If he doesn’t suck, though, I hope some are willing to do the same.
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Mar 26, 2011 3:04 PM EDT reply actions
Plus the lack of strikeouts is not there
Take a look at his AA second half. Nine K per inning pitched.
Viva Clemente!
Nine K's per inning pitched?
He must have one horrible catcher.
by primetime99 on Mar 26, 2011 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
There is a reason for Zach Duke Comps and it's not a knock on Owens...
Strengths: Duke gets his highest marks for his mound presence and poise. Quiet by nature, he never gets rattled and has a precise plan of what he wants to do with each pitch. He has the best command of any pitcher in the system. Duke’s best offering is a curveball that he can throw for strikes at any point in the count. The curve has a big, sweeping movement and lefthanded batters find it unhittable. They batted just .192 with one homer in 156 at-bats against Duke last season. His fastball topped out at 88 mph when he was drafted but now reaches 93 as his body has matured. It usually sits in the 89-91 range. After fading down the stretch in 2003, Duke maintained his strength throughout the 2004 season. His performance didn’t slip at all, even after his promotion to Double-A. Duke is a good athlete who fields his position and holds runners well.
That was BA’s 2005 scouting report when Duke was the top prospect in the Pirates system (emphasis in bold is mine). He came off a very strong 2004 season in which he posted 142 K’s in 148 IP. The K rate did drop in 56 IP in Altoona that year and instead of returning to Altoona he started 2005 in AAA where his K rate took a big drop off though his ERA remained strong and led to is infamous late season call up. When you read the scouting report and compare it Owens’ it’s really easy to understand where the comps come from and I don’t think it’s unjustified. However, I don’t see them necessarrily as similart pitchers because Owens did carry a strong K rate into AA. If he continues his strong performance in Indy there is no reason to think he won’t eventually be a more effective starter than Duke in the majors. I’m very excited about Owens but Duke was a very good prospect too and comparing Owens to him doesn’t mean that anyone thinks Owens is going to get knocked around once he gets to Pittsburgh. Hopefully Owens maintains his fastball velocity in the majors much longer than Duke did.
But when people have compared him to Duke,
they weren’t talking about the ‘05 version. They are LHP from the south west who weren’t high draft picks and came up through the Pirates system. That’s about all I see for similarity. Hopefully we can add “stellar debuts” after this season.
Agreed...
I think everyone would be more than thrilled if Owens even comes close to having the same debut success that Duke had.
It seems a lot of people
forget how filthy Duke was in his first season in the big leagues. It understandable, after he sucked over the last five years. But I will never forget how bad he made the MVP candidate Derrick Lee look. He was throwing 92-93 mph wherever he wanted. If Owens can maintain his velocity, I see no reason why he cannot be an above average # 3 starter.
Agreed...
and pretty much what i was getting to in my initial post. Most people offended by the comp forget that Duke had pretty decent stuff for a lefty when he first came up.
the biggest issue with Duke is that the NL adjusted to him, and that was the end of that.
by white angus on Mar 27, 2011 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
I disagree
I think Colborn ruined him, but I guess we never know what really happened to the pitcher from 2005.
thats crazy
The league got to Duke, not Colborn. it happens. better pitchers than Zach have flopped once the league learned what he throws.
Agree to disagree...
Going from throwing 89-91 to 86-89 impacts your results more than the league adjusting to you. That’s just silly to look at that velo drop and think the only reason Duke wasn’t able to succeed was because he wasn’t able to readjust to the league.
velo
According to fangraphs, Duke’s velo isn’t the problem. He averaged 89.1 MPH on the fastball in 2005 and was still at 88.8 in 2009. It’s true that the velo was down to 87.4 in his terrible 2010, but it was at 87.1 in 2006, and he was decent that year.
My own hypothesis is just that Duke got lucky in a small sample in 2005. He struck out more batters in the majors than he had in AAA that year. Regardless of getting figured out or getting your mechanics screwed with, pitchers just don’t sustain anomalous results like that. I’m not sure he was ever more than a decent #4-5 starter. But rydog’s probably right that we’ll never really know for sure what happened.
How the heck did you get that because...
I could only go back to 2007. I’ve been going off memory. Two mph is a big frop but your correct in that he was decent that year. Maybe it was Colburn, maybe it was the league adjusting but I guess I can’t make any kind of rational argument in velo loss because even though I feel it hindered him there’s no way to tell how much. Just not enough data their. Thanks for reporting and if you don’t mind can you tell me how to find it?
On his player page, maybe 2/3 of the way down, under “Pitch Type.”
He also seemed to never be able to get inside with his fastball after 2005. I always just thought it was the velo being down, but it could have been the command disappearing or the hitters just adjusting better than him. But like I said before, who really knows? I bet Zach has been trying to figure it out for a long time also.
Owens needs to improve his secondaries to get there. Duke had the curve, and Owens doesn’t have any pitch like that. There’s no particular reason why he couldn’t tighten the curve, and I personally think the change is already above average, but I think an above average #3 starter is more like an 85th percentile outcome for Owens.
Still, how Duke ended up is like a 20th percentile outcome for the guy he was in 2004-5. I think there’s a very good chance that Owens is better.
In your paragraph, you point out the very flaws in the comparison....
Strong K rate into AA, not to mention AAA, is a big difference between he and Duke.
Velocity, especially the consistent 91-93 that is being reported, is another difference.
Duke was not a ‘very good’ prospect when he was called up – he had a very good 10-15 starts, but he wasn’t some prospect that other organizations, in much better shape than ours, would have been salivating over.
And, finally, the eye-test: When you see Duke pitch, and then see Rudy pitch, they really aren’t all that similar – as you pointed out. I think Owens’ changeup is underrated by a bunch of people as well, which, as you obviously understand, will help out immensely in the Majors, particularly against RHPers.
Duke was a lazy comparison made, almost entirely, because they were in the same organization, were considered to be late round-lower level prospects rather than that of high pedigree, and, they were thought of (mistakenly in Owens case) to be pitchable-soft throwing, pitch-to-contact lefties. Same organization is irrelevant, where you drafted is lacking any relation to each other, and Owens isn’t a soft-tossing lefty.
I said the comparisons were silly when a lot of you fellas – admittedly, some of our better posters – were saying the same thing a couple of years ago and I will say it again: Those comparisons aren’t correct nor are they rooted in substantial logic. Plus, while you cite the 2005 BA scouting report of Duke, that is not the right timeline to use. Many of the Rudy-is-Zach guys were comparing Rudy to the Duke of 2009/2010, which, as you state, is comparing Owens to a high-80’s FB pitcher that routinely offered up batting practice starts, his fluke All-Star selection changing nothing.
Obviously, Owens hasn’t pitched yet in the majors, so he could, theoretically, end up being Zach Duke, which, despite some’s view, would be a disaster. But, I wouldn’t bet on it….
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Mar 26, 2011 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I was trying to point out their differences...
because I for one don’t think Owens is destined to become a soft tossing 5th starter. I was, however, trying to point out that there are a lot of similarities between the two as prospects.
Duke was not a ‘very good’ prospect when he was called up
Are you basing this on your opinion because I already pointed out that he was the #1 prospect in the system entereing the season in which he was promoted? I believe he was #34 on BA’s top 100 that season as well.
When you see Duke pitch, and then see Rudy pitch, they really aren’t all that similar – as you pointed out. I think Owens’ changeup is underrated by a bunch of people as well, which, as you obviously understand, will help out immensely in the Majors, particularly against RHPers.
Current Rudy to current Duke, yes I agree with that. The point of my reply was to point out that Duke at roughly the same point in his minor league career was very similar to Owens (though I would still give the edge to Owens) so I wouldn’t call the comparisons lazy at all. I really haven’t seen Owens pitch enough recently to know how his changeup has progressed so I hope you’re right because that will be big for him. Duke was never able to develop his change into a plus pitch IMO.
I said the comparisons were silly when a lot of you fellas – admittedly, some of our better posters – were saying the same thing a couple of years ago
Well we just have to disagree because that scouting report is very similar to what we have heard about Owens. Now if you are implying that I have said I thought Owens was nothing but a soft tossing 4th or 5th starter, I don’t think I’ve ever been on record of saying that. I’ve always thought that was more his floor and that if he continued to gain velocity I could see him as a #2 or #3.
Obviously, Owens hasn’t pitched yet in the majors, so he could, theoretically, end up being Zach Duke, which, despite some’s view, would be a disaster. But, I wouldn’t bet on it….
Based on what Tim has reported recently I wouldn’t bet on it either. I will say that it might be worth remembering this old Duke scouting report should Owens’ K rate take a big hit in Indy. And if all Owens turns out to be is another Zach Duke I would hardly call that a disaster. Disappointment…yes but disaster…not in my opinion. Before Duke was injured he was a 3+ WAR pitcher. I make that generalization on the 2.3 WAR he accumulated in his 84 IP in 2005 and 3.3 WAR accumulated in 2006. His fastball never seemed to be the same after the injury; unfortunately I can’t confirm that because pitch f/x only goes back to 2007. Loss of velo could also be attributed to the possibility of Duke not being ready to log 215 IP in his first full major league season.
Duke was not a ‘very good’ prospect when he was called up – he had a very good 10-15 starts, but he wasn’t some prospect that other organizations, in much better shape than ours, would have been salivating over.
That actually seems more appropriate to apply to Owens than Duke. After his big 2004, Duke was considered a very good prospect by just about everyone. For whatever reason Owens is only considered a very good prospect by the Pirates.
I have been puzzled by this one also
It seems like all the (so called) experts are sick and tired of being burned by ranking Pirates pitching prospects to high. They notoriously overrated Littlefield’s pitching prospects (Bullington, Von Benschoten, Burnett). I feel Duke was an exception because I truely believed that he should have been a top 50 prospect when he came up. He was exceptional his first season, and then the disaster of Colburn came to ruin him. So now that Duke failed, they don’t want to jump on another pitcher just like him, especially in the same organization. If Rudy maintains the velocity, which Duke could not for whatever reason, he will be fine.
I'm not sure...
I don’t know what blahblah is. And no offense but I don’t really understand the point you are trying to make. Would you clarify?
BA ranked Oslon the best curveball and the best changeup and the best control in the O’s 2007 prospects while he stroke out 162 batters in 165.2 innings. Moreover, Olson was drafted in the first round! And that’s it. Do we estimate that Owens will end up a loogy in a worst team in the league and say that is justified?
I think you still missed my point...
Do we estimate that Owens will end up a loogy in a worst team in the league and say that is justified?
No not at all. That wasn’t what I was saying. The point I was making was that the people knocking the comp to Duke I believe are forgetting how good Duke was as a prospect and when he first arrived in Pittsburgh. Their biggest reason for knocking the comp is velocity but Duke had decent velocity when he arrived in Pittsburgh. I wasn’t saying that because of Owens’ similarities to Duke that he is destined to the same successes and failures Duke has. I was simply saying that I thought the comp to Duke wasn’t as outrageous as some are saying it is. That’s all.
the real reason why Owens is better than Duke... the Fro.
by white angus on Mar 26, 2011 6:27 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
that is an amazing Jew 'fro
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Jack Butler, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene, Curtis Martin, Willie Roaf, Andre Reed and Jerry Kramer
"Any statement beginning with the words 'In truth' is almost always a lie." Mordred Deschain
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan
by WVPiratesfan on Mar 26, 2011 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions
thats not a jew fro, brudder
Rudy went out and got a perm… PERM!!!!! on purpose!!!!
by white angus on Mar 27, 2011 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
how much longer until he gets to Pittsburgh
I’ll think he’ll fit in just fine.
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Jack Butler, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene, Curtis Martin, Willie Roaf, Andre Reed and Jerry Kramer
"Any statement beginning with the words 'In truth' is almost always a lie." Mordred Deschain
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan
by WVPiratesfan on Mar 28, 2011 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
If he buys a '78 Camaro
and paints it Black and Gold to cover the bondo / rust, and blares Eddie Money on the cassette deck…
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Mar 28, 2011 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
If he ever grows a playoff mustache...
Pirates games are going to have to be rated XXX.
by MarkInDallas on Mar 27, 2011 3:53 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
The Reckoning is near
I’ve been stumping for this guy SO HARD here and over at minorleagueball.com that I’m starting to think my internet reputation is now tied in with his production. He’s going to kill it.
With that fro he might
In all fairness, if you go back a couple of years, Owens’s fastball was not so different from a young Duke’s. But Owens has added several mph to his fastball.
Viva Clemente!
Duke v. Owens
The Duke comparison should definitely be retired. He’s not as good a prospect as Duke was, but he’s also doesn’t profile to be the type of pitcher Duke became. It’s just not a very useful comp.
Duke is compared to Owens not only because of "stuff" and being left handed. both were drafted very low as well.
Duke never struggled in the minors while it took Owens some time to get it going. to me, thats the biggest difference
Check this out.
I posted over on Anup’s website about Tim William’s recent write-up on Rudy Owens, and I got this response:
" My final argument will come in the form of Tim Williams recent entry on his website
No offense but Mr. Williams has about as much credibility as a baseball scout as Bozo the Clown does. Just because the organization allowed Owens to start throwing a four-seamer doesn’t mean his straight as an arrow increased velocity pitch holds any value.
That’s why scouts are so valuable.
Real scouts.
Not bloggers with radar guns."
to be clear
that response is not from Anup, just from some random guy in the comments section.
it's also true
that Tim Williams isn’t a scout. He is a great reporter and his site is excellent, but his opinion about how good Owens will be is only slightly more valuable than that of any of the posters here. This piece certainly isn’t the definitive word on why Owens isn’t another Zach Duke (though I agree that he’s not).
What is a scout
I question the whole idea of what a scout is. A “scout” is just a job title. It reflects knowledge, but it doesn’t give knowledge, and taking the title away doesn’t take the knowledge away.
Take Anup (and before I mention anything, I’ve never met him, I’m in no way interested in criticizing him, outside of who he associates with, so don’t take this that way). Anup is not a scout. He WAS a scout. But he’s not a scout. He doesn’t work for any team. He just writes for a site, and provides his opinion for the site.
Now that doesn’t mean he’s not knowledgable. He lost the title of “scout”, but he still has the knowledge that made him a scout.
By a comparison, if I’m hired tomorrow to be a scout for a major league team (and I have no interest in this), do I suddenly gain any knowledge with the new job title? Or is my knowledge just being recognized with the job?
The whole idea of being a scout is similar to a former job title I had: a fantasy sports expert. It was just a job title, and the real value was the knowledge that provided the opinions and analysis. It was something that a lot of hardcore fantasy sports enthusiasts could do, as long as they knew how to write using AP formatting, and were stubborn in their beliefs. There’s a lot of people who could be “scouts”, but the job title doesn’t give them any additional knowledge.
I will never be a scout, at least not for a major league team. It’s not a job that interests me, as it seems like a grueling travel schedule, and while I travel for the site now, I get to pick those times, which allows me to be flexible for my home life. I’ll never be a “scout”, but I do have an opinion, and that opinion is based on numerous things, including watching the players, talking to the players, talking to the coaches and team officials about the players, my own general knowledge of the game (which is expanding by the day), and talking to real “scouts”, as in the guys who currently have the job title. And just like I always used to mention to my fantasy baseball readers, it’s up to you to determine how much value my opinion has.
A “scout” refers to someone who is experienced in evaluating a player’s physical tools, skills, body, makeup, projection, etc. It’s definitely not just a job title, nor is it just an adjective that applies to anyone who cares to give their opinion about a baseball player.
My apologies if you are, in fact, an experienced scout, but your stuff certainly doesn’t read that way. That’s not a knock against you; as I said, your site is awesome. But your opinions/evaluations are just as valuable/worthless as any other blogger’s.
This isn’t to say that Anup Sinha’s impressions are more valuable than yours, either; just that he’s coming at it with a perspective/experience that most of us lack.
“A "scout" refers to someone who is experienced in evaluating a player’s physical tools, skills, body, makeup, projection, etc. It’s definitely not just a job title, nor is it just an adjective that applies to anyone who cares to give their opinion about a baseball player.”
That’s the job description of a scout, but that’s not saying that only scouts possess the ability to evaluate a player’s tools, skills, etc. As I mentioned before, if you take the “professional scout” title away from someone, that person still has the experience above. Likewise, if you give that title to someone who already has experience, the title doesn’t gain them additional experience.
I’ve never cared if people agreed or disagreed with my opinions. I’m just pointing out that the whole “scouting” thing is a gimmick/marketing tool, used to make it sound like the product is some sort of inside information that you can’t get elsewhere.
scouting
I can see your point. Certainly no one needs a job title to confirm their skills in a given area. But that doesn’t make scouting a gimmick or marketing tool. It’s a word that distinctly defines a particular skill. What you get from Anup (or Keith Law or Kevin Goldstein or Jim Callis, etc.) is qualitatively different from what you get from Pirates Prospects.
Just because he's not a scout...
doesn’t meet that the quality if infomation reported is less than what you would get from a scout. Kind of like of your neighbor fix your car or going to a mechanic. The mechanic has the official experience and probably certifications but your neighbor may be just as good.
no doubt
I guess that my use of the word “qualitative” was incorrect. Sorry, I didn’t mean that BA has better info than PP does. I should have said the difference was “categorical.” Tim’s info is great, but it’s not scouting info (aside from basic stuff like pitch types and velo).
I hadn't even thought of this.
My prior post does read as if Anup was issuing the quote, but it was a non-related poster. My apologies for any confusion.
Ya
you might want to see if you can get a Mod to edit that post because it reads very much like Anup issuing the quote and that’s a major indictment upon him. It comes back negatively against him and therefore, fairly or unfairly, against you.
Obviously an honest mistake and it would be great if it could be fixed. :D
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Mar 26, 2011 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions
And now I have to apologize for the flaming bag of poo I left on Anup’s doorstep. Oops.
by Wizard of Woz on Mar 29, 2011 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
