Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AVencill

Weiters in Frederick/Bowie in 2008

Recommended Posts

Loewen is not a thinking mans pitcher like Glavine. And his stuff is no where near Smoltzs level. Loewen was barely cracking 90 MPH with his fastball. He looks no better then Garrett Olson to me.

Loewen was consistently in the 93-95 range with his fastball last season, and that's with some serious cutting action. You are seriously underestimating his stuff. I may be in the minority, but I think it's better than Bedard's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loewen was consistently in the 93-95 range with his fastball last season, and that's with some serious cutting action. You are seriously underestimating his stuff. I may be in the minority, but I think it's better than Bedard's.

I am in that minority with you. I think Loewen's stuff can be better than Bedards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can be better and is better are two different statements. Bedard is as good has just about anyone in baseball. The difference is Adam's ceiling is at that level, bedard is actually at that level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loewen was consistently in the 93-95 range with his fastball last season, and that's with some serious cutting action. You are seriously underestimating his stuff. I may be in the minority, but I think it's better than Bedard's.

I've never seen Loewen consistently in the 93-95mph range. When I've watched him (virtually every major league start he's made) he's worked in the 89-92 range, with an occasional fastball at 93-94.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never seen Loewen consistently in the 93-95mph range. When I've watched him (virtually every major league start he's made) he's worked in the 89-92 range, with an occasional fastball at 93-94.

Well maybe we're watching two different radar guns, because every time I've watched him, his fast ball sat comfortably at 93, and he's cranked it up to 95 when reaching back. Sure, he takes some off at times, but he can still pitch (from what I've seen) in the 93-95 range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never seen Loewen consistently in the 93-95mph range. When I've watched him (virtually every major league start he's made) he's worked in the 89-92 range, with an occasional fastball at 93-94.

I'm with you. I've seen him touch 93-94, but the great majority of the time he's 88-92. No way was he ever consistently in the 93-95 range. Anyone who states otherwise should get their eyes tested or change the orange colored tint on their shades to something more neutral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with you. I've seen him touch 93-94, but the great majority of the time he's 88-92. No way was he ever consistently in the 93-95 range. Anyone who states otherwise should get their eyes tested or change the orange colored tint on their shades to something more neutral.

There's a great way to make your point...insult everyone who disagrees. It sounds like people have seen two different readings on the gun. The scouting report on Loewen since he was drafted was that he threw comfortably in the low-mid 90s. With some of the injuries and questions about his mechanics, it seems he has varied between that and a less impressive (~90) range. Either way, it certainly is disputable and it's both childish and errant for you to insult/denigrate all who hold the opposite view of yourself. Not to mention, you have provided all of ZERO evidence that your argument is correct.

Also, I think O's fan from NC may be onto something, considering Loewen's preference for sinkers/cutters v the 4-seamer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a great way to make your point...insult everyone who disagrees. It sounds like people have seen two different readings on the gun. The scouting report on Loewen since he was drafted was that he threw comfortably in the low-mid 90s. With some of the injuries and questions about his mechanics, it seems he has varied between that and a less impressive (~90) range. Either way, it certainly is disputable and it's both childish and errant for you to insult/denigrate all who hold the opposite view of yourself. Not to mention, you have provided all of ZERO evidence that your argument is correct.

Also, I think O's fan from NC may be onto something, considering Loewen's preference for sinkers/cutters v the 4-seamer.

Where Loewen's velocity sits isn't really on opinion or a viewpoint, though. I've never seen him sit at 93-95 for most of a game. He's almost always in the 88-92 range. He can dial it up faster, but he certainly hasn't had games where he stays that high all game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where Loewen's velocity sits isn't really on opinion or a viewpoint, though. I've never seen him sit at 93-95 for most of a game. He's almost always in the 88-92 range. He can dial it up faster, but he certainly hasn't had games where he stays that high all game.

What he said.

Loewen's fastball velocity is usually 88-92.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elite college ball is nowhere near Double-A level. The vast majority of the players playing the top college ball are not even pro prospects. I would say it's a lot closer to Sally League or Rookie level....

High-level college ball might not be AA, but it's not Rookie League, either.

The problem with any of these college-pro translations is that college teams and leagues have a wider spread of talent than in a pro league. In a sense NCAA ball is more like Japan or Mexico, or any independent league that isn't automatically funneling 100% of their best players to the majors - you'll have players in college who'd never be drafted in a million years, but you also have guys like Weiters who're nearly MLB hitters right now. Yes, there are pitchers at the back end of college pens with 72 mph fastballs, but you also have guys equivalent to Huston Street who'll go from the College WS to closing major league games in six weeks.

And that goes for whole teams and leagues, too. Georgia Tech or Miami could probably step in and play well in the Carolina League, but a mid-level Big East team might have problems in the NY-Penn League. There's just a wide diversity of talent.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
High-level college ball might not be AA, but it's not Rookie League, either.

The problem with any of these college-pro translations is that college teams and leagues have a wider spread of talent than in a pro league. In a sense NCAA ball is more like Japan or Mexico, or any independent league that isn't automatically funneling 100% of their best players to the majors - you'll have players in college who'd never be drafted in a million years, but you also have guys like Weiters who're nearly MLB hitters right now. Yes, there are pitchers at the back end of college pens with 72 mph fastballs, but you also have guys equivalent to Huston Street who'll go from the College WS to closing major league games in six weeks.

And that goes for whole teams and leagues, too. Georgia Tech or Miami could probably step in and play well in the Carolina League, but a mid-level Big East team might have problems in the NY-Penn League. There's just a wide diversity of talent.

I think this is a spot on statement. I would think the scouts would look at how players do when they face the cream of the crop to try to determine at what level a college player is at. Now this screams sample size problems, but I would imagine it is how it is done anyway.

I think I will trust Jordan's view that he is already at the AA level in his play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Georgia Tech or Miami could probably step in and play well in the Carolina League, but a mid-level Big East team might have problems in the NY-Penn League. There's just a wide diversity of talent.

There is no way the current GaTech roster could "play well" in the Carolina league over the course of a season. They would not have appropriate depth either offensively (moving to a wood bat) or (especially) pitching-wise - going five starters deep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no way the current GaTech roster could "play well" in the Carolina league over the course of a season. They would not have appropriate depth either offensively (moving to a wood bat) or (especially) pitching-wise - going five starters deep.

Isn't that essentially what I was saying? The top level talent in the ACC is probably just as good as that in high A, maybe better, but the back ends of the rosters don't match up. Hence the unaffiliated league comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you posted that GaTech could be dropped into the Carolina league and "play well" right now.

I believe GaTech would finish as the last place team in a High A league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • The problem isn’t just missing pitches here and there, as frustrating as that can be for the players and managers. When an ump is having a bad game the batters, pitchers, and catchers have no idea what the strike zone is going to be from inning to inning or even from pitch to pitch. How was Realmuto to know that last pitch was going to be called strike three to end the game when a better pitch to Harper had been called a ball just seconds earlier?    One of the main advantages of an electronic strike zone would be the consistency of that zone. What’s a strike now will be a strike next inning and next game and next year. I think that’s where the primary value will be found. 
    • As if my year couldn’t get any worse, Sisco starts doing good...
    • I've been in the robo ump camp for a while now, and these examples only strengthen my viewpoint.  The time has come to remove ball and strike calls from the umpire.  Make it happen.
    • I am still adjusting to all the new people, in part because I watch over the MLB app and I frenetically switch between the TV, radio, home/away feeds so everyone kinda blurs together (particularly after a few beers). I think Ben is awesome on color. I like Melanie the best so far on play by play. Her even, steady, slow, accurate calls are a classic style. I find her voice pleasing. Sure, she could work on the excitement a bit perhaps, but I think it is better to grow into excitement than to come to the door with it. She will find her signature call. She has the most upside of the lot I think.
    • I don't have a problem with the baseball knowledge or game calling accuracy of anyone on the TV or radio crews this year. I fully understand the difficult circumstances and that they're beholden to what they see on TV. I don't think any of them are dunces about baseball. I'm sure all of them are very nice people, too. The lack of excitement -- especially with Scott Garceau -- is the worst thing for me. Jim Hunter may not have known the sport, but at least he knew how to make a home run call. He was also an excellent setup man for Jim Palmer's often sarcastic retorts. Palmer was so great at underhandedly insulting Hunter for not even "getting it" after Palmer hinted at it and it was so funny. Their dynamic was far more entertaining than Garceau and McDonald.
    • In some areas of private industry, there's a (fairly brutal, honestly) performance management process called "stack ranking." In stack ranking, everyone's performance is compared against each other, using a combination of objective and subjective metrics. The elite few at the top get raises and/or promotions; the solid contributors get to coast along undisturbed; the struggling end up getting "help" to try to improve their performance; and the worst of the worst get fired. This happens on a monthly, bi-annual or yearly cadence depending on the company. Stack ranking of umpires would be based on their accuracy on calls compared to the "correct" call via video review / electronic strike zone. You could set up the strata exactly as you do for tech workers: give raises to the best, let the good ones keep going, pull the struggling ones from daily MLB games and have them work on their calls and improve in some kind of umpiring camp, and just fire the worst ~1% every year. The other thing you could do is add more umpires to the umpiring pool. This would increase the "overhead" cost of umpiring, yes, but by adding more umpires without adding more teams or games, you could set up a situation where only the best X% of umpires get to call MLB games on the regular. The rest would either call simulated games, extended spring training games, or minor league games until they get better.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...