Jump to content
North Side Baseball
  • Replies 4.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Can someone explain the meaning of the role talk?

 

 

Someone else may have exact definitions but its something like:

 

8 - superstar

7 - all-star

6 - first division starter

5 - major league regular

 

 

Similar for pitchers with aces as 8, #1 starters as 7 etc.

Posted
It's a touch frustrating that I've seen Parks use a lot of words talking about Edwards at a couple different points, and I'm still not sure how good he thinks Edwards is. I know that he thinks Edwards' frame won't hold up, but aside from that I can't tell how much of that "impact reliever ceiling" skepticism is his frame, or his frame + other factors.

 

The other thing that bothers me about prospect talk is the whole TOR thing. It's that thing everybody talks about but nobody actually defines, I guess because everybody always assumes everybody else knows what they mean, even if they don't. What does it mean when you say a guy doesn't project to be a top of the rotation pitcher? Is that a projection of how well he'll pitch, how many innings he can pitch, or what? Because, based on the framing, the definition seems very inconsistent.

Posted
I'm pretty sure all scouts/prospect writers use what BA puts in their handbook in describing starters. A 4/5 has command of 2 major league pitches, average velo, consistent breaking ball, and a decent change. A 3 has one plus pitch, two average pitches, average command and makeup. A 2 has 2 plus pitches, average 3rd pitch, command, and makeup. The definition of a 1 is 2 plus pitches, average 3rd pitch, plus plus command, and plus makeup.
Posted
I'm pretty sure all scouts/prospect writers use what BA puts in their handbook in describing starters. A 4/5 has command of 2 major league pitches, average velo, consistent breaking ball, and a decent change. A 3 has one plus pitch, two average pitches, average command and makeup. A 2 has 2 plus pitches, average 3rd pitch, command, and makeup. The definition of a 1 is 2 plus pitches, average 3rd pitch, plus plus command, and plus makeup.

 

I think you can have #1 upside without command. Guys like Kerry Wood, Verlander, Scherzer who have the electric fastball and killer breaking ball though they can't always harness it were elite prospects without the plus command. They don't hit their ceiling until that command improves though.

Posted
As great as Wood's stuff was, I don't think we can look back and say he was an ace. Certainly capable of dominating a game, no doubt, but never with any consistency. His best BB/9 rate was 3.27 in a season with at least 20 starts and it was the only time he was under 4. Scherzer has been 2.88 or under the last 3 seasons. Verlander had a 4 year stretch no higher than 2.85, 3of which were 2.36 or better. He did climb to 3.09 this year, for what it's worth.
Posted
As great as Wood's stuff was, I don't think we can look back and say he was an ace. Certainly capable of dominating a game, no doubt, but never with any consistency. His best BB/9 rate was 3.27 in a season with at least 20 starts and it was the only time he was under 4. Scherzer has been 2.88 or under the last 3 seasons. Verlander had a 4 year stretch no higher than 2.85, 3of which were 2.36 or better. He did climb to 3.09 this year, for what it's worth.

 

 

I think his point was that as a prospect, his ceiling was as an ace. I agree he didn't reach it but he was given that ceiling even though he didn't have the command.

Posted
It's a touch frustrating that I've seen Parks use a lot of words talking about Edwards at a couple different points, and I'm still not sure how good he thinks Edwards is. I know that he thinks Edwards' frame won't hold up, but aside from that I can't tell how much of that "impact reliever ceiling" skepticism is his frame, or his frame + other factors.

I think it's mostly frame, but maybe some other factors too. Later in the chat, he says Marcus Stroman has starter stuff and sees him as a starter despite the fact he's 5'9". He's never been as definite with Edwards.

Posted
Jason Cole ‏@LoneStarDugout 2m

Big arm strength from #Cubs RHP prospect Juan Carlos Paniagua at instructs today. Working 92-96, T97. Flashing plus life.

That's encouraging. Where does he start this year? KC or Daytona? Or do they hold him at instructs until the MWL starts?

Posted
Jason Cole ‏@LoneStarDugout 2m

Big arm strength from #Cubs RHP prospect Juan Carlos Paniagua at instructs today. Working 92-96, T97. Flashing plus life.

That's encouraging. Where does he start this year? KC or Daytona? Or do they hold him at instructs until the MWL starts?

 

Uh isn't KC the MWL?

Posted
Jason Cole ‏@LoneStarDugout 2m

Big arm strength from #Cubs RHP prospect Juan Carlos Paniagua at instructs today. Working 92-96, T97. Flashing plus life.

That's encouraging. Where does he start this year? KC or Daytona? Or do they hold him at instructs until the MWL starts?

 

Uh isn't KC the MWL?

 

I assume he meant NWL

Posted
Jason Cole ‏@LoneStarDugout 2m

Big arm strength from #Cubs RHP prospect Juan Carlos Paniagua at instructs today. Working 92-96, T97. Flashing plus life.

That's encouraging. Where does he start this year? KC or Daytona? Or do they hold him at instructs until the MWL starts?

 

Uh isn't KC the MWL?

Yeah, NWL (Boise). My bad

Posted
I should've realized that. Rough morning.
Posted
I think Paniagua could start at Daytona with a good fall and March but I think KC is the floor for him. He's a real wild card given his advanced age, flashy stuff combined with horrible results in 2013.
Posted
http://networkedblogs.com/Q8448

 

Blog entry comparing this prospect class to 2002.

 

And LOL at him referencing Kyle.

 

I'm adding "Internet's Most Important Cubs Fan" to my list of titles.

 

He's basically right: We got a decent run from the early 2000s group and we'll get at least that from this group, more than likely, although the tougher division may have something to say about it.

Posted
http://networkedblogs.com/Q8448

 

Blog entry comparing this prospect class to 2002.

 

And LOL at him referencing Kyle.

 

I'm adding "Internet's Most Important Cubs Fan" to my list of titles.

 

He's basically right: We got a decent run from the early 2000s group and we'll get at least that from this group, more than likely, although the tougher division may have something to say about it.

 

Yeah. The sample sizes aren't and won't be enough to be really scientific, but I always felt like evaluating prospects (and therefore prospect lists) is getting better because more and more people know what to look for. Less falling in love with tools when there are red flags with numbers and stuff like that.

Posted
It's fun to dream about a bullpen of Paniagua, Vizcaino, Black, Strop and Rivera.

 

And Rosscup and Edwards and Vizcaino.

 

Do we have 2 Vizcainos or something? Because I'd be happy for the 1 that I know of to work out.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

×
×
  • Create New...