Article: I Think It's Time We Have the Blake Snell Talk

[Matthew Trueblood]

All offseason, the Cubs have been locked in a slow, dangerous tango with Scott Boras, and nearly all of the rumors and musings have centered on Cody Bellinger, Jordan Montgomery, and/or Matt Chapman. There's one more big name on Boras's client list, though, and it's time to tackle him.

Image courtesy of © Orlando Ramirez-USA TODAY Sports

I understand why Blake Snell is not some fans' cup of tea. If truth be told, he isn't mine, either. I like my aces to fill up the strike zone, and Snell (who walked a career-high 13.3 percent of opposing batters last year) stubbornly refuses to do so. He's an inveterate nibbler. He's also a two-time Cy Young Award winner. He has four truly filthy pitches, and he's actually pretty good at locating each of them. He just spends to much time trying to hit the corners and induce chases with his breaking stuff that he lets every count become a deep one.

In the last 50 seasons (going back to 1974), 10 pitchers have had at least seven no-hit bids that lasted at least six innings. Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, and Justin Verlander each have double-digit games of that type. Then there are Max Scherzer and David Cone, who got through six hitless frames eight times each. That leaves five guys who have gotten that far seven times each: Aníbal Sánchez, Tim Wakefield, Roger Clemens, Dave Stieb, and Snell. A perennial 30-percent strikeout guy as a starter, Snell only really gets held back by injuries. When he took the ball, he averaged 5,6 innings per start in 2023, which just isn't that bad. Let's go pitch by pitch through his arsenal, to discuss why he's so good.

Four-Seam Fastball
Snell doesn't have a freakish fastball, from a spin or a vertical approach angle (VAA) perspective. He's the anti-Shota Imanaga--all the special in his heater comes from the high height of his release point and the speed on it. Sitting 95 and with the ability to add and subtract a few ticks in each direction from there, Snell gets good ride when he attacks the top of the zone with the fastball. He almost has to work up there for the pitch to really take off and get the whiffs he wants.

Many pitchers, especially these days, excel at throwing their heater to one side of the plate or the other. They favor that side, and it sets up the rest of their arsenal, and they command the ball much better there than to the other side of the plate. That isn't in evidence at all with Snell. He's slightly better at commanding it to the glove side (away from a lefty) when a lefty is at the plate, mostly, he tries to move the pitch around to all quadrants and chase whiffs at the letters and above, without trying to cut the zone into thirds or quarters. Thinking that way about the fastball is what leads to starters with 13-percent walk rates, but it also makes it hard to square a guy up and leads to high strikeout rates.

Curveball
Coming from his high release point and spindly frame, Snell's curve catches you by surprise a little. You expect a hurler like this to have one of those elite spin rates--for the ball to sing with that high metallic sound as it comes of their fingers, like blade or a wine glass has been struck just right. Instead, he has a Drew Smyly-ish hook, with as much tumble as crazy top spin. Still, he does have that top spin, and he uses it to induce elite whiff rates on the curve--especially from righties. Overhand curves are often part of reverse-split packages, and indeed, lefties make contact better and more often against Snell's hook than do righties. It's a pitch that works gorgeously off the fastball, though, regardless of the handedness of the opponent.

Changeup
The offering for which Snell doesn't get enough credit is the changeup, a pitch of which he does have pretty tight command. It's not a bat-missing monster, but it does induce whiffs. More importantly, it's a weak contact machine for him. Opponents had an average exit velocity south of 80 miles per hour and an average launch angle of just over 2 degrees on Snell's changeup in 2023. He didn't throw the pitch a single time to a lefty; he threw nearly 600 of them to righties. He just pounds away at one target with it, and because righties have to be ready for three other pitches, they're helpless on it.

Slider
This is the pitch that occasionally gets hit hard for him. Snell's slider is a 'gyro' type offering, with a small deviation in actual spin axis from the fastball but a wide variance in the exact spin he applies to it from one offering to the next. 

It still gets a ton of whiffs, but a pitch like that is not going to be easily or prettily commanded. It's far from a sweeper, with a mostly vertical movement differential from the fastball, and it'll sometimes hang on the glove-side third of the plate, above the knee. When that happens, he does pay for it. It doesn't happen so often that he really gets hurt in the big picture, though, as evidenced by the two Cy Young Awards and the career ERA of 3.20.

Snell is a much more complete pitcher than he gets credit for. Entering the offseason, I ranked him fourth on my list of the top 50 fits for the Cubs in free agency, one ahead of Imanaga. I still think that's true. It's very hard to swallow the worry and pony up over $200 million for a pitcher like Snell, because he issues so many walks and has had hip trouble, groin trouble, and loose bodies in his elbow within the last five years. Once you step back from focusing on your preferred picayune problems, though, you can see the big picture, and it's worth that kind of investment. Snell is the last player available who really represents an infusion of superstar talent and transformation for the Cubs. With him joining Justin Steele, Imanaga, Jameson Taillon, and Kyle Hendricks in the starting rotation, the team would take a leap to a new level of expected competitiveness. 

Obviously, it's wildly unlikely to come to fruition. If the Cubs do spend that kind of money at this point, it's more likely to be on Cody Bellinger. Still, I think Snell might be a wiser investment than has become the consensus. He does a lot of things very, very well--more than enough to make up for the things he does that are aggravating.

Would you still want Snell on a long-term, high-dollar deal? Or does Imanaga slake your thirst for rotation reinforcement this winter? Let's discuss it.

View full article

[Derwood]

Reports say that Boras is asking for 9/$270 for him, which is why the Giants and Yankees pivoted to Hicks/Stroman. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Multiple things can be true.  Ownership and by extension front offices can be too conservative with their budgets and therefore their risk tolerances, and also it's not a coincidence that most of the remaining marquee free agents all have the same agent who may not have the most grounded view of the value of those players.  Blake Snell is a good pitcher, he's also 31, is projected by ZiPS to be a similar caliber pitcher as Imanaga, and has been a sub-3 WAR caliber pitcher in half his seasons.  We can hold these contrasting thoughts in our head and even disagree about how to weight them without it being the result of a lifetime of brainwashing and proof positive of the game succumbing to capitalist overlords.

[CubinNY]

I'm not sure where Derwood is getting his information from, but no one is giving a 31-year-old pitcher a 9-year contract. 

[Stratos]

Cubs rotation isn't a strength but I don't see them filling up 4 of 5 rotation spots with longterm SP when there's several good young SP.  Unless they want to go to a 6 man rotation.

Trade for short term SP makes more sense

[Irrelevant Dude]

1 minute ago, Stratos said:

Cubs rotation isn't a strength but I don't see them filling up 4 of 5 rotation spots with longterm SP when there's several good young SP.  Unless they want to go to a 6 man rotation.

Indications are that they do, at least in some form.  Maybe not a straight 6-man rotation, but it sure sounds like they want to work in additional starters (beyond the regular five) to help manage workloads and give guys extra rest.

[Tryptamine]

He turned down 5/150 from the Yankees and frankly I wouldn't be willing to go a whole lot higher than that. Remember, 2023 was the first time since 2018 that Snell has exceeded 128.2 ML IP. I could maybe be convinced to go 6/175, but I'm just not going any higher than that. Age and durability concerns are too much and that super inflated BB% in 2023 means there is no way he's replicating a year like that again unless he has another 86.7 LOB% which is just incredibly unlikely as most pitchers sit in the low to mid 70s. 

[Bertz]

1 hour ago, Stratos said:

Cubs rotation isn't a strength but I don't see them filling up 4 of 5 rotation spots with longterm SP when there's several good young SP.  Unless they want to go to a 6 man rotation.

Trade for short term SP makes more sense

Yeah I think if you want to pile onto the rotation I'd do a trade rather than a signing.  I think Snell and Jesus Luzardo are pretty comparable levels of impact, and I'd much rather spend the prospect capital on the latter right now.

That said it's wild that everyone is so terrified of Snell.  It's very similar to Matt Chapman where because of the objectively crappy aesthetics of his playing style fans are convinced he's much worse than he actually is.  There's also this dumb thing where people can't separate lucky and bad.  Blake Snell was very lucky last year.  But he was still quite good, just lucky on top of it.

[WhyCantWeWin]

It seemed like Hoyer was pretty firm when he said he doesn't see the Cubs signing another starting pitcher, unless the deal was too good to pass up. I think near zero chance Snell ends up a Cub because I can't fathom how his market could end up near a place a cubs would pounce at, and with him attached to a QO pick, Hoyer won't want to sacrifice a draft pick giving a guy a 1 year or opt out deal at the cost of that pick. 

[Joj]

Both common sense and recent comments by Hoyer seem to have put the final nail in the coffin on further SP talk.  Not sure it's worth the time or energy to keep looking at Snell's or anyone else's numbers.

The team is still playing catchup on offense.  By quite a bit.  Even if/when Bellinger signs. 

PIVOT.

[Matthew Trueblood]

36 minutes ago, WhyCantWeWin said:

It seemed like Hoyer was pretty firm when he said he doesn't see the Cubs signing another starting pitcher, unless the deal was too good to pass up. I think near zero chance Snell ends up a Cub because I can't fathom how his market could end up near a place a cubs would pounce at, and with him attached to a QO pick, Hoyer won't want to sacrifice a draft pick giving a guy a 1 year or opt out deal at the cost of that pick. 

Jed Hoyer always speaks so guardedly and then half the time he doesn't do what he really only hints he's gonna do, but people always seem to take what he says at face value, anyway. I'm not directly faulting you, but I don't hear what other people seem to hear when Hoyer talks, and I think history supports my interpretation, which amounts to: not one word he says in public means anything.

[Stratos]

2 hours ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Indications are that they do, at least in some form.  Maybe not a straight 6-man rotation, but it sure sounds like they want to work in additional starters (beyond the regular five) to help manage workloads and give guys extra rest.

I haven't heard this

[Stratos]

39 minutes ago, Matt Trueblood said:

Jed Hoyer always speaks so guardedly and then half the time he doesn't do what he really only hints he's gonna do, but people always seem to take what he says at face value, anyway. I'm not directly faulting you, but I don't hear what other people seem to hear when Hoyer talks, and I think history supports my interpretation, which amounts to: not one word he says in public means anything.

Examples?

[WhyCantWeWin]

58 minutes ago, Matt Trueblood said:

Jed Hoyer always speaks so guardedly and then half the time he doesn't do what he really only hints he's gonna do, but people always seem to take what he says at face value, anyway. I'm not directly faulting you, but I don't hear what other people seem to hear when Hoyer talks, and I think history supports my interpretation, which amounts to: not one word he says in public means anything.

I think he's been pretty consistent with his words and actions. Maybe aside from getting more swing and miss strikeout pitchers in the rotation 

[Derwood]

4 hours ago, CubinNY said:

I'm not sure where Derwood is getting his information from, but no one is giving a 31-year-old pitcher a 9-year contract. 

Correct, no one has. It’s Boras’ ask (which is why teams are looking elsewhere)

[We Got The Whole 9]

3 hours ago, Joj said:

Both common sense and recent comments by Hoyer seem to have put the final nail in the coffin on further SP talk.  Not sure it's worth the time or energy to keep looking at Snell's or anyone else's numbers.

The team is still playing catchup on offense.  By quite a bit.  Even if/when Bellinger signs. 

PIVOT.

The team scored a shitload of runs last year, people underrate the offense. If they sign Bellinger they project to have above-average players comparative to their peers at the position, all across the field. 

[CubinNY]

12 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

The team scored a shitload of runs last year, people underrate the offense. If they sign Bellinger they project to have above-average players comparative to their peers at the position, all across the field. 

Hot and long spells of cold. They are not consistently good.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

3 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Hot and long spells of cold. They are not consistently good.

The Cubs were 3rd in the NL in runs.  By month they were 2nd, 12th, 9th, 1st, 4th, and 3rd.  They were closest to the Phillies, who were 7th/13th/7th/7th/3rd/6th by month.  I don't think consistency is a fair criticism, I think the ebbs and flows of a season lead to offensive ups and downs for everyone.  And their months where they were well below the standard were largely without Belllinger, which also speaks to them being quite good with Bellinger before other upgrades.

[Irrelevant Dude]

2 hours ago, Stratos said:

I haven't heard this

I don't have specific quotes, but it was implied in some of the conversations at Cubs Convention.  Counsell definitely mentioned pitching guys on 5 days rest and it sounded like that would be something he tries to do whenever possible.  Again, I don't know what form that will take, but it definitely doesn't sound like he is married to the strict 5 man rotation.

[Stratos]

4 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

The Cubs were 3rd in the NL in runs.  By month they were 2nd, 12th, 9th, 1st, 4th, and 3rd.  They were closest to the Phillies, who were 7th/13th/7th/7th/3rd/6th by month.  I don't think consistency is a fair criticism, I think the ebbs and flows of a season lead to offensive ups and downs for everyone.  And their months where they were well below the standard were largely without Belllinger, which also speaks to them being quite good with Bellinger before other upgrades.

Mancini/Hosmer/Barnhart/Mervis were terrible and once they were replaced by Morel, Tauchman, Amaya, and Bellinger at 1B the offense took off and had a really good 2nd half.  If they avoid those kinds of blackholes again, especially at offensive positions like 1B and DH, I think they'll have a good offense again.  They have more depth this year all over the diamond so hopefully that's not going to be the issue it was.

At every position except DH and 2b the average MLB teams gets between 2.0 to 2.3 WAR over 162 games.  If the rest of the offseason is productive for Jed we have a good shot to be above average at every position besides possibly catcher, but that should improve at least without Barnhart.  I'd be fine with just average at 1B given Busch/Mervis being basically rookies and Wisdom or someone else there against LHP when needed.

The weakness as of now is again the pitching.  The SP can be at least adequate and has depth, we'll need the pen to be a strength and lock down leads + keep trailing scores close for the hitters.

[CubinNY]

15 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

The Cubs were 3rd in the NL in runs.  By month they were 2nd, 12th, 9th, 1st, 4th, and 3rd.  They were closest to the Phillies, who were 7th/13th/7th/7th/3rd/6th by month.  I don't think consistency is a fair criticism, I think the ebbs and flows of a season lead to offensive ups and downs for everyone.  And their months where they were well below the standard were largely without Belllinger, which also speaks to them being quite good with Bellinger before other upgrades.

Those numbers don't support your argument one bit. We all watched this team last year. 

[Bertz]

29 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Those numbers don't support your argument one bit. We all watched this team last year. 

Every team thinks their team's offense is too streaky.  It's just baseball.

[We Got The Whole 9]

1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

Those numbers don't support your argument one bit. We all watched this team last year. 

Only a few of you don't seem to grasp how good they were mostly because they had a lot of games where they scored a ton of runs as if that should be a knock against them or something

[CubinNY]

56 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Only a few of you don't seem to grasp how good they were mostly because they had a lot of games where they scored a ton of runs as if that should be a knock against them or something

They had 63 games where they scored 3 or fewer runs. They did have a pretty good "blow out" record. They did not hit HRs. They were a hot and cold team with long stretches of cold. Scoring a lot of runs in one game is not a knock on them, but it also skews the data when you are looking at aggregate data and measures of central tendency. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

2 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

They had 63 games where they scored 3 or fewer runs. They did have a pretty good "blow out" record. They did not hit HRs. They were a hot and cold team with long stretches of cold. Scoring a lot of runs in one game is not a knock on them, but it also skews the data when you are looking at aggregate data and measures of central tendency. 

The Dodgers scored 87 more runs than the Cubs and still had 52 games of 3 or fewer.  What do you think is the right number to not be streaky?