Jump to content
North Side Baseball
  • Cubs News & Analysis

    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

    Cubs Video

    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.

    export (42).png
    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.

    export (43).png

    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. 

    export (41).png

    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. export (40).pngOnce 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.

    Follow North Side Baseball For Chicago Cubs News & Analysis

    Recent Cubs Articles

    Recent Cubs Videos


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    Transmogrified Tiger

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Joj said:

    The team's offense came out of nowhere in 2023.  They played over their heads quite a bit.  And, again, we saw the inconsistency in the 2nd half.  There's nothing wrong with admitting that.

    There is something wrong with admitting that, because those things are not particularly true.   Some players played better than expected, some played worse or spent more time hurt, it wasn't aberrant on the whole.  They also weren't any more inconsistent in their scoring than other teams, especially in the 2nd half when they were a top offense in the NL every month.

     

    3 minutes ago, Joj said:

    I'd much rather see them spend the money than give up young players.  I'm still annoyed by Epstein's Chapman and Wade Davis deals.  Besides, THEY HAVE MONEY.

    Signing Hader requires them to give up a young player, maybe more than one depending on how you want to draw the line between prospect and minor league flyer/flotsam.

    Rcal10

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Joj said:

    I'd much rather see them spend the money than give up young players.  I'm still annoyed by Epstein's Chapman and Wade Davis deals.  Besides, THEY HAVE MONEY.

    If Theo doesn’t get Chapman the Cubs would be on year 116 without a championship. So I have no idea why that deal annoyed you. And they aren’t spending $20M and giving Hader 5 years at that average. And I wouldn’t either.

    Joj

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

    Signing Hader requires them to give up a young player, maybe more than one depending on how you want to draw the line between prospect and minor league flyer/flotsam.

    I'm far more interested in top-end talent than piddly compensatory picks that almost always amount to nothing.

    Rcal10

    Posted

    On 1/17/2024 at 12:27 PM, Tryptamine said:

    I'm all in favor of bullpen help, but dropping 20 million of the remaining 55m on Hader isn't the way. At that point, if they signed Bellinger the money is nearly all gone when you figure they're probably going to save 5ish million for the deadline. I think it's much more prudent to shop in the Stephenson range with the high end being Robertson. 

    If you believe the Cubs will go over the first LT line the idea of them holding back money doesn’t exist. They can go to a number Ricketts is comfortable with and have plenty extra for the trade deadline. That said, I don’t want them to spend $20M a year and give Hader a 5 or 6 year deal. I would much rather add 2 bats and a solid pen arm (at a lower cost than Hader). Or even 1 bat, one one pen arm and another starting pitcher. 

    Joj

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

    If Theo doesn’t get Chapman the Cubs would be on year 116 without a championship. So I have no idea why that deal annoyed you. And they aren’t spending $20M and giving Hader 5 years at that average. And I wouldn’t either.

    Nah.  There would've been someone else in that spot.  I watched every single game.  Everyone who did knows that Chapman was anything but solid.  Especially during the playoffs.

    • Disagree 2
    • Haha 1
    Joj

    Posted

    Chapman was so good that they let him walk immediately and threw even more prospects at Wade Davis that offseason.

    CubinNY

    Posted

    6 minutes ago, Joj said:

    Chapman was so good that they let him walk immediately and threw even more prospects at Wade Davis that offseason.

    I'd love to have had Soler. Also, Davis hated Chicago. I think he's kind of a dickhead. 

    We Got The Whole 9

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Joj said:

    Nah.  There would've been someone else in that spot.  I watched every single game.  Everyone who did knows that Chapman was anything but solid.  Especially during the playoffs.

    Who? Strop and Rondon pitched 4 combined innings in the WS. 

    mul21

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, Joj said:

    Chapman was so good that they let him walk immediately and threw even more prospects at Wade Davis that offseason.

    A. Do you know they didn't offer him a contract?

    B. You can't make a player sign with your team when he clearly wants to be elsewhere.

    C. You're new here, maybe back off on the attitude a bit and get a feel for the board before you come out swinging and belittling people.

    • Sad 1
    We Got The Whole 9

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Joj said:

    Chapman was so good that they let him walk immediately and threw even more prospects at Wade Davis that offseason.

    Chapman was so good he earned an 85M contract. Jorge Soler had nowhere to play on the Cubs because of the colossal blunder of the Jason Heyward contract. 

    • Like 1
    Joj

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

    I'd love to have had Soler. Also, Davis hated Chicago. I think he's kind of a dickhead. 

    Yeah, I remember Davis being pretty prickly.  Pitched well enough, even as a rental.  I hear you on Soler.  It took a couple seasons but those 48 HR 117 RBI in 2019 could've come in handy.

    Joj

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, mul21 said:

    A. Do you know they didn't offer him a contract?

    LOL  You think they did? 

    Quote

    B. You can't make a player sign with your team when he clearly wants to be elsewhere.

    Thanks so much for explaining.

    Quote

    C. You're new here, maybe back off on the attitude a bit and get a feel for the board before you come out swinging and belittling people.

    Thanks so much for having me, this seems great.

    Were any of you guys on the old Cubs board?  Think I had 15k or something there.  Maybe 20.  It was a huge waste of time, honestly.  Anyway, I'm not new to message boards.  Or dealing with trolls.

    • Haha 1
    We Got The Whole 9

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Joj said:

    Yeah, I remember Davis being pretty prickly.  Pitched well enough, even as a rental.  I hear you on Soler.  It took a couple seasons but those 48 HR 117 RBI in 2019 could've come in handy.

    Ah, so what about 2017 and 2018? Soler gave the Royals 30 games in 2017 and was so bad he almost accrued -1 war in that short time. In 2018 he gave them 60 games and barely provided a half of a win in value. When they signed Heyward, RF was taken, and it was a decision between Soler and Schwarber for who would get LF. They chose Soler. He was valuable enough to get one year of a top-end closer. That was a good use of resources IMO. You can't just cherry-pick the one good season he had. You would have had to have lived with the 2 seasons of horsefeathers before it. 

    Joj

    Posted

    Just now, We Got The Whole 9 said:

    Ah, so what about 2017 and 2018? Soler gave the Royals 30 games in 2017 and was so bad he almost accrued -1 war in that short time. In 2018 he gave them 60 games and barely provided a half of a win in value. When they signed Heyward, RF was taken, and it was a decision between Soler and Schwarber for who would get LF. They chose Soler. He was valuable enough to get one year of a top-end closer. That was a good use of resources IMO. You can't just cherry-pick the one good season he had. You would have had to have lived with the 2 seasons of horsefeathers before it. 

    Thought I already addressed all of that in one sentence.

    I don't agree with the decision to trade a bunch of talent for closers when you're a large market team who can afford to sign someone.  Especially when they are one-year rentals.  A better use of resources would've been to spend FA money and either keep or trade prospects for more pressing, longer-term needs.  If a large-market team is scared to flex their financial muscles they immediately lose the inherent edge they have on the Miami Marlins of the world.  Spending FA money is often times cheaper, ironically.

    Jason Ross

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

    Ah, so what about 2017 and 2018? Soler gave the Royals 30 games in 2017 and was so bad he almost accrued -1 war in that short time. In 2018 he gave them 60 games and barely provided a half of a win in value. When they signed Heyward, RF was taken, and it was a decision between Soler and Schwarber for who would get LF. They chose Soler. He was valuable enough to get one year of a top-end closer. That was a good use of resources IMO. You can't just cherry-pick the one good season he had. You would have had to have lived with the 2 seasons of horsefeathers before it. 

    Adding to that: Soler was a clear, defined, DH by 2019, posting a -9 DRS in just 400 some odd innings. In 2019, the Cubs did not have the benefit of a DH position, so even in the scenario Soler had an OF position to play, he'd likely have given back huge swaths of value being a fish out of water. As well, a competing Cubs team was highly unlikely to turn over a position to someone fully in 2019 who had posted a -.3 fWAR as they entered 2019 the last two seasons, either. 

    Soler has had a few nice seasons mish-mashed in a pretty up and down career as a DH. But it probably would have never really had a chance to have gotten off the ground had he been in Chicago for most of it. The Cubs were almost assuredly going to have to trade him at some point, and they probably cashed in on his peak value to the team by dealing him for Davis. 

    Joj

    Posted

    Just now, 1908_Cubs said:

    Adding to that: Soler was a clear, defined, DH by 2019, posting a -9 DRS in just 400 some odd innings. In 2019, the Cubs did not have the benefit of a DH position, so even in the scenario Soler had an OF position to play, he'd likely have given back huge swaths of value being a fish out of water. As well, a competing Cubs team was highly unlikely to turn over a position to someone fully in 2019 who had posted a -.3 fWAR as they entered 2019 the last two seasons, either. 

    Soler has had a few nice seasons mish-mashed in a pretty up and down career as a DH. But it probably would have never really had a chance to have gotten off the ground had he been in Chicago for most of it. The Cubs were almost assuredly going to have to trade him at some point, and they probably cashed in on his peak value to the team by dealing him for Davis. 

    I mean, we can sit around and pick nits all day long but my problem was with trading ANY of them for a one-year CP

    Rcal10

    Posted (edited)

    53 minutes ago, Joj said:

    Nah.  There would've been someone else in that spot.  I watched every single game.  Everyone who did knows that Chapman was anything but solid.  Especially during the playoffs.

    This is perhaps the most ridiculous comment I have seen on this board. If Chapman isn’t a Cub he goes to the Giants, most likely. If he is on the Giants the Cubs don’t come back in game 4. Chapman had a bad game 7. That was from overuse. You know why he was overused? They didn’t have anyone else. When else was Chapman anything but solid? Game 5 of the World Series he held 1 run lead for more than an 2 inning. He came in the game in the 7th. He shouldn’t have been used in game 6.
    Stop acting like you are the only one who watches the Cubs and you are the smartest person in the room. You are not either of those things. 

    Edited by Rcal10
    • Like 2
    Jason Ross

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Joj said:

    I mean, we can sit around and pick nits all day long but my problem was with trading ANY of them for a one-year CP

    I would say that's not "picking nits" but contextualizing. The reality is that even before the trade, Soler had been a massive negative in the OF. While fans were just getting ahold of things like DRS and more advanced metrics, we have to assume teams were leading the way here more and likely had identified Jorge Soler as being more of a DH than a non-DH, which would have limited his trade value to begin with. 

    I agree with your bigger picture argument that the Chicago Cubs have not consistently acted within the context they should have: as a big market team less afraid to spend money. I don't, however, agree, that the Soler/Davis deal made little sense for the Cubs. I think they probably cashed in on his value fine. The reality is Jorge Soler wasn't really going to find a home here and sometimes you have to spend spare parts young players for more pressing needs. Could the Cubs have maybe just signed a leverage reliever? Maybe. They could have signed Chapman, though it seems like he really wanted to go back to the Yankees regardless. They could have signed 32 year old Mark Melancon who had, realistically, one good season under that four year contract as he battled injuries. It could have gone a few ways. It's always iffy getting locked into longer term multi-year deals with relievers; they're volatile as hell. I'm not sure I really fault the team for taking a spare part and turning it into a meaningful need.

    We Got The Whole 9

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Joj said:

    Thought I already addressed all of that in one sentence.

    I don't agree with the decision to trade a bunch of talent for closers when you're a large market team who can afford to sign someone.  Especially when they are one-year rentals.  A better use of resources would've been to spend FA money and either keep or trade prospects for more pressing, longer-term needs.  If a large-market team is scared to flex their financial muscles they immediately lose the inherent edge they have on the Miami Marlins of the world.  Spending FA money is often times cheaper, ironically.

    Sign who? If you want to argue that they should have traded for Chapman before the Yankees did, I won't disagree. But failing that, who would you have signed that you think would have closed games in the playoffs for them?

    mul21

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Joj said:

    Thought I already addressed all of that in one sentence.

    I don't agree with the decision to trade a bunch of talent for closers when you're a large market team who can afford to sign someone.  Especially when they are one-year rentals.  A better use of resources would've been to spend FA money and either keep or trade prospects for more pressing, longer-term needs.  If a large-market team is scared to flex their financial muscles they immediately lose the inherent edge they have on the Miami Marlins of the world.  Spending FA money is often times cheaper, ironically.

    So we've established that Chapman was never going to re-sign with the Cubs whether you're willing to admit that or not.  The other top relivers who were FA before the 2017 season:

    Greg Holland: turns out this would have been a great signing but he was coming of TJS and no sure things.

    Mark Melancon:  was bad on the 4 year deal he signed with the Giants.

    Kenley Jansen:  was never leaving LA

    Neftali Feliz: not a closer

    Brett Cecil: not a closer

    Brad Zeigler: not a closer

    There was legit one guy who was an unknown quantity at the time who would have been a worthwhile signing that offseason who may have come to Chicago.

    mul21

    Posted

    6 minutes ago, Joj said:

    LOL  You are just a little ray of sunshine!  Thanks so much for your opinion little guy!

    @Brock Beauchamp can you have a word with this guy?  He's having trouble fitting in is the most polite way I can put it.

    Joj

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

    I agree with your bigger picture argument that the Chicago Cubs have not consistently acted within the context they should have: as a big market team less afraid to spend money. I don't, however, agree, that the Soler/Davis deal made sense for the Cubs. I think they probably cashed in on his value fine. The reality is Jorge Soler wasn't really going to find a home here and sometimes you have to spend spare parts young players for more pressing needs. Could the Cubs have maybe just signed a leverage reliever? Maybe. They could have signed Chapman, though it seems like he really wanted to go back to the Yankees regardless. They could have signed 32 year old Mark Melancon who had, realistically, one good season under that four year contract as he battled injuries. It could have gone a few ways. It's always iffy getting locked into longer term multi-year deals with relievers; they're volatile as hell. I'm not sure I really fault the team for taking a spare part and turning it into a meaningful need.

     

    We're not very far from each other on this one.  Yeah, the Soler deal itself can certainly be justified for the reasons that you gave.  Maybe the problem comes from the cumulative effect of a few deals during that period.  The year before with Chapman (Gleyber Torres, etc) and that ridiculous Quintana deal (let's not even get into that one).  But my main problem was with the short-term, rental aspect.  If either of those CP had more than one year on their deal, maybe it's a different story.

    Joj

    Posted (edited)

    7 minutes ago, mul21 said:

    @Brock Beauchamp can you have a word with this guy?  He's having trouble fitting in is the most polite way I can put it.

    LOL  Please do.  Note the personal attacks.  Thank you.

    Edited by Joj
    Rcal10

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Joj said:

    LOL  You are just a little ray of sunshine!  Thanks so much for your opinion little guy!

    Nice comeback when you have no way of proving the Cubs made a mistake in trading for Chapman and had enough without him. He was very good in the playoffs. Only hiccups were a game they were winning 8-2 in the 9th against the Dodgers and for some reason he came in to pitch the 9th. And then game 7 (WS)after pitching 2.2 inning in game 5, pitching again in game 6 and then completely gassed in game 7. That said, they probably don’t even get to a game 7 if he isn’t on the team. 

    Joj

    Posted

    Just now, Rcal10 said:

    Nice comeback when you have no way of proving the Cubs made a mistake in trading for Chapman and had enough without him. He was very good in the playoffs. Only hiccups were a game they were winning 8-2 in the 9th against the Dodgers and for some reason he came in to pitch the 9th. And then game 7 (WS)after pitching 2.2 inning in game 5, pitching again in game 6 and then completely gassed in game 7. That said, they probably don’t even get to a game 7 if he isn’t on the team. 

    I'm not interested in conversing with you any longer.  Thanks anyway.

    Try to stop following me around here.  I'd appreciate it.




    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

×
×
  • Create New...