craig

I admit I've kinda wondered: in world where every RHP touches 98 and many rest 93-95, was Horton's fastball actually anything special? Velocity-wise, I got the sense that it was good but not extraordinary. But "double-plus" sounds pretty significant. I assume his movement and spin are more outstanding than the velocity?

Bertz, thanks for that input. I just wonder of those 52 guys you pulled, how many of them were pure DH-only prospects at that age? Certainly Ozzie Albies and Wander Franco were not. Ballesteros is really unique in being so quickly and obviously DH-only. I can't imagine there are many comps for 18-year-old DH-only prospects getting significant prospect love. Obviously if he hits like David Ortiz or Manny Ramirez, he can DH like Ortiz or field badly likely Ramirez. But that remains a somewhat unlikely hitting-quality outcome.

One surprise to me is how Ballesteros has been appearing in the top-20 in many of these lists. I'd gotten the impression that nobody thinks he can catch, and that he's strictly a DH-type. Maybe his defensive potential is better than I perceive, or the ranking people think that? *IF* they do figure he's going to be a DH, it really speaks to how well they like his swing to keep a DH-wannabe on their top-20's. I love having the DH.

I love Kiley's stuff and how detailed and thorough he is. And that he sees good value in a lot of Cubs prospects. But when I see "empirical", I read that to be scientific, measurable, quantifiable, objective, perhaps reproducible. Putting "empirical" in implies data and indisputable evidence. I don't think ANY of that stuff applies to Kiley's lists. If his list comes out different from Longenhagens or whomever, it's not because his is "empirical". Do I trust his judgement and information better than Law, of course. But "empirical" is not really the word for it. It's still subjective scouting-evaluation. Another hesitation I have is that the scouting metric is so tight. Cub-prospects 2-14 are all 50 or 45, all within one grading step. I kinda feel like there should maybe more discrimination and nuance? I get it, I have no idea and neither does Kiley which of guys 2-14 are going to fail and which are going to become productive. So throwing them all into the 50/45 bushels is understandable. But I kinda feel like a wider grading range would be helpful.

Tom, I didn't say Wicks was or wasn't a 5th starter, myself. Beats me. I hope he's more. I had just tried to summarize why scouts would see him that way, and would not rank him highly. 5th starter is where scouts place guys with average stuff. And I think almost every big-league pitchers, 5th starters included, have at least one above-average pitch. So having one 55-pitch and otherwise average doesn't make a guy get scouted as better than #5, if that's how they see him, that's why they ranked him where they did. But nothing stays the same. They might scout him differently a year from now, in which case they'll rank him differently. If they said his change was a 55 but used to be 70, maybe he'll get the 70-caliber change back? Maybe a breaking ball they scouted as average this year, on nights the scouts saw him, maybe they'll see him on sharper nights and grade more favorably? Who knows? Tom, I think they already factor in the lefty stuff when they grade the pitches? For example, if a RHP threw a fastball with Wicks velocity and spin rates, that a righty would have it graded as below-average? I think they scouted it as high as average because relative to lefties its not bad, but if a RHP prospect threw it no harder, that it would scout as below average?

Top two guys got $5.6 and $4.7 this year. Cubs base was ~$5.3. With $0.5 reduction for Swanson signing, Cubs will be at ~$4.7. (Pre-inflation.). Will the Cubs need to trade for cash to afford a #1 guy?

I wonder what "other ways" he's trying to improve his game?

Thanks for that link, Tom. The comments that both Amaya and Davis should be good-to-go for spring is encouraging. It would be so great if Amaya plays healthy and establishes himself as a serious prospect.

Rojas: Hard for me to judge, but Rojas looks taller than the 5'10" he's listed at. Getting bigger is routine (no surprise, he looks stronger than the listed 150lb), but height growth is less routine. Was he a dollar guy, or a low-price signing? It would sure be nice if at some point the Cubs latin scouting-signing-development would pick up. After Gleybar and Eloy, there really hasn't been more production.

BA's notes kinda matched what I'd anticipated, that scouts don't love guys with average stuff, and that his change didn't look as special as it had been previously perceived to be. From their notes. As we all know, BA's stuff is all second-hand from scouts that they talked to. From their writeups on other Cub prospects, it was clear that they had sources within the organization as well as scouts outside it. "Wicks could be a decent No. 5 starter. It’s mostly all average stuff except for the changeup (which has been more 55-60 in pro ball than the 70 it was in college) and he shows a good feel for pitching. At the same time, there’s also a real concern he’s going to start getting hit harder once he starts facing better competition, which we saw happen in his brief Double-A stint. He's a lefty with a deep pitch mix and a good feel for pitching, all of which are good traits. It’s just more in line with a No. 5 starter, which is something every team needs and shouldn't be discounted or dismissed."

Will be curious to see how Wicks progresses. I can maybe kinda understand why some evaluators might not love him super much? Depending on their scouting info and perceptions: 1. Turns 24 this season, so he's not young. Age isn't exciting. 2. 3.84 ERA with HR-galore this season. Excellent K/BB, but the high HR's may be yellow flags? 3. Fastball is decent but nothing wow. Solid for a LHP, but maybe nothing electric in itself to make scouts buzz? 4. Change was supposed to be his signature win-pitch. I thought I'd seen report that analytics on his change this season were nothing special? Past is past, the future is unwritten, so who knows. He revised his repertoire dramatically since the draft; I'm optimistic that the best is yet to come. Cubs farm has done well with velocity improvements; maybe at his age he'll still add a little velo? Maybe with revisions to his breaking stuff last year, greater consistency and confidence in those pitches comes this season? And maybe his change will look more special this year than last? But I can maybe understand how some scouts just haven't seen enough pizzazz yet to get super buzzed about him. But he can change that this season, if his performance and stuff warrant it.

Question for farm experts, on alum Cris Morel. 1. I'm thinking I remember Morel having pretty strong lefty-righty splits as a minor-leaguer. Is that true or false? 2. I ask in part because he had strong anti-splits this season: OPS .782 RHP, .627 LHP. 3. How would you project forward? That his big-league split is real and projectable? Maybe his offense rests on HR's, and those come when RHP try to challenge him inside? Or probably a fluke, and his minor-league record is a better predictor? 4. I ask because Bellinger is a big-splits lefty. I'd like a solid-hitting RH platoon for him. Could Morel be that guy? *Or likewise, there are some questions whether Mervis will handle LH pitching well at the big-league level? One possible platoon scenario could involve Morel at 3B with Wisdom playing 1st. But considering Morel the Cubs best platoon option for either Bell or Mervis might be gross, or may not be something Cubs analytics will support or plan for, *IF* they think his awfulness vs LHP in 2022 will carry forward.

Yeah, poor guy has really had the injuries. He must have looked like quite the prospect back during his first year or two as a pro.

McGwire harder for me to guess. He'll turn 19 next month, so he's a little older. I don't think he has the sore-arm history that Mule has. And it's possible that with a baseball-oriented family, that perhaps he's already benefited from relatively advanced developmental stuff. Gym, driveline, private coaching, nutritional stuff, perhaps McGwire has already had a lot of that, and getting more at Mesa won't help that much? Or who knows, it's also well possible that he's been allowed to live a normal high-school-athlete life. Not having been a phenom he's perhaps done less travel-team stuff, with less advanced coaching and hype, who knows? He may have tons of learning and physical maturation ahead for him? The draft info listings, for example, had McGwire an inch taller but 20 pounds lighter than Mule. So he may have a lot more "filling out" left, and lots of developmental adjustments as a result. Beats me, in HS he perhaps lived on fastball/forkball? Perhas as a pro his developmental plan will now prioritize not only adding velocity, but working through curve/slider/cutter/change to try to come up with 3rd and 4th pitches that a strike-throwing starter needs? Who knows? If I was guessing, I'd figure the odds are variably below 50% that he'll start April in Myrtle. Kinda thinking he's more likely to work there for a while, show some consistency, and hopefully earn some Myrtle time more in June or July.

Yeah, Mule would seem to have the stuff to be able to compete very well in Myrtle. I'm just thinking that the goal is developing him. Ferris and McGwire will be 19 all season; Mule will be 18 all season. Mule reportedly had arm problems last season. So I think they are probably going to want to be very careful with him, and kind of have him working under very controlled conditions. Mesa has more controlled practices. I'm guessing guys are less tempted to overthrow than in a box-score game when they're in a jam. Mesa may have more controlled eating and nutritional stuff. Mesa's pitch lab environment is probably more oriented towards force-plate tracking and stuff like that, to help optimize his delivery. In a close game with a box score, I'm guessing a guy might be less oriented towards experimenting with tweaking his delivery or his grip and more focused on throwing strikes that give him a chance to get out of an inning. So I guess I'm just assuming both from a body perspective, and perhaps also from a physiology-optimization and delivery-optimization, that they'll pretty much want to keep Mule at the controlled, protective Mesa environment for at least a couple of months. If he's throwing really well there, and they aren't working on anything super specific, of course a June callup is well possible. I'm just saying VERY unlikely for Mule to see Myrtle in April.

Tom, things change over a long season. But the comments in that article reinforce that Mule will NOT begin at Myrtle. "priority is building up the body rather than focusing on the repertoire or pitch shape" sounds like Mesa to me. Talented guys can earn their way up, of course.

I’d like to see more Ramirez in top 10s after last year’s rookie ball bonanza .... I don't agree with or understand razzball's thought that shift-rules might make Ramirez less valuable. *Shift rules are designed to allow more in-play contact to go for hits. As a contact guy, this should work for him, not against him. *Shift rules are especially designed to help lefty hitters. As a guy who hits lefty most of the time, this should also work to his advantage. Few contact-hitting right-handers get shifted much anyway. But when he bats LH (most of the time), the new rules should help him just as with any other LH hitter, and more so than those who make less contact.

That's fun. I assume this would be for full-season guys only? I don't have time now, but I'd be curious to see a speculative list of who those 18 guys would be for the Cubs. And how many were rotation guys versus relief?

Thanks, cal. Martin is doing reasonably well in AFL. Horn hasn't allowed any runs, but his K/BB is 6/5. "General soreness" sounds kinda weird. How often do healthy young guys in their low 20's miss a couple of weeks of life for "general soreness". And for guys of any age, who is "generally sore"? as opposed to something specific that's sore? Sounds kinda fishy.

Almost no leg lift.

I wonder what the "ocular training" is, and how effective?

When watching a game on TV, it takes about 1 second to know if a call has been missed. How instantly must the challenges be requested? Too instantly for a video guy to see it, send a signal, and have a player challenge? I'm thinking that if you're given 3 challenges, but you get them back if you're right, a quick snappy video-view/communicate-to-player/challenge process could be completed within seconds, right? And if you get "correct" challenges back, a team might be challenging a dozen calls a game, no?

What a fun season. Thanks for all the threads, and links Cal. And all the other video links and discussion from everybody. Man it's been so fun and interesting, so many stories. I wish it wasn't over, and look forward to a lot of stories continuing next season!

No one else that's had any real success from my check: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/2020-mlb-undrafted-free-agent-tracker-agreements-for-all-30-teams/#Cubs Sheldon Reed? A year ago I had interest in Bailey Reid, too. But he hasn't pitched much this year, and has been super wild when he did. A year ago Scott Kobos seemed like a great story guy, but he's pitched only a little this season and has been super wild.

Bailey Horn and Leigh continuing to rack up the Tennessee K's. 5 more for Horn in his 2.1 hitless. I haven't gotten much scouting on him since the trade. But he's really finishing the season strongly.