craig

Thanks, cal. Those are some impressive spins. Wow. I like the look of his delivery.

Good catch, cal. Yes, Patterson should definitely be included in the pool of possible-major-leaguers from that class. He'll turn 25 in a month. I don't have a record on how much he signed for. Two of the three guys in the rounds before him signed for $1K and $3K. So I'm guessing Patterson was probably in that range, too. Would be pretty cool for a $1K-bonus guy to make it. What a bummer losing this season is for a guy like that. Had success starting in A-AA last year. Of course we assume it's a fluke and he'd not build further. But, what if he had? With Lester, Q, and Chatwood all expiring, there are rotation spots for next year waiting to be won by somebody or other. What if he's stacked another crazy good season on, he might have been knocking on a big-league rotation opportunity. Same for a guy like Abbott, three rotation spots opening, what if he'd sequenced another high-level year? He too might have used a good season to put himself into the rotation.

Agree. Having an arsenal with 3 or even 4 pitches, rather than just the 2-pitch mix sometimes associated with one-inning relievers, is really conducive to multi-inning work, and to facing ≥3 batters. If your 2nd pitch doesn't work against opposite hitters, need a 3rd pitch that does. Obviously "working on" 3rd and 4th in pitch labs, and practice, and minors, is one thing; actually trusting those 3rd and 4th pitches in big-league games may be harder.

Thanks, Tom. I agree with your argumentation, they'd not spend 10th round slot $$ and 4th round pick on a guy who didn't at least project to maybe have a chance to have a competitive fastball. It's interesting looking back at the bonuses for that draft, which has a chance to be a REALLY good draft. *Roberts was the 4th round pick, but he was a big sub-slot. *Of their top ten picks, he was the lowest bonus ($130K), *and three more 3rd days guys also got more than Roberts (Thompson, Chris Allen, Americaan). *Roberts was tie for 12th in bonus, at $130K, tie with Derek Casey. His $130K was slightly below the 10th-round slot value. *5 more $125K 3rd-day guys were right behind him, plus a couple of $100's. *His underslot ($296K) was just enough to cover Kohl Franklin's overslot ($294K over, $540 total) That draft has a chance to be a REALLY good one: Hoerner, Davis, Franklin, Thompson Roederer, Roberts, Sanders Americaan, Allen, Weber =========== I like your point about the possibility of multi-inning relievers, and Roberts being one of several guys with that chance. We'll see whether the Cubs ever actually go that direction. But I'm intrigued by the concept. 3-batter minimum and DH both lends to the concept, as does the Cubs lack of rotation prospects. What's your thoughts on how that would work? With single-inning relievers, the normal usage pattern is 3 innings per week, back-to-back is fine, every-other is preferred for many, and no back-to-back-to-back. Last year, Cishek and Ryan were the Cubs top-usage guys, with innings in the 60's and game appearances in the 70's. I wonder how that could work for multi-inning guys? If a guy pitched 2 innings, obviously you'd never pitch him back-to-back; perhaps one day off on occasion, but probably default to preferring two days off, apart from September? A guy could potentially pitch 2 innings every 3rd game and end up somewhere near 50 games and 100 innings? Moving more innings from low-talent soft-tossing starters to more talented relievers seems appealing... *IF* you have a lot of relievers who actually are good and can throw strikes. I think the manager would need to be willing to trust a bunch of guys. If you use some of your best relievers as multi-inning guys, you have to allow that there will be a lot of games where one or two of your best relievers are NOT going to be used. Even if it's 1-run 8th inning game versus Cardinals on Sunday, if you used your best two non-closers for two innings on Friday and two innings on Saturday, you've got to be willing to use somebody else on Sunday, even if it's a big game. Obviously multi-inning use wouldn't always be clean full innings. Maybe a guy has 20 two-inning appearances and 40 one-inning appearances and ends up with 80 innings? Hader has had 55 and 61 games, with 81 and 76 innings. Either way, shifting more innings to relief seems wise to me. I like clean innings. I think it might benefit some relievers to get a normal warmup, and start an inning clean, versus routinely coming into dirty innings, or knowing that one baserunner and you'll probably get pulled. But certainly most of our relievers have splits, and trying to pitch full-inning or two-inning games will necessitate facing opposite hitters, including even with runners on base. At the same time, with DH in play, that will only leave 4 players on a bench, not all of whom are necessarily very dangerous pinch hitters. So the number of opposite pinch hitters really won't be that big a threat.

Is 90-92 his median average, or his upper quartile? Often fans, broadcasters, TV, media, and social media tend to mention the faster stuff, and the average isn't actual quite as fast as the alleged range. So I'm hesitant to trust that "90-92" is really his average. Big league average was 92.3 and 93.4 for starters and relievers in 2018. If Roberts was already averaging 91, and might add a step, he's got a shot to be very close to big-league average. I've assumed he profiles as somewhat below average for velocity. Reports ahve been more favorable about his command, spins rates, and curveball than about his velocity. If everythign else is stronger about his game than his velocity, and even that is perfectly average or almost so, then he's got an excellent chance to be an asset pitcher. Pitchers have a range, of course, some kind of bell curve. I suspect that for an average big-leaguer averaging 93.4, that if he throws 20 fastballs, that several of them will be 95-98. I'm also pretty confident that for a 93.4 mph average big-leaguer, that 96 isn't rare enough or exciting enough or "tops" enough for him to be posting videos about it. I suspect that Roberts posting a 96 is still consistent with the notion that he's still a shade shy of the average reliever velocity. But if his control is better, and his spin rates are better, that doesn't mean he can't be better than average. So if he was already averaging 91, and could now be averaging 92 and really be barely 1 mph below average, I'd be thrilled.

Thanks much, tom, for your research and info. Yep, those spin rates are **really** good, especially for a guy who throws strikes. (10BB in 59 innings last year...) . Sometimes I think big spin and wildness tend to correlate (Chatwood? Burl?) . But if a guy can throw strikes AND spin it, that's a strong combo. The note from the guy is also really neat. That is a good point, I agree. I'm a little hesitant to trust that he was already a true 90-92 guy. But **if** that really was true in past, then I agree, it would make sense that with more strength that perhaps he's tacked a little more on, and 91-93 or 92-94 might really be possible. I also think that perhaps for a strike-thrower, maybe a high-end velocity is less anomolous? In other words, for a 10BB/59IP guy, maybe he knows how to repeat his delivery, and isn't as likely to have wild variation in his delivery and velocity? So maybe if he is topping out at 96, maybe he really can work at only a few mph slower, and really can actually pitch at 91-94? Fun to hope.

Thanks, Tom, that was a really good interview. More technical. Obviously a well-spoken guy who's conversant with pitch-lab and analytics concepts, and is happy to benefit from insights. Think that might be a great fit. I was particularly encouraged by his interest in developing a slider, as a pitch with more side-to-side movement and a pitch that's easier to throw for strikes than the big curveball. Having good spin and a big curveball is good; but the big curveball is probably the hardest pitch in baseball to throw for strikes. Living as a two-pitch fastball-curve guy may work great on days the curve is clicking. But I think a lot of days big-league hitters will spit on the curve, sit on the fastball, and you'll be walking guys, pitching from behind, and the only strike you can throw is fastball to guys sitting fastball. Who needs a garbage-can to sit fastball on days when a fastball-curve pitcher can't throw his curve for a strike? So *IF* Burl could hypothetically come up with something else he can get over, whether that be slider or cutter or whatever, it could help him a ton. Glad he realizes that and is looking towards figuring out something else that could work for him.

Agree, lots of good pitchers who aren't super fast. I'm guessing 93-94+ on 4-seam might be a target; but probably is a little on the high end for a guy where 96 was exciting enough to post a video for it? I'd almost guess that if a guy is topping and video-posting a 96, then 91-92 might be the more likely working velocity? Of course, I may be wrong there. When it's a clutch situation in the 7th inning of a 1-run game, and the fans in the stands are roaring, and adrenalin is pumping, maybe that adrenalin pumps the 91-92 guy up and he does end up throwing 93-94+? Regardless, as you say it's the curve/cutter spins that are telling. If a guy can max at 96, that suggests velocity isn't a showstopper, and he can mix his fastball in with his spin stuff.

Thanks, Tom. Helpful. His performance last season was really good. 1.1 WHIP, >5:1 K/BB, only a single HR all season. So yeah, if his velocity is competitive, he's got a shot. Obviously he's not a big power guy; if his fastest pitch that's worth video is 96, that's not fast for a RH reliever. I think the majority of big-league RH relievers have hit at least 96 at their best? But, at the same time he probably doesn't need to be an unusually fast guy. If he's got a good breaking ball, competing with a good-spin fastball that runs at 90-92 and touches 96 every once in a while can work. One of the types of guys that I sure wish we'd gotten the season to see how he progressed. *IF* he'd been able to match last year's production against A+ and AA guys this summer, he'd get good respect.

Thanks for Burl, stuff. That guy is a very good interview, very well spoken. Hope he's able to throw enough strikes to be effective in actual pro games and eventually big-league games. But if he's as poised in games and controlled with his pitches as he is poised and controlled in his interviews, he's got a chance to be a big-stage pitcher.

Dumb question, but what kind of "velocity gains" has he supposedly accomplished? Was there a velocity reading alleged from this single pitch? I didn't read it, but maybe there was? Or are velocities reported from some other inputs? I'm a little cautious about reading too much into video clips. Guys throwing all out for velocity, you're going to occasionally have a good velocity reading. May not have much to do with actual pitching, where perhaps you want to throw strikes and perhaps locate. If you throw and video-record a thousand pitches, probably by luck one of them is going to both be high-end velocity AND a strike at the same time. Doesn't mean you can locate strikes consistently with anything close to that kind of velocity.....

That seems like an odd input by Callis. Little is obviously a development/make-over project. Doesn't exactly profile as what I'd caricature as a trade-oriented prospect, or as a ready-to-help-soon guy. Any talented prospect with developmental potential obviously has potential trade value, but I don't really see why that would be any more true or worth mentioning for Little than for any other raw prospect. Hopefully he'll thrive in the Cubs developmental process and perform at a level that makes other teams want him. I'm actually curious what developmental plan the cubs will have for him. Obviously the natural media input for any guy who throws hard, but doesn't have present control of an arsenal, is to say "relief". And that seems like an obvious thing for Little. (If you get an effective relief pitcher out of a 4th round pick, that's a win to get ANYTHING productive.) . But I do wonder whether that's necessarily what the Cubs will COMMIT to initially? I wonder if they'll track him for rotation for at least his first season or two? And if he can hold his velocity, improve his slider, and have some kind of not-necessarily-bad changeup, whether they might not give him the opportunity to develop as a starter for at least a while? Odds are pretty remote, I realize; But sometimes teams who end up having success have some unlikely prospects work out in unexpectedly good ways. And we will need rotations pitchers, hopefully without having to average $18M per starter.

Thanks, Tim. That's good.

Cal, the first reports on undrafted guys had us signing a teenage Puerto Rican pitcher who'd supposedly touched 94. But I'm not sure I've subsequently seen him included in listings of Cubs NDFA. Any info on that? Are we sure that the Cubs actually did sign him, or is that maybe not so clear? Or perhaps they agreed, but he's still home in Puerto Rico, so they need to do physical before there will actually be a formal, listable signing? Perhaps the Puerto Rican pitcher and the JC hitter might never get to be as good as the senior signs, but I'm kind of more interested in those two teenagers, because they have more time to develop and will perhaps end up actually being major-league prospects, rather than just organizational roster-fillers. So I hope they really do have that guy.

Interesting that Moreno went that far over; and Burl that far under. By my numbers, *if* they wanted to, they could still go almost $200K over on Nwogu. Not sure there should be any need to do that, but my math, *if* he signs for straight slot, they'll be somewhat below their overage max. I hadn't anticipated that Moreno would draw that much, he's only a little behind Burl. I'm hoping he works out well. It's seemed the cubs haven't really hit on their previous around-a-million-or-more HS superslot pitchers: Cease got them a sliver of mediocre Quintana, so I guess that's the biggest success. But other than Cease, Sands was nothing, Steele is a wildman (although he may still have a chance), Hudson didn't work, and Estrada hasn't looked like a win (although he's still got time.) . Hopefully they're due for one of those to work out. (Franklin didn't get paid as much, but early returns are favorable for him...) .

Thanks, show, helpful thoughts. The notes that he's maybe added some good weight and maybe ticked up a little velocity, that's helpful. Hope so. There were references to 95 at draft, so if he could build up and do that often instead of once a season, that would be great. Would you envision him getting a shot to start? Or getting used as starter for a while in minors, but just for development purpose, probably always with the expectation to be a relief guy? As a relief guy, I'd think the crossfire would be especially useful for lefty-left stuff. He got paid same as 3rd round McAvene, tied for 3rd highest in the Cubs draft. I thought it interesting that Fangraph, Longenhagen rated Schlaffer ahead of Herz, even though Schlaffer got only half of Herz's bonus. Herez had gotten much more enthusiastic buzz at time of draft. Hopefully both guys develop really well and both turn into big-league assets.

...He still has the crossfire delivery (which I like), ..... Yeah, the crossfire is interesting. Surprised to see that. What are the pros and cons for that? Better angles against lefty hitters, of course? You'd think the physics of it would normally not help in terms of weight transfer and force. But might get a little more body torque and spin? I imagine tinkering with that the degree of crossfire a little bit in pitch lab might be able to impact the spin axis to variable effect. Perhaps the Cubs have already worked through all of that, and have found this degree of crossfire to be most conducive to spin axis? Good point that he looks fairly smooth and repeatable here; but that it may simply be because it's practice, and he's not throwing competitive game speed.

Very cool to have Manny Rodriguez pitching again. Hopefully he's fully healthy, and there is nothing structurally underlying that is damaged. I watched a couple of his spring training outings, and he looked pretty interesting. Fast fastball, and his curve looked pretty good. Didn't look like a super wildman, although living on a sharp curveball isn't exactly an easy way to be a strike-thrower. But yeah, *IF* he's fine physically, I'm very interested.

From different discussion board:

I saw a note that for college draftees, Trackman had Burl and Little with the best and 4th scores for 4-seam. Wow. Nice. Not sure whether that was for LHP only, or for all college draftees?

“He’s pretty special,” Heefner said. “He legitimately has two pitches that are borderline unhittable. The fastball and the curveball. It’s shocking that he didn’t go higher than he did, because [highlight=yellow]with the Trackman data they have today, where you can compare guys to everybody across the country, I’ve heard several organizations say that his fastball and his breaking ball graded out the best in the whole Draft[/highlight].”

lol - I had the exact same thought when I read that. Benjamin Rodriguez http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?sid=milb&player_id=675851 I'm assuming Eric is referring to this guy in our system. Just accidentally replaced the 'g' with a 'q' I think. I don't know of a "Benny Rodriquez"... That benjamin is a pitcher. Maybe he's strengthened a ton and has gone from 82 to 96 or something. But it seems maybe kinda unexpected to include a pitcher in the middle of of a line about strength-program hitters?

I take it you weren't a big fan other than Howard. Heh heh, just trying to think of Cubs I remember, the types of profiles they seemed to have when drafted, and the possibilities associated. Everybody loved Russell. Maples, big arm, big breaking ball, smart, good athlete, high ceiling. mallory is going way back, but Hendry had bunches of Dave Winfield comps for him when he picked him. Andy Sisco might be the next Randy Johnson. Angel Guzman was a fantastic prospect for a while, without being a massive Zambrano guy when young; and while his fastball ended up being really good and fast when healthy, as a young guy he wasn't a power guy, so in that sense Moreno seems like a guy who might start without much velocity, but might project into a really good fastball in time, as with Guzman. :):) . I like the draft fine, who am I to judge? 1. Unlike so many Cubs drafts over the last ten years where our picks were often way out of line with mainstream media rankings, Howard, Burl, and Nwogu all seemed well within the mainstream in terms of overall prospect value . (I know, who cares about the rankings, the team knows way more and has more research. Yet all of the Cubs research and analytics genius didn't really vindicate picking Zastrysny and Stinnett and Little and Arriel Prieto etc. where they were picked....) 2. I think there is a refreshing self-confidence, perhaps even arrogance, regarding their analytics, pitch-lab/hit-lab, and their development possibilities. Two relievers with loud tools, big arms but limited repertoires and massive wildness issues. I assume they have a self-confidence to pitch-lab fix the wildness and find Little some grip and arm-slot that will provide him with a 2nd pitch. Nwogu also seems to have some pretty big tool in his power; are they self-confident from their video-game testing that he's got the inherent tools, and that their hit lab resources can help reshape his swing and transform him into a successful big-league power hitter? So I think it's fun that they seem to have the self-confidence that they can take very unrefined raw talent with pretty big tools and develop those guys into effective major leaguers. In past they drafted a lot of kind of experienced college pitchers with some pitchability and multi-pitch and existent control, etc., but without big arms. (Keegan, Zastryzny, Abbott, Richan, Lange, etc...). So I love getting some big arms, and a big-power guy, outside of round 1. Seems like a more high-ceiling draft talent-wise. (Even if role-wise maybe two relievers don't have the same value-ceiling as guys who might become starters, but talent-wise I like it.) .

Cal or anybody, fangraphs references the Cubs strength program having helped Brennan Davis, Benny Rodriquez, and Cole Roederer. Who is Benny Rodriquez?