craig

My sense is that Abbott is ahead of those two ... ...I'd put the in-house depth starters in the order of: Cory Abbott Gray Fenter Tyson Miller Keegan Thompson Brailyn Marquez Two caveats. [highlight=yellow]Justin Steele is going to be a reliever long term, but for some reason there are reports that the Cubs have been saying they want to see him start games this year[/highlight] in the minors (at least in spring training). .... Thanks for rotation thoughts, each of you guys who have posted. Win, thanks for note on Steele, I hadn't read that before. That's really interesting and surprising, if true. My sense is that he's been really wild in past, so that seems odd. Of course, he'll turn 26 this summer and has finished 7 years with the Cubs, but has only pitched 340 innings. So they may just want him starting to get a solid 70 pitches thrown on a rotation schedule just to get some real-game innings under his belt? Matt Thompson of ProspectsLive liked Thompson quite a bit, because of his command and variety of arsenal that he can sequence in various ways. He ranked Thompson right behind Abbott, and ahead of Miller. Miller seems to have some good pitch-lab qualities, and some positive buzz from alternative site; has been kinda HR-vulnerable back in his box-score days. Anybody have any data on his splits? The arm slot would seem good versus righties, but is he pretty vulnerable versus lefties? Or not really a problem? Abbott/Thompson/Miller, hard to guess. Level of relative success might depend on which if any actually has a real plus, killer, putaway breaking pitch or not. And how good both command and consistency is. A lot of times collective results are dictated more by the frequency of bad mistakes than by the quality of the non-mistakes. I have no idea how to project their relative performance.

Thanks for that Miller info, that's pretty interesting. Who do you think is in the mix for 5th/6th/7th, of the internal guys? And of those, who do you think might perhaps have the best chance of emerging as a viable not-bad anti-awful guy? 1. Lester: Hoyer has mentioned being interested in bringing Lester back. I hate that idea. That's totally Nowacrat trying to win for this year, and even if he might post an ERA <5, (which might be less awful than what the younger internals might do....), that would be totally boring, and would do nothing to create value out of valuelessness. Please don't do this. 2. Marquez: I assume Marquez isn't really a spring candidate, correct? 3. Colin Rea is still around. It's possible he'd be OK, and may be less awful than the other internal guys. But I don't see a lot of upside or long-term value there. So, not very interested there. But for trying to win the weak central, perhaps he'll get some starts and not kill you. 4. Internal D+D guys: I'm thinking Tyson Miller, Corey Abbott, and Keegan Thompson are probably the three D+D guys? Obviously none have big, high-ceiling stuff. Relative to Hendricks, Davies, and Mills, all would be much faster! :) Hard to know what another year of pitch labbing and stuff might have done for any of them. But I'd actually be kinda interested in using this rebuild season to explore whether any of them might actually be surprisingly interesting? **IF** you lucked out and one (or two, or even all three...) emerged as capable rotation guys, having club-controlled depth would be great at minimum wage. I think about the trade and budget capital that was invested in Quintana, Cole Hamels, and lester over 2018-2020. Perhaps Miller or Abbott of Thompson might give you production not so different from that, but at minimum wage, and free up $40M per year for other targets? I'm not saying it's likely that any of these 3 is ever going to establish as a solid, multi-year rotation guy. But if you did luck out and one of them did, it could help the future significantly. So I admit I'd not mind leaving one rotation spot as kind of an audition opportunity for them. 5. Combeback/rehab/career-breakout-opportunity guy. I've got to assume Hoyer will bring in some other comeback type guy from outside. In rebuild one, there was Feldman and Maholm. I'd imagine there might be some guys out there who aren't going to get rotation shots with the Yankees or Dodgers or Braves, but who might see the Cubs as an opportunity to build or rebuild their careers? Maholm was a post-surg-rehab guy; Feldman had been kind of a depth guy; Jason Hammel had been an inconsistent but kinda-interesting guy with some upside. I could easily envision Hoyer wanting to take a shot on somebody like that, maybe singular or maybe plural? *IF* you hit on a Hammel/Maholm/Feldman, those guys pitched at a level that could have supported a division-run in the vulnerable central. And *IF* you hit on a Hammel/Maholm/Feldman, each of those turned into trade pieces. (Vizcaino never clicked for the Cubs, but man he looked like a high-ceiling good-risk at the time; and while McKinney never clicked either, he'd been a 1st-round pick the previous year and seemed like a solid prospect at time of acquisition...). I wonder if they have any interest in resigning Chatwood? They invested a lot of cash, and time and development, on him. Before he got hurt last year, I'd thought he looked pretty good. I admit it wouldn't burn me to sign him again, to a cheap two-year deal, or something with option, or whatever. "Cheap" being key, but he's still got some stuff, if healthy.

Tom, what are pros/cons of that? I'm probably missing some, but: Pros: 1. That's where the best players are, national teams tend to draw the best. 2. You see guys in real games against good players. 3. When other teams have a long scouting familiarity with a good prospect, it may facilitate trading the guy away. (Cubs wouldn't have made Darvish trade if they hadn't already seen and liked Mena and Preciado back from IFA days.). Cons: 1. Cost: If a guy is good on that stage, every other team knows it too. So, no bargain prices there. 2. Scouting value: If everybody else has seen him too, but nobody else thinks he's worth the price you do, maybe they're right and you're wrong? 3. Lesser untapped potential? Guys on national teams often have benefited from strong programs and strong coaching already; and may perhaps have less unused ceiling? (Almora, Ademan, Tseng...)

Cubs have a slew of interesting international guys, whose success rate will largely dictate the success of the Cubs future. Full season: 1. Brailyn Márquez 2. Miguel Amaya 3. Adbert Alzolay 4. Chris Morel 5. Manual Rodriguez (I'm very interested....) 6. Yovanny Cruz (I''m still interested in him) Younger: Santana Preciado Mena Ronnier Quintero C Caissie (drafted, so kinda doesn't fit, but kinda fits in being literally both international, and talented ..) Kevin Made SS Luis Verdugo, SS Yohendrick Pinango, CF Richard Gallardo RHP Rafael Morel Brayan Altuve C That's a big pool of talent, and that's not including Christian Hernandez or Ballesteros. Unbelievable how good it might get if the Cubs scouting, development, and luck with this pool of talent works out disproportionately well. Sure hope we get a bunch of winners from that pool.

Thanks, Cal. Chris Morel has been hyped up by Dorey, and is top-10 in BA's list and AZ Phil, even after the trade. *IF* Rafael has a "lot more power", then even if he isn't the defensive stud that Chris is, he's got a chance to be a really good hitters. I'm not a Chris Morel believer; the .172 OPB with 39K/0BB at Eugene in 18 still sticks in my head, and 60/11 K/BB at South Bend remains a pretty bright red flag to me. But Rafael is not Chris. *If* he hypothetically has a "lot more power", but also comes without the pitch-recognition and contact problems that Chris needs to be overcome, perhaps Rafael will become a major-league hitter and a serious prospect.

As Tom said, the interviewer suggested the Larry Walker comp; Callis more acknowledged. Five components to the comp: Canadian (1), RF (2), big guys (3), powerful RF arms (4), and serious power (5). I'm guessing without the Canadian commonality, Ryan Harvey would be as good a comp! Obviously the subset of guys who can actually hit and apply their power is pretty small relative to the larger pool of big-strong-big-armed RFers. Hopefully Caissie will be one of the special guys who can hit and apply their power.

Listened to Callis. He compared Santana to Howard. Viewed Mena as the Cubs best CF prospect, Preciada as our best 3B prospect. Comped Caissie to Larry Walker, and said a year from now, it's possible he might be our best OF prospect. Then did the usual Christian Hernandez to Alex Rodrigues comp.

What is the current perspective on Driveline/Pitch-lab's ability to help with command? Is the view that data analysis on delivery, arm slot, release point, weight transfer etc. can result in significant improvements in command, as well as in velocity and stuff? I'm assuming those things can help some, but probably control is largely beyond the reach of pitch lab? Maples is Maples, wild is still going to be wild, right? Jensen, McAvene, Cam Sanders, Burl, Brailyn, Bigge, Bailey Reid, Calloway, Luke Little, Thompson, these guys might all have variably good velocity and overall stuff. Whether any or many will have enough control and command to be big-league excellent, hard to guess, or how much help Cubs coaching will be able to give them in achieving that. Or whether any or many will have enough to pitch rotation versus just relief, as valuable as good relievers may be.

Tom, thanks for citing that Mooney article with Dorey and Hoyer. There was a Sharma article on Tuesday with Breslow, too. https://theathletic.com/2277312/2020/12/22/cubs-craig-breslow-pitching-development-philosophy/ Breslow talked about "risk", but Hoyer's comments add some clarity, that injury risk is a real consideration. (Obviously muscle memory, performance, and confidence are also factors.) Derek Johnson saw pushing velocity as being an injury-risk. He instructed pitchers to NOT try to throw their hardest, at least below AA. That wasn't just for injury reasons, of course; he wanted guys to throw in a comfort range where they could repeat, control, locate, and where change and breaker delivery could be consistent with fastball. Theo emerged amidst Moneyball thinking, where past statistical data was valued. I suspect he brought that with him to the Cubs, such that when tools and college stats were balanced, his scouts may have tilted that balance a little bit more in the past-stats direction than some other teams, or perhaps than the Cubs now? Pitch lab and spin data change so much. The recent view to tilt that balance more towards pitchers with more tools makes more sense, given the assumption that you can optimize their delivery later, and reshape their breaking repertoire even if it wasn't very good in college.

Tom, when did Clarke have TJ?

NO idea why Nwogu took that long for an ordinary slot-agreement pick. My guess is that it was just something procedural, travel related, getting the physical, something like that. Michigan had pretty tight Covid travel restrictions, I think. And Arizona has been pretty hot for a while. With no minor-league camp anyway for Nwogu, probably no hurry to get the actual physical passed and the contract signed. The more unfavorable paranoid possibility is that there were some red flags in his physical.

I'd be surprised if the Cubs opted for Lester and unnecessarily $15 budget hit. Next year also projects to be 3rd-straight year over the lux line. With both Covid and Quintana's injury, they lost any chance to get under for this year. So I'd guess they may not be eager to go over the line again next year, and face triple-over consequences, particularly given the huge financial hit they're already going to take this year. So I'm predicting that they will not pick up Lester's option for next year.

Thanks, Tom, interesting stuff in that.

Wow, that is unbelievable. I also think it's weird that Alzolay is there in the first place. Why isn't he up with the big-league summer camp with an opportunity to impress the new manager, the not-so-long pitching coach, and to compete for a job on the expanded roster where Ross and Hotovy keep talking about how guys might need to be pitching a couple of innings early on? Or competing for a rotation spot in absence of Quintana? It just seemed like a weird thing, I can understand why Alzolay is in complaint mode these days. I think he might be better served to try to become a good pitcher that belongs in the majors than to be whining about things, yes; but it's understandable. I wonder how much the taxi-squad conditions are determined by the Cubs admin, versus mlb agreement? If the Cubs are choosing this, Theo and all of his "take care of players" talk ought to be paying out of his own big salary.

Great points, bertz. Pitchers should be able to keep practicing and developing. The plate is the exact same size and distance in a warehouse as on the field, and pitching is entirely initiated by the pitcher. So a guy should be able to keep practicing his pitches just fine in the warehouse. To some degree, perhaps a little better, without the pressure of success. For example, suppose Burl needs to develop his slider; he can throw it a million times in the pitch lab and improve it. As a hyper-competitive guy, if he tried that in games, but it was inconsistent and getting hammered more often than his more established pitches, the competitive instincts makes a guy reluctant to keep practicing it. Likewise I think practicing on a consistent schedule is easier in the pitch lab. You set the schedule, you set the number of pitches that are healthy and appropriate. In a season, there are rainouts; a relief pitcher doesn't always get scheduled usage, depending on how games are going and how other pitchers are doing; maybe you're scheduled for two innings, but hitters are hacking and your first inning only takes 7 pitches? So to some degree, I wonder if the pitch-lab practicing might not almost be BETTER for development, in several ways? Obviously repeating delivery and tunneling in pitch lab is one thing; repeating delivery and tunneling and locating when adrenalin is rushing in a game, when pressure is high, emotions, when it's 90 degrees or 51 with drizzle and wind, when you're on the road and each mound is a little different than the last, it's obviously a lot harder. Pitchers are the initiators, with a fixed plate size and distance. But way worse for batters. They are responders, so how can they practice and improve their ability to recognize and respond to real professional pitching without facing real, professional pitching? I think developmentally this will really be a wasted year for those poor guys.

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.