craig

Agree, toonster, I think that's how it's continued. D1 is usually the more "winning" roster, as relates both to experience and sometimes talent. My recall is that D1 has tended to have both more 2nd-year guys who'd looked interesting; and more of the $$$-first-year guys. In the latter, it may be that the bigger-ticket guys are inherently not just more talented, but may also just be more smooth and polished and confident and ready. There have been a number of times when a pitcher who started D2 and was doing well, would get "promoted" to D1. And most of the promotions to Mesa are D1 guys. Not excellent analogy, but something like Myrtle to South Bend, or Eugene to Mesa. (Obviously poor analogy, since both D1 and D2 face the same league and competition in actual games.) I think it also probably goes with the territory that some of the D1 guys are 2nd-year (or sometimes even 3rd-year) guys. Perhaps more physically mature and more baseball polished and more ready to win DSL games; but in terms of big-league potential, you kinda figure anybody who isn't good enough for Mesa by 2nd year, probably isn't going to ever hit the majors. Having 2nd year guys might give D1 a better W-L record; but kinda hard to get very fired up for a 2nd-year guy who wasn't good enough for Mesa and age-wise a year old as well.

Who specifically are you talking about? Obviously for some players, an uptick in velocity is fleeting but it does happen to many HS kids who do maintain the velocity. It's a natural aspect of a teenager growing and maturing. The other concern is players who are a bit older who have an uptick in velocity and then blow out their arm almost immediately (Rob Whitenack comes to mind). Blackburn I think may have been a guy who was supposedly bumping up into the 93-94 velocity in the spring, but then never got back there again. Whatever, Carlson sounds like a really interesting possibility. Seems like a lot of very interesting possibilities. heh heh, I know it's probably super immature and juvenile and unsophisticated. But if the Cubs were to pick two first-round young non-college pitchers, I admit I'd think it was kind of fun to hope. Might have a little more upside than with the Zastryzny types.

Nice to have Albertos with an effective day.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/billazbbphotog/status/870739225703981056[/tweet] Hits seem kinda rare for Adelman, though. Maybe a Barney type?

He's only 22, he's definitely putting up solid numbers in Tennessee.(though he is repeating the level) The stuff was never eye popping and it seemingly had regressed a bit. But, there's not been any reports surface this season yet, on how he's actually throwing..... Is he a 6th starter type? Maybe. But, its probably for a team trying to be horsefeathers. .... He's kind of a 50/50 guy, as far as [40-man0 goes, to me BTW...... With the rest of the season determining .... Yeah, time will tell. As you emphasize, we'll see, lots of season left to determine. His good May could be totally an outlier. Or maybe one of these days we'll get a fresh scouting report that sounds better, that makes him sound more promising, and that helps to explain how he's been doing this well. Still, I'm an optimistic guy, so I'm more interested/hopeful than you, Dave. Interesting thing in Tseng's recent starts has been that the K's have been solid. In four of last 6 starts, he's had as many or more K's than innings. His numbers really are pretty nice; 49/11/2 K/BB/HR. Probably flukey/lucky thing, and he's due to get pounded. I suspect the low HR's is the lucky part; his GO/AO is only 0.71, HR should be a vulnerability. But sometimes we find out that results aren't really so much luck, and perhaps reflect pitching realities that weren't were captured by our latest scouting report? I'm a fan of guys who don't walk people, and with K/BB >4. If he's good on 2/3 of K/BB/HR, he's got a chance. I konw your eval is bad #6 for a losing team. But I think we sometimes undervalue "back of rotation" guys. Heh heh, I think I forget the value of a decent "back of rotation" guy until we don't have one! When you're going with brett Anderson, maybe it would be nice to have a decent back-of-rotation guy. Anderson, Butler, John Lackey, those guys are starting 40% of the Cubs games; wouldn't be asking for a super-stud back-of-rotation guy to be better than all three of them? And on a team with a good defense, a good offense, and a good bullpen, all three of which I still hope prove true in future years even if for the moment the offense stinks, a solid #5 starter can start an awful lot of wins.

Wow. Fun.

Thanks, Dave, I've been wanting to get a report. I feel a little bipolar on that. Positive, that the fastball is good. Anytime it's a late-round college guy, I always wonder if the fastball isn't really major-league. But a good, deceptive, solid-90's fastball with location, that would seem quite legit. Having everthing else be mediocre/fringy/below-average, that's kinda disappointing. I'd thought that maybe there'd be the solid fastball plus one plus putaway pitch. The scouting report is kind of unexpected. K's normally come on breaking balls. If none of his offspeed is very good, how is he K'ing everybody? Weird.

I wonder about that. Have you seen him, or gotten good reports? I'd never seen the guy until spring training TV game. In that particular game, he looked like a liability defensively. Seemed kind of slow, dropped a ball that he got his glove on, and that I think would have been a pretty easy catch for somebody who wasn't as slow. Then seemed to have a hard time getting down to field a single in front of him, kind of fumbled it around. I was surprised by what a burly-chested top-heavy guy he was. Physically looked like one of the stronger wrestler-looking bodies on the team, more like Schwarber than a normal baseball guy. But, that was just a couple of plays, so who knows, and I'm no scout. But wasn't what I was expecting. I had these memories of supposedly running well and having base-stealing potential (he never actually did); talk about him perhaps playing some 2B (he never did); perhaps playing some CF (he hardly ever did). And of course the reports of lacking HR power. So I was surprised he looked more like a DH-slugger than like a fast limited-power utility guy.

Burks wouldn't make my Top 10, but mid teens. Hatch has some weird numbers. If I'm doing the math in my head, he's got a BABIP-against of over .350. His K/HR/IP splits are great. Walk-rate stinks and BABIP is lousy. If the latter is just a matter of bad luck, as opposed to getting behind all the time and throwing fastballs down the middle to keep the walks from being even worse.

Pretty amazing. 13 outs by K, one caught stealing, only two outs on batted balls. 9 balls in play, only got two of them out. Baseball is a funny game.

Volatile indeed. I'm an NFL Packers fan, so we're always drafting in the late 20's. I always figure that given the different valuation of players, when picking in the late 20's, you should pretty much expect that somebody who's in your top-20 on your board should last to your pick. If the Cubs can scout smart, so that their top-20 can really idenfity the best 20 players, I think they too should be able to get two of the top 20-25 players. Guessing which top-20-25 guys slip to them is hard/impossible to predict. But they'll have opportunity. Should be fun! Just hope they scout smart and guys stay healthy.

Thinking: 1. Too expensive to draft HS'er? 2. Too much inherent risk with HS'ers? or 3. We're in too Nowacrat a mode to go with two HSers, given Win-Now mindset? That HSers are too distant, even if they prove to be good long-term values once they eventually do arrive and thrive? I've got no problem with going HS, if scouting judges them as good value, risk considered, and if HS leverage doesn't make them overpriced. And even if waiting 5-years for a HS kid to blossom might not match our present ideal window-of-opportunity. Maybe that might actually be good, too.... Maybe 5 years out, that might provide a good timeline to replace one of the Russell/Baez/Bryant/Schwarber/Contreras/Hewyard guys leaving in FA. Seems weird to be looking for replacements already, but maybe that's a way. And if some of the young guys do end up stars/good enough to justify Cub extensions at high prices, the team will need some low-price guys to balance the budget.

Has anybody seen Michael Rucker, or have inside scoop? 32K/2BB/1HR/19.2IP, pretty good splits. What I think I know: 1. Lists as only 6'1", 185, so not a big guy. 2. 11th round, but got $180 overslot. So, the Cubs liked him kinda, although still $180K isn't exactly a bonus baby. 3. 23, so already kinda old. 4. Was 3rd team All-American at BYU last year, his only rotation year. 5. Started at Gonzaga (he's a Washington kid), pitched like 10 innings as freshman; sat out sophomore year while transferring; swing reliever/6-start guy as junior; last year Friday night starter as senior, 180 innings total over his four years in college. 6. The bizarre K/BB/IP splits he's showing this year have no precedent in college. He was <1K/IP at BYU, and senior year was first year his K/BB got as high as 3/1. So good chance this is kinda SSS non-sustainable fluke. 7. Perhaps relief is an advantage, don't mix in as many pitches? 8. Beats me, but maybe pitching in BYU/WAC is like pitching for the Rockies? All anti-pitcher environments, thin air, etc? Last year at BYU, he had a 2.76 ERA; the rest of the staff was 4.5, nobody else was less than 3.5, and BYU ERA-against >7. So perhaps relative to environment/competition, he was better than realized? 9. https://baseballdraftreport.com/tag/michael-rucker/ Listed Rucker as #158 draft prospect last year, quoting some scouting report that said: Draft scouting always seems to inflate everybody, but if in relief he's able to consistently pump it up and work at low 90's, with control, and has somehow tweaked up his slider into a good knockout pitch, maybe he's a thing?

Sounds pretty serious for Caratini. Sounds like he'll be out for quite some time.

Odorizzi has been a 2-3 WAR guy. If you end up getting a consistent, durable 2-3 WAR guy at end of round 1, that's not bad. But if that's the prospect's ceiling? Different story. Few guys reach or sustain their ceiling, so if that's the best you might possible get, and there is an 80% probability that you'll get less, that wouldn't seem a great value. I don't share Tom's premise, though, that the ceiling for Enlow would be Odorizzi level. I think there's the ceiling possibility for being considerably more than Odorizzi. Young, slender, projectible guy who might add considerably more velocity, and who pitches with balance and a good repertoire, there is at least a chance that guy could end up very, very good.

Thanks for Peyton notes. Had assumed as an old 29th rounder, that he had no moe than roster-fill velocity. If he's got good command of 92-94 sinker, that's not inadequate. Love to see Midwest guys do well, so would be fun to see him extend success and build a career.

slicing out the best possible sample of a guy and there he's still not striking anybody out / controlling the strike zone kind of seems like damning with faint praise kind of situation Fair enough. ....As far as the Ks, I get it. I love Ks, but that's not Hudson's game. If he had induced 39 ground outs vs. 8 fly ball outs in his last 4 starts, the lack of strikeouts becomes a lot more worrisome. Not trying to change your mind on him. Just stating why I'm encouraged. I'm also encouraged. Players have success in different way But counting the two XST games, he's had 8 starts, and 7 of them have been variably effective, he's only had one terrible start. It would seem that for now, as a 19/20 year old, relative to low-level hitting, he's pitching effectively. So, for the moment, being effective relative to his league, and certainly relative to his age, now seems the norm and not the exception. Usually being effective is a change compared to last summer, so I take that as encouragement. And the extraordinary GO/AO ratio seems reproducible enough to suggest that's no fluke. The K's are terrible, particularly in conjunction with the BB's which are mediocre. (And the BB's don't capture the other "wild" things, if you added in the HBP and the WP, the ratio of K's/"wild things" would be well below 1.) But you can get away with a lot if you never allow a HR. Tom has correctly mentioned the massive importance of HR-allowance rate (hello, Lackey and Underwood.....). That's the area where Hudson has excelled this season, and assuming the GO/AO is even remotely sustainable, that should continue to excel. HR/K/BB seem the big three to me; If the GO/AO allows the HR to be great, and the BB's are anti-awful, he's got a chance. It's odd that his K-rate is so exceptionally low, when at draft and in early camp, there was talk about his curve being so good. Most K's come on breaking balls, obviously, so it appears that was either untrue to start with, or that he's lost that curve or any semblance of control over it. So I think there may be a possibility (which doesn't mean probability) that K's might improve. He just turned 20; he might get a little faster, and grow into mediocre/average velocity. And sometimes guys who have just turned 20 can adjust/improve their curveball some.

Cease on DL

The lack of K's is a concern for both de la Cruz and Clifton, in my opinion. For high-stuff prospects, they might be too inconsistent as prospects to do it every time, but I'd expect a guy with a plus big-league arm and plus big-league stuff should dominate minor-league hitters on the occasional game when their stuff is on. Not every game, but I'd expect a 9K/1BB/6IP start now and then. de la Cruz has had only a single start where he out-K'd his innings, a 6K/5IP start. de la Cruz is supposed to have good stuff, but as a high-HR/low-K guy, maybe his stuff isn't all that excellent, or his fastball that notably fast or movement-ish? Lots of minor-leaguers can work at 90-92 and touch an occasional 95-96. And for a guy who's touted for his size, should he be worn out after 5 innings? Not sure that testifies that "big/strong/durable" is necessarily a true asset? But, the guy has only pitched 240 pro innings. Hopefully he'll gain consistency and sharpen up the change and offspeed. Just not sure the results indicate notable life on the fastball, or any high-end breaking stuff. Seems like a solid prospect, but probably not much change to be more than a #4 rotation type? Obviously with the Cubs potential defense and position group, if you have a collection of three #3/4 type rotation guys, a great pen, and find one or two top-end starters, you could win a ton of games.

Justin Steele has sequenced three decent starts, 2 earned runs over past three starts. His overall numbers are weird, 1.6 WHIP and giving up I think a .330 BABIP or something like that. His K/BB splits are terrible. Obviously he doesn't have especially good stuff, needs to get by with unexceptional stuff. And traditionally he's been wild, or at least inconsistent. But composite numbers are a mix of all games, and he's had two bad starts, one terrible; the other 6 have all been one earned run max. Has some groundball profile, so that's a good thing. Will be interesting to see how he can progress as the season progresses,and whether he can either improve his consistency or perhaps improve his K-quality. Would be fun to see him develop into a decent prospect.

Thanks for scouting account, Win. Very helpful. And glad to hear the report that Cease claim's it's not a big deal. Your observation that he was locating what catcher was asking for, that's encouraging, and that the hits were bloops, etc. Thanks also for links.

:):) I agree Tom. Huge difference. Perhaps why Ryan Harvey and Bubba Starling aren't doing much. Also think big difference between crude bulk "football-combine" type tools, and actual finesse baseball talents, as required to adjust and square up to, or lay off of, a fast-moving cutter or slider. Or to not only be able to throw fast and to spin, but to locate and command those pitches consistently. Bulk tools like velocity, power, and speed are easy to see. But the finesse tools required to hit and pitch with command, much harder to quantify. Also, thanks very much you guys for your posts and opinions about the draft. I haven't had the capacity to keep track or have opinions myself. Drafting top 5 or top 10, not that hard to try to track 8 or 10 guys and read as much as possible. But kinda hard for me to evaluate guys in the late 20's. If a guy sounds really good, the better he sounds th eless likely he lasts. So anyway, reading you guys's thoughts has been helpful. Keep it up! :)

I suspect this may be more individual, than organizational. "If you get into situations where you have to strike guys out", try to. I wonder if, to a pitcher, "pitch to contact" is basically understood to mean "throw more fastballs"? Watched part of Butler's game on Friday. Totally different approach than Lester or Hendricks. Suspect if Butler tries to pitch like Lester, he'll not do very well. But for that day at least, he had enough fastball that he could throw a lot of fastballs, and still succeed. Did he spot them all, and were they so fast and so explosive that they were swing-and-miss fastballs? No. But they were fast enough and had enough run/movement that they weren't all getting mashed. In his case, I'd guess "pitch to contact" in practice means "throw your fastball a lot, don't get behind in the count all the time, and if they' sit on fastball, your change doesn't need to be Hendricks-esque to get some chase swings." Montgomery could perhaps use a little "pitch to contact" encouragement. Does he ever throw two fastballs in a row, or three strikes in a row? When he does does mix in a fastball, the hitter could almost count on the next pitch *Not* being another fastball. Perhaps if he threw more fastballs, maybe he'd pitch ahead more often, and maybe guys wouldn't be sitting offspeed as effectively if they weren't so sure fastball wasn't coming. Guessing De la Cruz has got a pretty decent fastball,and maybe is throwing lots of curves and changeups which result in long and unfavorable counts? Maybe throwing more fastballs for him is "pitching to contact" and helps him in A-ball. Whether it will help him have the command for majors, not so sure. Cease might be another guy who might be encouraged to "pitch to contact. But kinda guessing he can get some K's even with his fastball; that developmentally he needs plenty of work on curve and change; and that even if he threw mostly fastballs that he'd still be wild.

Yeah, those guys appear to be doing pretty terrible in XST. O well. Hopefully they'll get better with time.

Thanks for scouting notes. Very helpful. Helpful to actually have viewed the action. Yeah, obviously 89 isn't very fast, so that's going to be a finesse guy. But also possible that a guy can add some velocity after just hitting age 20; and a guy can get more confidence and comfort in his delivery, and throw a little harder; obviously in relief too. It's a prospect and a project. Seems like the real long guys can have more challenges with consistent delivery and with breaking pitch. Hopefully in time his curve will get better. Going to be a long road for him, I'm guessing, even if things do have a happy ending.