2019 #3 Prospect DL Hall - LHP

[Tony-OH]

https://www.orioleshangout.com/2019/11/06/orioles-3-prospect-dl-hall-lhp/?preview=true&_thumbnail_id=9735

He was really 2A if we're being honest, but only his lack of command dropped him slightly below Rodriguez. Lots to like with this young man though.

[weams]

9 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

https://www.orioleshangout.com/2019/11/06/orioles-3-prospect-dl-hall-lhp/?preview=true&_thumbnail_id=9735

He was really 2A if we're being honest, but only his lack of command dropped him slightly below Rodriguez. Lots to like with this young man though.

Thanks Tony!

[Frobby]

This write up really had me drooling, especially the grades on his pitches!    I’ve always believed that developing good command is a lot more difficult, and a lot more important, than many people think.    That said, if Hall’s stuff is really as good as it’s graded here, he won’t need to be Tom Glavine or Jamie Moyer to succeed.    Just decent command should do the trick.   

[LookinUp]

Confession of my orange colored glasses:

If it clicks for Hall, I think the real debate will be between him and Rutschman, not him and Rodriguez, and that's if Rutschman maintains his lofty profile. Both Tony and Luke mentioned TOR upside in his profile. I'm not sure we all understand that they don't use those words lightly. TOR is an ace. It's a game changer. It's Sherzer, Mussina, Beckett, Kershaw. 

I understand that's a best, not very likely case, and it's correct for Tony/Luke to note the risk. Articulating risk is a ton of the value they provide. It keeps expectations grounded. For this kid, mine clearly are not grounded. I'm betting on his arm talent, competitiveness and excellent athleticism to help him make huge strides. I think he's a gem. 

[Frobby]

38 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Both Tony and Luke mentioned TOR upside in his profile. I'm not sure we all understand that they don't use those words lightly. TOR is an ace. It's a game changer. It's Sherzer, Mussina, Beckett, Kershaw. 

I don’t think so.   A TOR is someone who projects to be a 1 or a 2.    The guys your describing were top 10 in all MLB (though I’m not sure Beckett belongs with the other 3).    

[Luke-OH]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I don’t think so.   A TOR is someone who projects to be a 1 or a 2.    The guys your describing were top 10 in all MLB (though I’m not sure Beckett belongs with the other 3).    

Yeah, Hall has true ace stuff, but no where near true ace present command. 

Another thing aces often have is something unique, a special pitch, weird mechanics, weird arm slot, crazy spin. Hall doesn’t have those things, he throws from a traditional 3/4, has good not great spin rates, and his pitches have typical movement profiles (albeit a lot of movement due to the arm speed they are thrown with). So if he’s going to be an ace, he’ll have to do it with ridiculous stuff and plus command (like DeGrom). But plus command is an awful long way off. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Luke-OH said:

Yeah, Hall has true ace stuff, but no where near true ace present command. 

Another thing aces often have is something unique, a special pitch, weird mechanics, weird arm slot, crazy spin. Hall doesn’t have those things, he throws from a traditional 3/4, has good not great spin rates, and his pitches have typical movement profiles (albeit a lot of movement due to the arm speed they are thrown with). So if he’s going to be an ace, he’ll have to do it with ridiculous stuff and plus command (like DeGrom). But plus command is an awful long way off. 

I find that different people mean different things when they use terms like “ace,” “number one starter,” and “TOR pitcher.”    Some people consider all three terms to be synonymous.    Others think the first two are synonymous but the third is a broader category that includes the next rung down as well.     Some think “ace” is more exclusive than “no. 1 starter,” others think the reverse.    So, it’s hard to get everyone on the same page about how high we think a pitcher’s ceiling is when using these terms sometimes.   
 

My interpretation of “TOR starter” is someone who could fill one of the top two rotation spots on a good team.    It is less exclusive than an “ace” or a no. 1 starter,” though those pitchers are also accurately described as TOR starters.   
 

Sometimes, a great pitching team can have three starters I’d consider TOR starters, even though that’s an oxymoron.    Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz certainly qualify.   

[LookinUp]

2 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

Another thing aces often have is something unique, a special pitch, weird mechanics, weird arm slot, crazy spin. Hall doesn’t have those things, he throws from a traditional 3/4, has good not great spin rates, and his pitches have typical movement profiles (albeit a lot of movement due to the arm speed they are thrown with). So if he’s going to be an ace, he’ll have to do it with ridiculous stuff and plus command (like DeGrom). 

Definitely understand the command piece. The rest of this is certainly more nuanced than I knew going in. I just see a very athletic, very competitive kid with explosive stuff. I'm certainly not actually projecting that he'll be another Kershaw, but I do think he could be a dominant starter for us.

[weams]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

I don’t think so.   A TOR is someone who projects to be a 1 or a 2.    The guys your describing were top 10 in all MLB (though I’m not sure Beckett belongs with the other 3).    

Beckett won a couple world series. And a TOR could just turn out to be Lester or  Syndergaard, Not Max.  Though Max was not really great until age 27.  

[VaBird1]

12 minutes ago, weams said:

Beckett won a couple world series. And a TOR could just turn out to be Lester or  Syndergaard, Not Max.  Though Max was not really great until age 27.  

Isn’t that the guy that Tillman out dueled in the playoffs?

[weams]

13 minutes ago, VaBird1 said:

Isn’t that the guy that Tillman out dueled in the playoffs?

Yeah,  but that was a fluke. 

[Frobby]

57 minutes ago, weams said:

Beckett won a couple world series. And a TOR could just turn out to be Lester or  Syndergaard, Not Max.  Though Max was not really great until age 27.  

Beckett, when at the top of his game, was definitely one of the very best pitchers in baseball.   He just wasn’t at the very top of his game often enough to warrant mention with Scherzer, Mussina and Kershaw.    One’s in the Hall of Fame, two others are probably going in, and one definitely isn’t.    
 

That said, if you told me right now I had a choice between Hall having a Beckett-level career and taking whatever is behind Door No. 2, I’d lock in Beckett without hesitation.  

[weams]

18 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Beckett, when at the top of his game, was definitely one of the very best pitchers in baseball.   He just wasn’t at the very top of his game often enough to warrant mention with Scherzer, Mussina and Kershaw.    One’s in the Hall of Fame, two others are probably going in, and one definitely isn’t.    
 

That said, if you told me right now I had a choice between Hall having a Beckett-level career and taking whatever is behind Door No. 2, I’d lock in Beckett without hesitation.  

And that would be a top of the rotation career.  Chris Paddack is top of his rotation. 

[Ripken]

It's not important, and I love Hall and GrayRod but, after seeing them both, I like Hall a bit more.  He doesn't have the greatest command - that is true.

[foxfield]

5 hours ago, Frobby said:

I find that different people mean different things when they use terms like “ace,” “number one starter,” and “TOR pitcher.”    Some people consider all three terms to be synonymous.    Others think the first two are synonymous but the third is a broader category that includes the next rung down as well.     Some think “ace” is more exclusive than “no. 1 starter,” others think the reverse.    So, it’s hard to get everyone on the same page about how high we think a pitcher’s ceiling is when using these terms sometimes.   
 

My interpretation of “TOR starter” is someone who could fill one of the top two rotation spots on a good team.    It is less exclusive than an “ace” or a no. 1 starter,” though those pitchers are also accurately described as TOR starters.   
 

Sometimes, a great pitching team can have three starters I’d consider TOR starters, even though that’s an oxymoron.    Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz certainly qualify.   

It's easy to understand the confusion here...since we haven't had any of the three in so long.