Jump to content

2019 #3 Prospect DL Hall - LHP


Tony-OH

Recommended Posts

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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...