URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Bleacher Bums Forum
  HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Archives
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 377812--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Cubs Draft 2019
       By: craig Date: June 4, 2019, 12:28 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=CUBluejays link=topic=543.msg377747#msg377747
       date=1559618255]
       #55 Ryan Jensen  FB 70/70, SL 45/50, CH 45/50, CMD 40/50 Sits
       93-96,T 99.  ATH ++...[/quote]
       [quote author=CUBluejays link=topic=543.msg377797#msg377797
       date=1559661927]
       ....Craig the mlb scouts only move by 5 on their grades, so it
       isn't just a Fangraphs thing.  Players perfroming at 60 level
       tools at the major leagues is pretty rare.[/quote]
       In my limited perspective, it seems like projections tend to
       cluster around 50.  I don't feel like the number scores always
       tell the story of what the scouts really seem to be thinking;
       the numbers lack differentiation?  So much bunching in the
       50-55-maybe-60 range.
       Which is why Jensen's fastball projecting as 70 is **really**
       outstanding.  I don't think these scouting reports give out 70's
       unless a guy is really different from the pack.  Lots of great
       runners, but how many guys short of Buxton get a 70?  Lots of HR
       hitters, but how many short of a Bryant will get a 70 for power?
       
       I do think fastball tends to get more separation in the scouting
       reports, for obvious reasons.  Even so, it takes a pretty good
       fastball to get a 60, and a really, really good one to get a 65;
       to get a 70 is pretty unusual.
       Jensen projects to 50 in everything but fastball.  Change and
       slider are given exactly the same scores:  45/50, no
       differentiation.  Even though one of the game reports referenced
       "hammer" breaking ball.  And even though the sentence-style
       reports seemed considerably more enthusiastic about the present
       development and future utility of the change.  I suppose maybe
       it's different evaluatons telling different stories.  But it
       would kind of seem from the word-reports that the number scale
       should project the slider higher than 50; and the change lower
       than 50, and certainly the present change lower than 45.
       I guess I just kinda feel like the grading scale could perhaps
       use more differentiation.  For Strumpf, reading the written
       summaries, it's pretty obvious that the media scouts think his
       bat has a chance to make him a good major leaguer, that's why
       they rated him a top-50 guy.   It's obviously his batting
       potential that made him a top-50 guy on the media lists, it's
       not based on his speed or arm strength.  Yet in the scouting
       report, even projecting, they don't have his hitting more than a
       55, only one increment above average, and only one increment
       above his speed or arm.  They totally don't love his arm or
       speed, they do like his bat enough to rank him as a 1st-day
       pick; yet the bat projects to be only one step above his boring
       arm/speed/defense?  I'm just thinking the bat might perhaps
       warrant a 58 or a 60 projection, and the speed more a 47 or a 45
       or 42; a greater discrimination and differentiation.
       But, whatever, they all know how they use their system, so they
       know how to make it work.
       Also maybe obvious that it was the Cubs who picked Strumpf; so
       maybe internally they project his bat to be 60 and his
       game-power to be full-out 50.  And maybe they selected Jensen
       where they did because they were projecting his slider at 55 or
       60, and his control at 53-60 or whatever, too?
       Projecting to 60 shouldn't be that rare, though?  If 50 is
       average, and 55 is one increment above, shouldn't there be more
       guys that project 60?
       #Post#: 377813--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Cubs Draft 2019
       By: vander-built Date: June 4, 2019, 12:35 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I’m sure I’m forgetting someone but I dont think we’ve had a
       pitcher turn down money and get less offered college.  Donny
       Everett is an entirely different scenario.  Price, Gray, and
       Beede all turned down big money for college but ended up getting
       higher bonuses after.  I assume Kumar Rocker will come out
       ahead.
       #Post#: 377814--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Cubs Draft 2019
       By: vander-built Date: June 4, 2019, 12:39 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I seem to really like the Cardinals draft year in and year out.
       Can’t we steal someone from their front office?
       #Post#: 377815--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Cubs Draft 2019
       By: vander-built Date: June 4, 2019, 12:44 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       We drafted Michael McAvene in the third round?  That’s horrible!
       #Post#: 377816--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Cubs Draft 2019
       By: CUBluejays Date: June 4, 2019, 12:44 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Cubs Round 3 pick: Michael McAvene, Louisville, RP.
       #Post#: 377817--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Cubs Draft 2019
       By: chgojhawk Date: June 4, 2019, 12:51 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       My guy Zeferjahn goes to the Bosox. Holding out hope for Cronin.
       Was texting his dad who wasn’t offering much (probably doesn’t
       know much since he hasn’t gotten a call yet).
       #Post#: 377818--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Cubs Draft 2019
       By: CUBluejays Date: June 4, 2019, 12:55 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=craig link=topic=543.msg377812#msg377812
       date=1559669291]
       Projecting to 60 shouldn't be that rare, though?  If 50 is
       average, and 55 is one increment above, shouldn't there be more
       guys that project 60?
       [/quote]
  HTML https://blogs.fangraphs.com/scouting-explained-the-20-80-scouting-scale/
       Fangraphs does use a + to further differentiate.
       #Post#: 377819--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Cubs Draft 2019
       By: CUBluejays Date: June 4, 2019, 1:00 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Fangraphs135
       103/CHC
       Fastball 65/70
       Slider 50/55
       Command35/40
       Sits 94-98
       Currently suspended for 3 games for saying that Horrible to an
       ump.
       Fangraphs gave 5 future 70 grade fastballs, Cubs have drafted 2
       of them.
       #Post#: 377820--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Cubs Draft 2019
       By: CUBluejays Date: June 4, 2019, 1:09 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Glenallen Hill's son to the D-Backs in the 4th round.  Turk
       Wendell's son is also draft eligible.
       #Post#: 377821--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Cubs Draft 2019
       By: CUBluejays Date: June 4, 2019, 1:10 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Cronin to the Nationals.
       *****************************************************
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page