SUNDAY MINORS THREAD 8/20/18: Rangel Shines in Rome

[Southcack77]

TOR is definitely unlikely. I wouldn't totally close the door on it just because he does seem to be someone whose stuff outstrips his numbers. So there's a hope (albeit one so small as to be almost fanciful) that he can tap some of that to improve the K rate a la Gerrit Cole and reach that TOR potential his stuff gives him. But it's definitely going to take a jump that is not at all common or predictable.

Still, if he becomes a solid #3 it's hard to complain. I could easily see him being a #3 who peaks as a fringe #2 for a couple seasons in his prime.

the report on his last start I saw only had him 93-94 and giving up contact with his FB. Good secondary offerings. That's ok stuff, but I've never really seen anyone rave about any of his particular pitches the way others have gotten.

The whole way its been more of an above average whole package, advanced product sort of thing.

[Southcack77]

Depends on how you define "TOR".

If "TOR" means a slam dunk Ace who competes for CY Awards for 3-5 straight years posting 5+ fWAR (role 70 player), I don't think the Braves have a guy with even a 10% chance of doing that. The most likely scenario being Gohara figuring out how to be a professional athlete and living up to his potential.

If "TOR" simply means a guy who produces a single 4+ win season and makes fans argue over whether or not he's an Ace, the Braves have several. Take all the guys projected to have 2 pitches graded 60 or better (Gohara, Wright, Anderson, Touki), add in Soroka for his potentially plus control, and pick one. All are potential legit #3s with a chance to peak higher.

to be fair, a lot of aces aren't guys that had better than a 10% chance to get there.

[Enscheff]

to be fair, a lot of aces aren't guys that had better than a 10% chance to get there.

A fair portion of the modern TOR guys were acknowledged to have (or had a body that projected to have) that type of stuff very early on. The whole “we really don’t know” narrative is a little silly for a very large percentage of pitching prospects.

Additionally, most Aces today aren’t Aces for any extended period of time. Most are 1-2 year flashes in the pan.

[striker42]

Take a guy like Aaron Nola, what's the biggest difference between he and Wright? Is his control just that much better? is his stuff a good bit better? Is Nola just a bit of a unicorn?

Nola is actually the guy I was thinking of as a likely best case scenario for Wright. There are some similarities. College pitchers, similar arsenal, neither are huge K guys. I think if Wright hones his control and can keep his HR rate down, he's got a shot to be a Nola.

I'm not so sure Wright has special stuff. FG doesn't list a single pitch from him better than a 60 present or future. Without statcast data there is no way for us to know otherwise.

This could be just what he is. A very valuable rotation mainstay, but not the TOR stud we all hoped for when he fell to the Braves at #5.

I'm going by what was said when he was drafted and snipits we see on Twitter. Not ideal. I'll be interested to see him when he hits Atlanta. As we've seen with others, early scouting reports aren't always accurate.

[striker42]

the report on his last start I saw only had him 93-94 and giving up contact with his FB. Good secondary offerings. That's ok stuff, but I've never really seen anyone rave about any of his particular pitches the way others have gotten.

The whole way its been more of an above average whole package, advanced product sort of thing.

The curveball is what we heard a lot about. It was supposed to be a wipeout pitch and we've definitely seem him with it at times (or at least seem videos of him throwing a nasty one). I'm wondering if he's struggled with consistency with the curve.

[Enscheff]

Take a guy like Aaron Nola, what's the biggest difference between he and Wright? Is his control just that much better? is his stuff a good bit better? Is Nola just a bit of a unicorn?

FA: 93.3 mph (Grade 49.8), 7.0" HMov (Grade 60.5), 7.2" VMov (Grade 33.9)
SI: 91.9 mph (Grade 47.4), 9.7" HMov (Grade 60.8), 4.2" VMov (Grade 56.5)

That's a 45 FA and a 55/60 SI.

CU: 78.3 mph (Grade 48.6), 9.7" HMov (Grade 80.2), -6.7" VMov (Grade 60.3)

That's a wipe out CU, easily grade 70. It represents almost 20" of break in the opposite direction of his SI. The strike zone is only 17" wide...

CH: 8.2 mph delta (Grade 52.2), 8.3" HMov (Grade 54.4), 0.5" VMov (Grade 67.8)

The CH is a 60/65.

Command: A career BB/9 rate of 2.45 suggests Grade 60 control. His MiLB BB rates fully support this as well.

So Nola has a usable FA, and above average SI, a wipe out CU, and a plus CH. He ties it all together with plus command. That is nothing like what we have heard about Wright.

We are probably seeing peak Nola right now, a ~6 win career year buoyed by a .256 BABIP and a 6.5% HR/FB rate. He is likely a true talent #2 that should be projected to produce 4+ wins through his prime.

He is not a unicorn...he has good stuff/control.

[Southcack77]

A fair portion of the modern TOR guys were acknowledged to have (or had a body that projected to have) that type of stuff very early on. The whole “we really don’t know” narrative is a little silly for a very large percentage of pitching prospects.

Additionally, most Aces today aren’t Aces for any extended period of time. Most are 1-2 year flashes in the pan.

I agree with you.

Some aces have always been viewed as future ace material.

some come from the group of players that everyone thought were very good prospects but not necessarily #1s.

And an even smaller number are guys that did not come in with much pedigree who found something along the way that worked really well.


Maybe we can come up with more precise categories and populate them, but I sort of see the Braves top starting prospects in that second group.


Part of the problem is defining who is and isn't an Ace, I guess.

[BeanieAntics]

I'm of the mind that there are really only a handful of true "aces" in the MLB right now. Meaning guys who you can almost always count on to have high levels of success year in and year out. There are probably 10ish active players in the MLB who have fit that mold at one point or another in their career and probably 6-7 who I would currently consider aces under this definition. Degrom, Scherzer, Kershaw, Sale, Kluber, and then a few other guys who I think have solid arguments like Verlander or Bumgarner. Syndergaard would be a guy if he were ever healthy.

I do find it somewhat odd that there seem to be fewer and fewer guys who I would consider "ace" level pitchers in today's game than 15-20 years ago. Back then I probably would have had more than 20 guys on that list of aces.

[Enscheff]

I'm of the mind that there are really only a handful of true "aces" in the MLB right now. Meaning guys who you can almost always count on to have high levels of success year in and year out. There are probably 10ish active players in the MLB who have fit that mold at one point or another in their career and probably 6-7 who I would currently consider aces under this definition. Degrom, Scherzer, Kershaw, Sale, Kluber, and then a few other guys who I think have solid arguments like Verlander or Bumgarner. Syndergaard would be a guy if he were ever healthy.

I do find it somewhat odd that there seem to be fewer and fewer guys who I would consider "ace" level pitchers in today's game than 15-20 years ago. Back then I probably would have had more than 20 guys on that list of aces.

That's because 15-20 years ago you would have thought all ptichers who had been good for the last 12-24 months were consistent Aces. When they stopped being good you would have said, "the numbers on his baseball card tell me he will rebound".

You would have also thought guys who won 15+ games for good teams for a few season were Aces.

We are much smarter now.