The Tools of Magnificence
For a catcher, the “tools of ignorance” is an endearing term used to sum up the challenges of the position in a neat and tidy phrase. Over the past three seasons, scouting well over 100 games and a few hundred prospects has led me to develop my own “tools of magnificence” as a handful of players have displayed 80-grade tools which are now seared into my scouting conscious.
When scouting raw power, Mike Stanton is the benchmark for me to compare all others to. Opening Day 2011 brought Bryce Harper to Rome. During batting practice, I remember thinking, “what would Stanton do?” in an attempt to place Harper’s batting practice show into perspective. When scouting Stanton, he hit three routine pop ups (for mortal men) in Jacksonville which settled into the right fielders glove at the warning track. That combination of carry and opposite-field power on balls Stanton did not square up was all I needed to see. Even without a tape measure job, the 80 grade was an easy one to give and the fact Stanton’s power was on display in game action was icing on the cake, as too many prospects show it only in batting practice.
Bryce Harper had 80 power too, but scouting Stanton first establishes his light-tower power as my frame of reference. The longest home run I’ve ever seen in person was what had to be a 500+ foot blast off of a 97 MPH Maikel Cleto fastball by former Braves and current Yankees farmhand Cody Johnson. FanGraphs readers are unlikely to ever see that power at the big league level, though, as Johnson simply strikes out too much to ever project as a big leaguer.
In terms of arm strength, the 2010 version of Braves catching prospect Christian Bethancourt was simply awe inspiring. With 1.88 pop times between innings (2.0 MLB average) and even more zip in game action, Bethancourt’s arm strength was the best I’ve ever seen and this includes pitchers. In Savannah, I scouted Bethancourt as part of a Julio Teheran start and closely watched the two prospects loosen up in the outfield prior to the game. When the distance between them reached 90-feet or so, both prospects began to open it up a little. While Teheran had the slightest of arc on his throws, Bethancourt threw lasers, which left me thinking he’d be able to challenge triple digits on my radar gun off the mound.
In 2009, Anthony Gose blew me away with his overall athleticism and otherworldly range in centerfield. On the bases, he was picked off at first base and needed to work on his jumps, but the 80 speed was apparent even though I was unable to pull a home-to-first running time. To this day, the thought of Anthony Gose in the outfield reminds me of “Kelly” of “The Bad News Bears” catching everything from foul pole to foul pole. When discussing prospects and top flight athleticism, my insisting the true plus-plus athlete combines speed, fluidity of movement and explosion is said with Gose in mind. Should he continue to add polish, Gose may become one of the most exciting players in the game.
Before scouting Dodgers Rubby De La Rosa in person, a running joke with scouting contacts was that my radar gun must be broken because it had never registered a velocity above 96 MPH in a season and a half of lugging it around. I headed to Chattanooga knowing De La Rosa threw hard enough to surpass 96 MPH, but was not prepared for just how much harder he threw. Seeing a “seven” on the gun was impressive, but when he popped the mitt at “eight” and “nine” in succession, it became obvious De La Rosa’s fastball was in a different league than any I’d seen previously. (For those who are wondering, when a pitcher throws in the 90+ MPH range, scouts will drop the nine and refer to the pitch by its second digit.) And while I generally ignore stadium guns at all cost, seeing 101 MPH flash on the scoreboard was a first, and left onlookers buzzing in the stands.
And while De La Rosa lacked command in the upper registers, the one 98 MPH fastball he located belt high on the inner half is seared into my scouting mind as it bored down and in on a right handed hitter to devastating effect. It was the single most dominant pitch I’ve seen live, but I’d be remiss to not mention left-hander Danny Hultzen working full innings at 94-95 MPH at Georgia Tech last spring with enough deception for the velocity to appear on par with De La Rosa’s. For the record, Hultzen’s strikeout totals will surprise, as I’m confident his combination of velocity, deception and movement has been overlooked. I may be in the minority, but give me Hultzen’s fastball over Julio Teheran, Zack Wheeler, Jameson Taillon, Arodys Vizcaino or Jarrod Parker.
When a prospect writer discusses how rare the 80-grade tool truly is, it’s not an exaggeration. Over three seasons scouting prospects, I can still count the 80 grades on one hand. When watching prospects in person, it’s important to not let the potentially historic power of a Mike Stanton skew the grade of an Xander Bogaerts downward.. The young shortstop showed 70 power for me, but compared to Stanton, a slugger who’d receive bonus points if permitted, most any prospect pales in comparison.
I disagree.
Well of course you do, you Richard.
I’m not sure if you’re suggesting Hultzen went to GT, but he didn’t. Went to UVa
No, I scouted him at GT. I live in the Atlanta area.
Are you suggesting Hultzen has an 80 fastball?
No, but I’m suggesting his fastball will miss more bats than most think.
What do you think of Jenrry Mejia’s fastball? Have you scouted him in person before?
I haven’t much of Mejia except for on TV, but it wouldn’t be an 80 for me based on his difficult commanding the pitch and that his top end velocity was not that of De La Rosa. Pitch F/X had Mejia at 94.6 MPH in 2010 versus Rubby at 97 MPH.
Pretty sure he saw him start against Tech…ya know in the same conference as UVA and all
Sure. Against Tech. At Tech.
No Tigers on these lists?!? Rabble! Rabble, rabble, rabble! Rabble!!!
This is not a knock against the Tigers, but I can’t think of a single prospect in the organization with an 80 tool. I’ve scouted Oliver, and while he touched 95 from the left side with his fastball, a scout and I agreed it was probably no more than a 55 offering based on a lack of movement and an inability to command the pitch effectively
Thanks for this. A very informative post, not least because it introduced me to the 80/20 system. The picture (slowly) becomes less foggy…
Lesson 1, be sure to refer to the system at 20/80 and not vice versa. After that, I focus on 50 as the MLB average and work up or down from there. After three years scouting prospects, I’m still not completely comfortable working too deep into the system because I don’t want to create a gap of understanding with readers. If I phrase pitches as above average or plus, it’s much easier for a reader to understand than 55-60. At times, I feel the use of a 20/80 scale in writing can come off as pretentious and talking down to readers.
Also, the 20/80 scale seems easy on the surface, but it’s subjective in all areas except for running times and maybe home-to-second catcher throw times. Sure, orgs. will grade fastballs on velocity alone, but I simply can’t due to movement and command.
I’m hoping you’ll get to see Austin Hedges at some point, so you can compare/contrast with Bethancourt.
I hope so too! If that happens, it means I’ll have a bigger scouting budget and the ability to travel more.
Semi-off-topic, but why is it the 20 to 80 scale rather than the decimal-friendly 0 to 100 scale? Same reason the SAT uses 200 to 800? (I always though that was so even underachievers could feel that they’d done better than a zero.)
It’s a statistical thing, each segment of ten from fifty represents a standard deviation. Each segment can be statistically identified as including a certain percentage of players at all times.
I suppose using the numbers 20-80 is fairly arbitrary anyway, but 0-100 would have an average of 55, which is an annoyingly un-round number.
Technically though, it is possible for players to have tool grades of 90 (or 10 or lower) or higher as it is plausible for a player to have a tool that is four standard deviations from the mean, but they would be so incredibly rare that it’s best not to include that part of the scale.
I agree with paragraphs 1-2, but am not sure about 3. I’ve simply never breached that topic with a scouting contact before.
How long have you been scouting? Reading your thoughts on Mike Stanton’s power, I’d be interested to know how that compares to some of the truly great power hitting prospects in history — say, Frank Howard in the PCL in 1959; or if you’re too young for that, maybe Daryll Strawberry in 1982?
Check out this article I previously wrote on projecting the power tool.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/predicting-the-power-tool-using-metrics/
Strawberry was a legit 70-power guy in MLB for a number of years with a couple of seasons of 80 output.
Frank Howard had an true 80 power peak, but was actually more of a 65 power guy for much of his career based on average home run output.
One very important aspect to remember is that projection is based on what a player projects to do at the big league level. Should a guy hit 172 home runs in AAA, it still may not project as 80-power at the big league level.
Last year (and this year) I made/make rosters for The Show (video game) using projections (rather than the previous season’s stats). I use an average of Zips, Guru’s, THT,etc.
Cody Johnson jumped off the screen with his 84 Power vL and 79 PvR (99 MAX). Of course that’s almost completely negated by his 27 Contact vR, 34 Contact vL.
For comparison, ARod was 79/80. Bautista 87/85. (2011 projections).
Mike Hessman was another guy that grabbed my attention with 67/75 Power ratings, but a 36/43 contact rating.
Power Rating (Excel style) is:
POW=IF(HR550<18,(( HR550*3.0256)+((18- HR550)*0.65)),( HR550*3.0256)-((( HR550-18)*3.0256)/1.9))
Contact Rating:
CON=IF((BA/1000)<0.28,(((BA/1000)*254.315428326364)-(((0.28-(BA /1000))*254.315428326364)/0.6)),(( BA /1000)*254.315428326364)+(((( BA /1000)-0.28)*254.315428326364)*1))
I combine these rating with my own system that compares a player performance above/below average and then computes the rating the same degree above/below average rating for the stat.
Not that anybody gives a crap. *grin*
FWIW, Johnson’s “vision rating” (based on K’s) was a 3 (0-100 scale). Mark Reynolds was/is a 9.
I’d love to see the finished players on The Show after you’ve created them all. I adore that game.
I love this kind of stuff! I was a huge MLB video game guy until a few years ago and would go on Baseball Mogul binges to the point where my wife had to hide my laptop. Even now, I have OOTP on my IPhone and will become hooked from time-to-time.
At this point in my life, I don’t have as much time for that sort of thing, but am still an avid fantasy baseballer.
In the AFL, Gose fielded a single in medium right field and air-mailed a throw 15-20′ up the vertical netting behind home plate. Everyone (players and fans) turned to RF to see Gose strike a right-index finger-pointing-to-flexed-left-bicep pose, topped off by a proud grin. It was a fantastic moment.
Yes, he’s a freak of nature in the best possible sense. If he ever learns how to cut down the K’s…..