Jason Parks Primer on the 20-80 Scale

Posted on by
Reply

In the upcoming days I will be doing some write ups that include ratings on a 20-80 scale. To better understand this scale I turn to a man much smarter than I, Jason Parks, and give you his defintion of how the skill works.

(Jason if you are reading this and would like it taken down please let me know)

From BBTIA.com

“For each tool (hitter) or individual offering (pitcher), a scout assigns the player a grade on a numerical scale that runs from 20 to 80 in five-point increments. 50 is major-league average, and 80 represents the top available score. The sides of the tool bell curve are extremely steep, and there’s not much space beneath the curve’s tails. In other words, there are very, very few players with 80-caliber tools, and lots of prospects whose tools score a 50. Because of this, scouts may also assign qualitative descriptors (e.g., “fringe-average,” “solid-average”) to modify scores of 50 that don’t quite warrant a bump down to 45 or up to 55.

The scout averages the tool grades to produce an “Overall Future Potential” (OFP) grade. (As a result, OFP also has a 20-to-80 range, but isn’t limited to scores ending in “5” or “0.”) After OFP is calculated, a scout can adjust it based on his observation, experience, and intuition. This results in an AOFP: the “A” stands for “adjusted.” An AOFP above 60 is generally indicative of an elite prospect: a guy with the potential to star in a championship-caliber lineup, rotation, or bullpen.

An AOFP of 55-59 typically implies a prospect that will be a first-division starter, including a solid No. 2 or No. 3 starter, front-line reliever, or second-tier closer. AOFPs in the 50-54 range suggest a solid-average major leaguer, including back-of-the-rotation starters and some late-inning arms who fall just below having “front-line” status. Players with AOFPs lower than 50 are usually fringe-average players like utility infielders, fourth/fifth outfielders, and middle relievers”

To see how a seasoned baseball writer conducts business please follow Jason Parks on Twitter @ProfessorParks or subscribe to BaseballProspectus.com or TexasFarmReview.com both of which are more than worth the money.

Back in the Saddle

Posted on by
Reply

Sorry for the large gap in content. I was out in NY seeing family and oddly enough there were no teams from the North West League in upstate New York. The Em’s start a big homestand in 2 days and thus content will begin to pour back into the site.

Until that time enjoy an article of mine I wrote for PadresProspects.com about Eugene SS Jace Peterson. It is a much deeper analysis of the talented short stop than I posted here. Be ready to be hit with some knowledge and mind blowing insight. At the very least its a fun read
Continue reading →

Game Notes and Donavan Tate (Possible) Injury Update

Posted on by
1

Not a whole lot to mention in the 1-0 win for Tri City.

Donavan Tate did not play.

Taylor Gagnon carved up the Em’s all night. Nobody was close to squaring up a ball of this guy. Great location to all his pitches. Most impressive was the fact he never really threw any breaking stuff until the Em’s threatened with guys on 2nd and 3rd and nobody out. He then snapped off some curveballs and sliders to finish the inning strong.

Taylor Featherston has flashed the leather all series long for Tri City but tonight he cranked a Colin Rea fastball for the games only run.

Jeremy Gigilotti seems to get better every time I watch this side arming lefty for the Em’s.

And wow that’s it for the game.

Now on to Donavan Tate.

Continue reading →

Pitchers Notes and Velocities 8/2

Posted on by
Reply

A great pitchers duel tonight. Read on for further details. Both starting pitchers were killer I’ll say that much

 

Eugene

Johnny Barbato RH– Hard to believe this kid was born in 1992. He has a great build already. The arm action was clean all through all the night.

Fastball- 90-92 peaked at 93: Dang this pitch looked good. He was basically throwing this pitch where he wanted all throughout the night. Great life to his fastball. Spotted it low and away very well

Curveball: 74-77: Always had good movement to this pitch but sometimes it was a true plus pitch and over times it showed hump out of his hand and became more loop. Out of 100 it was 60/40 plus life to looping hump.

Change 81-83: Based on past viewings I had marked this pitch down as nothing special but tonight it looked excellent. To righties he barely threw it and it had good deception but not a whole lot of motion to it. To lefties it was so much better as he could throw it to his arm side and allow the pitch to run a little bit.

Greg Gonzalez RH: Smallish frame and weird arm action but still very effective. Imagine an exaggerated Yovanni Gallardo type arm action and you have an idea.

Fastball: 88-90: Not a whole lot of movement to the pitch but because it jumped out of his hand and he got so downhill with it, hitters weren’t able to really square it up.

Curve:79-83: Basically a downer curveball.  It didn’t have a whole lot of bite but he always spotted it down in the zone.

Change: 77-78 with one bugs bunny 70mph: Easily his best pitch. He keeps great arm action and really pronates on the pitch to get sick sink and arm side run. On the aformentioned 70mph he kept the same arm action and it almost looked like something out of a cartoon coming out of a quick release followed by a schools zones pace to the plate.

Simon Berroa RH: He throws like Alexi Ogando and ramps up his velocity as the inning goes on.

Fastball:90-94: Same as last night. Good velocity and decent life

Curve: 79-83 and one 74: The 79-83 looked good and sharp and the 74 mph was only to throw a hitter off balance who had fouled a bunch of 0-2 pitches off.

Change: 82-85:  Not as filthy as last night but effective none the less

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Tri City

Christian Bergman RH: TIm Lincecum hair, thin frame, and an awkward delivery. He had good long arm action but a stiff lower half. He hid the ball well and kept the hitters off balance by mixing his pitches well.

Fastball: 89-91: Very consisntent with this pitch. Always from the same release and always around the plate. He had good sink to the pitch but it did flatten out when it was up in the zone. That very rarely happened so he was ok.

Curveball: 79-81: More an exaggerted slider than a curveball but it late motion combined with a sweeping and diving action as it reached the plate. Spotted this pitch well

Changeup: 81-82: Used this pitch very well. He threw it off of his fastball to get hitters out in front and used his fastball off of his changeup to jam hitters and result weak contact

Rafael Suarez RH: Solid pitchers build with a quick arm action. Attacked the zone well.

Fastball:87-90: Good 2 seam type action on this pitch. When he threw this pitch up to his arm side it had great life and was able to miss bats.

Curveball: 73: Just a big bending curveball that served more to keep hitters off balance than anything else

Changeup: 78-80: Some movement but his best trait was he released this pitch exactly as his fastball which led to almost every hitter getting out in front and beating this pitch into the ground.