Evaluating amateur pitching prospects is a challenging exercise more often than not; it’s easy to immediately get lost in the radar gun, drooling over guys who throw hard, and dismissing others who don’t. I think an article written by Eric Longenhagen of FanGraphs explains why this phenomenon is for the most part, outdated, and inefficient. This excerpt touches on the methodology implemented in the not-so-distant past:
the scouts would’ve told me his fastball sits 87-90, and that would’ve severely damaged his ability to make the Phillies list. At his age and level and with a fastball at that velocity, he’d be a low-priority topic on a call with a scout with limited time to chat
He goes onto explain how this pitcher in particular has fastball traits — namely an elite raw spin rate — and a vertical arm slot that allows the pitcher to generate elite vertical movement that makes the pitch more competitive in the strike zone with regards to swings and misses. The shift away from emphasizing velocity singularly and towards valuing a combination of velocity and movement characteristics is a relatively new one, and one that is still creating plenty of debate among evaluators. For me, it’s hard to imagine a pitcher being successful in the majors with well below average velocity, and likewise, it’s hard for me to imagine a pitcher being successful in the majors with an incredibly inefficient movement profile—it’s not impossible in both cases, but requires the pitcher to have other carrying (i.e. plus or better) traits to pick up the slack for a fastball that’s lacking pizzaz.
Turning attention towards the amateur side, a good example of a player who might not have been as coveted a prospect as he was would be Brewers’ 2019 first rounder, Ethan Small. Small sat around 90 in college, but the pitch played way up thanks to a spin axis that was almost at 12:00 (pure backspin) coupled with a 100% spin efficiency.
See 0:35 for a look at a FB with pure backspin and seam uniformity
The industry is beginning to value FBs like this more and more, and while Small was picked high because his velocity wasn’t super low and he had a CH that has since developed into a plus offering, there are prospects who can be had later in the draft with similar FB traits, but even lower velocity that holds their major league projection back.
These are some of the guys who interest me, because what if one of them clearly has a mechanical inefficiency that is holding their velocity back? Is it possible for a good player development group to turn an uninspiring profile, into one with serious value just by identifying a present trait (FB movement) held by the player that is worth a lot? I say it’s possible, and there’s one clear example that comes to mind right away—Shane Bieber. While there’s definitely a lot more too it, I’m sure, Bieber clearly has made an effort to externally rotate his drive leg in Cleveland, likely trying to avoid a premature internal hip rotation which would represent a force generation inefficiency.
Bieber with a more pronounced externally rotated drive leg (CLE) vs. Bieber lacking external rotation (UCSB)
In hindsight, Bieber is an easy top ten pick. Cleveland was able to get him at pick 122. The return on that pick is obviously shaping up to be tremendous value, and how did Cleveland do it? They identified Bieber as a pitcher with traits that suggested his fastball could profile for swings and misses, elite control for an amateur, and a mechanical operation that had clear deficiencies that could be fixed to potentially unlock velocity.
Looking through that same lens, here are a couple of prospects in the 2020 Draft Class with at least one interesting trait, and a few paths towards optimizing their profiles in route to potentially giving their new organization a big return on their investment. In a sense, these are some players with a bit of “Bieber-equity.”
Kevin Abel, Oregon State
Abel is the only guy on the list who I had ranked on my big board, but I think it’s important to dive a bit deeper into what makes him such a terrific prospect. His FB has elite vertical movement, averaging 21.2” of vertical movement (although amateur TrackMan can be a bit noisy when it comes to describing pitch movement) due a 12:34 axis, above average raw spin rate, and close to 100% spin efficiency. Abel is a bit unique when compared to the rest of this list, as his FB isn’t his only offering that profiles well—he has a plus CH with impressive sink (or a small amount of vertical movement, often preferred by pitch designers) that he’s able to generate despite having an extreme over the top arm slot. The nature of his arm slot would suggest that pronating his arm to shift the axis close enough to 3:00 in order to kill vertical movement would be challenging, so he does something I think a lot of pitchers who struggle with pronation should do—throws the pitch with a low spin efficiency, which kills a lot of the lift the vertical (relative to other pitchers’ CHs with better feel for pronation) axis creates. His third pitch is a CB that doesn’t get talked about much, but one that profiles well due to the movement profile of his FB. His CB is a true 12-6, vertically moving offering, that mirrors his CB pretty well. Although, to achieve a true mirror it would be beneficial to increase his spin efficiency of the CB, generating more topspin in the process.
While the metrics on Abel’s pitches are incredibly enticing, and lead to him getting valued somewhat highly (although I think most places are too low on him) despite meager velocity, I think there are a few ways he can optimize his mechanics in order to throw a bit harder, making his profile even more intriguing.
A hip hinge is extremely important for a pitcher in terms of optimizing force production from the lower half. The preferred method of hinging is one that is only reliant on the glute, not the quad, as the glute is the bigger muscle, and therefore the muscle that will generate the more powerful force. Abel is more of a quad-dominant hip hinger, as his knee shoots out well over his foot during his hinge (it’s common to see the knee getting over the foot, although it’s not ideal for it to fly well out in front of the foot as it means the quad is more activated and the glute is less activated). If Abel is able (no pun intended) to activate his glute more in his delivery, there’s a chance he finds a bit more velocity.
Abel Quad-Dominance
Abel shows a trait common in a lot of slower throwers (as you’ll see below) in that he doesn’t delay his arm enough, and thus isn’t synced up optimally. Before his front foot strikes the ground his arm is already in an upright position, this limits the amount of separation/torque he’s able to create. Compare the difference in separation at foot strike between May and Abel; Abel’s torso and hips are close to equally rotated, while May’s torso hasn’t rotated much, if at all. Delaying his arm raise in a bit could lead to more force generation.
Abel arm-raise just prior to foot strike
Elite separation vs. modest separation
The third possible outlet for velocity is one that isn’t linked to mechanics but physicality. Abel could stand to add some strength, another possible way to increase velocity going forward.
I think Abel has serious mid-rotation upside if he can get optimized. As things stand, he has a FB that will play despite below-average velocity (was averaging around 91 mph in a recent bullpen), a plus CH, and a CB that is probably better than its usage would suggest thanks to its ability to mirror his FB. If Abel ends up sitting 92-95, instead of 90-92, that’s a profile that would be talked about at the top of most drafts in today’s day and age. The only place where he falls a bit short of Bieber at the same stage (he’s better in most categories) is his control.
Mason Hickman, Vanderbilt
Hickman is a guy I think has gotten quite undervalued due to his velocity. He sits in the upper 80s, but has a FB that achieves an almost unbelievable 22” of vertical movement. This would make it the FB with the most vertical movement in the MLB, tied with Marco Estrada (a guy who’s somewhat similar to Hickman, in my opinion). Similarly, to Small, Hickman achieves perfect backspin/seam uniformity on the FB as seen in this Instagram post.
Hickman couples the vertically moving FB with a CB that has opposing vertical movement, and plays well off of the FB. As things stand though, some in the industry don’t believe that his velocity will be enough to survive at the MLB level. I completely understand that logic, as Estrada is really the only guy who resembles Hickman’s profile, but I think Hickman is an atypical prospect, and treating him as your typical SEC RHP is going to lead to a potential misevaluation. In the last couple of classes it’s hard to peg guys who have had similar FB movement profiles; Small is one, and he went early in the draft (he had more velocity). Despite the well below average velocity, he has been a big-time performer at the SEC level, and scores well on a lot of draft models. I think he probably has a chance to be a big leaguer even in spite of the velocity, as his FB is going to generate a surprising amount of whiffs, his CB should do the same with its spin mirroring, and his SL offers a unique, more laterally-oriented movement profile. With all that being said, it’s still interesting to think about his upside if he was able to increase his velocity and continue to throw his FB with an elite level of vertical movement.
It might be beneficial for Hickman to get into a professional strength and conditioning setting, focusing on increasing his scapular range of motion. If this is successful, he should be able to more effectively retract his scaps, delay his arm, and create separation. Notice the difference in the daylight generated between Mick Abel’s arm and his head and Hickman’s arm and his head. Slightly different camera angles, but Abel has elite scapular range of motion which allows him to get his arm into that position and delay rotation; this is primarily why he has top-of-the-scale arm speed. As things stand for Hickman though, there isn’t as much separation created at foot strike, and as a result, Hickman’s velocity is well below average despite a bigger frame and a solid glute-dominant hip hinge that he rides down the mound with.
Poor scap retraction vs. elite scap retraction
Unlike Kevin Abel, Hickman has shown feel for controlling the strike zone which makes a future iteration of himself where he throws with average velocity all the more exciting. If a team is confident in their player development set-up, it would make sense to take Hickman, and see if you can develop the velocity down the line, as everything else about him as a pitcher is promising at this stage in his development.
Trenton Denholm, UC Irvine
Denholm is an interesting case, as his TrackMan data is somewhat confusing, and has me a bit skeptical, but nevertheless, he still is a very interesting prospect that could be had later on day two. Denholm’s spin axis sits around 1:12, which would normally have me a bit discouraged, but he averages an above-average 18.2” of vertical movement on the pitch despite the generic axis. If that TrackMan data is accurate (again, I’m skeptical, and think it’s more likely that Denholm has average vertical movement), Denholm could be a pitcher who has a FB with elite vertical movement if he’s able to shift his axis a bit more towards 12:00. Denholm pairs his FB with a CH that has ridiculous depth and separation from the FB, it profiles as a plus pitch in my opinion. His third pitch is a SL with heavy gyro spin, but one that’s still a bit inconsistent for him, and his clear third offering. His main skill is his control, as he’s your typical “pitchability” college arm, normally a title that has scouts and evaluators cringing in terms of MLB projection, but for me, a title that gives him a head start over prospects ranked similarly with much rawer feel for pitching. Denholm’s velocity is below average, but you guessed it, he does some things mechanically that are clearly leading to the lower velocity.
Denholm has issues sequencing his body properly, leading to an arm that gets up a bit early, and a hip to shoulder separation that isn’t very pronounced at foot strike. Like some of the aforementioned guys, he doesn’t have much feel for retracting his scaps, and could potentially stand to go through a strength and conditioning program that has a heavy emphasis on range of motion/mobility work. Comparing Denholm to a similarly diminutive RHP only shows the difference in torque generation even more. Denholm’s arm is up early, he doesn’t create much separation and relies on his arm for most of his velocity; Meyer delays his arm, creates a ton of separation and relies on his arm AND torque for his elite velocity. Notice the difference in the positioning of letters of their uniforms relative to their belt buckles; Meyer is keeping his torso closed, creating torque, Denholm is not. Denholm needs to get closer to Meyer.
Getting Denholm’s velocity up could change his profile from more of a swingman/long reliever, to a comfortable #4 starter. He might not have as much upside once optimized as Abel or Hickman, but still performs incredibly well in models (due to performance and his young age), and could be a potential 2 win big league arm eventually with further refinement mechanically.
Tanner Bibee, Cal State Fullerton
Bibee is a bit different than the rest of the guys on this list, as he doesn’t currently have what I would consider an ideal FB movement profile. His axis is relatively vertical, sitting around 12:50, but he gets below average vertical movement (14 inches) thanks to a low spin efficiency (cutting the ball) and a low raw spin rate. Correcting the unnecessary cut should be a straight forward fix, and I’m comfortable projecting him to have at least average to better vertical movement once he gets that handled. Bibee has elite control, arguably one of the best traits held among any pitching prospect in the class once you get past the first 100 or so prospects. That elite control has carried him for the most part, but he also has an above average SL that has pretty good raw spin (2600-2700 RPM) and a lot of gyro spin. Where Bibee falls short is his velocity (shocker, I know), but there is one pretty clear inefficiency in his delivery.
He has a great hip-hinge, externally rotating his drive leg, and riding down the mound on the back of his glute. He’s also relatively adept at creating separation, as his arm delays long enough, and he does a nice job extending his front-side which helps his shoulders stay closed off for a long time. Where he falls short, though, is his posture. He often times implements too much ipsilateral trunk tilt (tilting towards his arm-side), something that isn’t too common as most players who have inefficient postures tend to fall on the other side of the spectrum, and tilt too far towards their glove-sides. Getting his posture to a point where it’s more straight at foot strike could be a potential way for him to consistently throw a bit harder.
Bibee Ispilateral Trunk Tilt
Bibee requires a bit of dreaming, as the FB movement profile isn’t ideal as things stand, and the velocity is below average. Still though, getting rid of cut on a FB isn’t too hard (e.g. see almost any guy who goes to Driveline), and attempting to address the posture could be a way for him to see a slight uptick in velocity. Bibee with more ride on the FB, and more velocity coupled with the above-average SL and command could be a pretty interesting prospect.
Blake Brown, UNC Asheville
It’s hard for me to talk about guys with intriguing traits to act as a baseline for their profiles without mentioning Blake Brown. While I know the initial premise of this piece was to discuss players with ideal FB movement profiles, but poor velocity, Brown is worth mentioning because he throws hard AND has an extremely good movement profile. Velocity optimization is not going to be a thing Brown has to worry about going forward, as he has worked last fall on improving the efficiency of his delivery, which has led to a huge spike in velocity in the spring—he recently got up to 100.6 MPH in a bullpen. Obviously velocity is great, but I probably wouldn’t be including Brown if he only threw hard. What makes Brown so intriguing to me is the movement he achieves in conjunction with the velocity. That 100.6 MPH fastball had more than 20 inches of vertical movement on it, and spun at 2569 RPM with a 98% spin efficiency. Brown was throwing CBs with almost negative 18 inches of vertical movement and a high raw spin rate with a respectable (above 80%) spin efficiency in that same pen—more loud metrics. The FB and CB mirror each other well (relatively close to a 180° difference in spin direction), with both having opposing vertical spin directions and high spin efficiencies.
Now, you might be wondering why Brown is on this list, as his stuff is pretty incredible. Well, he has had a major problem finding the strike zone in college. Brown has ran walk rates comfortably above 15%, which in scouting terms, suggests probably 30 or 35 control currently. I came across this tweet from Connor Kurcon the other day, and immediately thought of Brown (and Seth Lonsway) when I looked at it. While walking a ton of guys is definitely less than ideal, maybe Brown’s control problems should be weighed less heavily than his relatively newfound ability to strike tons of guys out? I think it’s at least worth considering.
Mechanically, Brown is one of the more fun guys to watch in the class. There’s some definite violence to his operation, but he does a ton of things extremely well. He does a great job maintaining a pretty vertical shin angle, creating good direction going towards the plate, and displays a glute-dominant hip hinge, riding his externally rotated drive-leg down the mound.
Brown has a bit of noise in his delivery, but he’s definitely on-time and he doesn’t hyper-abduct his arm (his elbow is below his shoulder) prior to or at foot strike. As a result of the synced up nature of his arm raise, ability to keep his torso closed, and optimize hip rotation, creating a ton of separation at foot strike.
Two things to take note of in the picture below:
The difference in the amount tilt present in his trunk in the spring (on the right) versus the fall (on the left): the spring delivery is more reminiscent of the posture someone would employ while long-tossing (tilting backward), and something Brown has made a point of working on this spring. This adjustment has led to a more efficient load into his back hip, and is likely a big reason for the huge velocity gains he’s made.
His ability to not prematurely extend his drive-leg. On the left, his leg is extending early, and missing out on potential energy generated by internally rotating the back leg in an efficient manner. He doesn’t prematurely rotate the drive-leg on the right, and as a result is able to generate more torque by optimally internally rotating his drive-leg.
Lastly, Brown displays a super powerful lead leg block, practically hyperextending, as his front leg efficiently transfers its energy that it had generated up the kinetic chain.
Brown unsurprisingly does a ton of things super well that are conducive towards force generation, as he wouldn’t be touching 100 otherwise. He’s obviously different than the four other guys on this list, as his main problem is control, while the other players primarily struggle with force generation but are adept at controlling the baseball. Still, I feel like it’s important to highlight Brown because if an organization is able to get his control up to just mediocre instead of egregious, he’s likely a high-leverage reliever pretty easily, and potentially more than that. The only pitchers in baseball to average over 95.5 mph and achieve greater than 19 inches of vertical movement in 2019 were: James Karinchak, Nick Anderson, and Blake Snell. All three are either elite relievers or starters, which makes sense considering the ability to throw a fastball with an intersection of elite velocity and movement gives the player a pitch that they can hang their hat on and work to mold the rest of their arsenals off of that elite FB.
Conclusion
I feel like it’s important to end this piece noting that it could be possible that none of these pitchers have the capacity to throw hard (sans Brown, of course). It’s hard for me as someone who isn’t as close to the situation to make a determination on a player’s ability to move. Teams who have these guys on motion capture systems, test their joints, etc. will have a better understanding of whether or not employing some of the aforementioned suggestions to unearth velocity are even worth it or not. Obviously if they think it isn’t worth it, and the player is unlikely to be able to develop a certain movement enough to get to a point where they can throw hard, the organization likely won’t take the player.
While all these pitchers aren’t similar; some have elite backspinning FBs (Abel, Hickman, and Brown), others have more generic FBs or movement profiles that need work, but have elite control and a good track record of success (Denholm and Bibee), but all five of them are similar in the way that they have shown either one or more valuable traits, and have also shown clear deficiencies, giving me cautious optimism about the possibility for a good player development group to optimize their profiles, and get the most out of the traits they’ve already shown, while developing new traits to solidify their profiles.
I think it’s interesting to look at past examples of situations where organizations found huge success in the draft by not viewing a prospect as a finished product, instead looking at things they do well, and projecting on things their player development departments can do to get said prospect to another level entirely. This is why the best organizations’ player development and scouting departments often work hand-in-hand, as if the player development specialists see a guy with an inefficiency that they think is easily correctable, that very well could change the opinion of one Scouting Director on a player.