Angels option Barria and Rodriguez, activate Quintana, recall Quijada

[Lou]

20-80 is so random.

Why not 12-72?  Or 87-147?

[Mark PT]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

No it is a 20-80 scale

Thanks. That makes more sense

[Stradling]

Someone else might know this, but I don’t.  

[Inside Pitch]

22 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

I think the more important thing is you see the potential, and believe he simply needs to tap into it -- so, we agree there... but our logic getting there is based on very different views of the the same problem.   Hopefully now that he's in AA, he will start throwing those other pitches, learn how to set guys up more.  I'd almost wish they would find a veteran minor league game caller to pair with him and Detmers in AA because that kid's stuff has also been playing up.

Anyway...  There was a lot of interesting insight coming from Gubi his last game out; he talked up his slider, and his change, specifically his change.  He's obviously seen him throwing it in bullpen sessions or on the side, he's aware of what a wipeout pitch it is and if anything it sounded like was lamenting the fact that he wasn't being used in a way where he could.  It's a ridiculously good pitch.

CRod's change is vicious because of it's movement, not because of a change in velocity or the plane it's thrown at.  Thing is, it's a pitch that he needs to throw, and he's not been doing that pitching once every four days for 1 inning at a time and even less so when he's been failing to throw strikes with his sinker and curve.

This must be a sign of me being insulted and crushed ego.   

Offering up common ground, focusing on the pitcher and attempting to look at how they can go about having him grow into the pitcher he could be.

I do hope I'm able to recover at some point.

[Inside Pitch]

@Mark PT

If you want a deeper look at someone explaining the 20-80 scale, this is one of the better pieces on it.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/scouting-explained-the-20-80-scouting-scale/

They try to put numbers to the grades and the sort...   

It's also very common to see scouts break the rating down for any one particular skill set as 45/60, when you see that what they are trying to do is give you an idea of where the player current is and where he could end up.

There is no hard and fast model and youll see plenty of variance from site to site and scout to scout but it's a decent baseline for conversation.

[Inside Pitch]

14 minutes ago, Lou said:

20-80 is so random.

Why not 12-72?  Or 87-147?

I always wondered why it went 20-80 too.  I asked Jim Bowden about this once, he looked me dead in the face, blinked twice and I kid you not he asked me why I was asking...  It was pretty funny.

Anyway, the FG article I linked actually gives a reasoning for the 20-80 thing and it makes sense -- guys who are 30% better than league average are all star MVP types, guys 30% below -- not so much.

[Mark PT]

4 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Hilarious.  

My ego?  Insulted? Lol...  Your projection defense mechanism is your issue, not mine.  

Look, you not having a clue what you were talking about doesn't impact me in any way shape or form, but when you continue to try to argue your position when none of the facts support it, I'll do exactly what I did...  point out the facts as they are readily available for anyone looking for real information to see for themselves.  It's a public forum, not a private two way conversation and while you'd love to make this about you and I, I'm talking about Chris Rodriguez and what he can and cannot do.  Unlike yourself, I'm not so caught up in my own BS and opinion that when faced with facts I bury my head in the sand only to re-emerge later with a new spin on a bad take.  

Again, physician heal thyself -- at the very least, take your own advice and take a deep breath -- it's just baseball.

Not sure if this was meant to be funny, or you really don't know but scouts grades tend to run from 20-80.   80s are almost unheard of, 70s are guys like Vladi Jr for hitters.  I can't remember the last legit 80 grade pitcher but guys like Syndergaard came close with his FB.

You truly are unreal. You criticized me. I just stated an opinion. Projection? really? I just said that He was unable to hit his spots with his pitches. You corrected me by showing he has rarely thrown his change up, which I acknowledged and redefined my position to say off-speed. This is not a defense mech but just a conversation. The stats you present still do not change my point because they cant. Piping a pitch does not prove he has control of his pitches. He misses his spots then gets too much of the zone and gets hurt. That is all I said

[Blarg]

23 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

I'd almost wish they would find a veteran minor league game caller to pair with him and Detmers in AA because that kid's stuff has also been playing up.

[Mark PT]

5 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

@Mark PT

If you want a deeper look at someone explaining the 20-80 scale, this is one of the better pieces on it.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/scouting-explained-the-20-80-scouting-scale/

They try to put numbers to the grades and the sort...   

It's also very common to see scouts break the rating down for any one particular skill set as 45/60, when you see that what they are trying to do is give you an idea of where the player current is and where he could end up.

There is no hard and fast model and youll see plenty of variance from site to site and scout to scout but it's a decent baseline for conversation.

Ya, I never heard of this before but it is understandable now. Thanks.

[Inside Pitch]

12 minutes ago, Mark PT said:

You truly are unreal. You criticized me. I just stated an opinion.

If by criticized you mean I pointed out you seemed to be talking out both sides of your mouth then sure.  But when faced with such "criticism" you felt the need to clarify what you meant, then you attempted to justify your reasoning.  So you tell me if you yourself felt the need to make clear what you meant am I at fault for taking what you had said and responding to it?  Was I supposed to know when you claimed "He needs to learn a changeup" or that he "can't throw it for strikes", that what you reeeeeeally meant was "I know he has a change-up, and I know the pitch isn't supposed to be thrown for a strike, but what I really mean is that he needs to get better with his other off-speed pitches"   Tell me more about unreal.

12 minutes ago, Mark PT said:

Projection? really? I just said that He was unable to hit his spots with his pitches. You corrected me by showing he has rarely thrown his change up, which I acknowledged and redefined my position to say off-speed. This is not a defense mech but just a conversation. The stats you present still do not change my point because they cant. Piping a pitch does not prove he has control of his pitches. He misses his spots then gets too much of the zone and gets hurt. That is all I said

The projection comment is 100% aimed at your idiotic talk about ego and someone being insulted.  Pointing out facts doesn't impact my ego in the least.  At no point during this back and forth have I felt the need to clarify or justify my position so there's been ZERO reason for me to take insult at anything.  

I'm not the one bent out of shape here or changing his story constantly to cling to my opinions. 

Later

[Inside Pitch]

19 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Honestly -- yes.    What's more I know you agree with me.  I'd 100% offer Butera MLB money to go to AA and mentor the shit out of that entire pitching staff.  AA has a ton of guys that are showing MLB quality pitches, if not ability.   There's going to be a converted SP or two coming out of there sooner rather than later.  A guy like Butera could make a huge impact on them.

[Mark PT]

43 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

If by criticized you mean I pointed out you seemed to be talking out both sides of your mouth then sure.  But when faced with such "criticism" you felt the need to clarify what you meant, then you attempted to justify your reasoning.  So you tell me if you yourself felt the need to make clear what you meant am I at fault for taking what you had said and responding to it?  Was I supposed to know when you claimed "He needs to learn a changeup" or that he "can't throw it for strikes", that what you reeeeeeally meant was "I know he has a change-up, and I know the pitch isn't supposed to be thrown for a strike, but what I really mean is that he needs to get better with his other off-speed pitches"   Tell me more about unreal.

The projection comment is 100% aimed at your idiotic talk about ego and someone being insulted.  Pointing out facts doesn't impact my ego in the least.  At no point during this back and forth have I felt the need to clarify or justify my position so there's been ZERO reason for me to take insult at anything.  

I'm not the one bent out of shape here or changing his story constantly to cling to my opinions. 

Later

So basically I was poor at explaining my position and you misunderstood my meaning. Fine. My ego comment referred that by quoting so many stats seemed going above and beyond the scope of reason to prove someone wrong, when all it would have taken was, " I disagree". I was not bothered by it, it just seemed that you were hell bent to prove a position and I was just conversing. I this was not your point then I apologize, but that's what it seemed like. 

As far as CR, I still think he has tremendous room for growth but yes learning a change was meant to mean control it (change/off-speed). That was my point.

[Inside Pitch]

1 minute ago, Mark PT said:

So basically I was poor at explaining my position and you misunderstood my meaning. Fine. My ego comment referred that by quoting so many stats seemed going above and beyond the scope of reason to prove someone wrong, when all it would have taken was, " I disagree". I was not bothered by it, it just seemed that you were hell bent to prove a position and I was just conversing. I this was not your point then I apologize, but that's what it seemed like. 

As far as CR, I still think he has tremendous room for growth but yes learning a change was meant to mean control it (change/off-speed). That was my point.

We're good, dude.  

I went game by game to emphasize how little he's used it since coming back, I believed breaking it down like that made the most sense.  Also, I genuinely thought you may have been mistaking his curves for change-ups because the movement can be similar, also the curve is actually slower than his change.  I've seen announcers call his curve a change so, I don't mean that as a slight but that's sort of what makes his change so good.

But yeah, I'm glad he's be sent down... Not because he had been getting hit after the injury, but because long term I think its in his best interest to develop his change and slider.

 

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

Honestly -- yes.    What's more I know you agree with me. 

Of course I agree with you. I don't want to end up murdered and for everyone to see the autopsy report as well.