Direct Links to Individual Player Reports
| Noah Syndergaard | Teddy Stankiewicz | Manuel Margot |
|
RHP |
|||
|
DOB: 8/29/92 |
Height : 6’6 |
Bats: R |
|
|
MLB ETA: mid-2014 |
Weight: 240 lbs. |
Throws: R |
|
|
Current Team: Double-A Binghamton |
Date(s) Seen: 8/26 and 9/4 |
Date Filed: 9/12/13 |
|
|
Have Video? No |
How Acquired: Trade from Toronto for R.A. Dickey |
Filed By: Zach Mortimer |
|
|
Mechanics |
|||
|
High ¾ arm slot; 1B side of rubber; excellent posture; arm is fast; ball comes out very easy; extreme smoothness in arm action; ability manipulate ball in multiple ways; creates extreme plane; maintains line to the plate; repeats mechanics; gets extension; arm action allows for ability to work to both sides of the plate; excellent momentum with a near elite second gear in delivery; frame. |
|||
|
#1 Pitch |
|||
|
Fastball: Velocity: 96-99 (T100); Command: plus; Movement: riding arm-side life; late cut; ability to sink. Notes: Fastball works at premium velocity with extreme downward plane. Ability to locate to both sides of the plate as well as elevate over hands; able to create arm-side life, sinking action, and cut when necessary. The pitch works regularly 97-98, but is able to reach for velocity when necessary. Grade: 80/80 |
|||
|
#2 Pitch |
|||
|
Curveball: Velocity: 77-80 Command: average Movement: hard downward break with depth. Notes: Good shape. Ability to throw early in the count for a strike, and late for the strikeout. Difficult for hitters to pick up early. Arm action allows me to believe the pitch will be a consistent weapon going forward. Grade: 60/70 |
|||
|
#3 Pitch |
|||
|
Changeup: Velocity: 87-90; Command: fringe-average; Movement: arm-side fade with sink. Notes: Command currently not on par with other two offerings. However, able to manipulate the ball and create deception with plus life. Deceptive arm speed allows changeup to play well off of fastball. Grade: 50/60 |
|||
|
Other |
|||
|
Large frame ideal for logging innings; super clean arm action; will be able to easily add a slider into arsenal when necessary; creates natural angle; intimidating presence on the mound; excellent demeanor and mound presence; able to see projection at advanced level of minors. |
|||
|
Overall |
|||
|
Strength: Fastball is an elite offering with premier velocity and life; curveball plays well off of fastball and has sharp break with bat-missing ability; changeup projection; smooth mechanics; ideal frame. Weakness: Will leave changeup elevated; sequence can be predictable; curveball still has to take a step forward to be a high level weapon. Overall, Syndergaard is a future top-of-the-rotation pitcher with a near elite arsenal. He also has the ideal physical frame for a pitcher. The arsenal is complete with no major weaknesses, and secondary offerings still have room for projection moving forward. The nature of how easy the arm works combined with the ability to manipulate the ball in many fashions makes Syndergaard special. The body is one that can easily log innings and he has three pitches that will be able to miss bats, and will be able to add a slider/cutter into his repertoire when he needs to. OFP: 70; No. 1 Risk Factor: Medium |
|||
***
|
RHP |
|||
|
DOB – 11/25/1993 |
Height – 6’4” |
Bats – Right |
|
|
MLB ETA – 2017 |
Weight – 200 |
Throws – Right |
|
|
Current Team – SS-A Lowell Spinners (New York-Penn League) |
Date(s) Seen – 7/27/2013, 8/19/2013, 8/29/2013 |
Date Filed – 9/5/2013 |
|
|
Have Video? No |
How Acquired – Drafted 2nd round; Boston Red Sox 2013 |
Filed By – Mark Anderson |
|
|
Mechanics |
|||
|
¾ slot; can get a little lower at times; drop in slot does not appear intentional; lots of arms and legs in delivery; gets to balance point with decent consistency; surprising control of limbs for young guy with big frame; deep drop on back leg and drive to the plate; loses some angle offered by height and long arms; good consistency with landing foot; finishes out in front and follows through well; arm stays with the body throughout; overall good mechanics at a young age. |
|||
|
#1 Pitch |
|||
|
Fastball, Velocity: 90-93 (T95); above-average velo most nights; fell off a bit late in the season; appeared tired. Command: average; surprised with fastball command; pounded the zone every night; moved ball vertically and horizontally with ease; should continue to refine location and develop ability to spot the ball out of the zone when he wants to. Movement: solid life; showed some run at times; ball flattened out when his arm slot dipped. Notes: good quality fastball; combines solid-average velocity with good command to make pitch effective; movement is decent and complements velocity/command; loses plane on fastball because of drop-and-drive delivery; minimal velocity projection. Grade: Present 5+/Future 6 |
|||
|
#2 Pitch |
|||
|
Slider, Velocity: 82-84 (T86). Command: below average. Movement: good tilt; movement is more consistent in lower end of velocity range; ball shows two-plane break that can miss bats. Notes: shows confidence with pitch; likes to throw it low and away to RHH; showed less willingness to bury it on LHH; needs to refine command; gets caught between slider and curveball at times; consistently average pitch with plus potential on heels of consistency in other parts of strike zone. Grade: Present 5/Future 6 |
|||
|
#3 Pitch |
|||
|
Curveball, Velocity: 76-80. Command: below average. Movement: more vertical break than slider; rotation is not tight enough; showed several spinners that were hit hard in each outing. Notes: lacked consistency; threw it more in last start versus previous two outings; possible change-of-pace pitch; lack of consistency and frequent confusion with slider lends to elimination of the pitch long term; limited projection if kept in the arsenal. Grade: Present 3/Future 4 |
|||
|
#4 Pitch |
|||
|
Changeup, Velocity: 79-84. Command: well below average. Movement: varied from straight CH to showing some fade; even flashed occasional sink; movement hinged on arm slot; variable movement actually improved overall effectiveness of pitch. Notes: interesting pitch; showed confidence but quality didn’t always support confidence; consistently bracketed with FB before and after; needs to vary when he throws the pitch; work in progress but shows some feel and potentially average projection. Grade: Present 4/Future 5 |
|||
|
Other |
|||
|
Big body; raw frame and strength invoke thoughts of significant physical projection; relatively narrow shoulders and good present strength should temper those expectations; body will mature but not in a way that will lead to major changes in arsenal or substantial velo bump; good mound presence; shows some early feel for mixing pitches and working through a lineup; need to see the depth of arsenal (beyond FB-SL) challenged at the next level; fields position well; showed occasional solid pickoff move. |
|||
|
Overall |
|||
|
Initial appearance, including frame, strength and age lends to belief of highly projectable arm; deeper look leaves questions about where projection comes from; like present FB and SL to work as he moves up the ladder; velocity could bump to above-average range and reach plus on occasion; larger jump than that would be surprising; slider should be plus pitch with refinement; changeup to average long term; viability of curveball is a question; elimination of curveball could result in quicker development of slider and changeup; seems to get the mental side of pitching; sequencing needs improvement but will come with experience; nice arm with lots to offer; everything in his game seems to work and should continue to work long term; risk is relatively low for a teenager in short-season ball; potential inning eater at the back of a rotation. OFP Grade: 5; no. 4/5 starter Risk Factor: Moderate |
|||
|
OF |
Boston Red Sox |
||
|
DOB – 9/28/1994 |
Height – 5’11 |
Bats – Right |
|
|
MLB ETA – 2017 |
Weight – 170 |
Throws – Right |
|
|
Current Team – SS-A Lowell Spinners (New York-Penn League) |
Date(s) Seen – 6/17/2013, 7/2/2013, 7/3/2013, 7/26/2013, 7/27/2013, 8/29/2013 |
Date Filed – 9/12/13 |
|
|
Have Video? No |
How Acquired – Undrafted Free Agent, July 2011 |
Filed By – Mark Anderson |
|
|
Physical/Health |
|||
|
Lean and wiry; athletic body; fast twitch kid; decent present strength with length in limbs to add more good strength/mass; arms/legs have length and suggest potential for small growth spurt and height could bump a little before physical peak; excellent physical projection; good candidate to maintain quickness and athleticism through physical maturity. |
|||
|
Hit Tool |
|||
|
Quick, whippy bat; plus bat speed; shows good strength in forearms and wrists; bat-to-ball ability was impressive against older competition; very good approach for his age; showed pitch recognition skills, particularly with ability to identify spin and judge it correctly; chased out of zone occasionally but also learned and rarely did it a second time during that game; uses the whole field well; stride can get a little long with head changing planes and removing ability for solid contact; demonstrated propensity for swinging under the ball, possibly due to stride length and overall vertical movement of his body as pitch approached; should be easily corrected flaw; needs at-bats and time to continue polishing approach and gain consistency generating loud contact to all fields; average hit projection. Grade: Present 3/Future 5 |
|||
|
Power |
|||
|
Surprising strength in small, wiry frame; BP contact is loud to all fields; can really drive it; physical maturation will lead to additional strength; present bat speed and strength projection leave optimism for power; showed easy pop to the gaps throughout summer; should evolve into more over-the-fence power in time; potential average power down the line, including 16-18 home runs and 25-30 doubles; power will take a while to manifest in game situations; may not truly arrive until after near complete maturation of hit tool. Grade: Present 3/Future 5 |
|||
|
Glove |
|||
|
Shows easy defensive ability; covers ground from gap-to-gap in center field; instincts are advanced for his age; reads the ball well off the bat; first step is quick and jump is routinely in the right direction; angles are refined and direct to the ball; gets up to speed quickly and can glide to the ball on most occasions; confident defender; goes side-to-side well; showed ability to go back on the ball as well as come in on it aggressively; high-end athlete that should stick up the middle; will need to adjust for harder contact and larger stadiums but has ingredients to make it all come together as he moves up the ladder; easy projection for above-average defensive profile with some possibility for plus profile at peak. Grade: Present 4+/Future 5+ |
|||
|
Arm |
|||
|
Arm doesn’t stand out; throws to plate lacked zip at times; showed hard throws with accuracy to 2B and 3B; additional strength and work with pro instruction could result in solid-average arm down the line; arm worked well on throws, just lacked the strength to get it there on some longer throws. Grade: Present 4/Future 5 |
|||
|
Baserunning/Speed |
|||
|
H-1st ranged from 4.17-4.33 across multiple views; consistently 4.23-.4.28; gets out of the box pretty well and gets up to speed quickly; should be above-average runner long term; threat to steal 15-20 bases if given the opportunity; baserunning instincts need work; jumps, particularly off LHP, were consistently late on steal attempts; likes to be aggressive when running on balls in play and will need to pick spots better; speed is an asset defensively and will allow him to stick in CF. Grade: Present 5+/Future 5+ |
|||
|
Other |
|||
|
Has swagger; carries himself with confidence; nearly unfazed by things not going his way; good feel for the game at a young age; appears to enjoy playing the game; consistently high energy/effort kid. |
|||
|
Overall |
|||
|
Raw tools are impressive; potential to contribute with all five tools at average or better level; hit and power will require multiple grade jumps to reach peak; multiple grade jumps elevate risk profile; impressive offensive ceiling in the .275, 15 home run, 25 double, 15 steal range; up-the-middle defensive profile gives some buffer if he doesn’t reach his offensive potential; will stick in CF and be an asset there; strong overall profile; potential everyday center fielder that contributes across the board, but profile comes with extreme risk. OFP Grade: 5+; Above-Average Regular Risk Factor: Extreme |
|||
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
As for Edwards vs Syndergaard: I've been watching Edwards since he first signed. I've been around him on the field and off, and I think I have a very good feel for what kind of an arm he is. It's very good. The stuff is very good. The body is a concern because he's very thin and lacks much strength. The delivery is very easy and that is a good sign going forward. But he has also been trying to add weight since he signed with the Rangers, and he is still very slight. He has a very narrow frame and I don't see him adding much to it as he continues t mature physically.
Because of the body, its natural to question the durability, which certainly influences his projection. As far as the stuff is concerned, Edwards has very good stuff, but it doesn't belong in the same sentence as Syndergaard, and anybody suggesting that it does is either scouting the numbers and not the man, or their sources are feeding them incorrect info. Syndergaard works 97-100 with a very good breaking ball. Edwards also shows a quality breaking ball, but the stuff isn't on the same level. On-the-field results are always a good thing, but sometimes they can influence the way people evaluate talent. Box score scouting isn't scouting. It's lazy.
Look at it this way: How many GMs in baseball would trade Noah Syndergaard for CJ Edwards? What type of player would you have to kick in just to get a team to listen? They aren't that close, and I don't see a case that can be made to convince me otherwise, especially on the scouting side. I think its a form of pandering to suggest its even close, and that sort of sensational approach doesn't benefit anybody.