6’7″ Prep Lefty Justin Hooper Flashes Potential
When our other prospect writers submit scouting reports, I will provide a short background and industry consensus tool grades. There are two reasons for this: 1) giving context to account for the writer seeing a bad outing (never threw his change-up, coming back from injury, etc.) and 2) not making him go on about the player’s background or speculate about what may have happened in other outings.
The writer still grades the tools based on what they saw, I’m just letting the reader know what he would’ve seen in many other games from this season, particularly with young players that may be fatigued late in the season. Often, those will be the same grades. The grades are presented as present/future on the 20-80 scouting scale and very shortly I’ll publish a series going into more depth explaining these grades. — Kiley
Justin Hooper, LHP, De La Salle HS (CA), UCLA commit (2015 MLB Draft prospect)
Hooper was a known prospect last summer when the 6’7 underclassman sat 88-92 mph at the Area Code Games, then created buzz this spring when his velo jumped into the mid-90’s as a junior. Last summer, his delivery forced him to throw well across his body and this held back his potential while he now is much more online, though there’s still some effort and inconsistency in the delivery.
The NorCal product hasn’t been on the summer showcase circuit much, so last week’s two appearances at Area Codes (multiple innings) and the Perfect Game All American Classic (one inning) were the first time most scouts have paid close attention to him. Hooper didn’t throw a changeup last year and had no feel for a well below average 82-87 mph changeup at Area Codes, then threw one very good changeup at 80 mph to end his PGAAC inning, so I’m splitting the difference on that grade.
Fastball: 55/65, Curveball, 45/55, Changeup: 40/50+, Command: 35/45+
Kiley
Fastball: 55/65
At his best, the player’s four-seam fastball possesses above-average cutting life, sitting 94 mph and topping out at 96 mph over the course of a short, one inning burst. In an extending outing, he is presently unable to hold his plus-plus fastball velocity, instead showing more of what amounts to an above-average fastball. When that is the case, he is comfortable switching to his two-seam fastball, which shows sinking life at 88-90 mph.
It shouldn’t be an issue in the long-term, accounting for physical maturation of his presently lanky, extra-large frame. However, struggles with repeating his delivery and mechanical issues (as noted below) subsequently lead to a murky present and future command profile, thus making it difficult to project the offering having the complete effectiveness of its true plus-plus potential, hence the half-grade knock on the future potential.
Curveball: 45/55
In my first look, a heavy dose of the 74-78 mph curveballs the player spun off would have earned just a present 45-grade mark. But it’s worth mentioning the offering looked better than that under the bright lights this past Sunday at PETCO Park. Given his immense size and long levers, there isn’t a need to fight his three-quarters arm slot like many pitchers with similarly lower slots would have to in order to get the desired vertical break of a curveball.
The offering shows two-plane break and shape, but needs additional tightening and sharpness as it travels towards the hitter. His highly projectable frame leads me to believe there is additional strength on its way, which will help speed the arm and create a stronger bite in its action. However, consistency is once again an issue, as there’s a clear wrap in the arm action when throwing the breaking ball, creating not only additional stress on the arm, but also making it more difficult for the offering to reach its 60-grade potential, hence the half-grade knock once again.
Changeup: 40/50+
There is feel for the changeup, but it is largely inconsistent and lagging behind his other offerings in terms of development and confidence. He threw it only a handful of times over five innings, and none of the five ever flashed averaged or better potential. However, the first (and only) changeup he did throw in my second viewing was as good as one could expect. His ability to manipulate his other offerings allow for a full grade projection in the changeup, but issues within his delivery once again are causing him to be inconsistent with his stuff once it reaches the plate.
Command: 20/45+
The pitcher will be more control than command, but that doesn’t mean he will be a strike-throwing machine. Presently, his fastball command is all over the place, and I don’t think that will ever be completely cleaned up. Furthermore, there are issues within his delivery that need tweaking. He’s made several mechanical changes in the past year, but it’s a mixed bag of good and bad. His back leg and lower half are no longer finishing at the end of his delivery, but that can be improved as he was doing it the year before.
Then there is the direction to home plate; he’s striding towards the left-handed batter’s box, in an attempt to create deception, but this only forces him to throw across his body while pitching to the batter’s box rather than home plate. There is a wrap in his arm action, putting additional stress on his elbow and causing his arm to be late at foot strike. These are legitimate issues causing his delivery to fail to reach the “clean” label, but more importantly affecting the player’s present command and consistent ability to tap into the potential of his offerings.
Summary
Hooper’s arsenal and command presently suggest a mid-rotation arm, the type of profile that usually gets selected in the back end of the first round of the draft. However, “it only takes one team,” and a prep arm with his size and projection could, with a strong spring, sneak into the top 5 as Tyler Kolek did last June. Even if Hooper fails to show much improvement between this summer’s showcase circuit and next year’s draft, some organization could already be dreaming of what their player development system could mold this ball of clay into.
Hooper drives the boat, chief!
When it comes to projecting young arms, what kind of fastball velocity adjustments can you make?
If someone is hitting 90 as a 17 year old and has a frame, is it fair to say he’d hit 94 when he’s 21? I’ve never really known, and this is a decent place to ask, i figure.
I’m actually pretty curious about most of the tools — At what point is it fair to stop projecting someone’s raw power based on body-type and assumed “filling out”?
I’m sure it’s all over the place, but an average age is fine for me. You don’t need to go into too much detail. I read a lot of scouting reports, and a bunch of them read like daily horoscopes where they could basically apply to anyone, in any situation.
This is my horoscope today, btw: “Your mind is active and engaged today — so much so that you can’t help but absorb new information with delight. It’s a great time to tackle difficult subjects or to ask others for advice.”
I think the term “projectable” is applied loosely to players whose frames are immature and ostensibly able to put on plenty of muscle. I don’t think the term is meant to specify a specific velocity increase that is expected; it just means that the player has a greater chance to increase his velocity than another high school player with a full beard and is 6’3″ 225 lbs.
There are absolutely no expected velocity jumps. Some players gain a lot (i.e. CJ Edwards), some gain a little, and some actually lose velocity when their workload becomes 100+ pitches every 5 days instead of 80+ pitches every 7 days.
As far as when velocity gains shouldn’t be “expected” anymore, it definitely depends on the player’s physique. A guy like Tyler Kolek from this year’s draft, for example, should not be expected to gain any velocity as he is already mature at 6’5″ and 250 lbs. If I had to guess, I would say velocity gains could be “expected” until age 23-24 if the frame continues to remain underdeveloped.
Of course, mechanically-induced velocity gains are another thing entirely. Some scouts try to project additional velocity onto pitchers because of poor mechanics (i.e. short stride, throws across body excessively, etc.), which ostensibly wouldn’t stop at any age.
a fastball grade is more than just pure speed. Like every pitch there is some level of break to it. If either area imporves the score can go up.
fastball is also generally one of the more cemented in scouting scores. few guys see massive gains. The big steps for pitchers are command and normally learning a decent changeup (or potentially a breaking pitch).. The scores you see really are the type of spreads that are common. Small spreads for fastball and normally a breaking pitch, and everything else is mostly guess work
To answer your first question: it depends a lot on the body type, mechanics, and arm speed. Someone that has a blazing quick arm may be able to tap into additional velocity if their mechanics are “unpolished” or inefficient (not using the entire body to generate velocity). Even better if they have an immature body/frame that is conducive to adding strength, because that could also create velocity gains.
Sometimes you aren’t concerned with a player’s ability to gain additional velocity, but just hold onto it. I’ve seen Hooper touch 96 multiple times this year. I’m not projecting any additional velocity for him, but just that he’ll be able to consistently hold his velocity as he fills out his frame.
There’s no average age I could give you, because some guys are physically mature and have been throwing really hard for a few years. Someone like Grant Holmes has thrown hard for years now, and no one is going to tell you they see him adding velocity because of his build — its mature and maxed out.
You have to be careful with changing someone’s mechanics, too. Some believe that arm action is impossible to change. That’s when you’ll hear the terms “easy” and “clean” or “violent” and “high effort”.
I do agree that with your horoscope point. We’re hoping to change that on FanGraphs.
For clarification – when you use the phrase “cutting life” for a fourseam fastball, does this simply mean that it doesn’t have as much armside run as an average fourseamer? Because I think it’s quite rare to have true gloveside run in a fourseam fastball.
Could you give a major league comp for a “cutting” fourseam fastball? Judging by the leaderboards here it looks like Lincecum is the only righty to have gloveside movement on his fastball this season:
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=y&type=11&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=4%2cd
It’s a combination of a touch of cutting action with sinking life, but it’s difficult to isolate exactly how much of it is glove side movement because of the angles Hooper creates when pitching.
Hooper is left-handed, and there’s a bunch of southpaws on that leaderboard you linked me to with glove side movement.
Just to add on some more, you’ll often hear the term “natural lefty run,” and I’ve talked to a few southpaw prospects in the past that credited their fastball movement to just being left handed rather than anything else — grips, angles, slot, whatever.
I’d draft him and trade him because prospects aren’t the phillies way. Gonna get rid of our minor league affiliates and sign Larry king
So I’m a bit confused. A 20 grade for control means, if you accept the standard deviation description of the 20-80 scale, that Hooper’s control is currently better than only (1-.997)/2 = 0.15% of all pitchers. If something is worse than 99.85% of the relevant population, I think it’s more than a little misleading to use phrases like “a mixed bag of good and bad” in describing it…
Please substitute “command” for “control.”
The scouting scale was not developed as each unit of 10 being a standard deviation. Some people have used it that way now, but that is not how it was developed.
In addition, the scale applies to major league average. It does not apply to all pitchers.
I gave him a 20-grade command for the present, not future. The phrase “it’s a mixed bag of good and bad,” were in regards to mechanical changes he’s made in the last year, which play a large part in determining a player’s future command profile.
For me, every prep pitcher’s present command is 20-grade. There’s two schools of thought, and I subscribe to the belief that it is essentially impossible for a prep pitcher to develop present command because there is simply too much swing-and-miss at that level of competition. I believe evaluators and writers are giving far too much credit to 17-year-old players, confusing talent for skill. That’s just how I was taught by people in the industry. Obviously, Kiley disagreed, but he and I have talked about it before, and he understands where I’m coming from.
Similarly, just about everyone in the industry agrees that hitters from the lower levels of the minor leagues and below have 20-grade present hit tools. There are a few exceptions, of course, but not at the amateur ranks.
You should also remember that the 20-80 scale is in comparison to the major league player population; so it is 20-grade present command in comparison to those at the major leagues.
I see – thanks for the reply. I think I’m more in Kiley’s camp here, but I, like he, understand where you’re coming from.
Nice to see you at FG, Ron. I enjoyed your work at Baseball Prospectus.
Thanks for the kind words, E-Dub. That means a lot to me.
Ron, enjoyed this…Hooper clearly has a lot going for him, and to see him finish balanced down the mound for such a complex delivery is enthusing–and indicative of athleticism. So, too, are the extreme looseness of his arm, and the quickness with which it gets through the armstroke out front for a big guy.
There was definitely some wrap, that will hurt consistency of BB and command. Additionally, I thought for a pitcher his size, he didn’t have a lot of post or gather at the top. He could slow down and not collapse his backside so much in order to work more ‘downhill’.
He reminds me of when I scouted Matt Smoral as an amateur for the Midland Redskins. He also makes me think: ‘what did Andrew Miller look like in high school?’ I wonder if the natural 3-4 tilt on the breaker, lower armslot, and long levers ultimately might make him a slider candidate.
Any comps that come to your mind?
Thanks!
Thanks for the feedback, AddyMac8.
It’s a small sample of players that fit Hooper’s characteristics, and no one comes to mind immediately.
And thanks for the scouting. I’m really excited FG is trying to bolster the ‘other side’–I think it will add a lot to what has historically been seen as a metrics-only platform.
‘New school’, ‘old school’…antiquated phrasess for two crucial elements of the greater equation.
I’m glad to see one of the best BP writers over here at Fangraphs, great piece Ron, keep up the good work!