All Baseball Prospectus Premium and Fantasy articles more than a year old are now free as a thank you to the entire Internet for making our work possible.
Not a subscriber? Get exclusive content like this delivered hot to your inbox every weekday. Click here for more information on Baseball Prospectus subscriptions or use the buttons to the right to subscribe and get instant access to the best baseball content on the web.
Tanner Houck, RHP, University of Missouri
Seen in a 8 IP start on 4/6. Large frame; lean, proportioned body; athletic; could add weight to frame and maintain flexibility and overall athleticism. Pitches from a full wind-up; long arm action; plus arm speed; low-three-quarters slot; has crossfire in delivery with some effort, but repeats delivery well. Fastball 91-93 (t94); plus run/sink; very heavy pitch; had a lot of GBs this outing; liked going under hands of RHH; future average command and control. Slider 78-82; early break with quality depth and action; shape could get slurvy at times; located well to RHH; struggled to backdoor to LHH but had right idea; future plus offering. CH 84-86; can show arm speed on it with late fade/sink; needs to pick better counts to throw it; threw 3-1 to LHH who crushed over scoreboard; future average offering. Threw a couple CT at 88; not sure if intended; not enough to get a grade on. 1.20-1.33. Efficient outing; 78 pitches through 6; finished with 100 through 8. Pitched at higher velocity spring and summer 2016; still working well with diminished velocity though. See as a middle of the rotation starter.
Freddy Tarnok, RHP, Riverview HS (Brandon, FL)
Seen in a 5 IP start on 5/2. Looks larger than listed height/weight; closer to 6-foot-5; has plus projection remaining; could fill out upper half easily. Pitches from the stretch only; pump and go delivery; low-effort; clean, compact arm action; above-average arm speed; three-quarters slot. FB 88-96; mixes in 2S FB from time to time; 1st IP 93-95 (t96); had lots of swing/miss in the zone; 4th/5th IP 88-91; worried about arm strength; arm action looked consistent from inning to inning; just lacks arm strength; mild run; lacked command. CB 78-80 (t81); shows hard, downer action; just had inconsistent feel for it; lacked strike-throwing ability at times; shows promise with velocity and ease of delivery to potentially be an average offering. CH 83; he has it, but it is what you expect. Had lots of swing/miss with FB early in game; once velo went down hitters started to time it up better. Worried about pop-up status; arm strength; and consistency of breaking ball. See as a bullpen reliever with possible closing opportunities. Committed to University of Tampa (D2) as a two-way player.
Phoenix Sanders, RHP, University of South Florida
Seen in a 7 IP start on 3/17; and a 6 IP start on 4/28. Broad shoulders; built lower half; could add a tick in pro ball out of the bullpen but lacks projection. Pitches from a full windup; compact arm action with average arm speed; three-quarters slot; tends to finish upright and can leave pitches up. FB 88-90 (t92); mild two-seam run in the lower half of the zone; throws quality strikes to both sides of the plate but can be too hittable at times. CB 75-78; more a change of pace pitch but can throw for strikes; has depth and action but lacks sharpness. SL 80-82; can get SL happy at times and pitch backwards off it; can manipulate shape; has tilt and action but isn't always a swing/miss offering; uses to both sides. CH 80-82; has feel and can drop for strikes but lacks movement; more change of pace. .94-1.07 SS; extremely quick to the plate. Strike-thrower; senior sign type of guy; like mentality but lacks a swing/miss offering; and can be hittable in the zone; see as a quality org arm.
Brooks Wilson, RHP, Stetson University (DeLand, FL)
Seen in a 5 IP start on 4/26. Large frame with a muscular, athletic build; physical projection remaining; broad shouldered; caveman look. Pitches from a full windup; small; compact arm action with average arm speed; primarily three-quarters slot; but also goes to side arm/low-three-quarters. FB 89-91; some 2S action; will pitch up to finish; did a good job throwing strikes and could throw to both sides of the plate. CB 76-78 (t79); quality depth with some bite; can manipulate shape and action; uses in all slots; future average offering. CH/SF? 80-82; looked to have split action but was told is just a normal changeup; has feel for offering and is fine using to LHH; more change of pace pitch then offering to use as a starter. 1.36-1.44 to the plate. Worked efficiently; 75 pitches through 5 IP; uses a variety of slots and speeds to mess with hitters comfort levels. See as a bullpen option with FB/CB combination.
Tony Dibrell, RHP, Kennesaw State University (GA)
Seen in a 9 IP start on 4/7. ideal pitcher’s body; lacks remaining projection; already very muscular and could lose flexibility if he adds more muscle. Pitches from a full windup; compact arm action with a soft stab but has a full arm circle; average arm speed. Three-quarters slot. FB 89-92 (t93); mild run in the lower half of the zone; above-average control; maintained velocity late into game; potential above-average offering. CB 74-75 (t78); 11/5 shape; had a tendency to get slurvy but is still a future average offering with quality depth and action; used against both and was preferred finish pitch. SL 80-83; lacked consistent shape; slurvy; had some tilt but was not sharp; only v. RHH. CH 80-83; has feel for offering with late fade/run; can throw for strikes; used as a finish against LHH as well. 1.22-1.27 to the plate. Polished collegiate arm; pitch counts got high but wanted to stay in game; 93 pitches through 6; finished with 145 after 9. Throws strikes and has an average overall arsenal; see as a back end of the rotation pitcher.
You'll note that after the first inning he faded considerably from 96, which I believe is what Steve is referring to. The ability to hold his velocity.
He touched 96, not pitched at 96 which is a big difference. Yes he was 93-95 in his first inning but his velocity faded from each prior inning. This suggests a lack of arm strength to consistently hold his initial velocity.
Notes from the Field: ... (05/02)
the archives are now free.
4 comments have been left for this article. 
Free Agent Watch: Week 5
HS arm throwing 96 lacks arm strength?
You'll note that after the first inning he faded considerably from 96, which I believe is what Steve is referring to. The ability to hold his velocity.
He touched 96, not pitched at 96 which is a big difference. Yes he was 93-95 in his first inning but his velocity faded from each prior inning. This suggests a lack of arm strength to consistently hold his initial velocity.