The mainstay of the Cardinals rotation about 1990-93 was Tewksbury. He was a 6′4″ RHP who relied on movement and changing speeds. Tewksbury was quite successful in the majors.

Some more 80’s:

Aaron Miles’ grit
David Eckstein’s scrappyness
Derek Jeter’s captain-ing
Ryan Theriot’s gamer-ness

Johan Santana’s changeup
Joel Zumaya’s fastball
Mariano Rivera’s cutter
Rick Ankiel’s curveball?
Ryan Howard’s power
Michael Bourn’s speed
Rick Ankiel’s throwing arm

I’d label Wainwright’s curve a 60-65 although I’m not sure what it would take to get an 80 for a curveball.

I would say his early returns in Memphis are somewhat mixed. I hope he has a strong finish because he’s the profile that will get held back as soon as there is a reason to. The question will always be whether his stuff will play as he moves up.

I kinda think it will hold up fine, if he can locate. If he does make it, I think he’d be a great fit in a rotation. I have a pet theory (with nothing quantifiable to support it) that you gain a slight edge by bringing different looks in the rotation one day to the next. One thing PJ would be is unique. Batters won’t have a lot of comps as far as starters working with the same velocities. And I’m not sure there are many comps for the changeup either. I think throwing someone like Garcia, following him up with Walters, and then following him up with Wainwright could have a type of symbiotic effect. Again, just my intuitive beliefs…nothing of substance to support it.

On a side note, I suspect a stronger correlation in the bullpen. Another benefit to be gained by throwing different looks at hitters from the pen. For this reason, among others, I am pretty cheesed off that Worrell didn’t get the call.

Azru, that SaberScouting site you link to says that very few tools are ever graded at an 80. Are you (or any other readers) aware of anyone currently playing that is graded at an 80 for any particular tool? Just curious as to how dominant that would be. Also, for reference, what would Wainwright’s curve be graded at?

The longer version is this: The grades for each individual pitch (and command) are based on the non-linear 20-80 scale described in the Prospect Primer. I say non linear because an 80 isn’t twice as good as a 40 — it’s significantly better in a fashion that isn’t represented strictly by the arbitrary number assigned to it. When you are looking at a single pitch — say the fastball — there are a lot of pitchers with a 55 fastball. There’s a lot of pitchers with a 55 slider. There’s a lot of pitchers with 55 command. There are not a lot of pitchers that combine all three.

We know that pitchers need a certain repertoire to succeed as a major league starter. Evaluating each pitch in isolation is important but then evaluating the combined result of each individual part of the skill set and judging the effectiveness of that combined skillset is just as critical. A pitcher with a 50 fastball may only rate a 45 in their AOFP because they have no breaking pitch or offspeed pitch. Thus a score of 50 in AOFP is harder to acheive than in any single area. The scale shifts a bit, if you will, making a slightly different spread for AOFP than for any individual skillset.

I hope that clears things up — I’d suggest checking out SaberScouting’s Scouting Tutorial since that may make more sense than my own explanation. Hope that helps — and if you have any other questions about the eval, don’t feel bad about asking them. The info’s only useful if our readers understand it.