2013 Cubs Prospects in Review: Rob Zastryzny

In Commentary And Analysis, Minor Leagues by Sitrick40 Comments

I believe this rounds out the prospect reviews as far as 2013 draftees go. Rob Zastryzny, a 6'3, 193 lb, 21 year old lefty drafted 41st overall out of Mizzou, was something of a surprise pick in the early 2nd round, as he was ranked 76th on the BA 500, and Jonathan Mayo admitted on draft night that he didn't have Zastryzny ranked in his personal top 100. A soft-tossing lefty with good command and pitchability, a solid changeup, and an inconsistant breaking ball, Zas (I'm calling him Zas because I'm too lazy to memorize how to spell Zastryznzyzyznzyznzy) looked like an underslot pick, allowing them to save some money and go after riskier overslot picks later on. Sure enough, Zastryzny signed for 1.1 million, roughly 260K under slot, and he went straight to Boise.

Performance

Zas pitched in 11 games between Boise and Kane County in 2013 and did everything you'd expect an upper-level college pitcher to do in the low minors. Zastryzny threw 24 innings, allowing 24 hits, 6 runs, 8 walks, and 22 Ks, totalling a 2.25 ERA between the two levels. He held batters to a .264 BAA and didn't allow a homer. He did walk a few more batters upon reaching Kane County, but it's three games and even the 24 innings we have between the two levels is a stupidly small sample size. Still, better to be good than to not be good, and Zastryzny got his pro career off to a good start.

Scouting

Zastryzny is something of a two-and-a-half pitch guy currently, relying primarily on a fastball that sits around 90, with a solid changeup and a work-in-progress, slurvy breaking ball as his secondary options. Here's what BA has to say: 

A lefthander who can really pitch with his fastball, he should go in the first three rounds. Zastrzyny effortlessly adds and subtracts from his fastball, usually sitting around 90 mph but capable of dropping down to 86 or elevating four-seamers up in the zone at 95. The 6-foot-3, 193-pounder can locate his fastball to either side of the plate and gets good angle, which helps it play up further. His most reliable secondary pitch is his changeup, which shows flashes of being a plus offering. His breaking ball is less consistent, as he will switch between a slider and curveball. Zastryzny throws strikes but will need to refine his command in pro ball.

The best video of him throwing is probably the bit included with the draft night coverage I linked to above (there's also a longer video of him throwing in-game on youtube, but it's from 2010 and doesn't seem terribly useful at this point). The delivery looks really smooth, balanced, and easy, which I imagine goes a long way towards his excellent fastball command and leaves him a little bit of extra velocity to reach back for when he needs it. His strikeout numbers in college weren't mindblowing (82 Ks in 90 2/3 IP last season with Mizzou) and the reports about his approach to pitching seem to suggest a style lending itself more to weak contact than eye-popping strikeout totals. If he can add a grade or two to the breaking ball, you might squint and see a profile that's a bit similar to Kyle Hendricks, the fringy fastball supplemented by pinpoint control and repertoire. That development would have to come pretty fast, though, as he'll be 22 next season.

Outlook

I'd expect Zastryzny to start 2014 with a return to Kane County, with the opportunity for a quick bump up to Daytona if he doesn't fall apart. Long-term, I think he's a back-end bullpen/AAA guy at best. Based on reports of his stuff, I can't imagine he has the velocity, the pitch repertoire, or the strikeout stuff to be even a fifth or sixth starter, and he doesn't really fit the power-arm profile this front office seems to want from its bullpen staples. Perhaps his secondary stuff develops and his pitchability plays up enough that he becomes someone a bit more intriguing, but until that happens I can't see him shooting up any organizational prospect rankings.

2013 Cubs Prospect Reviews

Share this Post

Comments

  5. Author
    sitrick

    @ dmick89:
    You read any of the reports on Appel’s MWL time? Keep hearing sentiments that basically say “He’s fine, but I expected more.”

    Meanwhile, Bryant got halfway through the minor league track this season and mashed, and Gray put up a 0.75 ERA in 24 innings in the fucking Cal League. I know it’s early, but this only makes me happier we didn’t get a chance to take Appel.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  6. dmick89

    @ sitrick:
    Too early to tell. Don’t think you could go wrong with the top 3 in the draft. After that it’s a lot left in the air. I’m perfectly happy with who the Cubs took, but I hope all 3 succeed.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  9. J

    I’d love to see someone try to figure out why the Cubs are still so bad at home. Maybe look at home pythag/road pythad splits and figure out where things are going wrong. I certainly don’t think the Cubs are that much less talented than San Diego or Colorado, but those teams are home winners. The Mets (also probably similar talent to the Cubs) suck at home too.

    Since day games seemingly are reduced by the year, I don’t know if it’s still fair to chalk it up to that. I think bullpen construction is more of a concern. Is it possible that shortened outings by starters in road games (pinch hit for in top half rather than bottom) results in a shakier bullpen? I also can’t imagine that a relief crew made up of rotating callups enjoy anything close to the feeling of “home” that positional players get. Not that it’s helped those guys either.

    Of which, am I the only one who feels like Rizzo basically can’t reach base via the ground ball? His hits seem to all be HRs, 2Bs to the gaps or down the line, or liners into right. It’s not like he dribbles one through the infield ever. BABIP stats would seem to back this up. Maybe shifting really screws middle tier lefty bats, and not just the big sluggers.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  10. dmick89

    Is it just me or is it actually funny that the day after Theo spoke about how good the clubhouse has been and how they’ve taken on Dale’s demeanor that this Gregg incident happened?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  11. Lukas

    I think people are forgetting that Dale’s demeanor seems to be that of a person who will air his concerns right away or confront them right away instead of letting them fester. So it seems it is rubbing off on the players a bit, with Gregg and with Jackson last week or whenever that argument was.

    With that said, I like Dale. I think we should just chalk all this dumb stuff up to the frustration of another shitty losing season.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  21. GBTS

    Whoever comes in second in the NL Central has got to be fucking pissed. You’re better than the third place team over a 162 game season, who you’ve played head to head like 17 times, but if you lose one game they go to the playoffs over you. Really stupid.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  22. GBTS

    I mean, why stop at a sudden death Game 163? How about every playoff is sudden death, first to homer wins? Imagine the excitement of every single at bat.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  27. dmick89

    @ GBTS:
    As I recall, the difference the 4th and 5th place teams in terms of wins is generally very little. Are you really confident that a team that went 88-74 is better than one that went 85-77? I know I’m not. I’m not even confident to say that a team that went 93-69 is better than one that 79-83. They probably are, but it’s entirely possible the better team went 79-83. The difference between those few wins in the previous example is so small that you can’t know with any certainty that the 88 win team is better.

    Even if you decided to go with head to head, you’re making the sample of games even smaller and the difference in that record almost meaningless.

    I don’t mind it as they have it. Two games that are essentially game 163 every year will be a lot of fun.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  28. dmick89

    Unless you further expand the playoffs, one game seems to be about perfect. I know there will be those who want a 3-game series, but that won’t happen. They’ll either expand the playoffs even more or stick with the current format.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  29. GW

    dmick89 wrote:

    Are you really confident that a team that went 88-74 is better than one that went 85-77?

    definitely not. though the argument is less about rewarding the “best” teams as opposed to devaluing regular season results. the flipside is that it makes regular season results more important for the teams fighting for the division lead.

    i like it, on the whole.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  30. dmick89

    For the most part I was opposed to baseball’s expanded playoffs for many years. I preferred the four teams getting in and that’s it. My argument was that there was a better chance the best team would win it all, but the argument was really only that the team with the best record would have a better chance of winning it all. Then I realized that best team does not mean most wins and that the current Wild Card structure, which was never going to go away anyway, was good for the game and that’s what ultimately mattered. In other words, I was stubborn, which I’m prone to be.

    Once I’ve realized this I’ve also felt that you could just as easily increase the number of playoff teams, but the question becomes at what point do you stop? Should MLB have expanded to 16 teams like the NBA? I don’t think. Even though I don’t watch the NBA, it doesn’t take someone who does to know that the best team in the NBA is far more likely to win it all than the best team in MLB. The NBA is merely expanding the field and offering more excitement.

    But if 16 teams got in the MLB Playoffs, the worst team would win far more frequently than in the NBA. In the NBA, could the worst of the 16 really even win it all? I don’t know, but I’d doubt it. It wouldn’t happen often in baseball, but it would happen.

    So I like MLB’s balance here. Sure, this game 163 is basically a coin flip, but what really is the difference between the 4th an 5th best teams in the league anyway? Not a lot usually. Right now in the NL those teams are tied and in the AL one game separates them. So a coin flip seems kind of fair to me. The difference between 4th and 9th in the AL is 3 games. Crazy.

    When a 90 win team is playing an 80 win team maybe I’ll feel differently, but I doubt we see that.

    I’m using 4th to represent the first Wild Card team even though that may not be the case. I would prefer that the leagues take the 5 best record regardless of who wins the division. There probably aren’t many others that feel that way and if you’re going to do that you may as well do away with divisions, which I fully support.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  31. GBTS

    @ dmick89:
    No but I am confident that they won more games over the course of the MLB season, which is the whole point. And if we’re unsure whether an 88 win team is better than an 85 win team (which I wholeheartedly agree with) after 162 games, what’s the point of 163?

    Maybe we should just have the World Series every 10 years.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment