My brief time in an MLB front office had a pretty stark effect on my professional vocabulary, adding a number of words and phrases (some, but not all, exceeding four letters) that now pepper all of my baseball conversations and find their way into my writing, as well. I'm often asked by readers to define some of these terms, so here's a first stab at explaining some of the scouting vernacular you might find in my articles. I'll try to come back and add more throughout the season.
Org player: Short for "organization player," this refers to a player who's not expected to reach the majors but will play a few years in the low minors to fill out those affiliates' rosters. In effect, org players give the prospects someone to play with. A player seen as an org player in the draft will typically sign as a college senior for a bonus of $1000, making him a "senior sign," but it's always possible for an org player to change something (add a pitch, learn a harder position) that changes his status. You might also hear "Priority org player" to refer to a particularly good example of the breed, such as a player with a very strong work ethic who might be a good influence on younger players. It's also used as a verb: "Yeah, I saw Joey Bagodonuts, but I org'd him."
NP: Short for "non-prospect." In practical terms, this is no different from "org player" -- neither guy is expected to reach the majors unless it's for the smallest cup of coffee. But non-prospect is somehow a more negative term, and it's more harsh for a scout to say "I NP'd him" than to say "I org'd him." Perhaps it's more of a statement of the scout's faith that the player isn't going to be good enough to get to the big leagues. Of course, one man's NP or org player is another's top prospect -- there was some sentiment in the 2008 draft that the Astros took an org player in the sandwich round, but I think just about every team would be happy to take that "org player," top prospect Jordan Lyles.
Extra guy: A big leaguer but not an everyday player; in sabermetric terms, an extra guy is below-average, but should be at or above replacement level, because he does have major league value. Usually refers to a position player; you might hear a pitcher referred to as an extra guy, but an extra-guy pitcher is either a fifth starter or a middle reliever. And extra guys can be useful parts -- a good defensive shortstop, a lefty specialist, a platoon bat off the bench -- even if the term is usually heard as a way of saying a player isn't an everyday guy.
Fringy: Something between the extra guy and the hypothetical average player, a fringy position player might be an everyday player on some clubs, but not on a first-division team. Fringy (or "fringe-average") can also be applied to a specific tool, as in a "fringy fastball" that's just on the wrong side of average, but not so low that you'd go down a full grade. Or you could use "fringy fastball" to describe a fastball with barely average velocity but no life, so the net effect is that it's a hittable pitch. In any context, here's the order: below-average < fringe-average < average < above-average < plus.
Command versus control: Control is easy -- the ability to throw strikes. For major leaguers and prospects in the higher levels, you'll typically see evidence of control in a pitcher's walk rate, such as unintentional walks as a percentage of batters faced. (You might see a divergence between raw control and a walk rate for a non-prospect who can throw strikes but lacks the stuff to survive by doing so, meaning he has to work away from contact and try to get hitters to chase. For our purposes that is never likely to come up.)
Command is fuzzier, and I've never heard a good proxy, statistical or otherwise, to measure it. Not to get all Potter Stewart on you, but even though definitions of command are as wide as the Sargasso Sea, a good scout knows command when he sees it. Locating pitches is a huge element of command; think "quality strikes" as opposed to just strikes versus balls. But there's also an element of mastery involved: Does the pitcher command the fastball, or does the pitch (metaphorically speaking) command him? Does he locate it consistently? Get consistent shape on it? Use it like he knows it's going to work?
Makeup and intangibles: This isn't so much a definition as a thought. These two terms are problematic because they're almost entirely subjective and unverifiable -- but that's not the same as saying that they don't exist, or that they don't matter. There are, in my opinion, aspects of makeup that matter:
• The ability to learn is one.
• Work ethic is another, and extends not just to baseball matters but to basic physical conditioning. (I remember a player we had in Toronto who was recovering from an operation but ignored the offseason rehab program the doctor had given him and ended up on the DL the following year because of it.)
• Off-field makeup can matter if the player is likely to get into legal trouble, or is doing something that prevents him from being ready to play each day.
Many top prospects who don't pan out in the majors fail because of issues like these. Where I scoff at makeup claims is when they're assigned to players ex post victoria (to say a team won because they wanted it more, or had more heart) or when hustle is confused with real baseball value. And most scouts will tell you that evaluating makeup and projecting it forward is the hardest part of their jobs -- determining which immature 18-year-old will grow up and which one will stay childish into his 20s is as difficult as it is critical.