Jump to content
Greg Pappas

An Early Look at the 2020 Draft's Top Prospects

Recommended Posts

Best player obviously. But after watching Gerrit Cole mow us down like the grim reaper last night I am salivating at the possibility of getting a similar TOR college arm in the next draft. If Elias & Co. think it's at all close between the top position player or top pitcher I'm hoping he opts for the arm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseball America has the Georgia pitcher Emerson Hancock going #1 to the O's.

Quote

Hancock was outshined by fellow Georgia product D.L. Hall in high school, but the now-Georgia ace has a good chance to beat Hall’s No. 21 selection in the 2017 draft and is one of the favorites to be the first overall pick. After a middling freshman season, Hancock broke out as a sophomore and was one of the best college pitchers in the country. He has plus stuff across the board with a fastball that’s routinely in the upper 90s, a slider, curveball, and a changeup.

https://247sports.com/college/georgia/Article/Georgia-Baseball-Emerson-Hancock-Cole-Wilcox-2020-MLB-Draft-132648975/

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't sound like there's much top quality at SS at this point.  Hopefully Gunnar defies the odds and stays at SS.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want a college position player to take a step forward and claim 1-1, Freddy Zamora and Austin Martin are my preferred candidates to do that. Zamora by continuing his growth as a hitter, adding more physicality. Martin by sliding over to shortstop and showing the ability to stick there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

I want a college position player to take a step forward and claim 1-1, Freddy Zamora and Austin Martin are my preferred candidates to do that. Zamora by continuing his growth as a hitter, adding more physicality. Martin by sliding over to shortstop and showing the ability to stick there.

Oh boy. If Austin Martin could stick at SS, or we see Gunnar over the next 12 months and see he could stick at SS, that could be a very nice left side of the infield of our future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Oh boy. If Austin Martin could stick at SS, or we see Gunnar over the next 12 months and see he could stick at SS, that could be a very nice left side of the infield of our future.

I've really liked what I've read about Martin. He seems like the type of guy who could make a Rutschman-type move to the top next season if his power develops. We need infield prospects pretty desperately. Sounds like a Keston Hiura type, but could play the left side of the infield potentially. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WalkWithElias said:

I've really liked what I've read about Martin. He seems like the type of guy who could make a Rutschman-type move to the top next season if his power develops. We need infield prospects pretty desperately. Sounds like a Keston Hiura type, but could play the left side of the infield potentially. 

Retweet. I’ll be following him and Hancock next year I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







  • Posts

    • I'm multitasking.
    • I'm here too, logged in as DJ Stewart's number one fan on the board. I like the guys who don't look like athletes.
    • Here's bad news: I'm watching. 
    • Looks like it's just me and you here, @eddie83
    • So I had a grand theory all ready to explain modern baseball, based on the impact of the information revolution on defense.  According to the theory, better data has allowed teams to better measure individual defense and the contribution of defense to run prevention, which has led to increased emphasis on defensive ability in personnel decisions.  Better data has also led to shifts and other improvements in defensive positioning.  All of these factors have led in theory to improved defensive efficiency--an increase in the percentage of balls in play that are converted into outs.  In turn, this has led to a change in optimal offensive strategies.  If it's harder to get hits on balls in play, then it is less likely that you will be able to score runs by stringing a bunch of singles together, or by using small ball tactics like base stealing, the hit and run and the sacrifice.  Teams thus optimally put more emphasis on power in personnel decisions, because a home run is the one way to score runs that can't be stopped by good defense. Great theory, huh?  Then I looked at the data.  Here are the numbers for aggregate defensive efficiency for MLB since 2001: 2001:  0.691     2002:  0.695   2003:  0.694   2004:  0.691   2005:  0.693   2006:  0.687   2007:  0.686   2008:  0.689 2009:  0.690   2010:  0.691   2011:  0.694    2012:  0.691   2013:  0.692   2014:  0.690    2015:  0.689    2016: 0.688 2017:  0.688    2018:  0.691 So twenty years into the defensive revolution, we have...the same defensive efficiency that we had in 2001.  Teams on the whole are doing no better today at converting balls in play into outs than they were in 2001, despite all of the shifts and all of the zone ratings and other defensive measures that are now available.   So much for my theory.  Some earlier posts suggest another theory--improved pitch design and velocity have made it harder to hit for contact, which increases strikeouts and reduces batting average.  In turn this leads to a greater emphasis on power at the expense of contact, increasing home runs, further increasing strikeouts and further reducing batting average.  That theory may be correct, but it's less obvious to me that the correct strategic response to improved pitch design and velocity is to sacrifice contact for power. It could go the other way--in response to better pitching, it is even more important to hit for contact, to put the ball in play, to sustain an offense.  It would take a model simulation to determine whether the optimal response to power pitching is to emphasize power hitting.   Or it could just be a juiced ball!  
    • Two out walk no damage. I say Orioles win 8-2 tonight.  
    • Holy hell Soler is having himself a season.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...