Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Frobby

Here’s a chart that might surprise you

Recommended Posts

Fangraphs ran an article on the Darvish signing today, highlighting that the Cubs have not developed much home grown pitching during the Theo Epstein era (which, coincidentally, coincides with the Dan Duquette era in Baltimore).     To illustrate the point, the article ran a chart of how many innings were pitched by home-grown pitchers for each of the 30 teams over the last six drafts.    The Cubs were dead last, at 30 innings.    But guess who is fourth in MLB?    It’s the Orioles, at 734 innings (I’m guessing these numbers are per year, not total, though the article doesn’t specify that).     And by the way, that’s way above the average, which is in the 400ish range, or the median, which is at 340.   https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-and-yu-darvish-needed-each-other/

Now, I guess there are a couple of ways to interpret this:

1.     We’ve actually been better than most teams at developing pitchers the last few years.

2.    Because we’re so cheap about acquiring free agent pitchers, and don’t play in the international market, we’re forced to use pitchers we drafted whether they’re any good or not.    

But in any event, maybe our pitching development isn’t the complete mess everyone assumes it is, compared to other reasons why our pitching isn’t very good.    

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's probably more of we are too cheap to spend on premium FA pitchers.

I don't think the organization as a whole is really all that bad at developing pitchers, it's just we don't develop enough TOR types, mostly guys that would be 4th or 5th starters for us, and probably not good enough to make most other teams rotations.

One thing this team needs to do quickly IMO is start spending more internationally. If we are not going to be players in FA we have to do more to increase the talent in the system, and the only way to do that is internationally, just relying on the draft isn't enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If would be interesting if they included said pitchers' ERA or something to give us an idea as to the quality vs quantity of the homegrown pitchers.  My guess in our case it's less about quality.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Fangraphs ran an article on the Darvish signing today, highlighting that the Cubs have not developed much home grown pitching during the Theo Epstein era (which, coincidentally, coincides with the Dan Duquette era in Baltimore).     To illustrate the point, the article ran a chart of how many innings were pitched by home-grown pitchers for each of the 30 teams over the last six drafts.    The Cubs were dead last, at 30 innings.    But guess who is fourth in MLB?    It’s the Orioles, at 734 innings (I’m guessing these numbers are per year, not total, though the article doesn’t specify that).     And by the way, that’s way above the average, which is in the 400ish range, or the median, which is at 340.   https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-and-yu-darvish-needed-each-other/

Now, I guess there are a couple of ways to interpret this:

1.     We’ve actually been better than most teams at developing pitchers the last few years.

2.    Because we’re so cheap about acquiring free agent pitchers, and don’t play in the international market, we’re forced to use pitchers we drafted whether they’re any good or not.    

But in any event, maybe our pitching development isn’t the complete mess everyone assumes it is, compared to other reasons why our pitching isn’t very good.    

I find it hard to believe that we've been better at developing pitchers than other teams. Jake was a complete mess for the O's. Then he goes to the Cubs and pitches good for them. There is a problem and it falls at the feet of Angelos. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting.  I'd be curious to know how many of our 734 innings are from relievers, and where we stack up ranking-wise against the rest of the league in that department. Seems we are very good at developing high quality home grown relief pitchers.

 

Share this post


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

I think it's total with Gausman having over 600 IP.

Then you have Hart, Crichton, Yacobonis, and Scott.

You could be right.   Unfortunately, the actual source of the chart is an article in The Athletic that’s behind a paywall, so I’m not sure of the methodology.

Edit - I think you’re right, though the number I get when I add these five is 736.1.   Maybe they forgot Scott.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

I'll go with #2

Like @backwardsk said, it's just Gausman accounting for most of the innings. 

Gausman 639.2 IP

Hart 62.0 IP

Yacabonis 20.2 IP

Crichton 12.1 IP

Scott 1.2 IP

Total ERA : about 4.15

19 minutes ago, joelala said:

Very interesting.  I'd be curious to know how many of our 734 innings are from relievers, and where we stack up ranking-wise against the rest of the league in that department. Seems we are very good at developing high quality home grown relief pitchers.

 

Very few, it only counts players drafted by the Orioles in 2012 or later. So no Bundy, Britton, Givens, Tillman, etc.

I haven't done the numbers for all the other teams but it seems that over the last 6 years, 10 of the top 20 Orioles pitchers (by innings pitched) were drafted by the Orioles.  For comparison, the Yankees, known for developing pitching were 7 out of 20.

Edit: Blue Jays (who had the most innings from 2012 or later) 8 of 20 top innings producers over the last 6 years were drafted by them. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

Like @backwardsk said, it's just Gausman accounting for most of the innings. 

Gausman 639.2 IP

Hart 62.0 IP

Yacabonis 20.2 IP

Crichton 12.1 IP

Scott 1.2 IP

Total ERA : about 4.15

Very few, it only counts players drafted by the Orioles in 2012 or later. So no Bundy, Britton, Givens, Tillman, etc.

I haven't done the numbers for all the other teams but it seems that over the last 6 years, 10 of the top 20 Orioles pitchers (by innings pitched) were drafted by the Orioles.  For comparison, the Yankees, known for developing pitching were 7 out of 20.

 

Now that I understand that the chart only relates to pitchers drafted in 2012 or later, I think it’s pretty meaningless.    In a time frame that short, the list obviously will be skewed to teams that drafted a good college pitcher in one of the early years of that period.   They’ve had the most chance to compile innings, compared to (1) high school pitchers who take longer to develop, or (2) pitchers from the later drafts in that period.    

Looking at the first round of the 2012 draft, you’ve got Wacha (656.2 IP), Gausman (639.2) and Strohman (562.2).   I’m a bit confused about who the Blue Jays drafted to get them to 1299.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Now that I understand that the chart only relates to pitchers drafted in 2012 or later, I think it’s pretty meaningless.    In a time frame that short, the list obviously will be skewed to teams that drafted a good college pitcher in one of the early years of that period.   They’ve had the most chance to compile innings, compared to (1) high school pitchers who take longer to develop, or (2) pitchers from the later drafts in that period.    

Looking at the first round of the 2012 draft, you’ve got Wacha (656.2 IP), Gausman (639.2) and Strohman (562.2).   I’m a bit confused about who the Blue Jays drafted to get them to 1299.

Yeah I was looking at that, Leone has 70+ IP, but after that it must be a bunch of 40 IP or less guys unless they got the numbers wrong.

I agree it's pretty meaningless, that why I was counting number of the top 20 pitchers (by most IP) over the last 6 years by team drafted players regardless of the year drafted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

What is the indicator of number of pitchers in the bottom right of the graph?  It seems wrong if I am reading it right.

Yes, I believe they missed Tanner Scott's 1.2 IP.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • Wieters was fine.  I was hard on him at times but from a defensive perspective he was great.  It would seem like he'd have to have a hot September to reach the stats that he would each year, but whatever.  His cold spells were abysmal but when he was hot he was a joy to watch. 
    • Something in the analytics must show for Puig that Elias and company see.   You can get him enough at bats as most players don’t play 162 games.  The question is more how long will they keep Diaz down.  If they want him playing full time half the season then Puig makes some sense. I think Mancini will be like a 5 day a week player if you give Stewart a day off a week and Santander a day off every two week and same with Mountcastle you can get Puig 4 days a week and still giving most the at bats to those 4.
    • At the end of the day, you guys are right. The market dictates the value and the market decided he was not worth what he was going to get in arbitration. Whether his previous production and age suggests he SHOULD be worth that, the market decided it was not. 
    • I'm not going to lie, but that is up there for one of the greatest lines in Hangout history.
    • I agree.    If you let Nunez go, it shouldn’t be primarily because of cost.    Now, if you think you can get equivalent or better production for your roster cheaper, that is okay.  But you don’t make your team worse over $2 mm or less.     It’s going to be interesting to see what happens with Nunez.    There’s going to be a lot of players on the market after the non-tender deadline I suspect.    I do think he’ll get a major league contract somewhere and will get above the minimum, but it might be less than he was projected to get in arbitration.     
    • Shaw would not crack our top 30.
    • With the injury histories of Hays, Santander and relative inexperience with mixed results of Mullins and Stewart, I'm not sure we can say that. No Nunez did clear waivers and no one traded for him so perhaps there is something else going on here with him, but the guy has been a pretty productive bat and is just going to be 27 years old next year. Either way, I get what you are saying about Shaw and I agree, I think Elias will end up DFAing him and trying to keep him in the system.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...