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  

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 119 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

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

    • Just because a player is worth a certain amount of money according to WAR, doesn't mean teams are going to line up to pay a player that amount. A win is worth what, $8 or $9 million according to WAR? So according to that formula, Nunez is worth somewhere between $4 and $9 million. But most teams don't pay players worth two wins or less anything near their market rate. Sure, there might be an exception or two, or someone might be worth two wins or less who's finishing out an expensive contract that was priced based on them being worth more wins than that. Successful teams (without enormous budgets, and even then they still generally don't do this) pay free agent stars and superstars their market worth by WAR, and try to get the two win and under guys for dirt cheap to fill out the roster. This is what is meant by WAR not being linear. Guys like Renato Nunez aren't going to sign for anywhere from $4-$9 million, because it's not hard to stumble around in your farm system or on waivers and find guys for league minimum who have a good chance to be worth a similar amount. All of MLB just passed on the opportunity to pay Nunez a $2-$3 million salary and control his rights for two more seasons after next for the cost of a waiver claim. I imagine if he signs with a team, it will be for less than that amount. You can talk until you're blue in the face about how the formula dictates he's worth that, but if no one is willing to pay a price because they can get the same thing for less money somewhere else, then it's asinine to insist that they should have paid him $2-$3 million
    • Nevin is a prospect at 23 years old.  1B is his best position.  He will probably stays on the 40 man roster all year. Shaw is an organizational player at 27.  His best position is Bat thus DH.  He is likely to be DFA'd to get him off the 40 man  roster and to Norfolk.
    • Barry Bonds did ok...    
    • If Ayala can improve his shooting that would be awesome.  Today was a good start.  I think Wiggins needs to improve his handles and slashing game to be the scorer that would need.  His catch and shoot game is pure.   Gonna need Marial to improve his offensive game as well.  We already know he will defend the rim (theoretically).  Needs to work on his conditioning.  Ultimately I think our lack of interior presence will be our demise, unless Smith and Scott really ball their face off. We have that Swiss guy Revas as well, I'm not expecting much from him though.  The lack of backcourt depth also might hurt unless Dockery and Smart grow quickly.  Can Ayala be the primary ball handler and distributor?  Maybe. I don't think this team will fall off as badly as most think.  Like you said, Morsell/Ayala/Wiggins will keep us in most games.  If Scott and Hamilton (who was a top 100 recruit going into BC) can step up then I think we could surprise some people.  I see us sneaking into the tournament as a 7-10 seed.  
    • It’s a supply and demand thing.  Whether someone offers X amount of dollars is irrelevant.  The Os And their structure, could use his bat and his production.   Most teams don’t have that combo of at bats and money they can spend on a player with his skill set.     The Os do...and the idea that other teams chose not to do it is irrelevant to his value to this organization.  The idea that they may be looking into Puig (conjecture) and brought on a LH DH type at REINFORCES the idea that this is salary driven, not producing driven imo.     My only argument with this decision is that this isn’t solely or even largely driven by roster management despite what Elias says.  He is lying for management.
    • Your tone of authority when you are clearly in a fog is admirable.  Anyone who thought his arbitration number was a bargain, as you suggest, could have offered a warm body to secure his services before he hit the open market.  What won't make sense is if any team offers him 2M or more now that he's available to any team that wants him.
    • There are three vaccines, possibly four or five, if you trust the Chinese and Russians. Every factory on the world is going to be producing them. We may delay the start of spring training(only three months away) but I don’t think the season will start late. We may have distanced crowds, though.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...