Jump to content
interloper

Confirmed: Harvey is bullpen only

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Ridgway22 said:

Good info, and a very sobering reality.

I don't mean that post in any kind of demeaning way, Tony certainly knows the reality of the draft. But sometimes I think it's useful to remind the community of that.  We tend to think of draft picks in the top 20% of their slot as terrible disappointments.  And they are in a way, because even for the highest picks the odds of being a star are not great.  

Markakis is a good example.  At 24 he was a coming star.  He had a 7-win season.  With a little growth or even just consistency he was on path to be an MVP candidate, and with a little durability maybe even a HOF candidate.  But he never approached that level again, and has been a kind of average outfielder for a decade.  And he's still the 4th-best #7 pick of all time. Less than a third of #7 picks end up with a career that's more valuable than Chris Davis' best season.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

Yes, it is a rare occurrence....but occasionally teams do somehow get a Justin Verlander, a Clayton Kershaw, a Gerrit Cole, aMax Scherzer, a Zack Greinke etc....you know, a horse, a guy that is a TOR.......just not us, ever. 

The Orioles had (easily) the best #20 overall pick of all time in Mike Mussina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, atomic said:

Yeah Gausman and Bundy aren’t where we failed. Hobgood and Matusz were the failures

Hopefully Hunter Harvey can provide some decent relief innings this year.  Maybe Castro, Givens and Harvey can provide a solid last 3 innings for the team.

 

 

 

I suspect Harvey will become an epic closer, starting this year. His name will join the likes of Greg Olson, Tippy Martinez, etc. You can just see it coming.  (Talk about putting some lofty expectations on the poor kid.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't mean that post in any kind of demeaning way, Tony certainly knows the reality of the draft. But sometimes I think it's useful to remind the community of that.  We tend to think of draft picks in the top 20% of their slot as terrible disappointments.  And they are in a way, because even for the highest picks the odds of being a star are not great.  

Markakis is a good example.  At 24 he was a coming star.  He had a 7-win season.  With a little growth or even just consistency he was on path to be an MVP candidate, and with a little durability maybe even a HOF candidate.  But he never approached that level again, and has been a kind of average outfielder for a decade.  And he's still the 4th-best #7 pick of all time. Less than a third of #7 picks end up with a career that's more valuable than Chris Davis' best season.

Many people also underestimate the fixations on meaningless features that old-school scouting staffs had/did have that directly impact the WAR average for a draft slot.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Many people also underestimate the fixations on meaningless features that old-school scouting staffs had/did have that directly impact the WAR average for a draft slot.

Elias picked guys back to back first overall that provided zero WAR.  I think no one has figured out anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, atomic said:

Elias picked guys back to back first overall that provided zero WAR.  I think no one has figured out anything.

2 pitchers and one who is really just an unfortunate story (literally everything, anecdotal or stats based pointed to him being a good player) doesn't really dissuade me from believing that the MLB draft, like any sports draft ever, can't be relatively figured out.

Besides, evaluating pre-draft talent using post-draft metrics is flawed. At the time of draft, I don't think you'd find a person that argued against Appel as the top pick. Prospects on average in every sport has such a minuscule chance to reach all-star or above levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, MountUrCastle said:

2 pitchers and one who is really just an unfortunate story (literally everything, anecdotal or stats based pointed to him being a good player) doesn't really dissuade me from believing that the MLB draft, like any sports draft ever, can't be relatively figured out.

Besides, evaluating pre-draft talent using post-draft metrics is flawed. At the time of draft, I don't think you'd find a person that argued against Appel as the top pick. Prospects on average in every sport has such a minuscule chance to reach all-star or above levels.

I think the issue is simply whether teams have gotten better at drafting or not over the decades.    The problem is, it would be hard to evaluate the last decade, because many of the drafted players are either still in the minors or in the early part of their careers.

Share this post


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

I think the issue is simply whether teams have gotten better at drafting or not over the decades.    The problem is, it would be hard to evaluate the last decade, because many of the drafted players are either still in the minors or in the early part of their careers.

You could look at 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s.  That'd be a hell of an undertaking.

I'm assuming that yes, teams have gotten better at drafting.  But I think the increases would be marginal.

Share this post


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

2 pitchers and one who is really just an unfortunate story (literally everything, anecdotal or stats based pointed to him being a good player) doesn't really dissuade me from believing that the MLB draft, like any sports draft ever, can't be relatively figured out.

Besides, evaluating pre-draft talent using post-draft metrics is flawed. At the time of draft, I don't think you'd find a person that argued against Appel as the top pick. Prospects on average in every sport has such a minuscule chance to reach all-star or above levels.

Let’s not discuss facts is what you are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

You could look at 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s.  That'd be a hell of an undertaking.

I'm assuming that yes, teams have gotten better at drafting.  But I think the increases would be marginal.

It wouldn’t be too overwhelming if you looked at, say, the first five rounds.    That would be about 250 data points.    However, it does get complicated because the rules about sandwich picks and comp picks of various kinds have changed many times.    

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bradysburns said:

I suspect Harvey will become an epic closer, starting this year. His name will join the likes of Greg Olson, Tippy Martinez, etc. You can just see it coming.  (Talk about putting some lofty expectations on the poor kid.)

As much I love both Tippy and Olson.

None of them was the epic closer that Britton was when he was here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

As much I love both Tippy and Olson.

None of them was the epic closer that Britton was when he was here.

 

Yes and no.   Britton at his peak was the best closer we ever had, but his peak wasn’t very long.    Basically, three years.    I’d still say he was our best overall, but he’d have been more epic if he hadn’t spent so much time on the IL in 2017-18.

Share this post


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

Yes and no.   Britton at his peak was the best closer we ever had, but his peak wasn’t very long.    Basically, three years.    I’d still say he was our best overall, but he’d have been more epic if he hadn’t spent so much time on the IL in 2017-18.

Valid point.

Share this post


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

It wouldn’t be too overwhelming if you looked at, say, the first five rounds.    That would be about 250 data points.    However, it does get complicated because the rules about sandwich picks and comp picks of various kinds have changed many times.    

For all the people who complain about WAR, this is WAR's wheelhouse.  How much value has come out of the first round in the last five years?  How much in 1965-70?  How many players in the first round never make it to the majors compared to 30 years ago?  bb-ref and WAR make these kind of questions answerable.  In 1990, no chance, it would have been mostly subjective and ridiculously hard to compile.

Not that I'm volunteering...

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

2021 Minor League Depth Chart

2021 Prospect Power Rankings

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...