Fangraphs: Orioles’ Top 40

[sportsfan8703]

It’s impossible to follow this site and the players, and take FanGraphs list seriously. McKenna is overrated.  How did Diaz go down?  Hays being low. McKenna being so high. 

The positive is that in their eyes we now have 40 guys to do write ups on. I expect that to increase or stay the same with the draft picks and the lack of prospects that will lose their prospect status. 

[Frobby]

17 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

Hard to see what Kremer or Lowther did last year to merit any kind of decrease. 

Reduced velocity for both.    OH dropped Kremer significantly due to that.  He’s been working at Driveline over the winter and hopefully has regained what he lost.   

[Can_of_corn]

11 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

It’s impossible to follow this site and the players, and take FanGraphs list seriously. McKenna is overrated.  How did Diaz go down?  Hays being low. McKenna being so high. 

The positive is that in their eyes we now have 40 guys to do write ups on. I expect that to increase or stay the same with the draft picks and the lack of prospects that will lose their prospect status. 

Diaz had injuries and couldn't get out of AA.

[Frobby]

11 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

It’s impossible to follow this site and the players, and take FanGraphs list seriously. McKenna is overrated.  How did Diaz go down?  Hays being low. McKenna being so high. 

The positive is that in their eyes we now have 40 guys to do write ups on. I expect that to increase or stay the same with the draft picks and the lack of prospects that will lose their prospect status. 

I enjoy getting different opinions.    Nobody’s right about prospects 100% of the time, or even 80%.     I tend to trust the OH rankings most because the site is exclusively focused on one franchise and puts more resources into its rankings than any site with national coverage can do.   But I’m certainly open to the idea that there can and will be instances where OH overrates or underrates a prospect and some other source’s evaluation turns out to be the more accurate one.    

[Ripken]

I've seen Hall pitch a few times.  If he can find the strike zone more often he could be very good.  Stuff is legit.

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, Eric-OH said:

I’m glad to have them but trust us a little bit more because of the reasons you said. Yes, we’re biased and maybe that leaks into our opinion but I like the OH consensus more than the non-OH.

When I saw Kremer lower it didn’t make me think too much had changed in his profile, but is it possible that he just slightly underperformed the expectations that he built with an excellent 2018?  Is Lowther that different?  I think despite the velocity change you cited that both of these guys will get their chance to start proving who they are this year.  

There are two aspects to these lists: (1) ranking the order of the players, and (2) putting grades on their skills.    The way I see it, OH has no real potential bias in the first task.    If they think Diaz is a better prospect than McKenna, so be it; the fact that the evaluators are Oriole fans has nothing to do with that.    The second task, grading the players, is where bias could creep in.    OH might rank a player’s potential to be a good major leaguer more highly than a national publication would, because as Orioles fans we want them to be good.    Generally, Fangraphs tends to be a tough grader, not just for us, but for all teams.   OH currently ranks 10 Orioles prospects as having a future value of 50 or higher: Fangraphs only ranks four Orioles prospects 50 or higher.    Of course, the OH definition of what 50 means (average regular, back end starter or low end closer/elite set-up reliever) might be slightly different than what Fangraphs means, too.

[hoosiers]

Overall, one has to think that this has been a year of pretty strong progress - 18 new additions to our list including a solid 8 from the draft and 2 from the Rule V.  It would seem the biggest addition to the system would be a player receiving a 50 grade from below that.  If someone in the organization improve their prospect status like that in the new year, it would really juice the system. 

It would be nice to add another 8 from the 2020 draft including a possible 55 with our first round pick.

Imagine in a couple of years when we have eight to ten plus international guys (averaging 2 per year) developed from our own system added to that list. 

A Mancini trade that adds a player with 50+ would also be a nice addition to the system.  

Folks who think it is too early to grade the new front office because we won't know who pans out and who doesn't for years should be able to look at the year-over-year progress and be impressed, IMO.

[LookitsPuck]

Encouraging, but also depressing on how/what the industry thinks of what the O’s got out of the Britton, Gausman, Machado, Britton trades. 

[LookinUp]

On 2/5/2020 at 11:26 PM, MurphDogg said:

McKenna ...

From June 5th through the end of the season last year he had a .248/.338/.386 line in a league where the average line was .238/.311/.366 while he was more than 2 years younger than the average Eastern League player.

...he has elite speed and plus defense at a premium position.

 

I'm not sure that being slightly better than the average AA hitter is a feather in his cap. That doesn't get you very far in the majors. You're right though, he does have age and defensive value on his side. Still, that bat needs to be more than a little better than AA league average for him to be worth a ML role as anything other than a pinch runner and late inning defensive replacement. That essentially makes him a September call up type, not a guy you hand a position to.

 

[MurphDogg]

9 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I'm not sure that being slightly better than the average AA hitter is a feather in his cap. That doesn't get you very far in the majors. You're right though, he does have age and defensive value on his side. Still, that bat needs to be more than a little better than AA league average for him to be worth a ML role as anything other than a pinch runner and late inning defensive replacement. That essentially makes him a September call up type, not a guy you hand a position to.

 

He's 22 and he had a mediocre year partially due to changing his swing to sell out for power.

Although he has been struggling with the bat, he takes walks which is part of why I wouldn't write him off just yet.

[Tony-OH]

On 2/5/2020 at 11:26 PM, MurphDogg said:

McKenna was also very good for 78 PA's in Glendale in the Arizona Fall League in 2018, with a .344/.474/.590 line, his line was .296/.374/.473 over his last 233 PA's at Delmarva in 2017.

From June 5th through the end of the season last year he had a .248/.338/.386 line in a league where the average line was .238/.311/.366 while he was more than 2 years younger than the average Eastern League player.

He has had his struggles with the bat but he has elite speed and plus defense at a premium position. He has higher upside than many players and if you value upside, ranking him above players with middle/back of the rotation ceilings makes sense.

Big year coming up for him this year, definitely one to watch.

 

Well there's your rosy Fangraph outlook no doubt. I've seen him a lot, and although he has raw tools to work from that I like, his lack of consistency, penchant to lose focus in the field and on the base paths, and inability to make adjustments to breaking balls is a concern. Oh and by the way, just because he sucked a little less than the weak Eastern League hitters last year is not something to pound your chest over.

At the end the day, he's nowhere near the type of prospect as Hays who when healthy, and at a year younger than McKenna, slashed .330/.367/.594/.961 at Bowie vs the .232/.321/.365/.686 McKenna put up.

Hays has a better arm and maybe just a tick below McKenna's raw speed.

Saying that, I think McKenna has a chance to keep developing and if he can find consistency and mature a little on the field, he could end up a useful big leaguer, but I don't see him anywhere near Hays as a prospect, and Diaz's advanced hit tool gives him the nod over him as well though I'm not as high on Diaz's overall game as Hays.

 

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, LookitsPuck said:

Encouraging, but also depressing on how/what the industry thinks of what the O’s got out of the Britton, Gausman, Machado, Britton trades. 

 The people who made those trades are gone, never to be seen again, so rejoice and look forward.

[Tony-OH]

On 2/5/2020 at 5:41 PM, Frobby said:

Seems like they really like his speed and defense.   Interestingly, the tool grades are essentially identical to the OH grades. FG first, OH second:

Hit: 45/50, 40/45

Raw power: 45/45, 50/50

Game power: 30/35, 40/45

Speed: 70/70, 70/70

Field: 55/60, 55/60

Throw: 50/50, 50/50

FG likes his hit tool better than OH, OH likes his power more than FG.

McKenna hit an opposite field home run about 420 feet in one game I watched last year. He definitely has 50 raw power. 

[LookinUp]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

McKenna hit an opposite field home run about 420 feet in one game I watched last year. He definitely has 50 raw power. 

I have to admit, that raw power rating caught me off guard too. I saw a guy who was afraid to attack a pitch. He looked totally over matched. I guess that's the difference between a hit tool and raw power. 

[Frobby]

I had a look at how Fangraphs' grades of our players compare to their grades of the other 12 teams they have graded so far.  Fangraphs grades every player they consider to be a 35+ grade or higher.

First the good news: Fangraphs deemed the O's to have 40 players worthy of a 35+ grade or higher, tied for the 4th highest total of the 13 teams they've graded.    The teams ahead of the O's are Arizona (47), Minnesota (42) and Miami (41), and Houston is tied with us at 40.     Breaking it down further, only 8 players have been graded a 60, one of whom is Rutschman.    Only 10 are graded 55, one of whom is Rodriguez.    There are 51 players ranked 50 or higher (almost exactly four per team), and we have our four with Hall and Mountcastle weighing in at 50.    Another 68 players (5+ per team) are ranked 45 or higher, and the O's have six of those: Henderson, Diaz, Hays, McKenna, Baumann and Stowers.   So, I think you'd say we are very solid in the upper tiers -- slightly above average, but not exceptional.   

In the middle tier, 40 and 40+, we are a little thin, especially on the offensive side.    The average team has 16-17 players in this tier, while the O's only are at 14, 10 of whom are pitchers (Kremer, Lowther, Akin, Pop, Zimmermann, Rom Harvey, Bailey, Bradish and Wells).   The hitters are Hall, Grenier, Bannon and Hernaiz.

The bottom tier of 35+ is where the O's have a ton of depth.     The average team has 10 of these, but we have 16.   Again, we are heavy on pitching there, with 10 of these being pitchers.

Overall, we skew towards pitching.   So far Fangraphs has graded 464 players from the 13 teams (35-36 per team), exactly evenly divided between hitters and pitchers.     But the O's have 17 hitters and 23 pitchers on their list.    As noted, that leaning really occurs at the middle and bottom end, where 20 of our 30 players ranked 40+ or lower are pitchers.    At the upper levels, we actually have more hitters than pitchers.

Overall, if you give weight to Fangraphs, our system looks a little above average but not upper-tier yet.   Several of the top farm systems, like the Rays, Padres and White Sox, have not been graded by Fangraphs yet.    Of the teams graded so far, I'd say Arizona and Miami come out best.    Arizona lacks a 60 grade prospect, but has  a 55, five 50's, five 45+ and two 45's.      Miami also lacks a 60, but has a 55, six 50's, a 45+  and seven 45's.   (So be careful what you say about how awful Jeter is at running that organization.)   I would not say there's another team among the 13 graded so far that clearly has better grades than ours, though you could argue about Minnesota and Detroit.   Atlanta is an interesting one too, with excellent top end talent but very little behind it (only 27 players earned 35+).      The other teams graded so far are Colorado, San Francisco, Houston, NY Mets, Washington, St. Louis and Boston.

Needless to say, I do not entirely agree with how Fangraphs has ranked our players, but it is nevertheless interesting to see how we rate against other organizations in their eyes.  I'll update this periodically as Fangraphs grades more teams.