2B drafted #1 or #2 since 2000

[wildcard]

1) Dustin Askley #2 2009   2B/OF        Played 6 seasons in the majors.   Career stats  241//304/367/671

College: U of North Carolina   Career stats   412/487/648/1135

2) Rickie Weeks  #2 2003    2b          Played 14 season in the majors    Career stats   246/344/420/764    161HR.  132 SB

College: Southern U, won 2 NCAA batting titles comping the best career betake average in college history and earning the Golden Spikes Award as the best college player.  As a sophomore in 2002, he batted .495 with 20 home runs, winning the NCAADivision I batting title. The next year, he batted .479 with 16 home runs, winning a second straight batting title and finishing his career with a .465 batting average (254 of 546), highest in NCAA history

[hoosiers]

There is such a lack of logic to threads like this.  The thread speaks to an idea that I find totally non-sensical - that the ultimate success (or summary of the major league chances) of the player is more related to his defensive position or his draft position - especially regarding hitters.

Dustin Ackley was a very highly acclaimed high school and college hitter - about as accomplished as prospect get.  He played OF and 1B in college (including a brief trial at 2B).  Ackley had TJ surgery while at UNC which moved him from the OF to 1B.  According to the two draft profiles I found, Ackley was projected at 1B ("Will Clark with speed") and CF which makes his inclusion here quite dubious.  It was the Mariners who moved Ackley to 2B.  Ackley sailed through the minors, was the #5 prospect per MLB heading into 2011. and finished sixth in ROY voting with a 120 OPS+ in half a season at age 23.  Ackley followed with OPS plus in mostly full seasons for the next three years of 77, 90, 99.  Ackley was out of baseball early in his age 28 season due to shoulder separation/torn labrum.  So, Ackley was not a 2B in college, not a 2B in the two draft write-ups below, yet was as proficient and acclaimed a HS and college hitter as one will find and maintained top prospect status until his major league debut.  Ackley's issues seem much more injury-related than anything else but I think it is very fair to conclude that Ackley's major league success, or lack thereof, was a product of his defensive home - which really wasn't 2B - lol.

http://projectprospect.com/article/2009/09/17/dustin-ackley-scouting-report

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/draft/y2009/reports.jsp?content=ackley

Rickie Weeks wouldn't be such a bad outcome for Austin Martin - particularly if Martin is healthy.  Weeks dominated in college at a small school (Southern) with a strong combination of power/speed loved by scouts.  Weeks maintained his top prospect status in 2004 and 2005 inside Baseball America's Top 10 prospects and in 2005 torched Triple A Nashville to an OPS near 1.100 before making being promoted to the majors for good.  Weeks spent considerable time in the minors dealing with injuries (2004 hamstring) and that continued in the majors in a major way (see attached link).  Still, Weeks produced 2.2 WAR (Baseball Reference) in both his age 24 and age 25 major league seasons.  Weeks was limited to 37 games in 2009, his age 26 season, and still produced 1.9 WAR.  The next two years, Weeks produced WAR of 3.6 and 3.0.  Note that Weeks career WAR per Baseball Reference of 11.5 is a result of a very strong OWAR (near 25) being cut in half by poor defense (dwar over -11).  A different front office might have moved the uber-athletic Weeks to the OF for a much more productive career overall.

https://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/2/5/1975594/career-profile-rickie-weeks

I will start my summary with the following.  What profiles existed for Ackley and Weeks that they should be compared with Martin?  Very little.  Were Martin and Ackley failed prospects because they played 2B as professionals?  Not in my opinion.  Both were superior college hitters who maintained top prospect status as minor leaguers and both reached the majors rapidly.  Both had major league careers impacted significantly by injury.  Do Ackley and Weeks serve as cautionary tales as having profiles of players drafted too high or who might not fulfill their draft position?  Not in my opinion.  

[wildcard]

2 hours ago, hoosiers said:

There is such a lack of logic to threads like this.  The thread speaks to an idea that I find totally non-sensical - that the ultimate success (or summary of the major league chances) of the player is more related to his defensive position or his draft position - especially regarding hitters.

Dustin Ackley was a very highly acclaimed high school and college hitter - about as accomplished as prospect get.  He played OF and 1B in college (including a brief trial at 2B).  Ackley had TJ surgery while at UNC which moved him from the OF to 1B.  According to the two draft profiles I found, Ackley was projected at 1B ("Will Clark with speed") and CF which makes his inclusion here quite dubious.  It was the Mariners who moved Ackley to 2B.  Ackley sailed through the minors, was the #5 prospect per MLB heading into 2011. and finished sixth in ROY voting with a 120 OPS+ in half a season at age 23.  Ackley followed with OPS plus in mostly full seasons for the next three years of 77, 90, 99.  Ackley was out of baseball early in his age 28 season due to shoulder separation/torn labrum.  So, Ackley was not a 2B in college, not a 2B in the two draft write-ups below, yet was as proficient and acclaimed a HS and college hitter as one will find and maintained top prospect status until his major league debut.  Ackley's issues seem much more injury-related than anything else but I think it is very fair to conclude that Ackley's major league success, or lack thereof, was a product of his defensive home - which really wasn't 2B - lol.

http://projectprospect.com/article/2009/09/17/dustin-ackley-scouting-report

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/draft/y2009/reports.jsp?content=ackley

Rickie Weeks wouldn't be such a bad outcome for Austin Martin - particularly if Martin is healthy.  Weeks dominated in college at a small school (Southern) with a strong combination of power/speed loved by scouts.  Weeks maintained his top prospect status in 2004 and 2005 inside Baseball America's Top 10 prospects and in 2005 torched Triple A Nashville to an OPS near 1.100 before making being promoted to the majors for good.  Weeks spent considerable time in the minors dealing with injuries (2004 hamstring) and that continued in the majors in a major way (see attached link).  Still, Weeks produced 2.2 WAR (Baseball Reference) in both his age 24 and age 25 major league seasons.  Weeks was limited to 37 games in 2009, his age 26 season, and still produced 1.9 WAR.  The next two years, Weeks produced WAR of 3.6 and 3.0.  Note that Weeks career WAR per Baseball Reference of 11.5 is a result of a very strong OWAR (near 25) being cut in half by poor defense (dwar over -11).  A different front office might have moved the uber-athletic Weeks to the OF for a much more productive career overall.

https://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/2/5/1975594/career-profile-rickie-weeks

I will start my summary with the following.  What profiles existed for Ackley and Weeks that they should be compared with Martin?  Very little.  Were Martin and Ackley failed prospects because they played 2B as professionals?  Not in my opinion.  Both were superior college hitters who maintained top prospect status as minor leaguers and both reached the majors rapidly.  Both had major league careers impacted significantly by injury.  Do Ackley and Weeks serve as cautionary tales as having profiles of players drafted too high or who might not fulfill their draft position?  Not in my opinion.  

Nice writeup.

As DrungoHazewood said in another thread, its rare to see a 2B selected #2.   You make even more case for that by showing that Ackley was not a 2B in college though he was moved to 2B by the Mariners in his first pro season.   Of course, Martin was not a 2B this spring for his college team either.   3B/CF were his two most used positions.   But as  Jim Callis points out Martin had trouble throwing from 3B which moved him to CF.  But he is reported to be an above average runner not a speediest which makes  him more likely to be a 2B as a pro.

As far as Weeks is concerned he had a lot more power that Martin projects to have.   That made it easier for Weeks to stick in the majors.   Martin does not appear to have that going for him.

Martin's pluses appear to be a strong OBP, smarts and leadership ability.   That seems pretty thin for a #2 pick.  I am surprised he is ranked as high as he is.

From the two posts I made at 2B and pitching draftees this decade, it appears that pitchers have as much or more chance of sticking in the majors as 2B.   So Lacy and Hancock seem like they should be ranked as well as Martin.   Maybe higher because to the position they play.

[hoosiers]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

From the two posts I made at 2B and pitching draftees this decade, it appears that pitchers have as much or more chance of sticking in the majors as 2B.   So Lacy and Hancock seem like they should be ranked as well as Martin.   Maybe higher because to the position they play.

Do you really believe this?  The success or failure of Martin, Lacy and Hancock as top prospects and potential major leaguers is impacted by where they are taken in a draft?  This is absolute non-sense. 

[wildcard]

1 minute ago, hoosiers said:

Do you really believe this?  The success or failure of Martin, Lacy and Hancock as top prospects and potential major leaguers is impacted by where they are taken in a draft?  This is absolute non-sense. 

No that is not what I am saying.

I am saying that I don't see the speed or power that would normally be seen in a #2 pick in Martin.  And #2 players are normally SS, 3B, OF,  P or C because the skill required to play those positions.   2B is normally someone that can't play SS or 3B.   Look at Alberto.   He does not have the arm for 3B nor the range and arm for SS.    So his best positions 2B.    You don't need a #2 pick to find that kind of player.

TOR Pitchers on the other hand are hard to find.  So Lacy and Hancock are more attractive at #2 to me.  But then again I am not making the pick.

[hoosiers]

Wildcard, I suggest you look for more articles on Austin Martin to get an understanding on why his is considered by most 1A or 1B to Torkelson.  Lacy is an easily justified pick at 1:2, but not because of the negatives you are providing to Martin's profile.  Your reasoning regarding these Martin negatives are not shared in any professional opinion I have read on him.  

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, hoosiers said:

Wildcard, I suggest you look for more articles on Austin Martin to get an understanding on why his is considered by most 1A or 1B to Torkelson.  Lacy is an easily justified pick at 1:2, but not because of the negatives you are providing to Martin's profile.  Your reasoning regarding these Martin negatives are not shared in any professional opinion I have read on him.  

Well, at least we agree that :any has justified a 1:2 pick.   I understand why Martin is valued high by scouts.   Leader on a top college program.   High numbers for average and OBP.   Its an easy pick to go with the flow.

But I see mid teens power.  average to slightly above average speed.   A position that can be fulled with lesser picks.   He's doesn't have what I want in a #2 pick when there are starting pitchers that can be had that maybe TOR guys.

[hoosiers]

The writeup of Martin in Fangraphs (which currently rates only Torkelson and Martin as 55s, everyone else lower):

TLDR

Martin's approach and the lift in his swing should enable all of his relatively modest raw power to play in games, and while his future defensive home is unclear it'll probably be at a premium position or as a Swiss Army Knife who plays several.

Full Report

If anyone ascended toward the top of the draft class late during the 2019 spring, it was Martin, who was electric during the postseason. He already had two traits that together make for a strong profile in that Martin is likely to play a premium position (though where exactly is up for debate, his arm was not great early in 2020 and he moved from 3B to CF) and has a plus-plus feel for the strike zone. He had more walks than strikeouts as a sophomore and started hitting for power late in that season, something his combination of selectivity and gorgeous, natural swing loft give him an excellent chance of doing in pro ball despite middling raw juice. Martin doesn't have huge physical tools at first blush, but he is a sneaky plus runner and should be fine in center field whether playing there full time or as part of a multi-positional package.

WC, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are providing reservations to Martin's profile to this board not shared by any respected professional evaluating guru or service as impacting Martin's overall rating. 

Have to love the irony of you quoting a possible negative about Martin from Callis as a reason to not draft Martin in another thread, but leave out the most important part of Callis evaluation - the draft's best pure hitter.  No place for that at 1:2?

[wildcard]

15 hours ago, hoosiers said:

The writeup of Martin in Fangraphs (which currently rates only Torkelson and Martin as 55s, everyone else lower):

TLDR

Martin's approach and the lift in his swing should enable all of his relatively modest raw power to play in games, and while his future defensive home is unclear it'll probably be at a premium position or as a Swiss Army Knife who plays several.

Full Report

If anyone ascended toward the top of the draft class late during the 2019 spring, it was Martin, who was electric during the postseason. He already had two traits that together make for a strong profile in that Martin is likely to play a premium position (though where exactly is up for debate, his arm was not great early in 2020 and he moved from 3B to CF) and has a plus-plus feel for the strike zone. He had more walks than strikeouts as a sophomore and started hitting for power late in that season, something his combination of selectivity and gorgeous, natural swing loft give him an excellent chance of doing in pro ball despite middling raw juice. Martin doesn't have huge physical tools at first blush, but he is a sneaky plus runner and should be fine in center field whether playing there full time or as part of a multi-positional package.

WC, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are providing reservations to Martin's profile to this board not shared by any respected professional evaluating guru or service as impacting Martin's overall rating. 

Have to love the irony of you quoting a possible negative about Martin from Callis as a reason to not draft Martin in another thread, but leave out the most important part of Callis evaluation - the draft's best pure hitter.  No place for that at 1:2?

I agree that Martin is a plus hitter for OBP.  not for power though.   When someone is described as a sneaky plus runner what does that mean?   A plus runner is a plus runner.  What is the sneaky all about?  

I just don't think a plus OBP hitter whose best position is 2B  is a #2 pick.   Not compared to a TOR pitcher.

[ShoelesJoe]

I understand that this is a highlight video, and none of these plays are “amazing” in the Machado definition of the word. But Martin is smooth and in control through every one of these plays. Not a clunky step to be found. His throws from 3rd don’t appear to be particularly strong, but he has a quick release that makes up for it. 
 

 

 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

20 hours ago, wildcard said:

I agree that Martin is a plus hitter for OBP.  not for power though.   When someone is described as a sneaky plus runner what does that mean?   A plus runner is a plus runner.  What is the sneaky all about?  

I just don't think a plus OBP hitter whose best position is 2B  is a #2 pick.   Not compared to a TOR pitcher.

What are the odds that one of the pitchers you want to take are going to be the next Mussina or Verlander or Strasburg or even Bedard?

This century pitchers taken #2 overall are:
2017 Hunter Greene (still very young but missed 2019)
2014 Tyler Kolek, 23 yet to play in AA
2011 Danny Hultzen (195 professional innings, 3 in MLB, in nine years)
2010 Jameson Taillon (solid MLB starter)
2006 Greg Reynolds (out of baseball since 2016, 7.01 career MLB ERA)
2004 Verlander
2001 Mark Prior (dominant for a few years, but 657 career innings, out of baseball since 2006)
2000 Adam Johnson (30 ER in 26 MLB innings)

Nine pitchers taken #3 overall in same timeframe.  None with a MLB ERA under 4.00.  Best is probably Trevor Bauer.
The top #4 overall picks among pitchers include Gavin Floyd, Dylan Bundy, and Kevin Gausman.

Even among the eight pitchers taken #1 overall since 2000 there have only been three top of the rotation starters in Strasburg, Cole, and Price.

Seems like the most likely career for a pitcher taken in the top few picks of the draft is someone like Kevin Gausman.  Not a TOR starter.  It's about as likely that your pitcher ends up with Brian Matuz' career as Jameson Taillon's.  That's what you should probably compare Martin to. 
 

[hoosiers]

Drungo, you are wasting your time as I did.  You think WC is going to apply the same critical eye to the SP write-ups as he has for Martin?  He is throwing out TOR comps for both Lacy and for Hancock.

[wildcard]

57 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

What are the odds that one of the pitchers you want to take are going to be the next Mussina or Verlander or Strasburg or even Bedard?

This century pitchers taken #2 overall are:
2017 Hunter Greene (still very young but missed 2019)
2014 Tyler Kolek, 23 yet to play in AA
2011 Danny Hultzen (195 professional innings, 3 in MLB, in nine years)
2010 Jameson Taillon (solid MLB starter)
2006 Greg Reynolds (out of baseball since 2016, 7.01 career MLB ERA)
2004 Verlander
2001 Mark Prior (dominant for a few years, but 657 career innings, out of baseball since 2006)
2000 Adam Johnson (30 ER in 26 MLB innings)

Nine pitchers taken #3 overall in same timeframe.  None with a MLB ERA under 4.00.  Best is probably Trevor Bauer.
The top #4 overall picks among pitchers include Gavin Floyd, Dylan Bundy, and Kevin Gausman.

Even among the eight pitchers taken #1 overall since 2000 there have only been three top of the rotation starters in Strasburg, Cole, and Price.

Seems like the most likely career for a pitcher taken in the top few picks of the draft is someone like Kevin Gausman.  Not a TOR starter.  It's about as likely that your pitcher ends up with Brian Matuz' career as Jameson Taillon's.  That's what you should probably compare Martin to. 
 

I already did compare Martin to the top pitchers based on the history of draft since 2000.

Basically whether the O's pick Martin, Hancock or Lacy there is a 50/50 chance that he will have a successful major league career.

 

[wildcard]

26 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

Drungo, you are wasting your time as I did.  You think WC is going to apply the same critical eye to the SP write-ups as he has for Martin?  He is throwing out TOR comps for both Lacy and for Hancock.

Lacy and Hancock are rated the best pitcher in this years draft.  Do you have any data that says they will not be TOR starters?

[DrungoHazewood]

12 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Lacy and Hancock are rated the best pitcher in this years draft.  Do you have any data that says they will not be TOR starters?

Yes, the last 20 years of history that unambiguously shows that the actual historic rate of pitchers taken in the top four picks of the draft becoming TOR starters is something like one in 10.  There's about a 90% chance that Lacy or Hancock do not become top starters.