2B drafted #1 or #2 since 2000

[wildcard]

45 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

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.

And there is probably a 90% chance the Martin does not become a perennial All-Star.   

Fact is that if Lacy or Hancock are a #3 pitcher and Martin is an average 2B the O's need the #3 pitcher more than an average second baseman.

 

[Redskins Rick]

Nonsense thread started by Troll.

Nothing to see, move on.

Pass the Kool Aid pitcher.

 

[hoosiers]

4 hours 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?

I looked at three writeups and don't see any that say are TOR starters or that they are highly likely to become TOR starters.  You are the one advocated that they could be TOR starters because of their draft position.  Most write-ups point out what they need to improve upon to become a TOR.

I like Martin and Lacy.  I would not have a problem with the Os drafting either.  

I think the logic you have used to repeatedly downgrade Martin (esp in light of a significant majority of rating services, including sources you quote, that rate Martin higher) while latching onto best case scenario upside for any pitcher taken 1:2 is poor.

[hoosiers]

3 hours ago, wildcard said:

And there is probably a 90% chance the Martin does not become a perennial All-Star.   

Fact is that if Lacy or Hancock are a #3 pitcher and Martin is an average 2B the O's need the #3 pitcher more than an average second baseman.

 

Every team in MLB would take a #3 SP over an average 2B, but there is not a writeup from any guru that I am familiar with that projects Martin as an average 2B.  Why do you keep posting such?

[Redskins Rick]

8 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

I looked at three writeups and don't see any that say are TOR starters or that they are highly likely to become TOR starters.  You are the one advocated that they could be TOR starters because of their draft position.  Most write-ups point out what they need to improve upon to become a TOR.

I like Martin and Lacy.  I would not have a problem with the Os drafting either.  

I think the logic you have used to repeatedly downgrade Martin (esp in light of a significant majority of rating services, including sources you quote, that rate Martin higher) while latching onto best case scenario upside for any pitcher taken 1:2 is poor.

Ive turned into a Martin fan today and really want to see him do well.

 

[hoosiers]

3 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Ive turned into a Martin fan today and really want to see him do well.

 

I am a fan of both Martin and Lacy.  Most draft experts rate Martin better and most have the Os selecting Martin at 1:2.

One writeup of Lacy says that he has the highest ceiling of any pitcher in this class and the highest likelihood of reaching that ceiling.  That is a tempting description to add alongside the profiles of GrayRod and DLHall.

That said, Drungo points out the historical chances of pitchers being selected so high actually reaching their upside.  Hitters are a safer bet generally and, for all of WC's knocking of Martin defensively, Martin is likely to remain at a premium defensive position.

Further, this is a draft deep in college arms and one where HSers might slide because they haven't been seen as much.  So the Os should have some good options at 30/39 and might be able to take some chances there after selecting the safer top hitter in Martin - at least that is how most experts see it today.

[weams]

4 hours 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. He already gave it to you.  There are essentially no TOR starters.  Certainly neither of those guys have trailing statistics to mandate that they will be. 

 

I like both theses pitchers. I do not see a Ben McDonald here. 

[Redskins Rick]

2 minutes ago, weams said:

Yes. He already gave it to you.  There are essentially no TOR starters.  Certainly neither of those guys have trailing statistics to mandate that they will be.

I like both theses pitchers. I do not see a Ben McDonald here. 

Nobody expected Schilling to be a TOR, but after he figured out how to pitch, after year 4, he was one for several years.

 

[Frobby]

On 5/24/2020 at 10:30 AM, 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.

The road is littered with pitchers who supposedly were TOR.    Lacy was not in anybody’s top 2 last year.   If you pick him, you’re doing it off the four games he pitched this year.    That’s a pretty high stakes gamble.    We don’t even know if his stuff would hold up over a full college season, much less a whole pro season.   He might have more upside than Martin, but he’s far more risky IMO.    Hancock is sort of the flip side; if you pick him, you’re ignoring that he didn’t look so good this spring.    I’m not saying the O’s shouldn’t pick one of them — I’m saying their risk profile is much higher IMO.    But I’m not a pro scout.   Mike Elias is, and he employs a whole raft of them.    I’ll defer to their judgment and not think twice about it.   

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

The road is littered with pitchers who supposedly were TOR.    Lacy was not in anybody’s top 2 last year.   If you pick him, you’re doing it off the four games he pitched this year.    That’s a pretty high stakes gamble.    We don’t even know if his stuff would hold up over a full college season, much less a whole pro season.   He might have more upside than Martin, but he’s far more risky IMO.    Hancock is sort of the flip side; if you pick him, you’re ignoring that he didn’t look so good this spring.    I’m not saying the O’s shouldn’t pick one of them — I’m saying their risk profile is much higher IMO.    But I’m not a pro scout.   Mike Elias is, and he employs a whole raft of them.    I’ll defer to their judgment and not think twice about it.   

Lets  not act like Lacy came out of nowhere.  In 2019 he had 15 starts and 88.2 IP.    His ERA was 2.13,  130 K,   1.038 WHIP.   He improved on that his spring.   His body of work includes 19 starts over a year and a month of 2020.   I don't think any scout is just evaluating him over 4 starts.

[DrungoHazewood]

On 5/25/2020 at 9:27 AM, wildcard said:

And there is probably a 90% chance the Martin does not become a perennial All-Star.   

Fact is that if Lacy or Hancock are a #3 pitcher and Martin is an average 2B the O's need the #3 pitcher more than an average second baseman.

 

At this moment.  But you never draft to need, you draft the best player and then figure it out in three or five or seven years when the guy is ready.

Actually, the Orioles' biggest need for a very, very long time has been someone who gets on base a lot.  Hits for average, draws walks, sets the table. They haven't had a consistenly good leadoff hitter since... Brady?  Roberts was good, but never had a .400 OBP, career mark under .350.

[Frobby]

12 hours ago, wildcard said:

Lets  not act like Lacy came out of nowhere.  In 2019 he had 15 starts and 88.2 IP.    His ERA was 2.13,  130 K,   1.038 WHIP.   He improved on that his spring.   His body of work includes 19 starts over a year and a month of 2020.   I don't think any scout is just evaluating him over 4 starts.

Here’s a top 10 list from last June that didn’t include Lacy:  https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/26923672/the-2020-mlb-draft-class-stacked-here-names-know

Here’s one that didn’t have him in the top 5 collegians or in the next 10 “others to watch”:  http://baseballprospectjournal.com/2020-mlb-draft-top-prospects/

I got those two lists from a Greg Pappas thread called “An Early Look at the 2020 Draft’s Top Prospects.”    It’s not like I went hunting for lists that didn’t mention Lacy.

Doing a search for his name on OH, I find three mentions of his name before this season started, including Luke noting him as a guy whose stock rose in Fall ball.   That’s not a ton of buzz.    So was he way off the radar?    Maybe not.    But not a consensus top 10 guy, either.     

Again, I’m not saying we shouldn’t pick him.    But I’d feel a lot more comfortable about it if he’d been able to complete the 2020 college season, instead of throwing 24 innings, including games against Miami of Ohio and Army.     

[survivedc]

9 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

At this moment.  But you never draft to need, you draft the best player and then figure it out in three or five or seven years when the guy is ready.

Actually, the Orioles' biggest need for a very, very long time has been someone who gets on base a lot.  Hits for average, draws walks, sets the table. They haven't had a consistenly good leadoff hitter since... Brady?  Roberts was good, but never had a .400 OBP, career mark under .350.

Not to mention the alarming lack of middle infield prospects on the farm.

Personally, I prefer the safer pick given the lack of info to go off of. Let’s save the high upside gambles for 30/39.

[hoosiers]

I think the last two posts are among the reasons the Os will select Martin:

 - hitters safer than pitchers at the top of the draft

 - this draft is very heavy in college pitching (Callis said last year was one of the weakest pools of college pitchers he had seen since he covered the draft  - note that our draft focused on hitters last year - and this year's crop is strong) and a very good pitcher should be available at 30/39

 - Martin likely is rated higher

 - Lacy track record not as good

[Redskins Rick]

13 hours ago, survivedc said:

Not to mention the alarming lack of middle infield prospects on the farm.

Personally, I prefer the safer pick given the lack of info to go off of. Let’s save the high upside gambles for 30/39.

To me, the old cliche, go after the best player available, if you end up with too many, you then make trades.