2020 Orioles draft review: Elias ends up with three first round talents

[sportsfan8703]

So we get rid of a lot of scouts and go with more analytics. That scares me considering there wasn’t really a season to compile numbers this year. 

[Moose Milligan]

15 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

So we get rid of a lot of scouts and go with more analytics. That scares me considering there wasn’t really a season to compile numbers this year. 

It's scary for everyone, no one got a real good look at this years crop of talent.  Scouting wouldn't have made a huge bit of difference.

It will be interesting to watch the rate of in which these pics succeed/fail compared to other years with what limited scouting/data collection these teams had this year.  Won't be able to look back on it for a few years but it'll be curious to see if the hit rates here were any better or worse than full draft seasons.

[PHRESH]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

Taking Kjerstad over Martin was lunacy! Period! We passed on the BPA due to a strategy of hoping to hit on a 4th or 5th rounder.

Lunacy seems a bit strong. I respect your opinion though. 

In my opinion, there's no Adley Rutschman-level talent this year. Martin certainly doesn't get my juices flowing. He could be a decent enough player, but doesn't strike me as a can't miss or impact guy. 

I preferred Lacy at 2. But I'm content with improving the 4th and 5th round selections by taking Kjerstad. 

[SteveA]

2 hours ago, makoman said:

The problem with many of the angry hot takes is that the data we have is stale. A lot can change with these 20-21 year old kids (not to mention high schoolers) in a year and we didn't really get to see much this year. 

Austin Hays hit 269 with 3 homers and a 729 OPS his sophomore year. You think that gets him drafted? But then he hit 350 with 16 homers and a 1.060 OPS junior year. What if he'd only played 10 games that year? The baseball draft is already a big crapshoot and this one the decisionmakers had even less information than usual. We have to hope that our guys are able to identify the ones who were making that next step.

Why is that only a problem with an "angry" hot take?   Isn't lack of info also a problem for someone who thinks it's a great draft too?

We know we have very limited information at our disposal, and having any opinion at all is kind of a stab in the dark based on that limited info.   But that is just as true for someone who thinks it is a good draft as for someone tho doesn't.   We are ALL blind people feeling part of an elephant and trying to figure out what it is.

[DrungoHazewood]

51 minutes ago, interloper said:

Would you rather have one star or 3 stars? That's essentially what this boils down to, with the obvious caveat that no one is guaranteed to be any good, Martin included.

Let's say that a normal draft, one where you just pick the Baseball America best player available at each slot, gives you six guys with the following probabilities of being a good MLB player: 40%, 15, 10, 5, 5, 5.  Numbers made up, but let's go with it.

The Orioles instead did something like 25, 15, 10, 10, 15, 15.

It's plausible that the Orioles' strategy gives them better overall odds at developing a good player, even if the individual odds, especially for the top pick, are lower.

[DrungoHazewood]

49 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think the O’s have very sophisticated techniques for teasing out which statistics from this year’s small sample size can be relied upon, and which can’t.    I do think they were willing to put more credence in some players’ stats from this year than some other teams were.   We will see if they were right.

We know what numbers stabilize most quickly for major league players.  K rate, walk rate, GB and FB rate, homers per FB.

Kjerstad only had 78 PAs, but about a .350 ISO.

[Big Mac]

I think the underslot at 1:2 strategy carries a ton of risk.  That being said, Martin got crazy overhyped this year because this draft was not top heavy talent wise.  I've made this comp before, but I think a very likely outcome for him is a Dansby Swanson bat that can't play on the left side of the infield.  He could end up being a very good player, but the idea he was a slam dunk BPA at #2 is just not accurate.

[lovetoaster]

48 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Why is that only a problem with an "angry" hot take?   Isn't lack of info also a problem for someone who thinks it's a great draft too?

We know we have very limited information at our disposal, and having any opinion at all is kind of a stab in the dark based on that limited info.   But that is just as true for someone who thinks it is a good draft as for someone tho doesn't.   We are ALL blind people feeling part of an elephant and trying to figure out what it is.

That's a really good point. I just think there are more angry hot takes on this draft than the thrilled hot takes in this instance, just because of the Martin situation. I think most people were just felt like drafting Martin was a foregone conclusion and had heard a lot about how he may have been the best player in the draft. But at the end of the day, nobody knows right now, and we won't know for sure for quite some time. 

I think we can all have opinions on how the draft and how the strategy went, but anything that draws a certain conclusion either way at this point is not realistic.

 

[makoman]

14 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Why is that only a problem with an "angry" hot take?   Isn't lack of info also a problem for someone who thinks it's a great draft too?

We know we have very limited information at our disposal, and having any opinion at all is kind of a stab in the dark based on that limited info.   But that is just as true for someone who thinks it is a good draft as for someone tho doesn't.   We are ALL blind people feeling part of an elephant and trying to figure out what it is.

Because the negative voices are based on the information we have being right, but the information we have has larger error bars than normal. The basis for most people hating this draft is "we had the chance to take a premium talent and settled for a guy out of the top 10." That is unquestionably true if you look at draft profiles from January. 

This list for example from December 2018 has JJ Bleday as the 26th prospect, Lodolo 27th, Manoa 28th. That's three top 11 picks six months later, including #4. Things can change a lot in a season, and we kind of missed out on a lot of that.

https://www.prospectslive.com/mlb-draft/2018/12/12/2019-mlb-draft-top-50-player-rankings-version-1

Elias surely had any number of underslot options if that's what he wanted. I suspect he had reason to believe that Hjerstad was one of those guys who would be rising this year, whether he believed in the new K rate or saw something else, and was able to get a guy that was still underrated by the industry. Maybe not Martin level, but maybe not all that far. But I acknowledge I'm talking out of my butt a little, things could have moved the other way too. Martin could have solidified as a clear cut #1 pick, and Hjerstad could have played himself out of the first round or down into the 20s. 

 

[Number5]

2 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

So we get rid of a lot of scouts and go with more analytics. That scares me considering there wasn’t really a season to compile numbers this year. 

Seems like some want to get rid of both the scouts and the analysts and just roll with the top ranked guy on the latest BA, Keith Law, or MLB.com ranking.  I mean, if our scouts and analysts are "lunatics" whenever they deviate from those internet lists, why have scouts and analysts at all, right?

[makoman]

3 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Seems like some want to get rid of both the scouts and the analysts and just roll with the top ranked guy on the latest BA, Keith Law, or MLB.com ranking.  I mean, if our scouts and analysts are "lunatics" whenever they deviate from those internet lists, why have scouts and analysts at all, right?

Yeah we could save a lot of money!

We saw what kind of analysis Luke gave when he was here. It's not like we are just inputting stats into a computer, it's still scouting, just informed more by analytics to (hopefully) give even more accurate info.

I also think people forget that Elias himself was a scout for a number of years. You know he's looking at a ton of film, at least for the #2 pick.

[weams]

https://twitter.com/GlennClarkRadio/status/1271523864342822913?s=20

[waroriole]

3 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

 

OK .... Wink Wink

 

Taking Kjerstad over Martin was lunacy! Period! We passed on the BPA due to a strategy of hoping to hit on a 4th or 5th rounder.

At least three teams didn’t have him as BPA. I wonder if Miami and KC qualify as lunatics. 

[Roll Tide]

3 hours ago, interloper said:

Would you rather have one star or 3 stars? That's essentially what this boils down to, with the obvious caveat that no one is guaranteed to be any good, Martin included.

It’s very likely statistically that only one of these guys pans out. From year to year the percentage of players that become an all star from round 1 is about 30%. The number decreases with each round. You highest and best shot is the guy in the 1st round. You pick the best player , get him signed, and then need some luck. They are almost all lottery tickets that don’t pan out. I think passing on Martin lowers the likelihood of getting the best result. If you or @Tony-OH or whomever else don’t agree fine. But the marginal uptick that you get in the 4th or 5th round when the hit percentage is considerably lower is negligible. Plus you’ve traded arguably the highest rated player on some boards for a guy that’s ranked around 10. I don’t understand what is so hard to grasp. 
 

To further answer your question .... the three lottery tickets don’t have the same chance to hit. The guys you could’ve gotten in the 4th or 5th at values likelihood of hitting don’t change much.

[interloper]

2 hours ago, PHRESH said:

Lunacy seems a bit strong. I respect your opinion though. 

In my opinion, there's no Adley Rutschman-level talent this year. Martin certainly doesn't get my juices flowing. He could be a decent enough player, but doesn't strike me as a can't miss or impact guy. 

I preferred Lacy at 2. But I'm content with improving the 4th and 5th round selections by taking Kjerstad. 

Honestly, he reminds me a little of Richie Martin.