Jump to content

Rule 5: Orioles Select Mac Sceroler, RHP (Reds) Nephew of Ben McDonald


weams

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Philip said:

I am proud of myself that I correctly said they would probably take somebody who is not on any radar, but I’m disappointed that they didn’t choose an infielder when we really need a couple of those. I’m going to be annoyed if I have to watch Ruiz at 3B and Valaika at 2B all season.

Elias' priority is pitching, namely getting a ton of guys and hoping some of them stick.

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

High K low walk pitching at an age and level that is equivalent to me playing in my sons tee ball league.
 

Hes a nothing prospect.  There are dozens of guys just like him readily available at the drop of a hat.

Then why did Elias pick him? Don't you think he has spin rate data or something that says he's a better pick than anyone else available, or do you really just think he's throwing darts at the board and picking the guy he hits? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

Elias' priority is pitching, namely getting a ton of guys and hoping some of them stick.

Then why did Elias pick him? Don't you think he has spin rate data or something that says he's a better pick than anyone else available, or do you really just think he's throwing darts at the board and picking the guy he hits? 

I’m sure he has his reasons.  I just don’t think they are all that valid compared to his age, the level he has been at and his actual results.  Even the scouting reports on him aren’t that strong.

Im sure we will hear why he took him but I would seriously doubt the scouts that said to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only done video scouting of one of Sceroler's starts so far and think he has more of a starter's mix, but I need to watch more starts of his. The curveball was his K pitch in the start I saw, the fastball was ok (89-92), change was ok at times but the slider was pretty bad except for one that was a nice hard late breaker at 82 MPH.

He honestly reminds me a little of Dean Kremer with a better change but a worse slider-cutter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m sure he has his reasons.  I just don’t think they are all that valid compared to his age, the level he has been at and his actual results.  Even the scouting reports on him aren’t that strong.

Im sure we will hear why he took him but I would seriously doubt the scouts that said to do it.

Why do you seriously doubt that? 

First of all, age/level is slightly off because nobody played last year. This is a guy who would have been in AA in 2020 but for Covid and thus likely projects as a 2021 ML player if the results matched.

I know you were not active here at the time, but Luke used to always go through his Rule V guys and give nuggets that us luddites simply didn't know about. For pitchers, it was almost always spin rate. Then the O's hired him. My guess is they see something in the profile (spin rate, possibly mechanics) that says he has a better chance of being developed than every single pitcher who was otherwise available. 

He was the top of our board and he was there for a reason. Any other conclusion is conspiracy theory stuff.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LookinUp said:

Why do you seriously doubt that? 

First of all, age/level is slightly off because nobody played last year. This is a guy who would have been in AA in 2020 but for Covid and thus likely projects as a 2021 ML player if the results matched.

I know you were not active here at the time, but Luke used to always go through his Rule V guys and give nuggets that us luddites simply didn't know about. For pitchers, it was almost always spin rate. Then the O's hired him. My guess is they see something in the profile (spin rate, possibly mechanics) that says he has a better chance of being developed than every single pitcher who was otherwise available. 

He was the top of our board and he was there for a reason. Any other conclusion is conspiracy theory stuff.

No, I mean I would doubt the evaluation of the scout.  In other words, I think they made a bad call.

The age and level aren’t slightly off.  Those are facts and even if he was in AA last year, he would have been old for that level too.

As for Luke..that’s great...and how many of those guys he touted are in the majors and doing anything significant?  My guess is that the answer is closer to 0 than 5.

Of course, that’s not slight to Luke.  These players are, generally speaking, very flawed.  That’s why they are available and why they are long shots to make it.  He was just looking for anything that could make them interesting.

But for these guys to be the players you take and lose Pop is or judgement imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sports Guy said:

But for these guys to be the players you take and lose Pop is or judgement imo. 

Bottom line: they have much better information than you have. It's like the days when fans looked at batting average and ERA and the Oakland A's looked at OBP. They were ahead.

The O's Front Office is ahead of Sports Guy in not insignificant ways. Does that mean Rule V guys will hit or Pop will fail? Not at all. You may be right, but I'll go with their judgement over yours 10 days out of 10.

And I'm not saying that to talk bad about you. I think you have a great baseball mind. I probably give you more rep than most here, but I just think this exercise is above your area of expertise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

Bottom line: they have much better information than you have. It's like the days when fans looked at batting average and ERA and the Oakland A's looked at OBP. They were ahead.

The O's Front Office is ahead of Sports Guy in not insignificant ways. Does that mean Rule V guys will hit or Pop will fail? Not at all. You may be right, but I'll go with their judgement over yours 10 days out of 10.

And I'm not saying that to talk bad about you. I think you have a great baseball mind. I probably give you more rep than most here, but I just think this exercise is above your area of expertise.

What I question is if they have better information than the teams who left them off the 40 man.

That's the main issue I have with rule V guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What I question is if they have better information than the teams who left them off the 40 man.

That's the main issue I have with rule V guys.

I think this is always a fair question. It's also a fair question about our own guys too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Director of pro scouting Mike Snyder talked about Sceroler and Wells in a Zoom conference call with the media.

“Both of these guys fit an attractive archetype as strike-throwing starting pitchers with a deep repertoire. In both cases we have excellent performance and a very appealing pitch mix,” Snyder said.

“For Sceroler, we were attracted to the four-pitch mix. It’s a good fastball, good traits and flashes of power. He leverages the curveball downhill. Throws the slider for strikes and for chases and he can get a lot of awkward swings on a plus-splitter. So he brings a lot to the table.” 

https://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2020/12/orioles-select-two-pitchers-and-lose-two-in-rule-5-draft.html

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

High K low walk pitching at an age and level that is equivalent to me playing in my sons tee ball league.
 

Hes a nothing prospect.  There are dozens of guys just like him readily available at the drop of a hat.

The goal of the Rule 5 draft is not to pick prospects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

I've only done video scouting of one of Sceroler's starts so far and think he has more of a starter's mix, but I need to watch more starts of his. The curveball was his K pitch in the start I saw, the fastball was ok (89-92), change was ok at times but the slider was pretty bad except for one that was a nice hard late breaker at 82 MPH.

He honestly reminds me a little of Dean Kremer with a better change but a worse slider-cutter.

Speaking of Kremer, having watched him in the big leagues, have you revised your evaluation of his upside? 

Edited by Philip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LookinUp said:

Bottom line: they have much better information than you have. It's like the days when fans looked at batting average and ERA and the Oakland A's looked at OBP. They were ahead.

The O's Front Office is ahead of Sports Guy in not insignificant ways. Does that mean Rule V guys will hit or Pop will fail? Not at all. You may be right, but I'll go with their judgement over yours 10 days out of 10.

And I'm not saying that to talk bad about you. I think you have a great baseball mind. I probably give you more rep than most here, but I just think this exercise is above your area of expertise.

So let me get this straight.  Elias and his staff are totally infallible?  They never have and never will be wrong?

Next thing..why do you come to a message board and discuss these things if your thought process is, they know everything and there is no reason to question it.

Link to comment
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.




  • Posts

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...