Your initial 2021 draft grade

[waynebug]

I see others giving our draft a C.  That was the lowest grade they gave out.  Tampa Bay got a C also.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, waynebug said:

I see others giving our draft a C.  That was the lowest grade they gave out.  Tampa Bay got a C also.

Which would lend credence to the argument presented to me earlier in the year.  That C is no longer considered average.

[baltfan]

5 hours ago, Gentile4 said:

I'm not questioning you but Goldstein's statement. Weren't there hitters actually hitting off the pitchers? Did the data recorders forget to collect data on the hitters? Clearly I'm missing something because it seems there should be the same amount of data for pitchers and position players. 

The difference is with Rhapsodo etc. they get a lot more information that isn’t subject to the sample size issues of the hitting data.   There are also many more pitches for a pitcher than hits for a hitter. 

[baltfan]

16 minutes ago, waynebug said:

I see others giving our draft a C.  That was the lowest grade they gave out.  Tampa Bay got a C also.

Who gave it a C?

[waynebug]

It tells me they would/should have given a D or an F.  But they didn't have the courage.  They just "graded on a curve"

I encountered this in post graduate school.  The highest scores would get an A.  The lowest scores would get a C.  

They wanted/needed your tuition money.  They weren't about to flunk anybody out.

[waynebug]

Bleacher Report was giving us a C.   I would swear I'm right.  Saw it this morning.

They have upgraded us to a C+.

Tampa Bay still has a C.  And Houston.

Somebody else  (?)gave us a B-.  I think they  looked at the first 2 picks without going in depth.

Just Google mlb draft grades.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, waynebug said:

Bleacher Report was giving us a C.   I would swear I'm right.  Saw it this morning.

They have upgraded us to a C+.

Tampa Bay still has a C.  And Houston.

Somebody else  (?)gave us a B-.  I think they  looked at the first 2 picks without going in depth.

Just Google mlb draft grades.

Must say, I don’t put a lot of credence in Bleacher Report.  But since I graded the draft a D, I’m not going to argue with their C+ on a curve where C is the lowest.   

[Jagwar]

I gave them a D. I just don't understand how anyone could come to the conclusion that the O's system needs a big time injection of pitching. 

Maybe Elias sees better pitching options in the international talent pool?

[Sydnor]

13 hours ago, LTO's said:

You can keep saying this but it's not going to make it an accurate statement. Like at all. 

It’s an overstatement for sure, but just saying (and I’m not saying you’re saying this) that we should only draft college players because they are safer and more likely to develop into impact players isn’t correct either. By rWar, the top 25 active position players is composed of 12 high school players, 5 international signings, 6 college players, and 2 junior college players.

If you expand to the top 50, 18 are college players, 17 are high school players, 13 are international signings, and 2 are junior college players. 

The bottom line to me is you draft the best player regardless of college/high school/juco, and ruling out high school players in high rounds because they are riskier is malpractice.

[LookinUp]

People in this thread are unironically pointing to publications that also gave Houston and Tampa bad draft grades and using them to help conclude that Baltimore deserves a bad draft grade.

No offense, but I'd rather be in the same category as Tampa and Houston than any publication.

[Sports Guy]

I came across this:

 

https://throughthefencebaseball.com/2021-mlb-draft-grading-each-team/

 

No idea if this guy has a clue as to what he is talking about.  What I want to point out is that he called this a pitching rich draft.  We also know through the first 10 rounds, pitching dominated the draft, which perhaps lends credence to his point about it being a pitching rich draft.

What is interesting is the Orioles only took the 1 pitcher in the top 10 rounds.    Is it possible that the Os feel starting pitchers are going to largely be a thing of the past?

We know we are seeing more and more pitchers happy to get through 5 innings and that teams are going to bullpens earlier than ever.  
 

Do the Orioles, with the models they use, feel that the idea of accumulating 4th and 5th starters is the way to go? Those guys, generally speaking, can get through a lineup once, maybe twice before the implode happens.  Those guys should also be far easier to find, whereas positional talent is easier to develop and more of a sure thing.  I just wonder if the Os see the future of starting pitching be even less than it is now and that they aren’t in a hurry to reach for guys with higher upside on the mound because the game is devaluing those guys to a point.

I mean sure, you want guys who throw 200+ innings but we they are becoming few and far between and perhaps they don’t feel the need to reach for that player over the more sure thing? 
 

I don’t know..just got me thinking when I saw that.  It may just be a coincidence but listening to Ciolek push their model and how they are handling pitching, just makes me wonder where the organization sees the future of the starting pitcher.

[Frobby]

33 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I don’t know..just got me thinking when I saw that.  It may just be a coincidence but listening to Ciolek push their model and how they are handling pitching, just makes me wonder where the organization sees the future of the starting pitcher.

If starting pitchers are becoming less important, that just means relief pitchers are becoming more important.  At the end of the day, you still need 9 innings worth of pitching no matter how you divide it up.   

It seems to me that the Orioles model says (1) it’s easier to identify who will be a successful hitter than who will be a successful pitcher, and/or (2) it’s easier to find pitchers who have a decent chance of being successful pitchers in the later rounds of the draft than it is to find hitters there.   That dictates a strategy of choosing hitters in the early part of the draft and choosing the pitchers later.   But I still feel they are taking it too far to an extreme.   
 

[LTO's]

1 hour ago, LookinUp said:

No offense, but I'd rather be in the same category as Tampa and Houston than any publication.

The Yankees are another team whose model seems to be very similar to the Orioles. They don't get high grades on their drafts either but their PD system is easily top 5 in the league and they are always able to maintain a good farm system. 

[LTO's]

12 hours ago, Sydnor said:

It’s an overstatement for sure, but just saying (and I’m not saying you’re saying this) that we should only draft college players because they are safer and more likely to develop into impact players isn’t correct either. By rWar, the top 25 active position players is composed of 12 high school players, 5 international signings, 6 college players, and 2 junior college players.

If you expand to the top 50, 18 are college players, 17 are high school players, 13 are international signings, and 2 are junior college players. 

The bottom line to me is you draft the best player regardless of college/high school/juco, and ruling out high school players in high rounds because they are riskier is malpractice.

The vast majority of players in the top 30 for fWAR in 2021 are college guys. HS players are the minority by a substantial margin. I don't think you should only draft college players and the Orioles under Elias haven't done that. They've drafted Henderson, Hernaiz, Mayo, Baumler and Willems. But Elias is right when he says that college performers are statistically likely to provide more value over time. 

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, LTO's said:

The vast majority of players in the top 30 for fWAR in 2021 are college guys. HS players are the minority by a substantial margin. I don't think you should only draft college players and the Orioles under Elias haven't done that. They've drafted Henderson, Hernaiz, Mayo, Baumler and Willems. But Elias is right when he says that college performers are statistically likely to provide more value over time. 

Is he?  I think most elite level guys are HS or Intl FA.

Very possible that the college player has the better overall career, generally speaking.  Only so many elite guys, so the “normal player” could be more of a college guy than HS or Intl.

Do you have data on that other than the top 30 in the first half of 1 season because that’s pretty meaningless data to make the proclamation that college performers are more valuable.