Keith Law’s O’s top 20

[Frobby]

22 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:

I agree there were prospects in the Duquette era. Obviously, Dan had obstacles in his way in Baltimore that prevented him from replicating what he did in Montreal and Boston. I wonder how many of those you mentioned in this would be in the current top 30 for the Orioles if you ranked them just before their promotion to the Orioles?

The guys I listed were in the majors or gone by the time Duquette arrived.  They were MacPhail era prospects (and some were drafted even before MacPhail was on the scene).

I think you are underrating many of the old guys.  Wieters was the no. 1-2 prospect in baseball and would have probably been above Gunnar.  Matusz was ranked no. 5 and Tillman no. 22 by BA at one time.  Both Arrieta and Britton were BA top 100 guys.  All those guys easily would be in the O’s top 10 now.  

Edited February 12, 2023 by Frobby

[CharmCityHokie]

13 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:

I agree there were prospects in the Duquette era. Obviously, Dan had obstacles in his way in Baltimore that prevented him from replicating what he did in Montreal and Boston. I wonder how many of those you mentioned in this would be in the current top 30 for the Orioles if you ranked them just before their promotion to the Orioles?

Wieters - probably 2 behind Gunnar

Matusz - around where Rom is 20-25, at best

Arrieta - 20-25

Britton - 25-30

Tillman - maybe 25-30

Bergesen, Bergen, David Hernandez, Reimold and Turner off the list.

If the same development system was in place, I believe it would be vastly different. The scouts did bring in talent, and the list of failed high draft picks is long. Even among this list, most got better in the majors.

Machado - did not stay in the minors long enough to rise to quite where Gunnar is, but he would certainly be top 3-5 with Gunnar, Wieters, and maybe Grayson ahead of him. Not sure I would put Holliday in front of him, maybe.

Schoop - again, did not stay in minors long enough to gain higher prospect status. Maybe 15-20.

I did this based on memory, but I thought it was an interesting exercise.

It is an interesting exercise, but I think you're underselling the prospect quality of some of the old-system guys compared to the current system. 

Wieters put up obscene numbers in the minors before his call-up, there would definitely be argument for him being number 1 on lists, even over Gunnar. https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=wieter001mat

Matusz barely pitched in the minors before being called up at age 22, he put up a 1.55 ERA at Bowie over 46 innings with very good K/BB and H/9s rates. He'd be in the top-5 for sure, maybe top-3 depending on how you weigh the value of level of play and how close the player is to the majors.  https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=matusz001bri

Arrieta/Britton/Tillman I think would all be hovering around the top-10 range in a currently pitching starved system, they all put up great numbers in the minors at young ages (Tillman was called up to the majors at 21; Britton at 23; Arrieta was the old man at 24). 

It certainly shows the difference in approach to development; the current Orioles minor league development team seems to care less about on-paper numbers and more about approach, stuff, and improving the overall game strategy, while the old regime looked at racking up numbers on the stat sheets before promotion. I think we're in a much better place now. 

[Jammer7]

18 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The guys I listed were in the majors or gone by the time Duquette arrived.  They were MacPhail era prospects (and some were drafted even before MacPhail was on the scene).

I think you are underrating many of the old guys.  Wieters was the no. 1-2 prospect in baseball and would have probably been above Gunnar.  Matusz was ranked no. 5 and Tillman no. 22 by BA at one time.  Both Arrieta and Britton were BA top 100 guys.  All those guys easily would be in the O’s top 10 now.  

You’re right about it being Macphail, my mistake. Maybe Wieters should be ahead of Gunnar. A catcher of his stature, sure. It would be an interesting debate. Wieters and David Price went back and forth on the #1 ranking. 

Matusz and Tillman, the year they made their jump, I thought anyway, had fallen some. Matusz, in particular, fell off quite a bit after his initial draft status rankings. I don’t recall Britton being highly ranked at the end of his prospect status either, and Dave Wallace basically saved his career as I recall. 

I was just ranking them relative to their ability as it would relate to today’s talent. Not relative to their status as much then, if that makes sense. Maybe I am underrating them. 

[Jammer7]

33 minutes ago, CharmCityHokie said:

It is an interesting exercise, but I think you're underselling the prospect quality of some of the old-system guys compared to the current system. 

Wieters put up obscene numbers in the minors before his call-up, there would definitely be argument for him being number 1 on lists, even over Gunnar. https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=wieter001mat

Matusz barely pitched in the minors before being called up at age 22, he put up a 1.55 ERA at Bowie over 46 innings with very good K/BB and H/9s rates. He'd be in the top-5 for sure, maybe top-3 depending on how you weigh the value of level of play and how close the player is to the majors.  https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=matusz001bri

Arrieta/Britton/Tillman I think would all be hovering around the top-10 range in a currently pitching starved system, they all put up great numbers in the minors at young ages (Tillman was called up to the majors at 21; Britton at 23; Arrieta was the old man at 24). 

It certainly shows the difference in approach to development; the current Orioles minor league development team seems to care less about on-paper numbers and more about approach, stuff, and improving the overall game strategy, while the old regime looked at racking up numbers on the stat sheets before promotion. I think we're in a much better place now. 

Great post. Wieters point taken, absolutely. A good debate.

Matusz, stuff-wise, was behind DL Hall, Povich and McDermott. He had a great change-up, plus command and the FB was 90-92 T94, I believe. Different era and all. Pitching has evolved quickly from that time. I remember him being knocked as overrated because of draft status, maybe I am wrong on that. Many of these guys were moved up quickly, absolutely. 

[Jammer7]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

No way those guys would be that low.

Take a look at the recent top 30 lists and rank them yourself, based on where they were at the end of their prospect status, not necessarily on their peak ranking.

[ChosenOne21]

Wieters put up video game numbers in AA as a catcher. He would 100% be the top prospect in baseball right now if he/his younger clone did that last year.

IIRC, Matusz was regarded as the top arm in the 2008 draft. He was pitching in the majors the year after he was drafted. His delivery had such a short stride, many evaluators thought he could add velocity and sit 94 if the O's lengthened his stride/altered his delivery. He had a plus curve, plus command, and a plus-plus changeup. The question mark was the fastball and like I said, there was reason to believe that could be improved. Sadly we know how that story went. He never gained velocity and eventually lost the feel for his changeup, but he 100% deserved the hype and would easily be top 5 in our system. I'd probably put 2009 Matusz behind only Gunnar, Rodriguez and probably Holliday

Britton I'm pretty sure was undervalued by everyone except Tony. Definitely a top 10 talent in a loaded system.

Arrieta, too, would be top 10, probably just outside the top 5.

I doubt anyone in this conversation has a better career than Manny Machado will. He was rushed to the majors before he could truly light up prospect charts, but he's basically Gunnar with a better glove/arm and hit tool, lesser speed, a lesser batting eye, and maybe a smidgeon less power. He'd probably be battling Gunnar and Rodriguez for the top spot in the system

[Frobby]

34 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:

You’re right about it being Macphail, my mistake. Maybe Wieters should be ahead of Gunnar. A catcher of his stature, sure. It would be an interesting debate. Wieters and David Price went back and forth on the #1 ranking. 

Matusz and Tillman, the year they made their jump, I thought anyway, had fallen some. Matusz, in particular, fell off quite a bit after his initial draft status rankings. I don’t recall Britton being highly ranked at the end of his prospect status either, and Dave Wallace basically saved his career as I recall. 

I was just ranking them relative to their ability as it would relate to today’s talent. Not relative to their status as much then, if that makes sense. Maybe I am underrating them. 

It’s a good illustration that highly ranked prospects don’t always have as much major league success as you expect, and whatever success they do have may not occur right away.  

[Sports Guy]

27 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:

Take a look at the recent top 30 lists and rank them yourself, based on where they were at the end of their prospect status, not necessarily on their peak ranking.

I know where they were. That’s a foolish statement. They would all easily be higher..much higher.  
 

It’s poor memory and most of all recency bias. Being a prisoner of the moment isn’t usually a good thing.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Sports Guy

[Jammer7]

51 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I know where they were. That’s a foolish statement. They would all easily be higher..much higher.  
 

It’s poor memory and most of all recency bias. Being a prisoner of the moment isn’t usually a good thing.

Yawn…ok.

[Jammer7]

So, after spending some time reading, I am enjoying some reflective humble pie. I went off of memory, and Tillman was #22 in BA top 100 in 2009, Matusz was high as #5 in 2010, Arrieta peaked at #69 in 2009 and fell some after that, and Zack Britton peaked at #28 in 2011. So, they were ranked higher then, than I had recalled. I thought they all were top 100 guys, but more late list fringe guys, honestly. They all struggled to make the jump, which is what clouded my recall, I think. 

If they were now, what their stuff was then, I doubt they rank as high. Different time in baseball, as to the way pitchers are valued and developed. That was central to what I was saying. I look at our top 10 now, and I still am not sure those kinds of pitchers would be in the top 10 for me. It isn’t as much of a recency bias as it is just different eras. Ah well, just an interesting thought and discussion. 

[Jammer7]

1 hour ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Wieters put up video game numbers in AA as a catcher. He would 100% be the top prospect in baseball right now if he/his younger clone did that last year.

IIRC, Matusz was regarded as the top arm in the 2008 draft. He was pitching in the majors the year after he was drafted. His delivery had such a short stride, many evaluators thought he could add velocity and sit 94 if the O's lengthened his stride/altered his delivery. He had a plus curve, plus command, and a plus-plus changeup. The question mark was the fastball and like I said, there was reason to believe that could be improved. Sadly we know how that story went. He never gained velocity and eventually lost the feel for his changeup, but he 100% deserved the hype and would easily be top 5 in our system. I'd probably put 2009 Matusz behind only Gunnar, Rodriguez and probably Holliday

Britton I'm pretty sure was undervalued by everyone except Tony. Definitely a top 10 talent in a loaded system.

Arrieta, too, would be top 10, probably just outside the top 5.

I doubt anyone in this conversation has a better career than Manny Machado will. He was rushed to the majors before he could truly light up prospect charts, but he's basically Gunnar with a better glove/arm and hit tool, lesser speed, a lesser batting eye, and maybe a smidgeon less power. He'd probably be battling Gunnar and Rodriguez for the top spot in the system

I was only talking about prospect status, not who had a better MLB career. And I’m not sure Machado had a better hit tool or power than Gunnar at the same age. I would say Gunnar has the edge there, by the numbers, if nothing else. Machado is what we hope Gunnar can become. Machado was rushed, absolutely.

[ChosenOne21]

35 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:

I was only talking about prospect status, not who had a better MLB career. And I’m not sure Machado had a better hit tool or power than Gunnar at the same age. I would say Gunnar has the edge there, by the numbers, if nothing else. Machado is what we hope Gunnar can become. Machado was rushed, absolutely.

Maybe?

Machado hit .257 in A-A+ as an 18 year old. Gunnar hit .259 in rookie ball at 18.

At 19, Machado hit like .264 between AA and MLB. Gunnar lost that season to COVID, but I sort of doubt he hits that well at that level if he played.

Machado hit .283 in MLB as a 20-year-old, Gunnar hit .258 across A, A+ and AA at 20.

Machado's career BA is .282. Gunnar has beaten that number over a full season once.

Gunnar is going to hit just fine at the MLB level, but I'm betting his career BA is more like .260 compared to Machado's .280-ish. I think Gunnar could be Machado with the bat, or even a little better, but I don't think he comes close to Machado's career WAR because he's not a platinum glove 3B.

[Frobby]

51 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:

So, after spending some time reading, I am enjoying some reflective humble pie. I went off of memory, and Tillman was #22 in BA top 100 in 2009, Matusz was high as #5 in 2010, Arrieta peaked at #69 in 2009 and fell some after that, and Zack Britton peaked at #28 in 2011. So, they were ranked higher then, than I had recalled. I thought they all were top 100 guys, but more late list fringe guys, honestly. They all struggled to make the jump, which is what clouded my recall, I think. 

If they were now, what their stuff was then, I doubt they rank as high. Different time in baseball, as to the way pitchers are valued and developed. That was central to what I was saying. I look at our top 10 now, and I still am not sure those kinds of pitchers would be in the top 10 for me. It isn’t as much of a recency bias as it is just different eras. Ah well, just an interesting thought and discussion. 

A lot of these guys were respectable in their initial forays in the majors but got worse over their first few years.  Major league coaching was at least as much of an issue as their MiL development.  I think they would have done much better with better coaches.  

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Maybe?

Machado hit .257 in A-A+ as an 18 year old. Gunnar hit .259 in rookie ball at 18.

At 19, Machado hit like .264 between AA and MLB. Gunnar lost that season to COVID, but I sort of doubt he hits that well at that level if he played.

Machado hit .283 in MLB as a 20-year-old, Gunnar hit .258 across A, A+ and AA at 20.

Machado's career BA is .282. Gunnar has beaten that number over a full season once.

Gunnar is going to hit just fine at the MLB level, but I'm betting his career BA is more like .260 compared to Machado's .280-ish. I think Gunnar could be Machado with the bat, or even a little better, but I don't think he comes close to Machado's career WAR because he's not a platinum glove 3B.

Worth mentioning, Gunnar’s birthday is June 29, while Manny’s is July 6.   So Gunnar’s “baseball age” when drafted was a year older than Manny’s, but really he’s 8 days older for his draft class than Manny was.   Throw in the Covid interruption and Gunnar’s “age 20” season is really akin to Manny’s “age 18” season.

That said, I’d agree he’s not likely to match or come that close to Manny’s career WAR.  But ask me again when Gunnar has a couple of seasons under his belt.  

[ChosenOne21]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Worth mentioning, Gunnar’s birthday is June 29, while Manny’s is July 6.   So Gunnar’s “baseball age” when drafted was a year older than Manny’s, but really he’s 8 days older for his draft class than Manny was.   Throw in the Covid interruption and Gunnar’s “age 20” season is really akin to Manny’s “age 18” season.

That said, I’d agree he’s not likely to match or come that close to Manny’s career WAR.  But ask me again when Gunnar has a couple of seasons under his belt.  

Huh, didn't realize that about them. I'm not sure I completely buy that Gunnar's age 20 is the same as Manny's age 18 because it's not just about play time but physical maturity as well. I filled out quite a bit from age 18 to age 20

Even so, I still think the comparison favors Machado. Do you think Gunnar has a better hit tool than Machado?

Edited February 12, 2023 by ChosenOne21