Keith Law’s O’s top 20

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

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?

I completely agree with your point about filling our physically.  But to be clear, Gunnar was really 1 year (plus 8 days) older last year than Manny was when he broke into the majors, not two years older.   We’ll never know where Gunnar would have been if Covid hadn’t happened.  

I haven’t seen enough of Gunnar to really compare his hit tool to Machado’s.  It took Manny three years to really become a man in full offensively, and it’s hard to remember that now.   I think it’s likely that Manny has better bat to ball skills, Gunnar has better plate discipline.  Gunnar looks like he could have Manny-level power, but we’ll see.   
 

[OriolesMagic83]

13 hours 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.  

I had forgotten how highly ranked Matusz was.  The final kicker was that he couldn't be a shutdown bullpen guy, but a LOOGY.  I think by then, I was burned out from 11 or 12 years of losing out of the eventual 14 and wasn't paying much attention to the O's.

[Frobby]

6 hours ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

I had forgotten how highly ranked Matusz was.  The final kicker was that he couldn't be a shutdown bullpen guy, but a LOOGY.  I think by then, I was burned out from 11 or 12 years of losing out of the eventual 14 and wasn't paying much attention to the O's.

I’ve always wondered what happened to Matusz between 2010 and 2011.   He was on track to be a solid or better starting pitcher through the 2010 season, and in fact was dominant in the last part of that year.   But he came back in 2011 a completely different guy.  

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’ve always wondered what happened to Matusz between 2010 and 2011.   He was on track to be a solid or better starting pitcher through the 2010 season, and in fact was dominant in the last part of that year.   But he came back in 2011 a completely different guy.  

TTP happened. Buck’s obsession with that really hurt BMat imo.  Not saying he would have been some great pitcher without it but how you get developed matters and they changed him for a very stupid reason.

[Frobby]

13 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

TTP happened. Buck’s obsession with that really hurt BMat imo.  Not saying he would have been some great pitcher without it but how you get developed matters and they changed him for a very stupid reason.

Maybe, but Matusz’s best stretch of 2010 was the final part after Buck arrived.  Not saying you are wrong but I also think there may have been more to it.  

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Frobby said:

Maybe, but Matusz’s best stretch of 2010 was the final part after Buck arrived.  Not saying you are wrong but I also think there may have been more to it.  

Changes may not have been implemented yet or taken effect enough in that SSS.

I firmly believe an organization who knew how to develop and/or a manager who didn’t try to change him for stupid reasons get more out of him.

Now, he did lose some velocity from when he was drafted and iirc, that occurred before he got to the majors (I believe I remember Tony talking about this and he loved Matusz coming out of the draft) but he could have still been good without the extra velocity for a real organization.

[Can_of_corn]

56 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Changes may not have been implemented yet or taken effect enough in that SSS.

I firmly believe an organization who knew how to develop and/or a manager who didn’t try to change him for stupid reasons get more out of him.

Now, he did lose some velocity from when he was drafted and iirc, that occurred before he got to the majors (I believe I remember Tony talking about this and he loved Matusz coming out of the draft) but he could have still been good without the extra velocity for a real organization.

Also the oblique strain he suffered after tweaking his delivery.

[btdart20]

21 hours ago, Jammer7 said:

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?

A slightly more interesting question (IMO) is how would those guys look on the field at the same time as the current prospect pipeline?  In other words, who would have been the priority play? 

I suspect Manny would have been the priority play over Gunnar.  And Adley would have been ahead of Wieters.  (Part of me even wonders what Elias would have seen - if anything - about the Wieters bat speed in spite of the video game numbers...)

SPs (especially Arrieta) are a little tricky but from a 'no pitches barred' perspective, my best guess for the SP rankings would have been:  Grayson, Matusz, Arrieta, Hall, Tillman, Britton, Povich.

My memory is fuzzy regarding Prospect Schoop, but I think I recall him getting bumped around the IF because of Manny.  While that's a far cry from a And I suspect that same thing would happen to him with our current 2B prospects.

[OriolesMagic83]

22 hours 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.  

There was a very good group of pitching prospects that basically just netted us Britton and Tillman.  This came not too long after an even more impressive group of pitching prospects in Riley, Loewen, Maine, Bedard, Cabrera and others.  Even with all that pitching talent, the O's were graduating effective major league pitchers at one of the lowest rates in the majors.  I think a large part of the lack of success was a one size fits all pitchers approach.  Besides the TTTP obsession, I remember an era a few years before that pitchers were just supposed to throw low are away all the time.  As if hitters couldn't just sit on pitches when they knew what was coming. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

There was a very good group of pitching prospects that basically just netted us Britton and Tillman.  This came not too long after an even more impressive group of pitching prospects in Riley, Loewen, Maine, Bedard, Cabrera and others.  Even with all that pitching talent, the O's were graduating effective major league pitchers at one of the lowest rates in the majors.  I think a large part of the lack of success was a one size fits all pitchers approach.  Besides the TTTP obsession, I remember an era a few years before that pitchers were just supposed to throw low are away all the time.  As if hitters couldn't just sit on pitches when they knew what was coming. 

Andy had a thing for sinkerballs.

[CharmCityHokie]

45 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Andy had a thing for sinkerballs.

and definitely not for cutters

though that actually may have been Duq now that I think about it

[btdart20]

48 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Andy had a thing for sinkerballs.

Yeah, there was a ton of chatter about GB rates at that time.

[AnythingO's]

30 minutes ago, CharmCityHokie said:

and definitely not for cutters

though that actually may have been Duq now that I think about it

DD took the cutter from Bundy in the minors because it was too advanced, wanted him to develop his other pitches.

[Jammer7]

4 hours ago, btdart20 said:

A slightly more interesting question (IMO) is how would those guys look on the field at the same time as the current prospect pipeline?  In other words, who would have been the priority play? 

I suspect Manny would have been the priority play over Gunnar.  And Adley would have been ahead of Wieters.  (Part of me even wonders what Elias would have seen - if anything - about the Wieters bat speed in spite of the video game numbers...)

SPs (especially Arrieta) are a little tricky but from a 'no pitches barred' perspective, my best guess for the SP rankings would have been:  Grayson, Matusz, Arrieta, Hall, Tillman, Britton, Povich.

My memory is fuzzy regarding Prospect Schoop, but I think I recall him getting bumped around the IF because of Manny.  While that's a far cry from a And I suspect that same thing would happen to him with our current 2B prospects.

I could buy prospect Manny over Gunnar at SS, sure. Move Gunnar to 3B. Elias loves his LH hitters, so Gunnar would have a place somewhere.

I have to think with Adley, Wieters plays 1B and DH. Wiets was a solid catcher, but I will always wonder if the bat would have been much better at 1B/DH. He had a great arm, but the bat was the big ticket to me. 

As far as the pitchers ranking, depends who is doing it and what they value. Stuff, command, the combination or the likelihood they impact the MLB roster. I don’t know that Matusz ever had TOR stuff, not like Hall or Rodriguez, but his command was supposed to be great. Arrieta was largely an underachieving enigma in Baltimore, and they gave up on him. IIRC, the MLB pitching coach at that time, Doug ?, and Arrieta did not see eye to eye. Povich may be at the top of this list by 2024. He is supposed to have had a stuff uptick this offseason. It’s an interesting debate for sure. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Jammer7

[Tony-OH]

6 hours ago, Frobby said:

I’ve always wondered what happened to Matusz between 2010 and 2011.   He was on track to be a solid or better starting pitcher through the 2010 season, and in fact was dominant in the last part of that year.   But he came back in 2011 a completely different guy.  

Matusz is one of those guys that you have to wonder if had some up through the Orioles system now with all the systems and analytics to help him be his best self, would he have turned out better?

I always liked Brian personally, but he seemed to lose his best pitch (changeup) when he got to the majors for some reason. I always remember yelling at Wieters through my TV as he kept calling for fastballs with two strikes against righties and wondering why they wouldn't let him use his changeup. 

When you look at his career numbers, he just never was able to find that minor league/college changeup that he had and couldn't defend himself very well against righties without the pitch (.301/.371/.491/.862 vs 1598 RHB PAs).