Tom Boswell on Using Top 5 Draft Picks on Pitchers

[allstar1579]

The best positional talent however typically goes in the first or second round. The best pitching talent can be found even in the later rounds. The Orioles desperately need to balance out their system with more positional talent to compete with the other teams in the AL East IMO.

Pujols - 13th rd 1999

Kinsler - 17th rd 2000

Jermaine Dye - 17th rd 1993

Jason Bay - 22nd rd 2000

Really? You gotta come better than that. Again, that IMO at the end right there ^, that negates any factual argument you could have had, opinion, not fact.

[wayne25]

No, the only "insane" drafting strategy is completely eschewing an entire sub-group of players without prejudice.

How many top-5 draft picks who's last names started in vowels have made the HOF? How many who's last names started in consonants?

Should we always forego drafting vowel-starting last named players because none of them have made the HOF?

And why is he only looking at top-5 picks? What makes a guy drafted 5th different from 9th, or 21st? Why is one group so much more unlikely to succeed than another?

The answer is they aren't. Pitchers are risky, but a pitcher drafted 3rd isn't inherently any more risky than a pitcher drafted 17th.

the difference is that ,WHEN there is a quatlity bat available, then take the bat. Not saying you never take the pitcher. 2009 is a good example, mostly pitcher at the top with 1 or 2 quality bats. (maybe). Then most of the teams in the top 1o will go and get a pitcher.

[wayne25]

So do I appear less "insane" now that a newspaper writer has the same theory?

Perhaps Mr. Boswell was surfing the Hangout when he decided to write this column...

We took Matusz with the 4th pick last year. Here's to hoping he's in the 25% bracket...

This is EXACTLY what a few of us have been preaching since before Matusz was drafted.

[wayne25]

Yeah, I think by bias I meant like you said completely ignore one or the other. McPhail has a bias towards pitching in the draft, he likes to develop pitching and buy hitting, but he would draft a hitter if the talent level warranted that.

Actually the talent warrented that last year, which is why some of us are upset. You only ignore the pitching in round 1 or 2 if there is a quatlity bat. Which makes it much more bearable if the pitcher breaks down. Tillman , Arrieta, Erbe, Hernandez, etc,(all the pitchers that O's fans are hot on,) were not # 1 picks, so obviously you still get talented pitchers after the 1st rd. Bedard, Flanagan, and the list goes on.

[wayne25]

We'll select the top player available. Jordan will go with whomever is the top player remaining on his board, regardless of position. JMHO.

I still think Jordan went with the best pitcher availble due to McPhail telling him we need pitching. Mcphail said on the radio before the draft that he kept reminding Jordan of this.

[wayne25]

I disagree with this as under MacPhail, Jordan did not take the best player available which was either Buster Posey, Gordon Beckham or Justin Smoak. The previous three drafts, Jordan did take what he thought was the BPA.

The Orioles drafted for need with Matusz as MacPhail's philosophy is to have as much pitching as possible.

We will take the best pitcher available IMO.

Agree. I think they'll take the best pitcher, unless Ackley is there. He passed on all star quality bats . This year the bats just aren't there, so I hope he knows what he's doing or we just get lucky with the pitcher we take.

[wayne25]

That is YOUR opinion, not theirs, obviously theirs was that Matusz was a better overall talent, and opinion that is both educated and acceptable.

You really need to get over this "my opinion is fact" thing.

Thats absurd!! All you people who keep saying that Matusz was a better pick are offering YOUR opinions. So whats the diff.?

[wayne25]

While I know I shouldn't get into these pointless debates with you because you have one view, and no one can change your mind, but really, you aren't going to win in the draft area, no matter what kind of spin you want to put on things.

If you want to share your opinions on the draft, that's fine, but you need to cut off your opinions on draft day of that given year, because that is the information Jordan and his staff have to go on, and when they have to make a decision. You don't see people following you around when you order pepperoni pizza in 2006 and saying, pepperoni is bad for you, sausage was totally the best topping available, he's a horrible pizza picker.

That being said, just like this year, there are 100's of different mocks and lists, you can find one to show any agenda you want to, including saying any specific college bat is the BPA at 4. So you can not use mocks or lists to state fact beause they are each a representation of a certain publication or person's opinion, just like yours.

MacPhail does not make the picks himself, nor does he have a loud enough voice in that forum to strongarm and make a pick he wants to. It has to be a consensus amongst a few different people. You just have a personal bias and think a) AM is to blame for everything wrong with the team right now and b) that college bats are the only way to build a winning team. That is what is called as the instant gratification syndrome. You want the high powered sexy offense of FA driven teams, and you want it now.

Mcphail is Jordans boss. Do you really think its a stretch to say he wants to please his boss. Mcphail can fire Jordan is he wants to in case you 've forgotten. Mcphail also said he would not have drafted Weiters, so much for Mcphails point of view.

[allstar1579]

Thats absurd!! All you people who keep saying that Matusz was a better pick are offering YOUR opinions. So whats the diff.?

Ok, first off, there is no need to troll.

Secondly, no one has said Matusz was a better pick, so before you jump head first into an argument you should know what you are talking about. The question is AT THE TIME OF THE DRAFT did Jordan and MacPhail think that Matusz was the BPA, and yes, that is what their opinion was, collectively, hence why he was drafted.

Apparently we have another disciple in the JTrea church of college bats. You do not take bats in the first two rounds if the talent is equal, you draft for need if the talent is equal, but being able to see two prospects as completely equal is not going to happen often. You take the BPA, period. Sorry that you don't agree with them that Matusz was the BPA at the time of the draft, but if you don't understand how scouting and talent evaluation works, don't come in here trolling people because they don't agree with your opinion.

The funny thing in all of this is I was one of the big Smoak proponents at draft time last year, but I don't see such a gap in talent between the two that would make me upset with Matusz over him.

Also, yes MacPhail is higher up on the totem pole than Jordan is, but a GM in baseball does not make the picks themselves. They assemble a team of decision makers, and an army of scouts to pool information from. Also, until someone can show me this statement from MacPhail saying that he would not have drafted Wieters, it's a rumor. What kind of an idiot would denounce the pick of a player that plays for his organization, and is also that team's best minor league prospect?

[Mackus]

Thats absurd!! All you people who keep saying that Matusz was a better pick are offering YOUR opinions. So whats the diff.?

An opinion is saying that you think Matusz is slightly better than Smoak or vice versa.

What JTrea did was state definitively, as if it was a fact, that Smoak was the consensus opinion as the better player between the two. Which is not true.

Preferring one guy to the other is absolutely fine, its a matter of opinion. I would have preferred Smoak myself. Saying that there was an obvious consensus that Smoak was the better player is simply untrue.

the difference is that ,WHEN there is a quatlity bat available, then take the bat. Not saying you never take the pitcher. 2009 is a good example, mostly pitcher at the top with 1 or 2 quality bats. (maybe). Then most of the teams in the top 1o will go and get a pitcher.

If you rate the two equally, or very, very close to equally, I'm fine with choosing the bat over the pitcher. Or vice versa if you need pitchers.

But its when the two aren't equally rated or close to it and you take the lower guy due to an organizational philosophy that I think is a terrible way to draft.

[wayne25]

An opinion is saying that you think Matusz is slightly better than Smoak or vice versa.

What JTrea did was state definitively, as if it was a fact, that Smoak was the consensus opinion as the better player between the two. Which is not true.

Preferring one guy to the other is absolutely fine, its a matter of opinion. I would have preferred Smoak myself. Saying that there was an obvious consensus that Smoak was the better player is simply untrue.

If you rate the two equally, or very, very close to equally, I'm fine with choosing the bat over the pitcher. Or vice versa if you need pitchers.

But its when the two aren't equally rated or close to it and you take the lower guy due to an organizational philosophy that I think is a terrible way to draft.

When I say "IF" there is a Quality bat available, the assumption is that this is a quality player. I stated earlier that 2009 seems not to have those bats, so take the best pitcher. Nowhere have I seen someone say that an obviously inferior player over a really talented pitcher. This will all be mute when Smoak undergoes serious surgery. (Pull in the fangs everyone, I'm just assuming this will be the case, though wishing he's the best pitcher in o's history, now that he's here.) (though he shouldn't be if we had taken the BPA .