Regarding the O's draft philosophy

[Greg Pappas]

Six drafts into Mike Elias' tenure, the O's draft philosophy seems apparent. 

• College Bats, early and often, with most being 'Middle of the Diamond'
• An occasional HS pick, usually later in the draft (Holliday in R1, Gunnar in R2 were exceptions)
• Pitchers are taken typically after the first few rounds, mixed in with more college bats 

The results are still coming in, but overall, they've been good.  Some may wonder how much credit does Elias deserves for picking #1 twice, #2 once and #5 once?  I'd say plenty.  Adley (or Witt) was a no-brainer... but still, he made a good call there.  Until they've been successful for some time at the big league level, the jury is still out on Kjerstad, Cowser, and Holliday.  But each are very promising. 

1. 2019: Picking #1 overall and in every round thereafter, he went with the presumed favorite in Rutschman over the HS SS Witt Jr.  He then made his best pick in Gunnar Henderson in R2.  He also added Stowers later in R2 and Joey Ortiz in R4. 
2. 2020: Picking #2 overall, Elias drafted Kjerstad, then Westburg #30 overall, and Mayo in R4.  
3. 2021: Picking #5 overall, Elias drafted Cowser, then Norby in R2... no one else of note thereafter, thus far.
4. 2022: Picking #1 overall again, Elias drafted Holliday and then Beavers later in R1 (33).  Beavers is a decent bet to be a 4th OF at some point.  No one else of note thereafter, thus far.
5. 2023: Picking #17 overall, Elias drafted Bradfield Jr., Horvath in R2 and Baumeister later in R2.  It's too soon to get a fair idea how this went.
6. 2024: Picking #22 overall, Elias drafted (CF) Honeycutt, then (SS) O'Ferrall at #32, and (C) Anderson in R2. 

2019 and 2020 look VERY strong.  Major building blocks were added. 
2021 looks meh overall, but how Cowser (and Norby to a lesser extent) develops will determine a final grade.
Picking #1 in 2022 netted a top prospect in the game (great pick), but little else thus far looks promising.
2023 and 2024 are too soon to discuss with any degree of certainty, IMHO.

IMHO I'd like to see a change in the way the O's go about choosing their picks, especially relying less on college bats after R1.  Arms and HS bats added to the mix would be preferable to how we've gone about it.
2020-- Haskin (R2) and Servideo (R3)... neither look like major leaguers.
2021-- Trimble (R2), and Rhodes (R3)... neither look like major leaguers.
2022-- Wagner (R2), Fabian (R2), and MacLean (R3)... Wagner looks like a bust, Fabian may eventually play as a reserve in the bigs but has issues at the plate, and MacLean never signed.

What are your thoughts?  Do you feel things are good as is, or should an adjustment be made in the team's draft strategy?

Edited July 29 by Greg Pappas

[Jim'sKid26]

@Greg Pappas the question everyone is asking about the O's overall draft strategy is, (and I am paraphrasing here), how do they get premium starting pitching into the system without targeting it in the early rounds of the draft? I think you can look back on all of those drafts you have reviewed and find pitchers that the O's passed over that have been successful, to some extent, in pro ball. 

So do they go in a different direction? Latin American? Asia? It seems like they have shyed away from pitching entirely if it requires them to risk significant $. It appears that they draft pitchers with one or two measurable skills in the later rounds for less money; almost as if they are hedging their bets. Of course, given the cost of premium starting pitching on the open market, if they hit on one or two it might seem a brilliant strategy.

[Greg Pappas]

1 hour ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

@Greg Pappas the question everyone is asking about the O's overall draft strategy is, (and I am paraphrasing here), how do they get premium starting pitching into the system without targeting it in the early rounds of the draft? I think you can look back on all of those drafts you have reviewed and find pitchers that the O's passed over that have been successful, to some extent, in pro ball. 

So do they go in a different direction? Latin American? Asia? It seems like they have shyed away from pitching entirely if it requires them to risk significant $. It appears that they draft pitchers with one or two measurable skills in the later rounds for less money; almost as if they are hedging their bets. Of course, given the cost of premium starting pitching on the open market, if they hit on one or two it might seem a brilliant strategy.

We'll see how it plays out, but I think the best way to acquire pitching is (under their current style) to sign International FA's like the Mets, Yankees, Dodgers, and other top revenue teams do.  They don't always work out, but it wouldn't cost us anything, other than money.  We are a low payroll team, and down the road will need to spend more to keep guys, but our window to win is wide open... now.

[emmett16]

Anyone else noticing, while reading these write ups, that the majority of these kids are fantastic students.  It’s mention in quite a few descriptions. 

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

Anyone else noticing, while reading these write ups, that the majority of these kids are fantastic students.  It’s mention in quite a few descriptions. 

I ignore stuff like that.  I figure they aren't going to say that Aiden barely squeaked by in class.

[emmett16]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I ignore stuff like that.  I figure they aren't going to say that Aiden barely squeaked by in class.

For sure.  It just kinda jumped out to me this morning.  Was the first time I read through the descriptions of all the draftees.   

Edited July 22 by emmett16

[Frobby]

I thought this comment by Eric Longenghagen was interesting:

Groupthink on the Rise

Another common response from industry personnel this year was something like, “We are all making decisions looking at the same data and, increasingly, based on similar interpretations of that data.” This intersects with the college contact hitter point above. Teams are looking at fastball vertical approach angle and hitters’ contact and chase rates, and they have regression models that are fed the same data as their competitors’ models, in part because MLB (and its cheaper owners) wanted to avoid an arms race in this space. People in successful organizations diffuse to bad ones when the bad ones make a new GM or POBO hire, and the methodology of the successful orgs spreads to the crummier teams. This is happening faster than individual teams can make a leap in scouting or dev, and we’re approaching a sort of equilibrium where the competitive advantages will be mined from the interpersonal nooks and crannies of this process and the strategy with which teams pick. I think you could argue that orgs that are less inclined to adhere to data-based methods are in a better position now than ever before because the many data-driven teams end up competing for the same players. If there’s a science- or analytics-driven gap between teams, it’s in the way player development is considered as they determine their draft targets.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/2024-mlb-draft-day-two-and-three-roundup/

[sportsfan8703]

@Can_of_corn pointed something out the other day that we have to draft and develop 2-3 of these bats just to possibly get 1 SP. That’s not even for 6+ years of control. 

Let’s say we trade Fabian for one of the rental SP. Hall and Ortiz went for Burnes. Hernaiz went for Irvin. Prieto, Rom, and Showalter, for Flaherty.

We’ve missed on rd 2-6 bats like Severdeo, Trimble, Rhodes, etc… in the process of this strategy

We’ve traded all that for 2.5 years of pitching control and put resources into drafting that philosophy. All we would’ve had to do was hit on one pitcher in the draft to blow that 2.5 out the water. 

Just a simple counter point to the draft the bats, buy the arms. 

[GoldGlove21]

14 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

@Can_of_corn pointed something out the other day that we have to draft and develop 2-3 of these bats just to possibly get 1 SP. That’s not even for 6+ years of control. 

Let’s say we trade Fabian for one of the rental SP. Hall and Ortiz went for Burnes. Hernaiz went for Irvin. Prieto, Rom, and Showalter, for Flaherty.

We’ve missed on rd 2-6 bats like Severdeo, Trimble, Rhodes, etc… in the process of this strategy

We’ve traded all that for 2.5 years of pitching control and put resources into drafting that philosophy. All we would’ve had to do was hit on one pitcher in the draft to blow that 2.5 out the water. 

Just a simple counter point to the draft the bats, buy the arms. 

At this point the Orioles should keep Mayo for 3B/1B/RF/DH, Basallo for 1B/C/DH, Holliday for 2B/SS, and Kjerstad as RF/DH. Be willing to trade most of the rest for SP and RP that help this year and maybe next. Any longer term contracts are a bonus. Then when free agency comes, you go out there and fill 1-2 holes with good players. Take the big money free agent signings and throw that money at Gunnar and Adley extensions. But, this team has to start drafting high upside pitching earlier than round 4-5.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

@Can_of_corn pointed something out the other day that we have to draft and develop 2-3 of these bats just to possibly get 1 SP. That’s not even for 6+ years of control. 

Let’s say we trade Fabian for one of the rental SP. Hall and Ortiz went for Burnes. Hernaiz went for Irvin. Prieto, Rom, and Showalter, for Flaherty.

We’ve missed on rd 2-6 bats like Severdeo, Trimble, Rhodes, etc… in the process of this strategy

We’ve traded all that for 2.5 years of pitching control and put resources into drafting that philosophy. All we would’ve had to do was hit on one pitcher in the draft to blow that 2.5 out the water. 

Just a simple counter point to the draft the bats, buy the arms. 

The fallacy in your logic is that if a hitter we develop  is at the same level as your hypothetical pitcher, we will get a lot more value than 2.5 years of some pitcher.   Proven commodities are worth multiple prospects, whether it’s hitters or pitchers on either side of the equation.  

[emmett16]

I’ve been reading Dollar Sign on the Muscle by Kevin Kerrane.  It’s about the history of scouting.  It’s interesting to see the scouting/drafting philosophies of the greatest player developers of all time and how they’ve remained fairly consistent and eerily similar to what our current FO is doing. Here are some excerpts:

”When Rickey himself had worked for the Browns, from 1913 to 1917 he experimented briefly with the idea of the farm system—-direct control of MiLB teams by the MLB parent organization, creating a production line of talent.  The farm system was a strategy for saving money: instead of bidding against other major league teams for players, Rickey wanted to grow his own”

“Of course, everybody put a premium on pitching, and pitchers usually constituted half the names on each scouts draft list.  But the weakest teams consciously tried to pull themselves up from nowhere by drafting pitchers with every key pick and by searching always for the overpowering prospect —alleged to be the next Koufax—-who might single handedly propel a bad team into the first division”

 

“Rickeys fundamental principle “quality out of quantity,” had direct implications for scouting.  Since the Cardinals would be signing droves of amateurs instead of buying a few polished minor leaguers, Barrett and Rickey needed to project players further into the future.  Scouting would now require a clear analysis of a youngster’s total athletic talents, his “tools”. For running speed: Rickey called it the only common denominator of offense and defense, and he believed it to be the single best indicator of major-league potential.  The least important tool was fielding: “we can teach the to field”

”You should start with a kid that can run and throw above average.  If he doesn’t hit, you can always use him on defense or a pinch runner.  But if he’s that good an athlete, and if your ballclub can afford to be patient, he’ll usually hit —not with power maybe, but he’ll learn to hit.”

 

”Rickey was a fanatic about speed, and I guess I am too.  And you can see for yourself: the Pirates are built on speed, the cardinals are built on speed, the Dodgers are built on speed —-and they win.”

”Another fundamental question dividing scouting organizations was, “where are you looking?” Economy minded clubs looked mainly in the college ranks, because college players were cheaper to sign and, if successful, provided a quicker return on investment.  Traditionalists clubs focused on high school players and accepted higher bonuses and longer training as the costs of ultimate success.”

Edited July 29 by emmett16

[OriolesMagic83]

I've started to look thru Elias' past drafts and he's obviously had great success in the first 2 rounds and the supplemental rounds.  After that he's had very poor results.  No one gets great results after the 2nd round but I think Elias' might be even below average.  I noticed in the 2021 draft he took no hs picks but only college picks.  IMO, it wouldn't hurt to keep the same strategy for the first 2 round with the occasional 2nd round/supplemental pick for the standout pitcher.  For round 3-10, concentrate on high upside college pitchers who will probably be relievers (omg, you're drafting relievers).  Relievers and high minor relievers are some of the most valuable trade capital.  Also pick a few high upside hs bats.  These would be obvious overslots and would necessitate take a couple of senior signs.  Rounds 11-20 are college players and some hs arms.  These are probably organizational players although you might hit on a lottery ticket or two. 

[RZNJ]

1 hour ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

I've started to look thru Elias' past drafts and he's obviously had great success in the first 2 rounds and the supplemental rounds.  After that he's had very poor results.  No one gets great results after the 2nd round but I think Elias' might be even below average.  I noticed in the 2021 draft he took no hs picks but only college picks.  IMO, it wouldn't hurt to keep the same strategy for the first 2 round with the occasional 2nd round/supplemental pick for the standout pitcher.  For round 3-10, concentrate on high upside college pitchers who will probably be relievers (omg, you're drafting relievers).  Relievers and high minor relievers are some of the most valuable trade capital.  Also pick a few high upside hs bats.  These would be obvious overslots and would necessitate take a couple of senior signs.  Rounds 11-20 are college players and some hs arms.  These are probably organizational players although you might hit on a lottery ticket or two. 

In the 2021 draft they took Creed Willems, a HS catcher, in the 8th round and went way overslot at 1M.

I generally agree with your points.   They drafted 4 HS position players this year.  None were high profile but Layton, the 6th rounder, signed for 700K.   The 19th rounder, Whitaker, signed for 150K.    Hopefully they sign at least one of the remaining two.   

[Can_of_corn]

3 hours ago, RZNJ said:

In the 2021 draft they took Creed Willems, a HS catcher, in the 8th round and went way overslot at 1M.

I generally agree with your points.   They drafted 4 HS position players this year.  None were high profile but Layton, the 6th rounder, signed for 700K.   The 19th rounder, Whitaker, signed for 150K.    Hopefully they sign at least one of the remaining two.   

At the time I saw speculation that the O's preferred target was picked before they had a chance to grab him and that Willems was a contingency plan.

[elextrano8]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

At the time I saw speculation that the O's preferred target was picked before they had a chance to grab him and that Willems was a contingency plan.

So you saw speculation... three years ago? How confident are you that the speculation is true? Do you remember who was doing the speculating?