Mock Five

[Stotle]

I wonder if this happened in 2007 when Wieters fell in their laps.

Though Wieters was a big fish, Strasburg could be insane bonus time. Whatever the scramble was in '07, I imagine Strasburg would be a bigger wrench in the gears.

Of course, I may have no idea what I'm talking about...

[ShoelesJoe]

For you experts --

How do the top class pitchers for this draft compare to where Brian Matusz was in the last draft? I wasn't a big fan of drafing Matusz, but at least the conventional wisdom at the time was that he wasn't a huge risk, and was going to be on the fast track to the big leagues. Are there any college arms likely to be available with the 5th pick that'll also have low risk, plus developed enough to be able to probably contribute at the ML level within 2/3years?

If the answer's no then wouldn't an impact bat like Poythress be the safer pick?

[Stotle]

For you experts --

How do the top class pitchers for this draft compare to where Brian Matusz was in the last draft? I wasn't a big fan of drafing Matusz, but at least the conventional wisdom at the time was that he wasn't a huge risk, and was going to be on the fast track to the big leagues. Are there any college arms likely to be available with the 5th pick that'll also have low risk, plus developed enough to be able to probably contribute at the ML level within 2/3years?

If the answer's no then wouldn't an impact bat like Poythress be the safer pick?

Most of the top college arms should be capable of contributing within 2/3 years (from signing). Poythress 1) is not a sure thing as an impact bat, and 2) may carry more risk than the top starters in that starters can be shifted to relief if there stuff doesn't end up playing. If Poythress's power doesn't fully translate, what are you left with?

[wickedwitch]

My visualization of this years' talent versus last years'.

this year: p..........bppbppbpppbp

last year: .....bbpbbbpbpbp

Not each p or b is specific, I just wanted to get show approximate ratio.

For you experts --

How do the top class pitchers for this draft compare to where Brian Matusz was in the last draft? I wasn't a big fan of drafing Matusz, but at least the conventional wisdom at the time was that he wasn't a huge risk, and was going to be on the fast track to the big leagues. Are there any college arms likely to be available with the 5th pick that'll also have low risk, plus developed enough to be able to probably contribute at the ML level within 2/3years?

After Strasburg, there's no pitcher that is better than and certainly not safer than Matusz.

[Stotle]

After Strasburg, there's no pitcher that is better than and certainly not safer than Matusz.

I agree with this, though Gibson is pretty safe.

[JTrea81]

My visualization of this years' talent versus last years'.

this year: p..........bppbppbpppbp

last year: .....bbpbbbpbpbp

Not each p or b is specific, I just wanted to get show approximate ratio.

After Strasburg, there's no pitcher that is better than and certainly not safer than Matusz.

Actually given the success rate of college pitchers (less than 30%) picked in the top 5, Purke and Matzek are safer bets than Matusz...

[QBsILLEST1]

The difference between the Wieters situation, with him dropping to us, and tyhis year with Strasburg is a couple of things, first off, Strasburg may/probably will be a better prospect than Wieters. IMO Stras is too good to pass up, also, in 07 when Wieters was drafted, the draft was LOADED with elite talent near the top. So if you passed on Wieters, you could get someone else nearly as good. This year, there is a major drop off from Stras to the next tier of players.

[wickedwitch]

Actually given the success rate of college pitchers (less than 30%) picked in the top 5, Purke and Matzek are safer bets than Matusz...

That applies only in generalities. But you can't judge each individual pitcher by that. Each one has characteristics besides being a college pitcher that make them more or less likely to succeed. For Matusz, these are all weighted in his favor.

[allstar1579]

For you experts --

How do the top class pitchers for this draft compare to where Brian Matusz was in the last draft? I wasn't a big fan of drafing Matusz, but at least the conventional wisdom at the time was that he wasn't a huge risk, and was going to be on the fast track to the big leagues. Are there any college arms likely to be available with the 5th pick that'll also have low risk, plus developed enough to be able to probably contribute at the ML level within 2/3years?

If the answer's no then wouldn't an impact bat like Poythress be the safer pick?

Strasburg is better than Matusz, but none of the others. Gibson is probably the next safest college arm, White is raising some questions right now. Hitter wise, the safest college picks are Ackley and Green, and there are questions about Green if that tells you anything. Poythress was really an afterthought to top 10 conversations at best until last month sometime, so this could just be a hot streak, it's not like Alvarez last year, that would be a safe pick.

I think if we can't find an impact position player, then a HS arm is the way to go. We have a pretty good stable of arms for the next 3 seasons to debut, so if we had HS talent with equal talent to one of the college arms, take the HS kid and start building for 5 years down the road too.

[Stotle]

Actually given the success rate of college pitchers (less than 30%) picked in the top 5, Purke and Matzek are safer bets than Matusz...

No, this ignores case-by-case analysis involving the handling of the pitcher by the HS/college coach.

[crawdad]

No, this ignores case-by-case analysis involving the handling of the pitcher by the HS/college coach.

This is just one of those crazy applications of statistics. When someone does a study and finds that a certain demo has a 30% chance of success . . . it does not mean you ignore that demo. It means you need to sift through it carefully and determine what is most likely unique to those who succeed.

It is like the old penicillin story. Most molds are worthless and many are potentially harmful. Penicillin chrysogenum excretes an antibiotic compound. So . . . does this mean that since it is such a rare thing to have a helpful product from mold that we should just ignore all molds?

The answers are reduced to this:

1. Can we determine specific characteristics that would identify certain molds are being helpful and others being not so helpful?

2. Is it impossible to distinguish molds?

Now, with respect to this analogy . . . we can lean on 1.

For pitchers, I think some types of pitchers (multiple pitches, relatively clean mechanics, at least 90mph) . . . we have a good record. For other types of pitchers (high heat, few developed pitches, poor mechanics) it is a lot sketchier. Simply put . . . there are highly projectable pitchers and not so easy to project ones.

[allstar1579]

This is just one of those crazy applications of statistics. When someone does a study and finds that a certain demo has a 30% chance of success . . . it does not mean you ignore that demo. It means you need to sift through it carefully and determine what is most likely unique to those who succeed.

It is like the old penicillin story. Most molds are worthless and many are potentially harmful. Penicillin chrysogenum excretes an antibiotic compound. So . . . does this mean that since it is such a rare thing to have a helpful product from mold that we should just ignore all molds?

The answers are reduced to this:

1. Can we determine specific characteristics that would identify certain molds are being helpful and others being not so helpful?

2. Is it impossible to distinguish molds?

Now, with respect to this analogy . . . we can lean on 1.

For pitchers, I think some types of pitchers (multiple pitches, relatively clean mechanics, at least 90mph) . . . we have a good record. For other types of pitchers (high heat, few developed pitches, poor mechanics) it is a lot sketchier. Simply put . . . there are highly projectable pitchers and not so easy to project ones.

This is why I really like Matzek, fairly clean mechanics, repeatable delivery, and good secondary pitches and command.

[BringBackMagic]

I agree with this, though Gibson is pretty safe.

Can we quantify "safe." Does this word mean that Gibson and Matusz are "safe" to make it to the majors? "Safe" to be a No. 3 starter or better? "Safe" to fulfill their potential?

I remember hearing people fuming over Matusz last year because the O's went with the "safe" pick, but then all of the scouts drooled over his stuff and some argued he's better than Tillman.

Apologies if this has been explained before but "safe" is such a vague word that's thrown around a lot and I think everybody has different definitions.

[allstar1579]

Can we quantify "safe." Does this word mean that Gibson and Matusz are "safe" to make it to the majors? "Safe" to be a No. 3 starter or better? "Safe" to fulfill their potential?

I remember hearing people fuming over Matusz last year because the O's went with the "safe" pick, but then all of the scouts drooled over his stuff and some argued he's better than Tillman.

Apologies if this has been explained before but "safe" is such a vague word that's thrown around a lot and I think everybody has different definitions.

Safe to not be a complete bust. Will make it to the majors, and have varying degrees of success based on talent level.

Matusz is a better pitcher than Gibson, but Gibson should also make it to the majors. I'd say Matusz looks like a 2 for sure, Gibson profiles as more of a 3 or 4 at best. Solid yet unspectacular is my official take on Gibson.

A lot of guys get taken in the top 5 or 10 because they have "sexy" stuff, a 100mph heater, or put up a sub 2.0 ERA over a season, maybe a killer curve. Teams will take chances on guys like these and try to develop the rest of their arsenal. Matusz already has the arsenal, just needs to pitch against professionals. Gibson needs to add some more muscle that will add a couple MPH to his fastball, he's still got a little improvement to do, but it's safer than taking an unproven HS arm, or White who has gotten knocked around lately.

[Stotle]

Can we quantify "safe." Does this word mean that Gibson and Matusz are "safe" to make it to the majors? "Safe" to be a No. 3 starter or better? "Safe" to fulfill their potential?

I remember hearing people fuming over Matusz last year because the O's went with the "safe" pick, but then all of the scouts drooled over his stuff and some argued he's better than Tillman.

Apologies if this has been explained before but "safe" is such a vague word that's thrown around a lot and I think everybody has different definitions.

Gibson in safe in that he has a plus secondary pitch, very good command and decent pitchability. "Safe" to provide ML-value at some point.

I wouldn't consider any HS pitcher "safe", but Matzek has very few red flags and some good characteristics that put him above some of the other HS arms -- pitchability, secondary command and refinement and fairly clean mechanics.