Churchill: Matzek impressing

[crawdad]

I think we avoid him for the fact that he is a Boras client coming off a less than convincing season.

We didn't draft any Boras clients last year and MacPhail wouldn't have drafted Wieters IIRC...

We are not avoiding Boras clients as far as I am aware.

[QBsILLEST1]

How does Matzek compare to Kershaw or Porcello when both of them were selected out of HS? Similar stuff?

[Stotle]

How does Matzek compare to Kershaw or Porcello when both of them were selected out of HS? Similar stuff?

Matzek is below both. Both had superior fastballs and Kershaw's curve was better.

[allstar1579]

How does Matzek compare to Kershaw or Porcello when both of them were selected out of HS? Similar stuff?

You want to compare him to Hamels, or Matusz coming out of HS for comparison's sake. They are the same type of pitcher, where Kershaw is more of a power guy.

[whatdoiget000]

Then again, Kershaw has an AMAZING curveball.

This is a pitching deep draft, I hope we don't take Green.

[Stotle]

Then again, Kershaw has an AMAZING curveball.

This is a pitching deep draft, I hope we don't take Green.

Definitely pitching heavy up top.

[Stotle]

Well, one theory would be that if it's a pitching deep draft with few position prospects, then it would good to grab a top postion guy with the 5th pick, because you can still get good pitching with a 2nd and 3rd round pick. I don't claim to be a draft expert by any means but the O's have done well finding pitchers after the 1st round. The few posts on Matzek suggest that he's not a top 5 or even top 10 pick for me.

1. There must be a distinction made between "pitching heavy" at the top (which is what I think) and "pitching heavy" throughout the draft (which I don't think is necessarily the case).

2. Ten potential draftees better than Matzek? Who would they be?

[allstar1579]

Well, one theory would be that if it's a pitching deep draft with few position prospects, then it would good to grab a top postion guy with the 5th pick, because you can still get good pitching with a 2nd and 3rd round pick. I don't claim to be a draft expert by any means but the O's have done well finding pitchers after the 1st round. The few posts on Matzek suggest that he's not a top 5 or even top 10 pick for me.

That's one theory, but being pitching deep doesn't necessarily mean that the few position prospects in the draft are worth their draft position. Not everyone drafts like they should and some take for need, meaning that some of those position guys will get drafted near the top, when they aren't as talented as the pitchers up there. Ackley might be the lone exception right now. I can just as easily see Green out of the top 10 as I can see him in it.

I don't know which posts you are talking about, but I could see Matzek going 2nd overall if a team wasn't sold on Ackley.

[crawdad]

You got me there. I haven't been studying the draft. Most of what I know of this year's draft is what I'm reading on here. Usually I'd have read some BA articles and have a little more knowledge at this time. Matzek just doesn't sound like he has a special arm and when you combine that with the fact that he's a HS kid, I just don't feel he warrants a #10 pick or better. Let's face it, there is still plenty of time and some names will rocket up the list and become "hot". Not sure who those would be. Unless there is a special pictcher there at #5, I'd prefer a bat. Saying that I wouldn't draft for need and am thinking that Green would be a reach at #5. His bat scares me.

With the information that has been on here . . . the only way you could not see him as a top 5 pick would be if you abhor the selection of any high school pitcher. There is really nothing much negative about the guy.

[allstar1579]

You got me there. I haven't been studying the draft. Most of what I know of this year's draft is what I'm reading on here. Usually I'd have read some BA articles and have a little more knowledge at this time. Matzek just doesn't sound like he has a special arm and when you combine that with the fact that he's a HS kid, I just don't feel he warrants a #10 pick or better. Let's face it, there is still plenty of time and some names will rocket up the list and become "hot". Not sure who those would be. Unless there is a special pictcher there at #5, I'd prefer a bat. Saying that I wouldn't draft for need and am thinking that Green would be a reach at #5. His bat scares me.

Normally I'd agree with you, but this is a really top-heavy year for pitching, so those guys you are hearing so much about are going to be the ones taken in the top 10. You are right that in the next month, a couple guys will become hotter names than others, but I'd expect Matzek to be in that group. There are a few HS arms that are worthy of going that high, I'd expect you'll hear Matzek and Purke both mentioned here quite a bit. Green will still stay in conversation, but I don't know where he goes in that group.

[Stotle]

You got me there. I haven't been studying the draft. Most of what I know of this year's draft is what I'm reading on here. Usually I'd have read some BA articles and have a little more knowledge at this time. Matzek just doesn't sound like he has a special arm and when you combine that with the fact that he's a HS kid, I just don't feel he warrants a #10 pick or better. Let's face it, there is still plenty of time and some names will rocket up the list and become "hot". Not sure who those would be. Unless there is a special pictcher there at #5, I'd prefer a bat. Saying that I wouldn't draft for need and am thinking that Green would be a reach at #5. His bat scares me.

There's very little to dislike about Matzek, in my opinion. I've seen him at three showcases (one live; two taped) and about half-a-dozen other videod "sessions" (either bullpen or in a game). Good frame and mechanics, solid base of pitches, including four working offerings, two of which are at least fringe plus right now and all four of which can be at least above average. Room to add some velo. I like him a lot, but then again I had him circled last summer as someone I'd like BAL to end up with, so maybe I'm a bit of a fanboy...

If you want a bat, I'd say the fairly safe non-reaches at 1:5 would include Ackley, Tate and (for me) Davidson. Green is in my Top 10 and I still expect him to finish strong, but I might pass on him at this point, as well. I really like positional options in rounds 2-5 right now. In fact, my preference is probably to draft an arm with 1:5 and go with four positional players in the next four rounds, including 2 or 3 college corner bats, a HS C or SS if certain are available at 2:5 and a HS OF with some pop. Loosey-goosey off the top of my head.

[allstar1579]

There's very little to dislike about Matzek, in my opinion. I've seen him at three showcases (one live; two taped) and about half-a-dozen other videod "sessions" (either bullpen or in a game). Good frame and mechanics, solid base of pitches, including four working offerings, two of which are at least fringe plus right now and all four of which can be at least above average. Room to add some velo. I like him a lot, but then again I had him circled last summer as someone I'd like BAL to end up with, so maybe I'm a bit of a fanboy...

If you want a bat, I'd say the fairly safe non-reaches at 1:5 would include Ackley, Tate and (for me) Davidson. Green is in my Top 10 and I still expect him to finish strong, but I might pass on him at this point, as well. I really like positional options in rounds 2-5 right now. In fact, my preference is probably to draft an arm with 1:5 and go with four positional players in the next four rounds, including 2 or 3 college corner bats, a HS C or SS if certain are available at 2:5 and a HS OF with some pop. Loosey-goosey off the top of my head.

I'm also a big fan of Matzek. I like Ackley, and I would have no problem taking Davidson at 5 (good potential there, but far from a "lock"). I see Green as more 7-10 range right now, unless he gets hot and gets it all together real quick. Not a fan of Tate. He's got talent, but I worry about his commitment to the sport, how good could he be if he actually focused more than half of his time on baseball.

I agree with the plan overall though, take one of the high rated pitchers at 1:5, and then take some high-potential bats with your next few picks. That is unless someone like Scheppers or another guy slips and you can get good value late.

[Stotle]

Nothing negative but for a top 5 pitcher I'm looking for someone who's got a big time arm. I've gotten the impression that this is Brian Matusz without the 3 years of college experience. Matusz was a safe pick for a pitcher. A HS guy is a lot further away and a lot more risk, IMO. So yeah, I'm pretty weary of taking a HS pitcher in the top 5.

Your guy, then (if you want a HS pitcher), is Shelby Miller. Big power arm.

Although, it's worth noting that sitting in the low-90s as a HSer (with room in your frame for growth) can potentially be a power arm, as well. I understand your point/preference, though.

[JTrea81]

A HS guy is a lot further away and a lot more risk, IMO. So yeah, I'm pretty weary of taking a HS pitcher in the top 5.

Actually the stats would prove this theory incorrect. HS arms have been more successful than college arms in the top 10 picks of the draft in recent history. HS coaches can abuse guys just like college coaches, but it seems the college coaches really seem to abuse their top arms, especially when they are competing and that leads to arm problems for those college guys later down the road.

Beau Hale is a perfect example of this, ditto for Wade Townsend. I'd much rather take Matzek or Purke than White, Crow or Gibson...

[crawdad]

Actually the stats would prove this theory incorrect. HS arms have been more successful than college arms in the top 5 picks of the draft in recent history. HS coaches can abuse guys just like college coaches, but it seems the college coaches really seem to abuse their top arms, especially when they are competing and that leads to arm problems for those college guys later down the road.

Beau Hale is a perfect example of this, ditto for Wade Townsend. I'd much rather take Matzek or Purke than White, Crow or Gibson...

Again, this is simplistic.

Nothing has been proven and there is no theory.

This is a hypothesis that is being tested by combining draft set populations where the criteria has definitely changed. To paint all high school pitchers or all college pitchers as being a better or worse bet is nonsense. It is also nonsense to saying high school or college batters are more valuable than pitchers.

Eating plants is more dangerous than eating meat because some plants are naturally poisonous to us. So should we just ignore all plants?

Vegetables are more likely to be poisonous to us than fruit, so should we ignore all vegetables?

Can you see how this is simplistic? Generically characterizing a vast population is not useful. It may provide some context, but it does not help much when trying to make a decision.