Number 14 Prospect: LHP - Aaron Wirsch

[Lucky Jim]

It's like I said about rating Florimon at No. 13. If Florimon and Wirsch are here, that means nobody else in our system, in Tony's opinion, will ever amount to much more than organizational filler, because that's what these two seem to be from what I can tell.

That's probably being a little hard on Wirsch considering he was just drafted, but an 85-87 mph fastball better be backed up by one helluva arsenal of off-speed pitches, incredible control and a true grasp of how to get batters out.

Still can't see how Avery, Hoes, Johnson and Ohlman are behind these guys.

This is a pretty misguided deduction. How does it mean that no one else is more than filler in Tony's opinion because that's what these two seem from what you can tell?

[Tony-OH]

It's like I said about rating Florimon at No. 13. If Florimon and Wirsch are here, that means nobody else in our system, in Tony's opinion, will ever amount to much more than organizational filler, because that's what these two seem to be from what I can tell.

That's probably being a little hard on Wirsch considering he was just drafted, but an 85-87 mph fastball better be backed up by one helluva arsenal of off-speed pitches, incredible control and a true grasp of how to get batters out.

Still can't see how Avery, Hoes, Johnson and Ohlman are behind these guys.

If I thought Wirsch was going to end up with a 85-87 MPH fastball, he wouldn't be here. Again, this is about projection. To me, I feel a potential left-handed starter and a potential starting shortstop is better than the guys left. Also, I wouldn't get too wrapped up over the rankings because honestly, is there a huge difference between 14 and 17? The important part are the writeups in my opinion. Getting the type of player down is way more important then where I put him on a list. I'll give you a hint though, I don't think Johnson is a major league starter so yes, I'd prefer to have a potential starter than a guy who's got marginal stuff and will probably have a Josh Towers' type career at best.

[LookinUp]

It seems one thing to rank a prospect highly before he's performed at the MLB level because we think he's got great stuff.

But I can't say it's a sign of strength in the system that we're putting a guy with an 85-87 MPH FB so high up, and hoping that his good arm action carries him all the way to fringe average starter velocity.

Could you expand on what you mean by "hoping" in this post?

If by hoping you mean that Tony and/or the O's have some sort of blind faith that Wirsch will develop "fringe average starter velocity" then I think you're mischaracterizing why he was placed so high.

As I read it, Tony's "hoping" that he becomes more than that, and he's "hoping" that because of numerous first hand accounts from people who probably know a thing or two about pitching. In fact, I think hoping is a terrible word here.

If you think Wirsh at 14 is a reflection of a prospect that Tony or the O's are hoping becomes the next Rick Zagone, I think you've misread these reports.

[Lucky Jim]

Could you expand on what you mean by "hoping" in this post?

If by hoping you mean that Tony and/or the O's have some sort of blind faith that Wirsch will develop "fringe average starter velocity" then I think you're mischaracterizing why he was placed so high.

As I read it, Tony's "hoping" that he becomes more than that, and he's "hoping" that because of numerous first hand accounts from people who probably know a thing or two about pitching. In fact, I think hoping is a terrible word here.

If you think Wirsh at 14 is a reflection of a prospect that Tony or the O's are hoping becomes the next Rick Zagone, I think you've misread these reports.

Thanks for enlightening me. I'm not sure where I implied that I thought the O's or Tony hoped Wirsch would become Rick Zagone - probably because I didn't. Perhaps you've misread what I wrote?

Here's the blurb:

Wirsch was available in the 7th round due to a fastball that sits in the 85-87 MPH range, but the Orioles see a nice loose arm and good hand speed and predict his velocity will improve as he physically matures . . . Coaches have already become to rave about his pitchability and athleticism and feel he could be something special once he matures physically.

Thus, the O's and Tony - while projecting that he will get better when he matures - are banking his upside on that maturation increasing his stuff. From my experience, when you make probabilistic determinations, hope often fills the gap between your analysis and your desired outcome. (You've equated hope with blind faith. I didn't. Perhaps you can explain why you've done this.) It's inarguable that there remains a gap between his stuff now and our projection. Unless you're saying it's a sure thing. And if that's the case, it looks like you're reading Tony's blurb incorrectly, too.

Indeed, it seems if there's any reading comprehension issue, it's yours. I referred to "fringe average starter velocity" not a "fringe average starter" (perhaps you can also explain here why you seem to conflate the two). His out-pitch is his curveball. But his upside is still limited by the fact that it's highly unlikely he picks up more than 5mph on his FB. He's projectable, but we're not talking about projectable w/ a 90-92 MPH FB here.

If Wirsch's velocity doesn't improve more than, say, 3mph, what's his prospect status? What's his upside? If it doesn't improve more than 1-2 mph, what's his prospect status? What's his upside?

They may predict it will improve. But they can't know how much. In the absence of certainty, generally speaking, one offers hope.

To be clear, I thought this was a good draft pick, and am glad we got him in the fold. I imagine he will develop over time. But right now we're ranking him this high due to stuff that's not evident yet. Absent a baseline of a MLB fastball (pre-development), I stand by my (and just my) assertion that any time a ranking is wholly based on projection, it's a sign of a weak(ened) system.

[hoosiers]

IMO, AW is a classic example of a kid who might otherwise go to college, add the weight to his frame and emerge a very early round pick by his junior year. If you drafted five AWs one would turn into a first round by the end of his college days by adding the velo to get to 91-93. Further, part of the appeal of AW is the rest of the package is there - good off-speed, hard worker, coachable, etc. If AW were tossing 91-93 in April 2009, he would have been a first or second rounder.

Joe Jordan has made a relatively low cost bet that AW puts on the velo between now and the time AW is ready for the majors to be a contributor at that level. IMO, the investment is easily worth the risk.

[Stotle]

To be clear, I thought this was a good draft pick, and am glad we got him in the fold. I imagine he will develop over time. But right now we're ranking him this high due to stuff that's not evident yet. Absent a baseline of a MLB fastball (pre-development), I stand by my (and just my) assertion that any time a ranking is wholly based on projection, it's a sign of a weak(ened) system.

I agree whole-heartedly with the bolded, as well as generally with the idea that having him this high is an indication that from Tony's analysis there are serious questions relating to each of the remaining players not yet discussed. If BAL does the same thing this next draft with Wahl, I'll be thrilled.

[Stotle]

IMO, AW is a classic example of a kid who might otherwise go to college, add the weight to his frame and emerge a very early round pick by his junior year. If you drafted five AWs one would turn into a first round by the end of his college days by adding the velo to get to 91-93. Further, part of the appeal of AW is the rest of the package is there - good off-speed, hard worker, coachable, etc. If AW were tossing 91-93 in April 2009, he would have been a first or second rounder.

Joe Jordan has made a relatively low cost bet that AW puts on the velo between now and the time AW is ready for the majors to be a contributor at that level. IMO, the investment is easily worth the risk.

Definitely agree with the general sentiment. I don't think it carries weight with regards to current ranking, but I like that he was selected and is a part of the Baltimore system, now.

[Lucky Jim]

IMO, AW is a classic example of a kid who might otherwise go to college, add the weight to his frame and emerge a very early round pick by his junior year. If you drafted five AWs one would turn into a first round by the end of his college days by adding the velo to get to 91-93. Further, part of the appeal of AW is the rest of the package is there - good off-speed, hard worker, coachable, etc. If AW were tossing 91-93 in April 2009, he would have been a first or second rounder.

Joe Jordan has made a relatively low cost bet that AW puts on the velo between now and the time AW is ready for the majors to be a contributor at that level. IMO, the investment is easily worth the risk.

I agree for the most part. Maybe not about the first round part, but the rest. As I noted.

But that's a very different thing than saying he's the 14th best prospect in the system right now. If he is, that seems to imply that Wirsch's roomy projection - alone - is worth more than the stuff and results of anyone else in the system.

I don't mean to downplay his curve, btw. It's an important factor, I'm sure.

[Tony-OH]

I agree for the most part. Maybe not about the first round part, but the rest. As I noted.

But that's a very different thing than saying he's the 14th best prospect in the system right now. If he is, that seems to imply that Wirsch's roomy projection - alone - is worth more than the stuff and results of anyone else in the system.

I don't mean to downplay his curve, btw. It's an important factor, I'm sure.

I really can't argue with anything you've written so far, but I thought I'd give you a little more information on why I put him here.

1) I'm a big believer in guys with tall frames that have a good athletic control over their bodies at a young age.

2) He's left-handed with a good breaking ball and a feel for the change already.

3) The arm action and hand speed to go along with his frame and athleticism give the scouts I talked to a real good feel for him adding velocity.

4) You are right when you say I have misgivings about the guys behind him who have already played in the system. This doesn't mean there are not guys who could break out, just that if it were my system and I could only one of those guys, Wirsch would be my guy over the others because of his potential to be a major league starter.

I'm not going to go and say that this guy is Brian Matusz, but go look at what Matusz was throwing when he came out of high school. These guys have a lot of the same traits at the same age and very similar builds.

[Lucky Jim]

I really can't argue with anything you've written so far, but I thought I'd give you a little more information on why I put him here.

1) I'm a big believer in guys with tall frames that have a good athletic control over their bodies at a young age.

2) He's left-handed with a good breaking ball and a feel for the change already.

3) The arm action and hand speed to go along with his frame and athleticism give the scouts I talked to a real good feel for him adding velocity.

4) Are you right when you say I have misgivings about the guys behind him who have already played in the system. This doesn't mean there are not guys who could break out, just that if it were my system and I could only one of those guys, Wirsch would be my guy over the others because of his potential to be a major league starter.

I'm not going to go and say that this guy is Brian Matusz, but go look at what Matusz was throwing when he came out of high school. These guys have a lot of the same traits at the same age and very similar builds.

Thanks for the info. And that's all good stuff. I mean, too often on here, slight variations in how we weight tools/production/projection - and the expression of those variations - leads others to think that there's some kind of attack or affront intended. I certainly meant none.

There's a lot to like about Wirsch. And the Matusz comparison is an excellent one. Of course Matusz's progression in college is exceptional, and we shouldn't bank on it, at the same time it gives us an idea of upside.

I noted that expecting more than a 5 MPH bump in velocity would be overly optimistic. How much room on his FB do you think there is?

[Frobby]

Really good discussion in this thread, thanks.

[Tony-OH]

I noted that expecting more than a 5 MPH bump in velocity would be overly optimistic. How much room on his FB do you think there is?

I'm not positive because I've never seen him pitch, but it would not be uncommon for a guy with his attributes to see a 5-7 MPH jump in velocity by the time he's 21-years old.

Even if it's five MPH, a tall lefty with a plus breaking ball, change and a 90-92 MPH fastball with life has a lot of value.

[allstar1579]

I really can't argue with anything you've written so far, but I thought I'd give you a little more information on why I put him here.

1) I'm a big believer in guys with tall frames that have a good athletic control over their bodies at a young age.

2) He's left-handed with a good breaking ball and a feel for the change already.

3) The arm action and hand speed to go along with his frame and athleticism give the scouts I talked to a real good feel for him adding velocity.

4) You are right when you say I have misgivings about the guys behind him who have already played in the system. This doesn't mean there are not guys who could break out, just that if it were my system and I could only one of those guys, Wirsch would be my guy over the others because of his potential to be a major league starter.

I'm not going to go and say that this guy is Brian Matusz, but go look at what Matusz was throwing when he came out of high school. These guys have a lot of the same traits at the same age and very similar builds.

This is a great point. Year after year we tend to say, oh look we could have had so and so out of HS before he went on to be a top 10 pick as a college junior. A lot of those guys looked just like AW did coming out of HS, and it was an excellent early jump. It might not pan out in the end, or we could end up with 4-5 guys that are first round talent in a couple years, but picks like this are how good teams build for the future.

[Arthur_Bryant]

I'm not positive because I've never seen him pitch, but it would not be uncommon for a guy with his attributes to see a 5-7 MPH jump in velocity by the time he's 21-years old.

Even if it's five MPH, a tall lefty with a plus breaking ball, change and a 90-92 MPH fastball with life has a lot of value.

An interesting tidbit in Adam Vencill's interview with the Britton brothers was that in HS, Zach and Clayton Kershaw pitched on the same summer league team, both basically as mopup guys. They threw in the mid-80s. I want to quote a little Plus content here because it's completely on point:

We only threw in our junior year mid-80’s and all of a sudden I’m talking to him and he’s like, ‘Dude, I hit 96 the other day’ and I told him ‘Yeah, I hit 93 the other day, I don’t know what’s going on’. Then I start hearing him about upper-90’s and being in the first round.

This happens all the time, usually between ages 16 and 19 or 20, depending on how the individual player matures. Sometimes it bumps velocity from 79 to 85, but if the kid is already throwing in the upper 80s, then it turns him into a pro prospect or potential Division 1 starter.

College coaches count on it; both Kershaw and Britton had been recruited at Texas A&M despite the fact that their stuff didn't play at a Big 12 level in their junior years in HS.

A couple of months ago, I had an interesting conversation with the head coach at a Division 1 school, in a conference dominated by a couple of powerhouse schools. He said that picking out the developed studs in HS is easy; unfortunately, most of the studs want a pro contract or a full ride at a well-known program. To stay competitive, he had to target the projectable kids who hadn't yet developed. Pretty much the same as a pro scouting director.

Athleticism has a lot to do with it, not just in where a kid's velocity tops out, but in whether he can command the velocity. You have to be able to repeat good pitches, and the key to repeating is balance, being able to keep weight consistently centered between the hips and shoulders. An 18 YO 6-6 lefty who can do that over and over is a pretty rare specimen, and if he already throws 87-88 before he has filled out, and he already has an excellent curve and a feel for a change, then he's a pretty good bet to go places.

I have no idea where Wirsch will top out or how he will develop, but from the Tony's description I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him move in a hurry once he hits age 20 or so.

[LookinUp]

Thanks for enlightening me. I'm not sure where I implied that I thought the O's or Tony hoped Wirsch would become Rick Zagone - probably because I didn't. Perhaps you've misread what I wrote?

Here's the blurb:

Thus, the O's and Tony - while projecting that he will get better when he matures - are banking his upside on that maturation increasing his stuff. From my experience, when you make probabilistic determinations, hope often fills the gap between your analysis and your desired outcome. (You've equated hope with blind faith. I didn't. Perhaps you can explain why you've done this.) It's inarguable that there remains a gap between his stuff now and our projection. Unless you're saying it's a sure thing. And if that's the case, it looks like you're reading Tony's blurb incorrectly, too.

Indeed, it seems if there's any reading comprehension issue, it's yours. I referred to "fringe average starter velocity" not a "fringe average starter" (perhaps you can also explain here why you seem to conflate the two). His out-pitch is his curveball. But his upside is still limited by the fact that it's highly unlikely he picks up more than 5mph on his FB. He's projectable, but we're not talking about projectable w/ a 90-92 MPH FB here.

If Wirsch's velocity doesn't improve more than, say, 3mph, what's his prospect status? What's his upside? If it doesn't improve more than 1-2 mph, what's his prospect status? What's his upside?

They may predict it will improve. But they can't know how much. In the absence of certainty, generally speaking, one offers hope.

To be clear, I thought this was a good draft pick, and am glad we got him in the fold. I imagine he will develop over time. But right now we're ranking him this high due to stuff that's not evident yet. Absent a baseline of a MLB fastball (pre-development), I stand by my (and just my) assertion that any time a ranking is wholly based on projection, it's a sign of a weak(ened) system.

Since the discussion has moved on, it's probably not useful for me to reply point by point to this post. Needless to say, I don't think Wirsch at 14 is a sign of a weak system, you do.

Originally Posted by Lucky Jim

But I can't say it's a sign of strength in the system that we're putting a guy with an 85-87 MPH FB so high up

I think the reports on Wirsch should leave everyone very optimistic, and I'm still optimistic about several guys who have not shown up on the list (Drake, Welty, several pitchers from this year, even Turner). You've clarified that you seem to be optimistic about him too. I'm not sure that was so clear from your earlier post.