Jump to content

Rendon and an Ace?


Recommended Posts

Trading draft picks is not allowed.

I know, I was stating a completely hypothetical situation, and I said that I wish we could trade draft picks and tried to come up with a trade the O's could potentially make... but yes I know we cannot trade draft picks and probably will never be allowed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Oh I know that he can...

But he doesn't, and it's really nice to have a guy like Lester who sits around 94 and can top out at 96 or 97. As a pitcher, your margin for error increases with that velocity over a guy like Matusz who sits around 91 and doesn't usually throw harder than 92 or 93. I still think Matusz is great, but I also think it would be nice to have a guy before him in the rotation who was a true power arm.

I agree that it would be nice to have a true ace to pitch in front of Matusz, but Matusz is what he is. Less margin for error the harder you throw is true, but the difference between 92 and 94 isn't much, not enough of a difference that if you leave it up in the middle of the zone, that it won't get rocked, because it will, regardless. The tiny tiny difference in margin for error between 92 and 94 isn't worth the maxxed out energy you will have to use to accomplish this. His energy is better off preserved to go an extra inning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the correlation you are trying to make.....I never said Machado is a sure thing to stick at SS or even become an average MLB ball player at any position. So, I guess we can agree that regardless of talent or draft position, no one is a sure thing. The TOR potential college arms in the 11 draft are better bets to become TOR pitchers than Machado is to become an all star SS.

As AS just said, Matusz can touch 94, is there PITCH FX for the AFL a couple of years ago when he was there? He touched 94 there. We need to remember, Matusz is not a power guy, he is a command/finesse kind of pitcher with strong secondaries. He is also a good pitchability pitcher, he knows that command, and the ability to go deep into the game is more important than throwing as hard as he can.

I think I mis-understood one of your points when I brought up Machado, my bad. And I know Matusz is not a power-guy, I'm fine with him not being a power guy, I just think it would be nice to have a real "power-guy" at the front of the rotation. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, teams can definitely succeed without a "power-guy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple teams come to mind, 2002 Anahiem Angels, 2005 Chicago White Sox, and 2006 St. Louis Cardinals all didn't have aces. Infact the Cardinals used Jeff Weaver as a starter in game 2. They had Carpenter but really no one that great behind him, plus Carpenter only pitched one game in the series. I would much rather have consistency through all five of my starters then have one guy do great and then rely on some back end starters.

I'm not saying pitching is not important because historically the O's have won championships with high quality pitching, however if some how we make it to a world series that means that a couple of our pitchers caught fire and started shutting down their opponents. It only takes one great year to win the series, although none of our pitchers project to be year in year out aces, that doesn't mean a guy like Matusz, Tillman, Arrieta, or even Britton can't put up an ace like year.

Our minor league teams needs a big bat, Most scouts agree that Machado has potential to be that guy, and quite frankly our team is long from competing, so if Machado has to take four years then so be it because by 2014 our pitchers will hit there prime, Wieters will be raising hell on the AL east, Markakis will still be solid, a big bat should be signed to play first base, and Rendon and Machado will be ready to make one of the best left sides of the infield in the league. That in my opinion is our plan for success.

I do not know much about the 2011 pitching class but are there really 3 deep with sure thing aces? I find that hard to believe, lets keep with what we have.

This actually makes a lot of sense, sorry for responding so late. Hamels comes to mind when talking about aces. He had a solid year in '08 but nothing jumped out as "ace-like"/dominant, but then in the playoffs he kicked it up a notch and go hot at the right time. I could see that happening with Matusz, Arrieta, Britton, or maybe even someone else. The more guys you have with that potential, the more likely you will get lucky and lightning strikes with one of those guys.

It's rare to find a "sure-thing" ace in the draft. Strasburg was one, but I can't think of too many others. I think the top 3 collegiate pitchers in the draft next year will be really, really good (barring injuries of course) and have a lot of potential to become TOR starters, but they could easily be no. 2's or no. 3's, only time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it would be nice to have a true ace to pitch in front of Matusz, but Matusz is what he is. Less margin for error the harder you throw is true, but the difference between 92 and 94 isn't much, not enough of a difference that if you leave it up in the middle of the zone, that it won't get rocked, because it will, regardless. The tiny tiny difference in margin for error between 92 and 94 isn't worth the maxxed out energy you will have to use to accomplish this. His energy is better off preserved to go an extra inning.

Let me be clear, I do not and ever want Matusz or any of our pitchers to try to change the type of pitcher they are, especially Matusz. He is polished, and his is what he is, I have no problem with him whatsoever. I just think that it would be nice to supplement him with a power arm in the rotation, that is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statistically speaking, top draft pick (top 10) college pitchers are not better bets to make it as strong ML'ers over HS hitters. As a matter of research, it is HS bats that have the slight edge. Just a 'FYI'.

Yeah, when looking at it in a vaccum. How far back does the data date to just out of curiosity?

Looking at this on an individual scale, I don't think you will find too many people who will tell you that they think Machado has a better chance of making it than Cole, Jungmann or Purke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statistically speaking, top draft pick (top 10) college pitchers are not better bets to make it as strong ML'ers over HS hitters. As a matter of research, it is HS bats that have the slight edge. Just a 'FYI'.

Don't you need to distinguish between profiles, though? There is a huge difference in cross-sections of players within the larger categories of "college pitcher", "college hitter", "HS pitcher" and "HS hitter". Projectability, "now" stuff, command, frame, strength, stamina, pitchability, mental make-up on the mound, etc. are universal across college arms. I haven't seen a study to break things down further than the general four groups, and I haven't seen anything involving those four groups that leads me to believe any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

I mean, if it were as simple as looking at those groups and how the last twenty some years of top ten picks have faired, wouldn't we see organizations trending one way or the other? Outside of some generalities (HS RHP or corner bats), usually all four groups are in play for the top ten, year-in and year-out, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statistically speaking, top draft pick (top 10) college pitchers are not better bets to make it as strong ML'ers over HS hitters. As a matter of research, it is HS bats that have the slight edge. Just a 'FYI'.

I know this is true, however, regarding the draft aren't you supposed to look at it on a player-by-player basis? I like Machado, but I don't think he's a Griffey, Mauer, ARod, etc.-type player, whereas these three pitchers look very, very good (rare guys to find in college in my opinion), but maybe I'm wrong, I just don't think Machado is THAT special. I hope he is, this could really use a very good SS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you need to distinguish between profiles, though? There is a huge difference in cross-sections of players within the larger categories of "college pitcher", "college hitter", "HS pitcher" and "HS hitter". Projectability, "now" stuff, command, frame, strength, stamina, pitchability, mental make-up on the mound, etc. are universal across college arms. I haven't seen a study to break things down further than the general four groups, and I haven't seen anything involving those four groups that leads me to believe any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

I mean, if it were as simple as looking at those groups and how the last twenty some years of top ten picks have faired, wouldn't we see organizations trending one way or the other? Outside of some generalities (HS RHP or corner bats), usually all four groups are in play for the top ten, year-in and year-out, no?

One can draw whatever conclusions one wants, but researching the results of how Top Ten Draft Picks have fared in base groups shows noticeable differences. I was merely providing base generalities for inclusion in the discussion.

Here is the original thread... http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57155

And a Sons of Sam Horn study that seems to corroborate my short study... http://sonsofsamhorn.net/lofiversion/index.php/t4100.html

Yes, every player is different... but the results should factor into the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can draw whatever conclusions one wants, but researching the results of how Top Ten Draft Picks have fared in base groups shows noticeable differences. I was merely providing base generalities for inclusion in the discussion.

Here is the original thread... http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57155

And a Sons of Sam Horn study that seems to corroborate my short study... http://sonsofsamhorn.net/lofiversion/index.php/t4100.html

Yes, every player is different... but the results should factor into the equation.

Eh, I just don't agree that there is much useful to be gleaned from a broad categorization study. If there were, you'd see a heavy weighting as to how players were drafted. That is, you'd see HS position players drafted with more frequency up top. Or, you'd see teams picking the HS position player over the college arm when they were ranked closely. I don't see any evidence that this is the case.

Further, if one grants that even all Tier 1 HS position players are not created equal (using 2010, Sale/Wilson/Castellanos/Machado/O'Conner have differing profiles) then what is the ultimate utility of a broad study that says, "If you group all of the Tier 1 HS position players and all of the Tier 1 College arms, you are possibly more likely to find a useful ML player in the former group"? Would it lead you to pick Austin Wilson over Matt Harvey? Over Alex Wimmers? Not to mention, that draft slot does not always equate to "talent" slot in the MLB Draft, and looks at the Top 10 or the 1st Round ignore the fact that draft class profiles differ from year to year. 2011 may have 2nd Rounders that profile (talent wise) as mid- to late-1st Rounders in the 2010 class.

I think you are correct that one can draw whatever conclusion one wants. But I disagree that the conclusion will end-up being correct, or even useful. That's not meant to be a slight against the work that you or the Sons of Sam Horn put into it. But there are too many variables that are unaccounted for, I think, for either to be presented as pieces moving the study of the draft forward. Those four categories are just too broad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I mis-understood one of your points when I brought up Machado, my bad. And I know Matusz is not a power-guy, I'm fine with him not being a power guy, I just think it would be nice to have a real "power-guy" at the front of the rotation. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, teams can definitely succeed without a "power-guy".

I get it. It's just a preference thing, some guys like power guys better, some guys like poise and command better, some guys like guys with a ton of secondaries. Nothing wrong with any, just different approaches.

Just as a side note, we have to remember that stuff does not an Ace make, that an Ace is a mental thing that a TOR pitcher has to separate himself from other pitchers. An Ace is a guy that is a bulldog, that wants the ball to stop a losing streak, that will fight to stay in the game every pitch every inning. A guy that leads by example. A TOR #1/and sometimes#2 pitcher can have the same stuff as an Ace, just not actually be one (Bedard comes to mind).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it. It's just a preference thing, some guys like power guys better, some guys like poise and command better, some guys like guys with a ton of secondaries. Nothing wrong with any, just different approaches.

Just as a side note, we have to remember that stuff does not an Ace make, that an Ace is a mental thing that a TOR pitcher has to separate himself from other pitchers. An Ace is a guy that is a bulldog, that wants the ball to stop a losing streak, that will fight to stay in the game every pitch every inning. A guy that leads by example. A TOR #1/and sometimes#2 pitcher can have the same stuff as an Ace, just not actually be one (Bedard comes to mind).

Give Bedard Jake Arrieta's bulldoggedness(nice word) and you have yourself an ace......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I just don't agree that there is much useful to be gleaned from a broad categorization study. If there were, you'd see a heavy weighting as to how players were drafted. That is, you'd see HS position players drafted with more frequency up top. Or, you'd see teams picking the HS position player over the college arm when they were ranked closely. I don't see any evidence that this is the case.

Further, if one grants that even all Tier 1 HS position players are not created equal (using 2010, Sale/Wilson/Castellanos/Machado/O'Conner have differing profiles) then what is the ultimate utility of a broad study that says, "If you group all of the Tier 1 HS position players and all of the Tier 1 College arms, you are possibly more likely to find a useful ML player in the former group"? Would it lead you to pick Austin Wilson over Matt Harvey? Over Alex Wimmers? Not to mention, that draft slot does not always equate to "talent" slot in the MLB Draft, and looks at the Top 10 or the 1st Round ignore the fact that draft class profiles differ from year to year. 2011 may have 2nd Rounders that profile (talent wise) as mid- to late-1st Rounders in the 2010 class.

I think you are correct that one can draw whatever conclusion one wants. But I disagree that the conclusion will end-up being correct, or even useful. That's not meant to be a slight against the work that you or the Sons of Sam Horn put into it. But there are too many variables that are unaccounted for, I think, for either to be presented as pieces moving the study of the draft forward. Those four categories are just too broad.

I couldn't agree with this more.

I get it. It's just a preference thing, some guys like power guys better, some guys like poise and command better, some guys like guys with a ton of secondaries. Nothing wrong with any, just different approaches.

Just as a side note, we have to remember that stuff does not an Ace make, that an Ace is a mental thing that a TOR pitcher has to separate himself from other pitchers. An Ace is a guy that is a bulldog, that wants the ball to stop a losing streak, that will fight to stay in the game every pitch every inning. A guy that leads by example. A TOR #1/and sometimes#2 pitcher can have the same stuff as an Ace, just not actually be one (Bedard comes to mind).

Well I don't necessarily prefer those guys over Matusz, I think it's necessary to have guys like him as well as guys who can throw hard. Different teams have different weaknesses, offensively, so against some teams Matusz will be the right guy, against others Arrieta will be the right guy, etc. If Jungmann or Cole refines their command enough, they could be a mix of Matusz, Arrieta, plus a little extra. But as you noted it's all about mental toughness and attitude whether a guy can take that step from being a No. 2 to a No. 1/Ace. I think Matusz has a decent chance to take that step, but it's nice to have multiple guys, which is why I wish we could trade for the number two or three pick next year.

Give Bedard Jake Arrieta's bulldoggedness(nice word) and you have yourself an ace......

That is a nice word, haha, and I couldn't agree more. If Arrieta's stuff improves enough, then he could be really special. He just seems to need more command.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...