Matt Hobgood Shut Down With Shoulder Injury

[Tony-OH]

IIRC, in the first round of the 2009 draft, there weren't many college options. Almost all of the high school arms had much more upside than the college arms by the 5th pick.

Honestly, drafting any pitcher with the first five picks is no guarantee, but you do take on more of a risk of totally missing with a high school arm then you do with a college arm.

Want a little perspective? The last first round high school pitcher the Orioles drafted and developed into the major leagues was Mike Parrot in 1973. They've drafted and developed eight college arms drafted in the 1st round including Mike Mussina, Brian Matusz, Pete Harrnish, Ben McDonald, and Gregg Olson.

How sure must you be that a high school pitcher is the right selection with the 5th overall pick? Forty-six high school pitchers in the history of the draft were picked by the 5th selection. Eleven (23.9%) never made it to the majors (Jameson Taillon would be 12 but he was just drafted this year). Of those 46, only 12 were worth 10 or more WAR and 8 were worth more than 20 WAR over their careers (Gavin Floyd is still early in his career and most likely will go over 20 WAR if he stays healthy).

So by major league standards, you have a 26% chance of being a usable major league pitcher and 17.4% chance of becoming a solid major league starter if drafted as a high school pitcher with the first five picks.

Conversely, 58 4-yr college pitchers have been selected within the first five picks. Only seven (Moskos and Pomeranz are still in the minors so it's really five - 9 %) never made it the major league. 18 had 10 of more WAR and eight had 20 or more WAR.

So by major league standards, you have a 31% chance of being a usable major league pitcher and 13.9% chance of becoming a solid major league starter if drafted as a college pitcher with the first five picks.

So basically, picking pitching early is no safe bet, but you have a slightly better chance of finding a true starter by going with a high school arm (17.4% vs 13.9%), a slightly better chance of finding a usable pitcher by going with a college arm (31% vs 26%), but a much higher chance of totally missing (23.9% vs 9%) by picking the high school arm.

Either way, the Orioles have historically been much better at drafting and developing college pitchers than high school pitchers.

[Crazysilver03]

Would we be having this discussion if we had Maztek or one of the other ones?

[weams]

This is obviously not something to take lightly. The first thing you need to do is keep your arm immobile with a sling for at least 2 weeks. During this two week period, it is important to ice your shoulder for 45 minutes, twice daily.

You also should take an anti-inflammatory. After this two week period is up, you need to start doing some gentle exercises with your shoulder. After you exercise your shoulder, you should ice it for 30 minutes. Several times per day, apply a hot compress for 30 minutes. You should continue taking an anti-inflammatory and should add joint supplements that contain hyaluronic acid and MSM to this as well. These things are important to correct the damage that is done to your shoulder and to make it stronger so that it does not get injured in the future. Try to avoid doing things that hurt your shoulder until 60 to 90 days has passed so that your shoulder has time to heal. Always keep up with your rehabilitation and try to keep it consistent. After you are done with your rehabilitation, doing daily exercises that work on strengthening your back and shoulders will be very helpful. Swimming lightly is especially good.

[Stotle]

Would we be having this discussion if we had Maztek or one of the other ones?

If I recall Colorado has slowed his delivery and made some other tweaks, so there COULD be some validity to the idea that they are sacrificing Matzek's "now" control with the hopes that when the new mechanics become the natural mechanics, the control will be much improved. I guess we'll see when he hits HiA this season.

[sangar]

Come on. Do you really think there is a scouting director that doesn't trust his own evaluation skills over the "consensus" as reported by the media?

Again, I think people way overestimate the idea of there being consensus as to the top picks in the draft. Draft boards are VERY different from team to team, and I can guarantee exactly zero percent of the scouting departments look at baseball america's rankings and say, "Maybe we're missing something because that's not what our board looks like.

Now, this happens to be a situation where BA talked to enough people who thought Hobgood was an over-draft that they feel comfortable stating it as a quasi-fact (which is a high standard -- BA cross-checks with a lot of people before running with something). But I would bet Hobgood's ranking on boards was scatter-shot between mid-1st and early-2nd round, as opposed to nearly everyone having him around 15-18 overall, for example.

You need to slow your roll here cowboy. I made zero references to a media consensus and you making some wild haired accusation that I suggested anything even remotely similar to any evaluator going by a 'media consensus' is a pure insult to my intelligence. Yeesh.

Edit: I'd like to add that you may think "people way overestimate the idea of there being consensus as to the top picks in the draft" but I can guarantee you that every draft board out there has insights into other draft boards thought processes. If one is aware of how other teams are evaluating talent then, my friend, a consensus exists.

[Stotle]

You need to slow your roll here cowboy. I made zero references to a media consensus and you making some wild haired accusation that I suggested anything even remotely similar to any evaluator going by a 'media consensus' is a pure insult to my intelligence. Yeesh.

Um, okay...but what consensus are you talking about?

I think he is saying he likes that Jordan is not a slave to consensus and Jordan trusts his own evaluation skills over the others.

Which, if true, is a good thing.

I didn't say anything about a "media consensus". The consensus I was talking about is the "scouting consensus" that was reported by sources like BA, Law, etc. that Hobgood was generally viewed as an overdraft.

Do you really think there is a scouting director that doesn't trust his own evaluation skills over the "consensus" as reported by the media?

Apologies if the presence of the word media tripped you up. I think you would agree that most fans would have no idea what the "scouting consensus" was unless it was reported by someone.

Not sure what you are fired-up about, but no one was insulting your intelligence. I think you just misread what I posted.

[Stotle]

You need to slow your roll here cowboy. I made zero references to a media consensus and you making some wild haired accusation that I suggested anything even remotely similar to any evaluator going by a 'media consensus' is a pure insult to my intelligence. Yeesh.

Edit: I'd like to add that you may think "people way overestimate the idea of there being consensus as to the top picks in the draft" but I can guarantee you that every draft board out there has insights into other draft boards thought processes. If one is aware of how other teams are evaluating talent then, my friend, a consensus exists.

You are just not correct with your added comment. There is a lot of guessing, and a lot of informed guessing when it comes to trying to figure out which players teams are sitting on, but teams have very little insight as to what other teams are using as their determining formula for setting their board. I mean, I'm not trying to be a dick about it but I sat with a colleague and went through this whole process, trying to determine if another organization was sitting on a particular player based on their actions at the field we were at. Scouts don't tend to share their evaluations with each other, and organizations take the proprietary approaches very seriously and hesitate to let ANYTHING out if they can help it.

[sangar]

You are just not correct with your added comment. There is a lot of guessing, and a lot of informed guessing when it comes to trying to figure out which players teams are sitting on, but teams have very little insight as to what other teams are using as their determining formula for setting their board. I mean, I'm not trying to be a dick about it but I sat with a colleague and went through this whole process, trying to determine if another organization was sitting on a particular player based on their actions at the field we were at. Scouts don't tend to share their evaluations with each other, and organizations take the proprietary approaches very seriously and hesitate to let ANYTHING out if they can help it.

You're not being a dick and I didn't take it that way. You are a very knowledgeable person and I have learned many things from you over the years.

Having spent many years in the R&D department of a specialty chemicals company involved in the oil industry I can tell you that a significant amount of time and money is invested in both trying to learn what other companies are doing and in protecting our own product development. We may rarely have known the exact formulae of our competitor's products under development but we had a pretty damn good idea. Considering the money involved it is naive to assume baseball operates in some sort of chivalrous environment and, in your own words, "organizations take the proprietary approaches very seriously and hesitate to let ANYTHING out if they can help it" is proof they don't.

[Stotle]

You're not being a dick and I didn't take it that way. You are a very knowledgeable person and I have learned many things from you over the years.

Having spent many years in the R&D department of a specialty chemicals company involved in the oil industry I can tell you that a significant amount of time and money is invested in both trying to learn what other companies are doing and in protecting our own product development. We may rarely have known the exact formulae of our competitor's products under development but we had a pretty damn good idea. Considering the money involved it is naive to assume baseball operates in some sort of chivalrous environment and, in your own words, "organizations take the proprietary approaches very seriously and hesitate to let ANYTHING out if they can help it" is proof they don't.

I don't disagree with any of this. Teams try to keep their process a secret while simultaneously doing their best to figure out what the other 29 are up to.

But I don't see what that has to do with Jordan "not being a slave to consensus." I can't think of a reason why a scouting director would risk his job by basing his picks, even in part, on what other teams are thinking/doing. Especially since he isn't likely privy to the rationale behind the decisions of those teams.

[sangar]

I sat with a colleague and went through this whole process, trying to determine if another organization was sitting on a particular player based on their actions at the field we were at.

Meaning no disrespect to you or your collegue but if we could figure out what Chevron is up to I would imagine the Tigers have a good idea of what the Twins are doing, and vice-versa.

[sangar]

I don't disagree with any of this. Teams try to keep their process a secret while simultaneously doing their best to figure out what the other 29 are up to.

But I don't see what that has to do with Jordan "not being a slave to consensus." I can't think of a reason why a scouting director would risk his job by basing his picks, even in part, on what other teams are thinking/doing. Especially since he isn't likely privy to the rationale behind the decisions of those teams.

You have said numerous times the 'consensus' was that Hobgood should have been middle to late first round talent. I said Jordan was not a slave to this consensus. You insulted me by suggesting I was referring to a 'media consensus' (still have no idea where you came up with that one). I'm explaining the oil industry's version of the American business model and inferring the same American business model applies to baseball. If you were aware of some sort of consensus that placed Hobgood in the middle to late first round I'm certain Jordan was also. I also assume, due to the American business model, that Jordan's information regarding other team's evaluations of Hobgood were probably a little more accurate than yours.

[Stotle]

You have said numerous times the 'consensus' was that Hobgood should have been middle to late first round talent. I said Jordan was not a slave to this consensus. You insulted me by suggesting I was referring to a 'media consensus' (still have no idea where you came up with that one). I'm explaining the oil industry's version of the American business model and inferring the same American business model applies to baseball. If you were aware of some sort of consensus that placed Hobgood in the middle to late first round I'm certain Jordan was also. I also assume, due to the American business model, that Jordan's information regarding other team's evaluations of Hobgood were probably a little more accurate than yours.

What the hell are you talking about?! I've tried to be cordial in spite of you tone but i NEVER SAID THE BOLDED. I even quoted myself to show you that I never said the bolded. I said the "consensus" as reported by the media. THE "CONSENSUS" AMONG EVALUATORS AS REPORTED BY THE MEDIA.

You are just talking gibberish at this point. I have no idea what Jordan's understanding of the "consensus" on Hobgood was. I have repeatedly stated that my understanding (and the understanding that I've been quoting) is simply what was reported by Baseball America, Keith Law, etc.

This isn't a difficult ****ing train of thought to follow. But, at the risk of actually typing something offensive towards you, let's try this (since you seem utterly incapable of being an adult with regards to your failing reading comprehension:

• Baseball America, Keith Law and other media outlets (the "Media Experts") get their info by speaking with evaluators.
• At the time of the draft, the Media Experts stated that Hobgood was an overdraft, indicating that the "consensus" (the majority of evaluators with whom they had spoken) had Hobgood lower in the 1st Round.

POINT 1: There was a "consensus" among evaluators who spoke with the Media Experts that Hobgood was not a Top 5 talent. "Consensus" is in quotes (and has been throughout this discussion from my standpoint) because the Media Experts could not have interviewed everyone.

• Jordan's selection did not match-up with the "consensus".
• I would not expect any evaluator worth a lick to give any thought to "consensus" when making his evaluation. No evaluator I have ever spoken to has mentioned what "others" think unless it's to point out that they disagree and why.

POINT 2: Jordan's pick is what it is. It isn't noble or brave or "sticking to his guns". It is exactly what any scouting director in the game would do. Make his selection as he sees fit. People can scratch their head or point and laugh, or whatever they want to do (hell, Jordan's pick wasn't close to Culver or Simpson this year -- most evaluators, as reported by the Media Experts, had those two in the 2nd or 3rd round). There is absolutely nothing special at all about Jordan having a different opinion than the majority of evaluators out there. Nothing at all. History shows, and will continue to show, which picks are good and which picks are bad. You get zero bonus points for being out on a limb.

• I have been around the draft process for about three years now.
• I have been apart of the draft process for about four months now.
• There is little to no sharing of evaluative info outside of small talk among Area Scouts.
• I have participated in meetings where my organization has tried to figure out a process being used by another org. It's clear that organizations try to figure out what each other are doing, but it's also clear that they only have fuzzy ideas about what goes on.

POINT 3: The bottom line is that a small number of people at the top come up with the overarching strategy. The Area Scouts may know what they are supposed to focus on, and what ancillary info they are supposed to gather, but they are not necessarily privy to any of the studies conducted by the guys up top. Part of the reason for this is that the proprietary stuff is meant to be protected (just like any other company).

So please stop with the "insulting your intelligence" and read the words clearly sitting there on your screen. No one claimed anything about Jordan and a media consensus. It is absolutely clear that we were always talking about a scouting consensus (do you have a link, how do you know what the consensus was?) as reported by the media (oh okay).

Regarding your ideas on obtaining proprietary info, whatever. I don't disagree with anything your really saying, but I think you greatly overestimate the details these teams have on each other. I don't care if you agree or not, and I'm happy to leave it at that. Just get of your high horse and stop acting indignant. No one insulted you -- you misread what I wrote. Get over it.

[Stotle]

Meaning no disrespect to you or your collegue but if we could figure out what Chevron is up to I would imagine the Tigers have a good idea of what the Twins are doing, and vice-versa.

No offense taken at all -- I just think you are out of your element. General principals apply, but the stakes are much higher in the auto industry. Teams really aren't that concerned about what other teams are focusing on. There is still too much uncertainty in the evaluative process. If one org starts to really move ahead of the others with regards to hitting on picks, I assume people will work harder to emulate. But right now, from what I see, teams just don't care that much.

Everyone knows the generalities of what teams are focusing on (HS vs. college; pitcher vs. position player; willingness to over-slot early/late). But there just isn't a huge obsession over why the Twins prefer college arms and up-the-middle positional talent. Probably because it's fairly obvious what those advantages are. And if the Twins start rolling out success after success, they will be emulated. Ditto Tigers and power arms.

[sangar]

Come on. Do you really think there is a scouting director that doesn't trust his own evaluation skills over the "consensus" as reported by the media?

Again, I think people way overestimate the idea of there being consensus as to the top picks in the draft. Draft boards are VERY different from team to team, and I can guarantee exactly zero percent of the scouting departments look at baseball america's rankings and say, "Maybe we're missing something because that's not what our board looks like.

The simple statement on my part that Jordan was not a slave to consensus was responded to with the above observation. If this was not meant to be demeaning then perhaps the comprehension difficulties are not mine. Either way this back and forth is fruitless and it's time for us to (preferably) shake hands and walk away.

Beyond that I'll add that if teams do in fact disregard other team's player evaluations they are ignoring a valuable source of data and I doubt they operate in this self imposed vacuum.

[Stotle]

The simple statement on my part that Jordan was not a slave to consensus was responded to with the above observation. If this was not meant to be demeaning then perhaps the comprehension difficulties are not mine. Either way this back and forth is fruitless and it's time for us to (preferably) shake hands and walk away.

Beyond that I'll add that if teams do in fact disregard other team's player evaluations they are ignoring a valuable source of data and I doubt they operate in this self imposed vacuum.

Done -- no issue here. Sorry we weren't able to see eye-to-eye on the matter.