1B26213B26214F0 wrote: I’m not sure if the point of the original article.
While Pirates weren’t great the last two season, there were ten teams with much worse records, and around five with records pretty close to the Pirates 153 wins (Mil, NYM, KC).
If you go back five years, we’ve got better records than most of baseball including the last two WS champions.
I guess what I’m saying is this wasn’t an issue in 2013-2015, it’s not that big an issue in 2016 if Cutch and Cole show up , it’s not that big an issue in 2017, if Kang puts the keys and Marte puts the needle down.
Our biggest issue the last two years haven’t been the farm, it’s been the veterans poor performance, injuries and poor personal decisions.
I’m not saying the drafting has been stellar or that foreign scouting has been good, I’m just saying that these aren’t the biggest issue the Bucs have had.
I think Neal is doing a decent job with the lack of resources he he has...and like much of the board, most of the fixable issues we have fall at the feet of the owner.
I agree with you (I thought I was the only one who thought/said this). There were many collapse during the last two seasons and no one saw them coming. McCutchen, for an example, had one of the biggest drop offs by a former MVP in his prime in the history of the game. Cole and Liriano didn't show up either. And Yes, it is a different team without Marte and Kang last year. Look at how many bad players played in their place. Don't forget about Taillon either.
With that said, Huntington hasn't had that big draft pick come through. The Yankees get a Judge, the Dodgers get a Bellinger to put them over the top. The Cubs get a Bryant. The Pirates have never had that impact. That's what I want. It is also why I didn't mind bringing up Luplow. They tried to catch the lightning, but the bottle was empty.
He should have hit more with his picks in my opinion.
The real problem
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
OrlandoMerced
The real problem
260001160010630 wrote: I have a hard time complaining about the Pirates' hit rate on pitching draft picks.
It would be incredibly insightful for some outlet to go through the past 15 drafts or so and calculate draft success by team, selection number, position, prospect age (college or high school) and bonus. Without those figures, I think it's hard to judge their draft success in context.
As it currently stands, the rotation is going to have to former pirate draft picks and three trade acquisitions (one being developed in house). Two other guys that I would be considered homegrown are slated to the bullpen and will likely see time in the rotation during the season (Brault and Glasnow). They will also have Kingham, Keller and to a lesser extent Holmes starting in Indy and likely able to pitch in the rotation as well. When I look at the staff, I see depth and upside, and a potentially incredible bullpen.
Here is an article:
https://mlbdraftanalyzer.wordpress.com/
Not easy to use to compare teams though.
Looks like an aggregate WAR analysis with some expected WAR for pick used to assess. In that kind of analysis, it would seem like the Nationals would get credit for drafting Strasburg and Harper because of their WAR accumulation. I'm more interested in an analysis about the likelihood that a draft pick makes the majors or breaks out as a legit prospect.
It would be incredibly insightful for some outlet to go through the past 15 drafts or so and calculate draft success by team, selection number, position, prospect age (college or high school) and bonus. Without those figures, I think it's hard to judge their draft success in context.
As it currently stands, the rotation is going to have to former pirate draft picks and three trade acquisitions (one being developed in house). Two other guys that I would be considered homegrown are slated to the bullpen and will likely see time in the rotation during the season (Brault and Glasnow). They will also have Kingham, Keller and to a lesser extent Holmes starting in Indy and likely able to pitch in the rotation as well. When I look at the staff, I see depth and upside, and a potentially incredible bullpen.
Here is an article:
https://mlbdraftanalyzer.wordpress.com/
Not easy to use to compare teams though.
Looks like an aggregate WAR analysis with some expected WAR for pick used to assess. In that kind of analysis, it would seem like the Nationals would get credit for drafting Strasburg and Harper because of their WAR accumulation. I'm more interested in an analysis about the likelihood that a draft pick makes the majors or breaks out as a legit prospect.
The real problem
7449575A555F54765E49585E5F3B0 wrote: I have a hard time complaining about the Pirates' hit rate on pitching draft picks.
It would be incredibly insightful for some outlet to go through the past 15 drafts or so and calculate draft success by team, selection number, position, prospect age (college or high school) and bonus. Without those figures, I think it's hard to judge their draft success in context.
As it currently stands, the rotation is going to have to former pirate draft picks and three trade acquisitions (one being developed in house). Two other guys that I would be considered homegrown are slated to the bullpen and will likely see time in the rotation during the season (Brault and Glasnow). They will also have Kingham, Keller and to a lesser extent Holmes starting in Indy and likely able to pitch in the rotation as well. When I look at the staff, I see depth and upside, and a potentially incredible bullpen.
Here is an article:
https://mlbdraftanalyzer.wordpress.com/
Not easy to use to compare teams though.
Looks like an aggregate WAR analysis with some expected WAR for pick used to assess. In that kind of analysis, it would seem like the Nationals would get credit for drafting Strasburg and Harper because of their WAR accumulation. I'm more interested in an analysis about the likelihood that a draft pick makes the majors or breaks out as a legit prospect.
I don't know the article but I'm pretty sure it has been done at some point. Part of that would be the likelihood of a player picked at x spot making the majors. I've seen it referenced that 8 players picked in Round 5 pick 8 have made the majors (just using that as an example). Data must be out there.
Hopefully somebody who posts here will answer your questions.
It would be incredibly insightful for some outlet to go through the past 15 drafts or so and calculate draft success by team, selection number, position, prospect age (college or high school) and bonus. Without those figures, I think it's hard to judge their draft success in context.
As it currently stands, the rotation is going to have to former pirate draft picks and three trade acquisitions (one being developed in house). Two other guys that I would be considered homegrown are slated to the bullpen and will likely see time in the rotation during the season (Brault and Glasnow). They will also have Kingham, Keller and to a lesser extent Holmes starting in Indy and likely able to pitch in the rotation as well. When I look at the staff, I see depth and upside, and a potentially incredible bullpen.
Here is an article:
https://mlbdraftanalyzer.wordpress.com/
Not easy to use to compare teams though.
Looks like an aggregate WAR analysis with some expected WAR for pick used to assess. In that kind of analysis, it would seem like the Nationals would get credit for drafting Strasburg and Harper because of their WAR accumulation. I'm more interested in an analysis about the likelihood that a draft pick makes the majors or breaks out as a legit prospect.
I don't know the article but I'm pretty sure it has been done at some point. Part of that would be the likelihood of a player picked at x spot making the majors. I've seen it referenced that 8 players picked in Round 5 pick 8 have made the majors (just using that as an example). Data must be out there.
Hopefully somebody who posts here will answer your questions.
The real problem
033E202D22282301293E2F29284C0 wrote:
As it currently stands, the rotation is going to have to former pirate draft picks and three trade acquisitions (one being developed in house). Two other guys that I would be considered homegrown are slated to the bullpen and will likely see time in the rotation during the season (Brault and Glasnow). They will also have Kingham, Keller and to a lesser extent Holmes starting in Indy and likely able to pitch in the rotation as well. When I look at the staff, I see depth and upside, and a potentially incredible bullpen.
Are any of the starters going to have an ERA under 4.00? Will Glasnow actually be any good? Or brault?
Sure there are names and there are bodies. There's certainly some minor league Pedigree. Are they better than Paul Maholm and Zach Duke? Or Tom Gorzelanny? There are always names and bodies, then and now. Are the names and bodies better than the names and bodies of the past?
I'm pretty comfortable the rotation will be OK. Not great, no terrible. Will any starter have an ERA under 4.00 with greater than 150 innings pitched? I wouldn't put money on it.
Also, I agree the bullpen looks very good on paper.
I think we've got a real shot at .500 if we catch the right breaks
As it currently stands, the rotation is going to have to former pirate draft picks and three trade acquisitions (one being developed in house). Two other guys that I would be considered homegrown are slated to the bullpen and will likely see time in the rotation during the season (Brault and Glasnow). They will also have Kingham, Keller and to a lesser extent Holmes starting in Indy and likely able to pitch in the rotation as well. When I look at the staff, I see depth and upside, and a potentially incredible bullpen.
Are any of the starters going to have an ERA under 4.00? Will Glasnow actually be any good? Or brault?
Sure there are names and there are bodies. There's certainly some minor league Pedigree. Are they better than Paul Maholm and Zach Duke? Or Tom Gorzelanny? There are always names and bodies, then and now. Are the names and bodies better than the names and bodies of the past?
I'm pretty comfortable the rotation will be OK. Not great, no terrible. Will any starter have an ERA under 4.00 with greater than 150 innings pitched? I wouldn't put money on it.
Also, I agree the bullpen looks very good on paper.
I think we've got a real shot at .500 if we catch the right breaks
-
OrlandoMerced
The real problem
In light of recent events this afternoon, I no longer believe Glasnow is going to make the big league team.
I think Brault is making the team and will be a good bullpen piece.
I think Brault is making the team and will be a good bullpen piece.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
The real problem
dear god. i just looked it up
-
ScottinMass
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:26 am
The real problem
506D737E717B70527A6D7C7A7B1F0 wrote: In light of recent events this afternoon, I no longer believe Glasnow is going to make the big league team.
I think Brault is making the team and will be a good bullpen piece.
I second this...
I think Brault is making the team and will be a good bullpen piece.
I second this...
-
pghpaulatl
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:22 am
The real problem
Glasnow today: :'(
2.2 innings 6 hits 7 runs 3 walks, I'd say he's going to have to have a complete turnaround to make the team.
2.2 innings 6 hits 7 runs 3 walks, I'd say he's going to have to have a complete turnaround to make the team.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
The real problem
He had a wild pitch that scored a run too.
I wouldn't want him in the bullpen with his accuracy. Unless he just comes in and throws 100-102 mph.
I wouldn't want him in the bullpen with his accuracy. Unless he just comes in and throws 100-102 mph.
The real problem
737A72636D170 wrote:
As it currently stands, the rotation is going to have to former pirate draft picks and three trade acquisitions (one being developed in house). Two other guys that I would be considered homegrown are slated to the bullpen and will likely see time in the rotation during the season (Brault and Glasnow). They will also have Kingham, Keller and to a lesser extent Holmes starting in Indy and likely able to pitch in the rotation as well. When I look at the staff, I see depth and upside, and a potentially incredible bullpen.
Are any of the starters going to have an ERA under 4.00? Will Glasnow actually be any good? Or brault?
Sure there are names and there are bodies. There's certainly some minor league Pedigree. Are they better than Paul Maholm and Zach Duke? Or Tom Gorzelanny? There are always names and bodies, then and now. Are the names and bodies better than the names and bodies of the past?
I'm pretty comfortable the rotation will be OK. Not great, no terrible. Will any starter have an ERA under 4.00 with greater than 150 innings pitched? I wouldn't put money on it.
Also, I agree the bullpen looks very good on paper.
I think we've got a real shot at .500 if we catch the right breaks
You could be right. OTOH, I think it is quite possible that Taillon, Kuhl, and Williams all throw >150 innings with a sub 4.00 ERA. Taillon has clearly proven he has this potential. In fact, I think most of us probably expect it of him. Kuhl and Williams easily pitched to beat those perimeters during the second half of last year.
I love Glasnow, but... Yeah, he looks like a mess.
Brault could be a real wild card. He also was dominant at AAA last year. I would be interested in giving him the 5th spot right now and letting him get the kinks out.
As it currently stands, the rotation is going to have to former pirate draft picks and three trade acquisitions (one being developed in house). Two other guys that I would be considered homegrown are slated to the bullpen and will likely see time in the rotation during the season (Brault and Glasnow). They will also have Kingham, Keller and to a lesser extent Holmes starting in Indy and likely able to pitch in the rotation as well. When I look at the staff, I see depth and upside, and a potentially incredible bullpen.
Are any of the starters going to have an ERA under 4.00? Will Glasnow actually be any good? Or brault?
Sure there are names and there are bodies. There's certainly some minor league Pedigree. Are they better than Paul Maholm and Zach Duke? Or Tom Gorzelanny? There are always names and bodies, then and now. Are the names and bodies better than the names and bodies of the past?
I'm pretty comfortable the rotation will be OK. Not great, no terrible. Will any starter have an ERA under 4.00 with greater than 150 innings pitched? I wouldn't put money on it.
Also, I agree the bullpen looks very good on paper.
I think we've got a real shot at .500 if we catch the right breaks
You could be right. OTOH, I think it is quite possible that Taillon, Kuhl, and Williams all throw >150 innings with a sub 4.00 ERA. Taillon has clearly proven he has this potential. In fact, I think most of us probably expect it of him. Kuhl and Williams easily pitched to beat those perimeters during the second half of last year.
I love Glasnow, but... Yeah, he looks like a mess.
Brault could be a real wild card. He also was dominant at AAA last year. I would be interested in giving him the 5th spot right now and letting him get the kinks out.