436 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

MASN: Curious about Kjerstad in 2021
https://www.masnspor...ad-in-2021.html

[Mike B]

Hopefully Kjerstad is okay.  There seems to be something unusual going on with him.  

[dude]

On Friday, Elias said LINK

 

Elias said Kjerstad was sidelined due to “an episode of myocarditis,” a viral infection that causes inflammation of the heart muscle. Elias said Kjerstad is expected to report to Spring Training late due to the condition.

[Mike B]

On Friday, Elias said LINK

I hope he is okay.  That certainly does not seem like a minor ailment 

[dude]

I hope he is okay.  That certainly does not seem like a minor ailment 

 

Same thing that Edurado Rodriguez had that scuttled his 2020 season.  ERod's condition was related to his bout with COVID.  

 

At a human level, we want everyone to be healthy and safe.

 

...but the only reason we really know anything about this is because he's an Oriole and at an Oriole level, it will be interesting to see where he stands in terms of his recovery and ability to get to work.  Elias suggested he'd be at camp, but did allow plenty of room for the health assessment to limit his professional development this year.  Seeing as he is the only unique piece the Orioles have added to the Organization in the rebuild, he does carry a different weight than other prospects.

 

There are 9 other picks from 2020 ahead of him in mlb.com's top 100, so this season was a big one for him to secure his prospect footing and validate the Orioles confidence in him.  He's around the same spot that Diaz was (with some helium) when the Orioles traded for him and we've seen him fall well out of the top 100 with some injury and performance issues. 

 

Most top prospects are given a little room to fail and hold onto some of their status (look at Mark Appel or Forrest Whitely) so it will be interesting to watch how prospect evaluations consider what could be heading to a lost season to build his health back up (again, that's necessary at the human level). 

 

Feels like Elias is getting out in front of this heading into camp that will change the questions he's asked going forward.....but this can be a developmental challenge.  While everyone is limited from the pandemic restrictions, the Orioles (all clubs) are running their development camps and it is an opportunity to get better....an opportunity he's missed out on so far and may continue to miss out on short-term.

 

Prospect status doesn't really define what you can be (see: Trey Mancini, John Means) so I don't have any real concerns on the mid-to-long term consequences, but it could impact some things the Orioles care about short term.  We're all hoping he's more than Jeremy Burnitz.

 

...and there's nothing wrong with Jeremy Burnitz, he had a good career.  You just shouldn't throw away a season to get him.

[Mackus]

To extrapolate on a small part of your post...Kjerstad isn't really a very highly rated top prospect, IMO (based entirely on scouting reports and signing bonus).  Top-100, so he's got a lot of potential, but he's not a top tier or even 2nd tier talent.  He's in that bigger third tier.  He's not remotely close to a traditional #2 pick and I don't really believe that the Orioles thought he was the 2nd best player in the class and just got amazingly lucky that nobody else thought so and were able to get him for #8 overall slot.  It's not at all surprising or extreme that 9 guys from 2020 draft are ahead of him, that seems completely appropriate with where he was rated heading into the draft.

 

I'm still fine with his selection as a way to game the system and get some better guys later by going overslot.  Totally on board with that theory.  Especially in a strange draft class like 2020 where there wasn't the opportunity for guys to distinguish themselves at the top since all the games were canceled, so even if the O's (or anybody) did think he was the 2nd best player, there is so much less confidence in that evaluation than there is in most seasons.  And once you're past the top few guys there usually really isn't much difference in the next 10 to 20 or more guys.  

[TwentyThirtyFive]

I can believe they had a FV grade on Kjerstad equal or higher than anyone else they could have drafted at 2. Martin or the pitchers may have had a better current grade.

[Mackus]

I can believe they had a FV grade on Kjerstad equal or higher than anyone else they could have drafted at 2. Martin or the pitchers may have had a better current grade.

I don't think it's impossible, but I don't believe their word on it as evidence. That's what they would say regardless.

[JeremyStrain]

To extrapolate on a small part of your post...Kjerstad isn't really a very highly rated top prospect, IMO (based entirely on scouting reports and signing bonus). Top-100, so he's got a lot of potential, but he's not a top tier or even 2nd tier talent. He's in that bigger third tier. He's not remotely close to a traditional #2 pick and I don't really believe that the Orioles thought he was the 2nd best player in the class and just got amazingly lucky that nobody else thought so and were able to get him for #8 overall slot. It's not at all surprising or extreme that 9 guys from 2020 draft are ahead of him, that seems completely appropriate with where he was rated heading into the draft.

I'm still fine with his selection as a way to game the system and get some better guys later by going overslot. Totally on board with that theory. Especially in a strange draft class like 2020 where there wasn't the opportunity for guys to distinguish themselves at the top since all the games were canceled, so even if the O's (or anybody) did think he was the 2nd best player, there is so much less confidence in that evaluation than there is in most seasons. And once you're past the top few guys there usually really isn't much difference in the next 10 to 20 or more guys.

I think his rankings have been artificially repressed a little bit because of not playing after he got drafted. He was the best lefty hitter in college in an advanced league (SEC is fairly close to low A).

Had he played the normal 20-30 games I think you’d see him solidly in the middle of the top 100. Yep, I know what you’re going to say next, not typical for a no2 pick. You’re not wrong, but it does happen sometimes, it’s the trade off I think of a higher floor pick. If he plays this season I’m expecting him to vault up top prospects lists. I do t think anyone has forgotten him, but until they see him perform they are content to leave him in the fringes though.

[Mike B]

I think, we need to wait until Kjerstad actually plays a game or 100, before deciding what kind of prospect he is.

 

The first hope is he gets healthy.

[makoman]

I can believe they had a FV grade on Kjerstad equal or higher than anyone else they could have drafted at 2. Martin or the pitchers may have had a better current grade.

 

At the time of the draft FanGraphs had Tork at FV 55 and Kjerstad was among six at 50 (Lacy, Martin, Hancock, Veen, Gonzales). In their top 100 at the time Tork was 38 and Lacy was the highest of the six at 48, Kjerstad the lowest at 110. He's currently 103.

 

Once you get past the top tier it starts to mean less and less. I feel like I've seen it said that the difference between say numbers 10 and 30 is far greater than the difference between 50 and 125 (numbers could be off, but you get the idea). For example, on their current Board they have FVs of 80 (Franco), 70 (Gore), 65 (Adley), then 60 from 4-24, then 55 from 25-50, then 50 FV for numbers 51-133. 

 

Like Mike said, hopefully he gets healthy and can start to play soon. How he performs will matter more than pre-draft thoughts now.

[Mackus]

I think, we need to wait until Kjerstad actually plays a game or 100, before deciding what kind of prospect he is.

 

You have to assess what type of prospect a guy is before drafting them.  He's a really good prospect.  He's just not a typical #2 overall prospect, nor should he be expected to be since basically nobody thought he was deserving of going #2 overall on his own merits, he went that high because he's sign for well below slot.  He was rated by most at the back of the top-10 type draft pick and his prospect rating reflects that.  

 

The ten previous overall #2 picks:

 

Bobby Witt was rated #24 by Baseball America after his draft year

Joey Bart was rated #28 

Hunter Green was rated #29

Nick Senzel was rated #9

Alex Bregman was rated #42

Tyler Kolek was rated #52

Kris Bryant was rated #8

Byron Buxton was rated #10

Danny Hultzen was rated #21

Jameson Taillon was rated #11

 

Plenty of guys taken around #10 do just fine and are often better than many guys that went before them.  There really is little difference between guys worthy of #2 and guys who go around #10, and almost no difference between #3 and #10 historically.  Prospect rankings reflect the draft ratings for a couple years.  Kjerstad's current prospect rating reflects his consensus pre-draft rating rather than his actual draft position.

[Mackus]

Once you get past the top tier it starts to mean less and less. I feel like I've seen it said that the difference between say numbers 10 and 30 is far greater than the difference between 50 and 125 (numbers could be off, but you get the idea). For example, on their current Board they have FVs of 80 (Franco), 70 (Gore), 65 (Adley), then 60 from 4-24, then 55 from 25-50, then 50 FV for numbers 51-133. 

 

I've tried to make this point frequently.  It's nearly impossible to order the guys within each tier, and the tiers get deeper and wider as you move down.  It's a pyramid.  That applies to individual draft years or overall prospect rankings and also applies to MLB players.

[JeremyStrain]

You have to assess what type of prospect a guy is before drafting them.  He's a really good prospect.  He's just not a typical #2 overall prospect, nor should he be expected to be since basically nobody thought he was deserving of going #2 overall on his own merits, he went that high because he's sign for well below slot.  He was rated by most at the back of the top-10 type draft pick and his prospect rating reflects that.  

 

The ten previous overall #2 picks:

 

Bobby Witt was rated #24 by Baseball America after his draft year

Joey Bart was rated #28 

Hunter Green was rated #29

Nick Senzel was rated #9

Alex Bregman was rated #42

Tyler Kolek was rated #52

Kris Bryant was rated #8

Byron Buxton was rated #10

Danny Hultzen was rated #21

Jameson Taillon was rated #11

 

Plenty of guys taken around #10 do just fine and are often better than many guys that went before them.  There really is little difference between guys worthy of #2 and guys who go around #10, and almost no difference between #3 and #10 historically.  Prospect rankings reflect the draft ratings for a couple years.  Kjerstad's current prospect rating reflects his consensus pre-draft rating rather than his actual draft position.

Good post.

 

People just have to watch the trap of thinking about MLB draft like the NFL draft. Because of development and minors and things like that, it's so much different. Prospects here are more in buckets than individual. Depending on the year, a #2 pick could be a no brainer #1 in another year, or could be a 6-7 pick in another year. Then like you said once you get through those FEW guys that distanced themselves, you get a bucket of guys that are basically interchangeable until they play a while and develop.

 

In the NFL what you get on day 1 from the #5 pick is vastly different than what you'd get on day 1 from the #5 pick. It takes 3-4 years on average for them to get there. Because you are still factoring in so much progression and development they are much more packed together. Kjerstad belongs in that bucket with that tier of guys, but there's just no way to tell right now if he's at the top of it, or if he falls out the bottom. But it's not like there was another clear cut franchise guy out there at 2 that they turned down for this. It was another bucket of guys that could have been hit or miss anyway. It was not like your top two guys were Strasburg and Harper in the same draft. Or even for that matter Adley and Witt. There was a pretty decent argument those two were the top before the separation hit, but even that you could fight if you wanted. Still nothing like this year though.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

So why do college kids get to the NFL and make immediate impacts while college baseball players go to the minors typically for 3 years? Are college football programs that much better are training kids than their baseball counterparts?

 

I get that there is more money in college football which equates to better facilities etc but is it really that much of a difference or is baseball just stuck in the past with the whole development thing?   OK I know I am a broken record.

[BSLChrisStoner]

So why do college kids get to the NFL and make immediate impacts while college baseball players go to the minors typically for 3 years? Are college football programs that much better are training kids than their baseball counterparts?

 

I get that there is more money in college football which equates to better facilities etc but is it really that much of a difference or is baseball just stuck in the past with the whole development thing?   OK I know I am a broken record.

 

Skill refinement harder with baseball. 

But I think (guestimate) that most advanced college baseball players (1st round selections) make the Majors before the end of their 2nd year.

[Mike in STL]

So why do college kids get to the NFL and make immediate impacts while college baseball players go to the minors typically for 3 years? Are college football programs that much better are training kids than their baseball counterparts?

 

I get that there is more money in college football which equates to better facilities etc but is it really that much of a difference or is baseball just stuck in the past with the whole development thing?   OK I know I am a broken record.

I think if baseball didn't have a minor league system, you would see the same ratio of rookies making impacts right away as you do in football. Some would flame out making no impact. Some step right into it and become stars. Some playing a role adequately enough for a rookie and because everyones learning curve is different, get better with age. Some are limited on their playing time as blocked by other talent. 

 

Baseball rules unintentionally encourage teams to manipulate young players service times so they can get the most cost controlled years, when the player should be at their best, where as football rules encourage teams to develop cost controlled players fast because the clock is ticking on that player once they sign on the dotted line. 

[BSLSteveBirrer]

I think if baseball didn't have a minor league system, you would see the same ratio of rookies making impacts right away as you do in football. Some would flame out making no impact. Some step right into it and become stars. Some playing a role adequately enough for a rookie and because everyones learning curve is different, get better with age. Some are limited on their playing time as blocked by other talent. 

 

Baseball rules unintentionally encourage teams to manipulate young players service times so they can get the most cost controlled years, when the player should be at their best, where as football rules encourage teams to develop cost controlled players fast because the clock is ticking on that player once they sign on the dotted line. 

I think that's a good analysis. It just frustrates me to no end how every other sport in the world has gotten more and more out of younger players. But baseball is still stuck in the dark ages.

[Mike in STL]

I think that's a good analysis. It just frustrates me to no end how every other sport in the world has gotten more and more out of younger players. But baseball is still stuck in the dark ages.

There are some young players that come along and take the league by storm. Younger than college grad age too.

[mweb08]

Skill refinement harder with baseball. 

But I think (guestimate) that most advanced college baseball players (1st round selections) make the Majors before the end of their 2nd year.

 

I think what Mike is saying regarding the incentive system in baseball plays a role, but I think this is the primary answer. Other than QB, football is much more tilted to athleticism than skill compared to baseball. Basketball is in between (varies by position and role as well). Athleticism peaks pretty early while the skill and sport IQ peaks later.