X ellence wrote: Bradley has a career ERA over 4 1/2. I'm not sure why some think his stuff is so good. If he has decent stuff why doesn't he use it to get people out? Top pitchers dominate college baseball, he hasn't. Gerrit Cole put up a 3.31 ERA this year. He also has a fastball that reaches 100 MPH and a plus change-up. I doubt you could find one scout that would tell you Cole has anything less than above-average stuff. Which comes to the point: It's foolish to judge a pitcher strictly based upon ERA, and even more-so, a college pitcher's career era. By using his career ERA, you hope to skew the statistics in your favor, when in reality a pitcher that comes into college as a freshman is not going to be the same player that exits a few years later. Bradley put up a 3.49 ERA this year, which yes, is not "dominating" as far as ERA goes in the college game. But since when is ERA the be-all, end-all of statistics in judging a pitcher's ability? At the major league level, a pitcher can put up a high ERA due to a combination of bad-luck on balls-put-in-play, or simply because there's a poor defense behind them. Why would college be any different in this regard? It's not like Bradley has a problem missing bats. He had a K/9 of 9.73 this year, a WHIP of 1.22, and only allowed one home run all year. So he's already displayed two key aspects of a successful pitcher - missing bats and keeping the ball in the ball park. I find your argument that Bradley has a ceiling as a LOOGY in the majors to be dumbfounding. Perhaps that was an attempt at hyperbole on your part, but if so, it goes a bit too far, even, in that regard. I respect your opinions on the draft, but I really think you're grasping at straws here.