Author Topic: On The Farm  (Read 324217 times)

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #570 on: September 21, 2015, 02:23:11 pm »
Some teams do draft better, but no team is perfect.  There are just too many variables, if a team can hit on 50% of their first round picks, they are doing well.  Especially the farther from the first pick you get.

Any draft that is weak at top will pull people forward.  Last year's draft was just especially weak.  Every team will grade people differently, but McDaniel/MLB.com give you the rough league average of evaluations.  Eventually it will balance, but that is more second-third round time when you won't notice the difference in talent. 

method

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4404
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #571 on: September 21, 2015, 02:27:03 pm »
CBJ, Cardinals on line 2, they want to discuss their hit rate in the draft with you...

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #572 on: September 21, 2015, 03:24:35 pm »
Cardinals 1st round pick with highest rWAR since 2000

Colby Rasmus, 15.8

Number of 1st round picks with >20 rWAR since 1980

4

Number of 1st round picks with less than 5 rWAR from 2000-2009

10

Drafting is hard, even for teams like the Cardinals.

Peak Red Sox drafting under McLeod didn't hit 50%


Reb

  • Guest
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #573 on: September 21, 2015, 03:33:56 pm »
....... Eventually it will balance, but that is more second-third round time when you won't notice the difference in talent. 

Explain the rationale why difference in talent doesn't manifest at, to pick a number, pick #17 first round, rather than second-third round. Be specific. I'd like to know where and why and how you arrive at second-third round rather than much, much higher?
« Last Edit: September 21, 2015, 03:45:07 pm by Reb »

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #574 on: September 21, 2015, 04:36:18 pm »

ODDS OF DRAFTING MAJOR LEAGUE CONTRIBUTOR, BY DRAFT PICK
Draft Pick   Chance of 10+ WAR Player   Chance of 3+ WAR Player
1-5           35%   55%
6-10           25%   43%
11-15   23%   41%
16-20   17%   32%
21-30   11%   23%
31-40   7%   15%
41-50   7%   15%

http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-net-value-of-draft-picks/
Somewhere around 25-50 is when the FV 55+ guys disappear and your dealing with FV 50 and below. 

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #575 on: September 21, 2015, 05:10:58 pm »
As to Happ.... (v)ery little chance he's a total washout.

Why?

Reb

  • Guest
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #576 on: September 21, 2015, 07:29:14 pm »
Graphs have nothing to do with weak upper level draft compared to strong upper level draft.

Naturally, picks in first few rounds tend to outperform later rounds.

method

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4404
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #577 on: September 21, 2015, 09:09:24 pm »
Cardinals 1st round pick with highest rWAR since 2000

Colby Rasmus, 15.8

Number of 1st round picks with >20 rWAR since 1980

4

Number of 1st round picks with less than 5 rWAR from 2000-2009

10

Drafting is hard, even for teams like the Cardinals.

Peak Red Sox drafting under McLeod didn't hit 50%



Fantastic use of choosy stats there.

Lynn has 13 war so far... wacha has only about 6. Miller already has 6.9 so far with another 2 years of team control left as well, he's really blossomed this year.

I'd take any of those guys on my team as a 1st rounder.

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #578 on: September 21, 2015, 11:06:49 pm »
Fantastic use of choosy stats there.

Lynn has 13 war so far... wacha has only about 6. Miller already has 6.9 so far with another 2 years of team control left as well, he's really blossomed this year.

I'd take any of those guys on my team as a 1st rounder.

Did I say they sucked?  I said if your hitting on 50% of your first round picks you are doing really well.  The Cardinals are below 50% in the draft since 2000 and can only get to 50% if you look at only the Lynn-Wacha drafts.  Drafting is hard and you are going to miss on far more than you hit.  It doesn't mean that you will miss on every pick.  Even the Cubs have 4 20 rWAR players drafted since 1980.

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #579 on: September 22, 2015, 12:00:04 am »
Graphs have nothing to do with weak upper level draft compared to strong upper level draft.

Naturally, picks in first few rounds tend to outperform later rounds.

That wasn't the question you asked.  You asked when I thought talent flattened out.  That is what those graphs show. 

If you want to look at a weak top end talent draft vs and average look at 1994, 1996 and 1995.

In 94 3 ccumulated 20 rWAR.  In 1996 only 3 did.  in 1995 6 accumulated over 20 rWAR.

A strong draft would be 2005.  With players still playing they have 7 above 20 rWAR already, 3 more above 15 rWAR. 

2010, 2011 would also be strong drafts.  I doubt seriously Happ sniffs the top 12 in any of those drafts.

Reb

  • Guest
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #580 on: September 22, 2015, 12:23:37 am »
No, was talking about where same guy would be drafted in weak-at-top draft compared to strong-at-top draft.

In any case, now your mixing 2015 draft with drafts that, in hindsight, were weak or strong.

You would agree that 2015 draft could turn out to be strong draft, especially at the top, right? Remains to be seen.

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #581 on: September 22, 2015, 12:37:02 am »
Very unlikely. The 2010 and 2011 drafts were considered strong drafts at the time.  2011 I would have a hard time seeing him go before 17 and I could see an argument that he wouldn't go before 31. 2010 I would hope the Cubs would have taken him over Simpson, but if not it might have been closer to Zach Cox at 25.

There will be good players to come out of this draft and hopefully Happ will be one of them. 

Reb

  • Guest
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #582 on: September 22, 2015, 02:23:14 am »
Very unlikely. The 2010 and 2011 drafts were considered strong drafts at the time.  2011 I would have a hard time seeing him go before 17 and I could see an argument that he wouldn't go before 31. 2010 I would hope the Cubs would have taken him over Simpson, but if not it might have been closer to Zach Cox at 25.

There will be good players to come out of this draft and hopefully Happ will be one of them. 

Think you are exaggerating.

You mentioned 2011 draft. Very good draft at the top 8 or 9.  Guys from Baez down--clubs were all over the place in their evaluations.

Baez was a favorite of Tim Wilken.  Theo has said that the Red Sox--picking #19--weren't high on Baez and Theo has given Wilken credit for Baez, given that Red Sox brass were not that interested.  (Maybe it's even why Wilken was retained, at least in part).  Lots of clubs didn't like Baez' makeup and his HS team was a baseball factory that traveled around Florida. Stock rose late as draft approached but Wilken was in on him early. In short, clubs were all over the place on Baez. No doubt in my mind that if Red Sox were picking #9 that year, they would have ranked the 2015 Happ ahead of Baez.

#10 was Corey Spangenberg, a JUCO guy.  Big surprise that he was taken this high.  Pegged at bottom third of the round, pre-draft. Underslot guy. No way most clubs would rank Spangenberg ahead of 2015 Happ.

#11 was George Springer.  I saw Springer play at the Cape in 2009 (don't think he was there in 2010).  Very, very raw. Scouts loved his upside. Weird setup and mechanics.  Had a disappointing year at UConn in 2011, a bad start to season, and came on very strong late. This is always confusing to evaluators.  Moved up boards because got hot late.  Upside guy.  Think some clubs would have preferred steadier 2015 Happ over Springer.  Most would take Springer because of upside, granted, but depends on who picks at #11.  If you stirred the clubs order in a different way, some would have taken Happ over Springer because of the Springer risk.  A minority, but some.

Springer and Mikie Mahtook were the only college OFers in first round.  So, lot of apples and oranges to compare here, if we insert 2015 Happ.

2010 had three top guys and then a huge dropoff.  Chris Colon at #4 was a college SS projected by many as a 2B in big leagues. See BA comments at time. That should tell you something right there, as pure 2B rarely go top 10. As an OFer, Colon never would have gone this high. Two of the top 10 draftees didn't even sign. Very weak draft in college OFers. Michael Choice at #10 did not have as distinguished a college career as Happ. An upside guy.  He failed, as it turned out.

You have a bit of a problem talking in absolutes when an issue like this is way more convoluted than you seem to grasp. Some clubs really like steady college position player performers who clearly project as future major leaguers.  Guys like Springer and Choice could have been a big flop...Springer doing fine now but he was a risk to some clubs.  Baez ditto--definitely not a Theo type guy at draft time.  Hey, Baez still might turn out to be a flop but, in any case, not a Theo draft type guy because of makeup concerns at the time.  We know that Happ is a Theo type guy, by definition.

It's complicated and you kind of like to put things in neat boxes, no?  Embrace the ambiguity.  :D 
« Last Edit: September 22, 2015, 02:39:28 am by Reb »

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #583 on: September 22, 2015, 09:42:00 am »
Think you are exaggerating.

Baez was a favorite of Tim Wilken.  Theo has said that the Red Sox--picking #19--weren't high on Baez and Theo has given Wilken credit for Baez, given that Red Sox brass were not that interested.  (Maybe it's even why Wilken was retained, at least in part).  Lots of clubs didn't like Baez' makeup and his HS team was a baseball factory that traveled around Florida. Stock rose late as draft approached but Wilken was in on him early. In short, clubs were all over the place on Baez. No doubt in my mind that if Red Sox were picking #9 that year, they would have ranked the 2015 Happ ahead of Baez.

#10 was Corey Spangenberg, a JUCO guy.  Big surprise that he was taken this high.  Pegged at bottom third of the round, pre-draft. Underslot guy. No way most clubs would rank Spangenberg ahead of 2015 Happ.

#11 was George Springer.  I saw Springer play at the Cape in 2009 (don't think he was there in 2010).  Very, very raw. Scouts loved his upside. Weird setup and mechanics.  Had a disappointing year at UConn in 2011, a bad start to season, and came on very strong late. This is always confusing to evaluators.  Moved up boards because got hot late.  Upside guy.  Think some clubs would have preferred steadier 2015 Happ over Springer.  Most would take Springer because of upside, granted, but depends on who picks at #11.  If you stirred the clubs order in a different way, some would have taken Happ over Springer because of the Springer risk.  A minority, but some.

Springer and Mikie Mahtook were the only college OFers in first round.  So, lot of apples and oranges to compare here, if we insert 2015 Happ.

2010 had three top guys and then a huge dropoff.  Chris Colon at #4 was a college SS projected by many as a 2B in big leagues. See BA comments at time. That should tell you something right there, as pure 2B rarely go top 10. As an OFer, Colon never would have gone this high. Two of the top 10 draftees didn't even sign. Very weak draft in college OFers. Michael Choice at #10 did not have as distinguished a college career as Happ. An upside guy.  He failed, as it turned out.

You have a bit of a problem talking in absolutes when an issue like this is way more convoluted than you seem to grasp. Some clubs really like steady college position player performers who clearly project as future major leaguers.  Guys like Springer and Choice could have been a big flop...Springer doing fine now but he was a risk to some clubs.  Baez ditto--definitely not a Theo type guy at draft time.  Hey, Baez still might turn out to be a flop but, in any case, not a Theo draft type guy because of makeup concerns at the time.  We know that Happ is a Theo type guy, by definition.

It's complicated and you kind of like to put things in neat boxes, no?  Embrace the ambiguity.  :D 

Tim Wilkin loved Baez,  Tim Wilkin was picking at #9.  No way he takes Happ over Baez.

Springer has more speed, power and defense compared to Happ.  The only thing Happ does better is strike out at a slightly better rate, but still high.  I can't see many teams taking Happ over Springer.

McLeod I'll give you a maybe at #9.  McLeod passed over a more talented college OF in Springer to take Spandenberg.  If you go back they were looking for somebody that could play up the middle.  Happ, maybe, can play second.  So if they really believe that Happ could play at second I could see them taking Happ over Spandenberg, assuming they could sign him.  If the view Happ as a corner OF, he likely couldn't play CF for the Padres, then I don't think they would take Happ over him. 

Colon has more postional flexibility than Happ.  Choice was a CF.  Positional flexibility matters.  Most teams view Happ as a corner OF without elite power.  That is going to hurt his value to other teams.  The Cubs have developed a philosophy that they can teach defense, so guys like Schwarber and Happ have more value to them.  I like Happ, but in most drafts he isn't a top 10 pick.

Reb

  • Guest
Re: On The Farm
« Reply #584 on: September 22, 2015, 01:29:23 pm »
I already said Wilken loved Baez. Theo and Red Sox didn't. Point is that, even in draft you cited, Happ (of 2015) would be rated higher (by Theo) than the guy going #9 and, therefore, you can't just peg somebody at this slot or that slot. If you claim that, you're blowing smoke.

Colon and Choice--in what you claim was a strong draft--were flawed guys at the time, Colon not really a SS nor an upside bat and Choice had plenty of swing-and-miss (and iffy as a CFer--see BA at the time). Not at all clear either was more attractive prospect than Happ/2015. For some probably yes, for others probably no.

Again, point is that little or no basis to pigeonhole Happ in late teens or whatever slot you supposedly are sure he would go in those drafts. You don't know that and full of holes and rank conjecture in your arguments. I don't know either. Point is that many, many variables in play in stuff like this. So, I'm suggesting that you might want to be a bit more circumspect in this. It's ambiguous and that's okay.