3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Ok, give Larnach 0.2 WAR. He's still outdone what 93% of that entire class will do for their entire careers. How does that earn him a C? In the schools I went to being in the top 93% was an A. That's my problem. You're not using historical data and are crushing, or at least downgrading, picks that have either done better than you're giving them credit for or haven't had nearly enough time to make any kind of reasonable assessment of. Your expectations just aren't in line with MLB draft reality. Moral of this story is 4 years isn't enough time to grade a draft pick, let alone less than a season.

 

It gives the front office (not Larnach) a C for drafting Larnach because they can't get the same grade as Seattle did for Kyle Lewis as 2020's Rookie of the Year. Larnach was a first round draft pick who is expected to make MLB. He's not better than 93% of first rounders, he's the same as roughly 50% of first rounders drafted in spots 26-30.

A really nice Fangraphs article broke down 1st rounder results. https://community.fangraphs.com/success-rate-of-mlb-first-round-draft-picks-by-slot/ Larnach was a 26th overall pick giving him a 58% chance of making the majors. The 26th overall pick from 2000-2010 had generated an average of 4.5 bWAR at the MLB level by 2016. Overall, not including CBA, 245/330 made MLB (74%). 87/330 (26%) made MLB and produced an average of more than least 1.4 bWAR/season where 158 (48%) made MLB and produced less than 1.5 bWAR per season and 85/330 (26%) never made MLB. Larnach is right in the middle right now. That doesn't get the front office an A grade because that's average. Larnach could turn it on and really play well next year and that would absolutely impact the front offices grade on him, I just don't think he will.

And of course each pick must be judged based on who they passed on when they made their pick. Monday morning quarterbacking. 
 

22 hours ago, bean5302 said:

You and I have very different viewpoints of legit major league caliber performances it seems. I want my MLB players to be better than AAA replacement level.

Clearly... but I'd still drink a beer with you regardless of how misguided you may be ?.

However, that wasn't really my point.  I view them as legitimate MLBers in the fact that they can (no matter what happens from here) call themselves MLB ball players.  They made the roster (and for how long doesn't matter) and thus have earned the right to that title regardless of how you judge them.

20 hours ago, Twinky said:

K rate is a big problem for Cavaco. I know people will say the sample size is small, but it is what it is. He hasn’t been able to make the adjustment from high school ball to the low A level. If his fielding was dynamite you might give him a little bit of a pass, but the kid is a sub par fielder (.895) for a guy who was lauded as having elite tools. He was supposed to be a power bat, where the heck do they see this, the guy does not hit for power per his numbers. Athletic, yes. But if a player cannot catch, throw, or hit the ball that speed and athleticism doesn’t mean much.

 

Just remember numbers don't tell the whole story (and no I'm not saying his are good).  The gulf between HS and Low A ball is somewhere along the magnitude of trying to run the Boston Marathon after having never done more than a 5K.  Right now Cavaco is trying to drink from the fire hose.  There's a high chance he never develops fully, but this is true of the overwhelming majority of pro players.  The baseball odds are already stacked against him, we (as fans) don't need to add to that.

16 hours ago, bean5302 said:

It gives the front office (not Larnach) a C for drafting Larnach because they can't get the same grade as Seattle did for Kyle Lewis as 2020's Rookie of the Year. Larnach was a first round draft pick who is expected to make MLB. He's not better than 93% of first rounders, he's the same as roughly 50% of first rounders drafted in spots 26-30.

A really nice Fangraphs article broke down 1st rounder results. https://community.fangraphs.com/success-rate-of-mlb-first-round-draft-picks-by-slot/ Larnach was a 26th overall pick giving him a 58% chance of making the majors. The 26th overall pick from 2000-2010 had generated an average of 4.5 bWAR at the MLB level by 2016. Overall, not including CBA, 245/330 made MLB (74%). 87/330 (26%) made MLB and produced an average of more than least 1.4 bWAR/season where 158 (48%) made MLB and produced less than 1.5 bWAR per season and 85/330 (26%) never made MLB. Larnach is right in the middle right now. That doesn't get the front office an A grade because that's average. Larnach could turn it on and really play well next year and that would absolutely impact the front offices grade on him, I just don't think he will.

Again, you're ignoring the timeline. Players from 2000 had 16 years(!) to make it to the majors and accumulate WAR in that study. Larnach has had 3, with one of those being a pandemic cancelled minor league season. That article isn't even bold enough to try to grade drafts 4 or fewer years removed. They waited a minimum of 6 to start looking at things. That's the point. I can appreciate you not liking the Twins draft strategy, and agree that they have boxed themselves in with guys like Sabato and Rooker who are bat only (I never liked the Rooker pick), but giving the FO F's on Cavaco and Sabato especially is outlandish to me. Sabato is putting up Sano type lines now. If he has a Sano type career that's a win for the FO. Your post was meant to grade the FO for their drafts, but you just can't do that at this point.

I mean you've written Larnach off after his first taste of the bigs when he was called up before he was ready. I can't even imagine how badly you'd shred the Giants for the Joey Bart pick at #2 in 2018. Or Alec Bohm at #3. The league found a hole in Larnach's swing and beat it to death. That's the game. Now he needs to close it and come back next year having made an adjustment. His college and minor league performances suggest he'll make an adjustment and come back at some point next year and have made an adjustment. We'll see.

To me, there simply isn't enough data to provide the grades you are. It's ignoring the reality of the baseball draft and prospect development. It's really just you saying you don't agree with their "get possible difference making bats early" strategy. And that's totally cool. But it's nothing more than that. And that's totally cool, too. I appreciate the work that went into pulling this all together, and the back and forth on it, but this exercise is super premature. You simply can't judge these things this quickly.

To me, I equate Low A ball to D1 college baseball. It’s not like guys in low A are facing major leaguers. They facing guys who are at the same level as they are, some older and more experienced, but they are still playing low A. Pitchers with amazing stuff don’t stay in Low A, they get promoted quickly. He isn’t as good as they thought he was. 

1 hour ago, Twinky said:

To me, I equate Low A ball to D1 college baseball. It’s not like guys in low A are facing major leaguers. They facing guys who are at the same level as they are, some older and more experienced, but they are still playing low A. Pitchers with amazing stuff don’t stay in Low A, they get promoted quickly. He isn’t as good as they thought he was. 

There's one major flaw with that analogy though.  First off not all D1 baseball is created equal.  Then, only the best of college ball as a whole (regardless of level btw) will get a chance to even show their stuff in professional ball.  So at this point (Low A/Rookie Ball), regardless of the developmental time line, players are already facing the best players in the country.  It's like the NCAA Tournament on uber steroids.

Also, pitchers with "amazing stuff" do stay in A Ball if they have a hard time figuring things out (or they get released), you don't promote guys just to promote them.

I think I understand where you are coming from, but one can simply NOT equate college ball with professional ball.  It isn't even in the same realm.

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Again, you're ignoring the timeline. Players from 2000 had 16 years(!) to make it to the majors and accumulate WAR in that study. Larnach has had 3, with one of those being a pandemic cancelled minor league season. That article isn't even bold enough to try to grade drafts 4 or fewer years removed. They waited a minimum of 6 to start looking at things. That's the point. I can appreciate you not liking the Twins draft strategy, and agree that they have boxed themselves in with guys like Sabato and Rooker who are bat only (I never liked the Rooker pick), but giving the FO F's on Cavaco and Sabato especially is outlandish to me. Sabato is putting up Sano type lines now. If he has a Sano type career that's a win for the FO. Your post was meant to grade the FO for their drafts, but you just can't do that at this point.

I mean you've written Larnach off after his first taste of the bigs when he was called up before he was ready. I can't even imagine how badly you'd shred the Giants for the Joey Bart pick at #2 in 2018. Or Alec Bohm at #3. The league found a hole in Larnach's swing and beat it to death. That's the game. Now he needs to close it and come back next year having made an adjustment. His college and minor league performances suggest he'll make an adjustment and come back at some point next year and have made an adjustment. We'll see.

To me, there simply isn't enough data to provide the grades you are. It's ignoring the reality of the baseball draft and prospect development. It's really just you saying you don't agree with their "get possible difference making bats early" strategy. And that's totally cool. But it's nothing more than that. And that's totally cool, too. I appreciate the work that went into pulling this all together, and the back and forth on it, but this exercise is super premature. You simply can't judge these things this quickly.

I'm not ignoring the timeline and I actually considered it. The thing is... drafted players don't take 16 years to wash out of baseball. It happens much faster. Teams have to add drafted players to the 40 man after 4-5 years. They have 3 options once added to the 40 man. The number of players who are minor league free agents who become contributors 0.5+ WAR types is virtually nil. If a drafted player hasn't shown significant value by 7-8 years, it's over. So for the analysis, players drafted prior to 2008 were already at the end of their rope. Either they were regular MLB players or they were MiLB free agents/retired/out of the MLB system. The story of whether or not they'd have a career as an MLB player was already written.

This analysis is early. Definitely, with a huge amount on the line for many Twins prospects next year. Which is why I caveated that multiple times, but I find it to be pretty much the very same thing as a top prospects list. It's been 5 years now. 1-2 years for top college players 3-4 for average college players. 2-3 years for top HS players and 4-5 for average high school players. Those are the guidelines for when drafted players make MLB. We're well into that window now and I think this analysis can start being formed.

3 hours ago, MN_ExPat said:

Clearly... but I'd still drink a beer with you regardless of how misguided you may be ?.

However, that wasn't really my point.  I view them as legitimate MLBers in the fact that they can (no matter what happens from here) call themselves MLB ball players.  They made the roster (and for how long doesn't matter) and thus have earned the right to that title regardless of how you judge them.

Make it a mocha and I'm in! 

7 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

I'm not ignoring the timeline and I actually considered it. The thing is... drafted players don't take 16 years to wash out of baseball. It happens much faster. Teams have to add drafted players to the 40 man after 4-5 years. They have 3 options once added to the 40 man. The number of players who are minor league free agents who become contributors 0.5+ WAR types is virtually nil. If a drafted player hasn't shown significant value by 7-8 years, it's over. So for the analysis, players drafted prior to 2008 were already at the end of their rope. Either they were regular MLB players or they were MiLB free agents/retired/out of the MLB system. The story of whether or not they'd have a career as an MLB player was already written.

This analysis is early. Definitely, with a huge amount on the line for many Twins prospects next year. Which is why I caveated that multiple times, but I find it to be pretty much the very same thing as a top prospects list. It's been 5 years now. 1-2 years for top college players 3-4 for average college players. 2-3 years for top HS players and 4-5 for average high school players. Those are the guidelines for when drafted players make MLB. We're well into that window now and I think this analysis can start being formed.

No, it doesn't take them 16 years to wash out, but that isn't the point. If you're going to use WAR accumulation as a variable you have to take the 16 years, or 6 years, into account. You're mixing and matching "reach MLB" and "accumulate MLB WAR." The Twins have seen drafted players reach the majors within those timelines you're providing, with even more who would've if it weren't for a combination of a global pandemic and injuries. My disagreement is in that you then turn around and compare them to the Fangraphs WAR totals which isn't a realistic measure for guys who are 4.5 years removed from being drafted at the most.

At this point you can gather hard data on "reach MLB," but not "accumulate MLB WAR." The breakdown you're doing is much more of a prospect ranking list. You don't believe in their prospects. That's really what you're saying. You're putting their prospect list (of only their drafted players) in the 15-20 range of the league basically. I think that's a far more useful exercise at this point than attempting to grade their drafts. You don't like their strategy and don't believe in their drafted prospects. That's fair. I disagree with a number of your projection grades as I just think it's far too early to be calling some of those guys busts, but that's why we come on TD. But your draft grades right now are really just you giving your personal projections on what you think of these guys. Useful exercise and I've appreciated your takes. But, to me, that's not how a draft should be graded, and this is way too early to grade any of their drafts. Although 2017 and 2018 drafts do need to show some MLB results next year (they've already started to) and Cavaco needs to step up next year.

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

Make it a mocha and I'm in! 

Can we put Bailey's in it ??

When was the last time you physically watched a Low A game in person? You seem to be fantasizing that this level of minor league baseball is somehow incredible. It’s not. To say that a guy who wasn’t even committed to a P5 program but now plays Low A ball is somehow suddenly in a different stratosphere than a typical college player is a stretch…if everyone who is playing minor league ball is so much better than a college player, then why draft any college players? By the same token, every guy drafted should tear it up…I don’t agree with you at all here.

2 hours ago, Twinky said:

When was the last time you physically watched a Low A game in person? You seem to be fantasizing that this level of minor league baseball is somehow incredible. It’s not. To say that a guy who wasn’t even committed to a P5 program but now plays Low A ball is somehow suddenly in a different stratosphere than a typical college player is a stretch…if everyone who is playing minor league ball is so much better than a college player, then why draft any college players? By the same token, every guy drafted should tear it up…I don’t agree with you at all here.

You're ignoring or glossing over on a few items here I believe. 

The first is that unless a guy comes from a "Power 5" conference or was committed to one (and don't even get me started on what those "commitments" actually even mean) he isn't worth the time or effort, is a complete fallacy.  I also don't believe anyone is outright saying that professional players are so much better than college players. 

At that level, teams/organizations have pooled the best of the best from the country and internationally talent and skill wise.  Professionally speaking, a player isn't going to stand out or advance unless he is able to take the next step development wise.  So in a general sense, yes... professional ball is better/more advanced/harder, etc. than college ball.

This doesn't take anything at all away from the guys in college.  I personally love college and HS ball, almost even more than the pros, but when you condense the talent level (or another way to look at is the playing field has now been leveled much more so than anything these guys have faced thus far in their careers), the game does in fact actually get better (in a manner of speaking).

Not picking a fight here, so I will just say that the only person who has stated how great Low A baseball is on here is you, claiming that it’s “NCAA tournament on Uber steroids.”I think that is pretty funny. Cavaco 2019 (short season) 40% K rate, 2021 38% K rate. An .864 fielding percentage. This is indicative of a player playing way over their heads. Not his fault, if some idiot wanted to throw $4M at me to sign, I’d do it too…but this kid is a swing and miss expert, not a potential major leaguer.

8 hours ago, Twinky said:

Not picking a fight here, so I will just say that the only person who has stated how great Low A baseball is on here is you, claiming that it’s “NCAA tournament on Uber steroids.”I think that is pretty funny. Cavaco 2019 (short season) 40% K rate, 2021 38% K rate. An .864 fielding percentage. This is indicative of a player playing way over their heads. Not his fault, if some idiot wanted to throw $4M at me to sign, I’d do it too…but this kid is a swing and miss expert, not a potential major leaguer.

You seem to be completely missing my point.

Not saying guys like Cavaco don't struggle.  Merely saying the level of talent is higher in the minors than college.  You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

I think the problem is, again, while nearly every move is defensible, and so is their draft strategy (at least, arguably defensible), it's not working. The list of "didn't work" is growing pretty long with this FO.