How you can ignore the rest of those drafts where they have found consistent talent some that is outperforming even our early round picks is ludicrous.  The 2019 and 2021 drafts have essentially restocked the twins pipeline.   I am mightily impressed with that.  That is even with trading our #1 draft pick last year,  for a very good starting pitcher for 2 year.   I can't wait to see who they draft this year, especially with an early draft pick.  

32 minutes ago, bunsen82 said:

How you can ignore the rest of those drafts where they have found consistent talent some that is outperforming even our early round picks is ludicrous.  The 2019 and 2021 drafts have essentially restocked the twins pipeline.   I am mightily impressed with that.  That is even with trading our #1 draft pick last year,  for a very good starting pitcher for 2 year.   I can't wait to see who they draft this year, especially with an early draft pick.  

Beyond round 3, it's a crapshoot. Those players rarely make MLB and aren't expected to make it. Scouts can see hints of great things, but the likelihood of those players working out is remote or they'd be drafted much higher. Guys in the 4th round have seen hundreds of players picked before them and all 30 teams pass again and again and again. If a player in the later rounds makes the big show, it's player development and coaching working magic, not the draft scouting team.

Great report, love how you show your work and I read the entire thing and was nodding my head.

My only disagreement comes from this quote regarding Trevor Larnach: "I'm going to ignore his huge slump over the last month, and especially last couple of weeks and hope it's luck related rather than a repeat of last season." -- Since his debut, there has always been a huge group of fans lining up to make up excuses for his poor play. A guy like Miranda goes 0-for-5 and Twins fans are ready to jettison him to the Mighty Mussels, meanwhile Larnach goes 2-for-40 over a 3 week stretch and it's "just bad luck". But hey, it's your article and you can ignore and/or include anything you want! I just happen to disagree on Larnach.

But like I said, great work dude and thanks for the post. Very impressed with your thoroughness and even more impressed with how you were able to get it down in writing for the masses. Well done.

23 minutes ago, bighat said:

Great report, love how you show your work and I read the entire thing and was nodding my head.

My only disagreement comes from this quote regarding Trevor Larnach: "I'm going to ignore his huge slump over the last month, and especially last couple of weeks and hope it's luck related rather than a repeat of last season." -- Since his debut, there has always been a huge group of fans lining up to make up excuses for his poor play. A guy like Miranda goes 0-for-5 and Twins fans are ready to jettison him to the Mighty Mussels, meanwhile Larnach goes 2-for-40 over a 3 week stretch and it's "just bad luck". But hey, it's your article and you can ignore and/or include anything you want! I just happen to disagree on Larnach.

But like I said, great work dude and thanks for the post. Very impressed with your thoroughness and even more impressed with how you were able to get it down in writing for the masses. Well done.

I am not bullish on Larnach and I was pretty critical of his projectability last year.
 

But, the fact is he made huge strides against one of the most popular breaking pitches in the game which he was lost against last year, the slider. He's still been nearly useless against changeups, but there is some minor movement forward on that one too. I'll give credit where it's due and that's the reason he got a little bump up.

How does this compare to other front offices?  Are they usually performing in B-A range?  Or are the Twins hitting on a better rate than their peers?

I really liked this article and your analysis.  I have long thought Enlow was not qualified for our top prospect ratings and you seem to confirm that for me.  I also hated the Sabato pick.  Do we need a new Sano? 

Jeffers can still come around, Larnach keeps working and can be an acceptable part of the line-up. Leach is a complete miss. 

Wallner feels like he could surprise and do what Sabato was expected to do.

This is not a very impressive showing for the FO, but I think it is accurate.  

I am really sorry we traded Petty, but if Gray can stay healthy it is an okay trade. 

I think your grading is a little harsh.  Endow is more of an incomplete with all the time missed.  Anyone who is a MLB regular starter should be at least a B.  Maybe give Jeffers a B - for being a crappy hitter but strong defender.  
 

The entire 2020 draft and Cavaco are the only decisions that were absolutely regrettable.  

overall great article I give it a A-

1 hour ago, Loosey said:

How does this compare to other front offices?  Are they usually performing in B-A range?  Or are the Twins hitting on a better rate than their peers?

I don't know. It's a concern to me that an "A" grade might be unachievable with my grading system, but analysis and write up work like this takes hours so it's not really feasible for me to do this for 29 other teams.

That said, rounds 1-3 for Falvey's front office over the past 5 drafts seem to be short on quality regular players as of today, but still with some potential. The C grade as of now seems fair.

I think given where things are today those are pretty objectively fair grades.  I still think Lewis ends up an A and Enlow will need more time but he should get back to B status and certainly C by the mid point next year.  I think Jeffers and Canterino can end up B's as well.  I think the grades reflect where they stand right now but I think there is solid potential for the final grade to be better than this. 

I see the rational for Steer being an A but that seems a bit high to me.  I think of an A as All Star or very near All Star caliber player but this is your criteria and that is fine.  

What you can see is that there have been a fair number of complete misses at the top of the draft.  I think your identifying the power hitting guys (Rooker, Sabato), they selected didn't work out well and Wallner was on his way to being the 3rd one not to work out but has OPS'd his way out of it for now.  Still has to make the big leagues though so far from a sure B IMO.

I really appreciate the work you put in and those are the only quibbles I have and they are minor.

If Petty stays healthy, he may become the most valuable of all of these players who have been drafted by Falvey. He was very impressive when I was at Spring Training this year. He was the pitcher, who, when warming up, the other players and coaches would watch. His sizzling pitches were darting in and out of the strike zone. He is a special talent who will be successful in the majors for many years. Therefore, Falvey gets an A+ in drafting Petty. However, in my report card, Falvey gets an F for trading him away, even though I love Gray. I would have made Petty untouchable in a trade. I understand the injury risk with an 18 year old fire-balling pitcher, but I tell you, Petty is special and is worth the risk. In three years the Reds will have Hunter Greene and Chase Petty as two young exciting and personable "Aces". 

I thought it would be interesting to see how other teams rank in drafting, but could not access what I wanted.  
Here is a bleacher report that ranks the last 15 drafts : This is the caveat for the grading of the drafts - "Rather than simply listing every first-round selection, I’ve included only those players who enjoyed—or are in the midst of—a notable big-league career."

With that in mind, the Twins had five first rounders in 15 drafts that have made an impact - Joe Mauer 2001, Buxton 2012, Hicks 2005, Revere 2007 and Garza 2005.  

Leach almost fell into the Enlow category. He was available for the Rule 5. But because of injuries was still an A-baall pitcher. He will be a minor league free agent after this saeson.

Enlow, because he was protected, could be grabbed by another team easily if removed from the 40-man (as would be Balazovic or Henriquez). And then the new team could decide to send them, again, thru waivers before sending to the minor leagues.

Thus the world of a min or league ballplayer.

Rooker, also, faced downtime in 2020. Sadly, he WAS given every oipportunity to prove himself a major elague player. As much as Miranda, Larnach and also, now, Kirilloff. He didn't succeed and then was passed over by guys like Garlick, Refsnyder and even Cave and Celestino. 

So much can change in the life of a minor league player. A bad season in the minors may mean no shot in the majors. A rough time in he majors, and maybe no second chance...or a minimal second chance...because tehre are always memebrs from another draft class pushing you off the depth chart.

Also, I like stolen bases as much as anyone. But stealing in the lowly minors? Pitchers and catchers are getting used to each other, and also pitchers are working on different pitches. I still remember this grat base stealer in the Twins minors system. Whatever happened to him? 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=rivera003dav

I shake my head all the time at the millions spent up-front in baseball drafts on players that amount to next-to-nothing, and the careers that some of the lowlies have in return.

3 hours ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

If Petty stays healthy, he may become the most valuable of all of these players who have been drafted by Falvey. He was very impressive when I was at Spring Training this year. He was the pitcher, who, when warming up, the other players and coaches would watch. His sizzling pitches were darting in and out of the strike zone. He is a special talent who will be successful in the majors for many years. Therefore, Falvey gets an A+ in drafting Petty. However, in my report card, Falvey gets an F for trading him away, even though I love Gray. I would have made Petty untouchable in a trade. I understand the injury risk with an 18 year old fire-balling pitcher, but I tell you, Petty is special and is worth the risk. In three years the Reds will have Hunter Greene and Chase Petty as two young exciting and personable "Aces". 

I agree completely with this take. The trade of Petty could wind up being a monumental mistake and I absolutely hated it when we traded him for Gray since I didn't think there was really anybody in the Twins' system with the potential upside of Petty.

Speaking of Petty... his last 5 games are pretty impressive. 2.45 ERA (2.44 FIP), 9.82 K/9 (28.2%), 2.45 BB/9 (7%), 0.93 WHIP. He's not giving up hits, he's not walking too many, he's striking out quite a few. In his first year of professional experience out of high school, that's about all you can ask for.

Jeffers is a strange case. His BaseballSavant page looks solid, but the results are horrible. 

Savant has Jeffers listed as the 10th most unlucky batter in MLB this season, with a .071 point gap between his wOBA and xwOBA. He has an elite barrel rate and an expected slug that would earn him a solid extension offer if his results matched, but they just don't.

The issue seems to be a complete lack of strike zone control...ironic considering he has such a great strike zone control behind the plate. 

I expect his production to regress, or progress if you will, to the mean. He just needs more time. I don't expect him to be a good hitter, but I think league average is attainable.

I remember the Sabato pick. I confusedly exclaimed, "What the ****!? Why?"

Nothing I heard or read after justified the pick in my mind. That was a terrible pick the moment it was made. I still don't understand it.

Also, huge props for spelling out the guttural "OOffftttaaa".  Living outside Minnesota for the last 19 years, that made me giggle.

You're too harsh on Jeffers. While his conventional stats are slightly ugly (but remember that while his 74 wRC+ looks terrible, league catchers only have an 87 wRC+), his advanced stats tell a different story. His wOBA is .269 while his xwOBA is .340. His barrel rate is 93rd percentile. His xSLG is 77th percentile.

Given Jeffers' defense, even if he only climbs up to a league average 87 wRC+ (and his batted ball stats look like he's better than that), he's a valuable starting catcher.

I would think critical to any analysis would be a comparison to other teams as well as a comparison to the performance of players previously picked in that slot.

I would also wonder if some teams are more successful with picks after round 2 and that it might be due to their skill in identifying and developing talent rather than random as you suggest.

Those factors seem so much important than an MLB ranking. Is there any evidence that MLB rankings have been a reliable predictor of future performance?

As for Jeffers… he was picked in the middle of the second round and has more WAR than any other player picked in that round. Can I assume that every other team in that round would receive a lower grade for their pick in round 2?

1 hour ago, jorgenswest said:

As for Jeffers… he was picked in the middle of the second round and has more WAR than any other player picked in that round. Can I assume that every other team in that round would receive a lower grade for their pick in round 2?

Well, the 2018 draft is still very much a work in progress and Jeffers was a college draft pick so it's not really surprising he's leading the second round pack in June of 2022.

But it should also be noted that Larnach (though also a college pick so keep that in mind) is around fifth in overall WAR from the first round but was only the 20th pick of the round.

This grading scale seems impossibly difficult, where one must draft an All-Star or better to receive a decent grade. The reality of the draft is that if you get a competent regular from the first round every year, your baseball team will be very good. If you get more than one competent regular from any single draft, you had a very good draft.

And I simply do not buy into the statement that anything after the third round is a crapshoot. That's where coaching and development comes into play; yes, the later rounds are more random but that's where good franchises pick the flawed players they like and try to coach them into being an MLB player. Dismissing those rounds out of hand ignores a big reason why the Tampa Bay Rays are perennially excellent while other franchises can't win after a half decade of top picks.

I respect the time and effort it takes to grade out how players are doing.  However, I find how a player is doing, even more so when injuries play a roll like in Lewis, it is poor way to evaluate a draft.  There are many factors that go into certain draft picks, like drafting a HS kid early because you expect he will sign under slot value, so you can use that money on an over slot value later on.  Unless the guy had injury concerns in say college or during high school, it is hard to fault a draft of a player only to have an injury that no one saw coming.

Also, without context of who else was available around that pick, and when is your next pick. You point out Jeffers was considered a huge reach.  Okay, maybe, but we did not have a 3rd round pick.  So our next pick was not until Round 4. Which was pick 124.  Between those picks there was 4 catchers taken.  2 has made MLB but 1 has had very small sample size, with total of 25 games over 2 seasons, but his minor league numbers suggest the very small sample will not continue.  The other has half the games as Jeffers but might have more power.  I do not know the defenses to compare.  

There was then 3 more catchers in round four that would have been available and none have made majors.  Being we have little to no catching prospects, and at the time Rortvelt was only prospect we had, a catcher was needed most likely.  There is not a whole lot of MLB players that were drafted after Jeffers and before our next pick, not sure how many are still prospects, but no names clearly jumped out to me.  I did not do deep dive so may have missed someone.  My point is though that to say we were wrong on Jeffers or it was a poor pick may not be actually true under the context of the pick.  One, he may not have been around the next pick, and there may not have been a better pick out there, at least not at the catching position.  He may not be an all-star or anything, but he still may be just as good or on par with any others in that draft. 

I am not defending every pick by any means.  I was not a fan of the Cavaio pick or Sabato pick.  But to just see how your pick does does not do a true analysis without seeing how other options could have been and how they panned out. Unless you can point to someone you would have drafted, at the time not after seeing how they ended up, it is hard to say it was wrong pick, even more so when the pick makes the majors.  

I do not know your grading scale, but looks like a C is MLB player, which is pretty low grade when 66% of 1st round picks make majors, 49% of 2nd round make majors, and only 33% of rounds 3 thru 5 make it. I would say sometimes the 1st rounds only make it as the team invested the time and money into them.  Is A+ MVP path, A all-star regular, B fringe all-star, C mlb player, D AAA regular with some MLB time, and F no MLB prospect? 

15 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

You're too harsh on Jeffers. While his conventional stats are slightly ugly (but remember that while his 74 wRC+ looks terrible, league catchers only have an 87 wRC+), his advanced stats tell a different story. His wOBA is .269 while his xwOBA is .340. His barrel rate is 93rd percentile. His xSLG is 77th percentile.

Given Jeffers' defense, even if he only climbs up to a league average 87 wRC+ (and his batted ball stats look like he's better than that), he's a valuable starting catcher.

Personally, I think you're too optimistic on Jeffers.

First, 13pts below average on wRC+ is very significant

Second, using "mean" vs. "median" is misleading because there are backups and AAA injury replacement guys skewing numbers at the bottom. Jeffers might be only 13pts below average, but he's 21pts below median (for 31 catchers with 130+ plate appearances) in wRC+. Jeffers is 70pts below median in OPS. That's ballpark-ish 2 WAR over a 150 games played.

Third, Jeffers struggles at the plate date back through last year, where he had a wRC+ of 82 in a fairly significant 293 PA (right in line with what he's rocking today). In total, Jeffers has a wRC+ of 85 across 520 career plate appearances in 3 years. Jeffers has been consistently poor at the plate and that's not a small sample size anymore. It's not absolutely definitive by any means, but it's fair reason to temper expectations.

Fourth, there are many players who never perform up to their metrics for various reasons. From players who only use 1/2 the field, to players impossibly weak against certain pitches or players who maybe just psyche themselves out in high stress situations. It goes that way for hitters and pitchers.

Fifth, Jeffers is an adequate defensive catcher. He's middle of the road so while he has positional value, his defense shouldn't keep him starting if his bat doesn't play. He's on pace for about 1.5 fWAR this year as the primary catcher. That's not getting it done... and he didn't get it done last year, either.
 

3 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

...I would also wonder if some teams are more successful with picks after round 2 and that it might be due to their skill in identifying and developing talent rather than random as you suggest...

I included round 3 so you concern seems to be round 4+?

I don't wonder that at all. 30 teams scout virtually every top player (physical attributes and performance) as they come up through middle/high school. Even if a scout believed they saw a huge potential, that talent would have to be refined or all the rest of the teams would be seeing the performance and everybody would know about the player. In addition, the idea a single scout from a single team would see the talent (like the movie Trouble with the Curve) is unlikely. There would be a handful of the "some teams" better scouts who'd be expected to see it, too. Passing on early round drafts with the hopes nobody else noticed the elite player hiding in the rough is way risky. Plus, drafting the player early would allow the team to go way over-slot further down the line. That's a technique the Falvey led Twins have employed.
 

3 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

 

And I simply do not buy into the statement that anything after the third round is a crapshoot. That's where coaching and development comes into play; yes, the later rounds are more random but that's where good franchises pick the flawed players they like and try to coach them into being an MLB player. Dismissing those rounds out of hand ignores a big reason why the Tampa Bay Rays are perennially excellent while other franchises can't win after a half decade of top picks.

I tend to agree.  Scouts are still looking for specific traits in players that they think they can build on.  They are looking for players with untapped potential.  You could argue that it is those players in those rounds where the scouts earn their money.  Everyone knows who the top 100 players are even the fans.  We don't know which guys are going to work out but for the most part the top 200 players are set except for the order they will be picked.  Not sure it takes much scouting acumen to determine those players.  Players that look like sure things in the top 100 are not all going to work out. We see it every year no matter how good the organization.  Some consensus top 10 picks are not going to work out and that is pretty much the entire industry scouting players that come up with these rankings.  So scouting and top 100 lists are never perfect predictors of success at the MLB level even when the entire industry agrees.

I agree and it is pretty much proven that the further out you get the less likely a player makes it but any players that do make it from those rounds is essentially found money and the team wasn't just throwing darts at the board on who they decided to pick.  They picked guys with specific tools and skillsets they felt they might be able to develop.  Sure most of them are not going to work but I still think you have to give credit to the organization for recognizing talent that was more deeply hidden and or had the ability to be developed.  Finding players that can play at the MLB level not even All-Star caliber players but even just a dominant relief arm has significant value to the organization so those lower picks matter IMO. 

2 hours ago, Dman said:

I tend to agree.  Scouts are still looking for specific traits in players that they think they can build on.  They are looking for players with untapped potential.  You could argue that it is those players in those rounds where the scouts earn their money.  Everyone knows who the top 100 players are even the fans.  We don't know which guys are going to work out but for the most part the top 200 players are set except for the order they will be picked.  Not sure it takes much scouting acumen to determine those players.  Players that look like sure things in the top 100 are not all going to work out. We see it every year no matter how good the organization.  Some consensus top 10 picks are not going to work out and that is pretty much the entire industry scouting players that come up with these rankings.  So scouting and top 100 lists are never perfect predictors of success at the MLB level even when the entire industry agrees.

I agree and it is pretty much proven that the further out you get the less likely a player makes it but any players that do make it from those rounds is essentially found money and the team wasn't just throwing darts at the board on who they decided to pick.  They picked guys with specific tools and skillsets they felt they might be able to develop.  Sure most of them are not going to work but I still think you have to give credit to the organization for recognizing talent that was more deeply hidden and or had the ability to be developed.  Finding players that can play at the MLB level not even All-Star caliber players but even just a dominant relief arm has significant value to the organization so those lower picks matter IMO. 

I mean, one doesn't have to look far to see the last paragraph in action: Griffin Jax. A marginal third round pick taken because the Twins liked his slider. Sure, he didn't work out as a starter because he couldn't develop much past that slider but now he looks like he'll be a multi-year contributor at the very least (barring injury).

That's not an accident. Sure, the Twins may have taken a different third rounder the year before that fell on their face, that's baseball for you. But they intentionally targeted something about Jax that made them think he will be an MLB contributor and he's now contributing to the MLB team based on that single skill they targeted and refined.

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Personally, I think you're too optimistic on Jeffers.

First, 13pts below average on wRC+ is very significant

Second, using "mean" vs. "median" is misleading because there are backups and AAA injury replacement guys skewing numbers at the bottom. Jeffers might be only 13pts below average, but he's 21pts below median (for 31 catchers with 130+ plate appearances) in wRC+. Jeffers is 70pts below median in OPS. That's ballpark-ish 2 WAR over a 150 games played.

Third, Jeffers struggles at the plate date back through last year, where he had a wRC+ of 82 in a fairly significant 293 PA (right in line with what he's rocking today). In total, Jeffers has a wRC+ of 85 across 520 career plate appearances in 3 years. Jeffers has been consistently poor at the plate and that's not a small sample size anymore. It's not absolutely definitive by any means, but it's fair reason to temper expectations.

Fourth, there are many players who never perform up to their metrics for various reasons. From players who only use 1/2 the field, to players impossibly weak against certain pitches or players who maybe just psyche themselves out in high stress situations. It goes that way for hitters and pitchers.

Fifth, Jeffers is an adequate defensive catcher. He's middle of the road so while he has positional value, his defense shouldn't keep him starting if his bat doesn't play. He's on pace for about 1.5 fWAR this year as the primary catcher. That's not getting it done... and he didn't get it done last year, either.
 

This just doesn't cut it. First, you're parsing really small sample sizes (Jeffers doesn't even have 600 career PAs yet) and the second half of the statement is nonsense trying to excuse away a really big discrepancy between Jeffers' surface stats and his underlying metrics.

In 2020, Jeffers' difference between wOBA and xwOBA was .003.

In 2021, that difference was .010.

In 2022, the difference is .065.

This is the first year his metrics have not aligned with performance.

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/ryan-jeffers/24618/stats?position=C

PS. I'm not even that high on Ryan Jeffers, I think he's an average-ish starting catcher for a few years. But getting that player in the second round is a hell of a draft pick.

20 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

This just doesn't cut it. First, you're parsing really small sample sizes (Jeffers doesn't even have 600 career PAs yet) and the second half of the statement is nonsense trying to excuse away a really big discrepancy between Jeffers' surface stats and his underlying metrics.

In 2020, Jeffers' difference between wOBA and xwOBA was .003.

In 2021, that difference was .010.

In 2022, the difference is .065.

This is the first year his metrics have not aligned with performance.

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/ryan-jeffers/24618/stats?position=C

PS. I'm not even that high on Ryan Jeffers, I think he's an average-ish starting catcher for a few years. But getting that player in the second round is a hell of a draft pick.

So my small sample sizes are no good, but your even smaller sample sizes are? Got it.