Article: First Round Busts?

[Otto von Ballpark]

The Twins had some pretty disappointing first rounds from 1998-2000 too.

[Parker Hageman]

The Twins had some pretty disappointing first rounds from 1998-2000 too.

 

 

No question. Mills, Garbe & Johnson all fizzled.

[gunnarthor]

A point where people seem to disagree is that the Twins should expect to do poorly drafting so late.....vs some who say that is not an acceptable expectation.....

 

It is hard to know if it is all drafting, all development, or what percent of each. It is hard to know how they really make decisions. All we can really know is the outcomes vs other teams......

Looking at only a small frame of time can distort how we look at things.  Nearly all teams have cyclical results, esp if you are looking at 5 or 6 year periods and/or only a part of the draft process (which is only part of the development system).  The problem with saying the Twins first round draft picks were bad from 06-11 is 1) they weren't - both Revere and Gibson were good picks and Hicks still might be and 2) it ignores the entire drafts.  Looking at in a more reasonable light would suggest that the 07 and 09 drafts were good and that Johnson's drafts strategy might not be ideal.

[jimmer]

I guess we have to ask ourselves what makes a 1st rounder a bust or not.  I imagine everyone has a different idea as to what bust means in the context of a first rounder, second rounder, etc.

 

For me, if a college pitcher is drafted in the first round, and doesn't really establish himself in the majors for 5 years, and then is maybe a #3 or #4 pitcher at best when he finally gets here, I might call that a bust. 

 

I might say if a first rounder only makes the major league roster because he ran out of options and the team just didn't want to give up quite yet on him, that might be a bust.

[Parker Hageman]

The problem with saying the Twins first round draft picks were bad from 06-11 is 1) they weren't - both Revere and Gibson were good picks and Hicks still might be and 2) it ignores the entire drafts.

 

 

1) Yes it was...

http://i.imgur.com/YARiOQO.png

 

2) That was the point. It was just a look at the first round picks. 

[gunnarthor]

1) Yes it was...

http://i.imgur.com/YARiOQO.png

 

2) That was the point. It was just a look at the first round picks. 

Again, that makes a statement that isn't true (insert Mark Twain quote here).  The 07 draft (Revere) and 09 (Gibson) were good picks.  You are over weighing the failures of the 08 and 10 draft to paint too broad a brush.  And it overvalues the earlier drafts as players from your arbitrary end point are still developing or amassing value.  There are some issues with the drafts but this isn't really telling us much compared to the misinformation it shows.

[diehardtwinsfan]

The Twins drafts during that timeframe were definitely on the low par.  That's why there was so little from the farm to come up and help when it all hit the fan.  I think though if you did a WAR study of the entire class, the numbers wouldn't look a lot better.  There are a lot of reasons for this, and I think it's a bit unfair to simply pin it to one reason.  I see a few (in no particular order):

 

1)  Conservative drafting (metrodome days for the most part, but definitely played a role here)

2)  Lack of draft slotting that exists today

3)  Injury (though truthfully, I expect all teams to have this problem, I'd be curios what the percentages looked like in relationships to other teams)

4)  Just plain old bad picks.

5)  Development (I do believe that guys who can succeed in one system can fail in another, having the right coaches for the right personality along with situational differences does make an impact).

 

I think the Twins have done a real good job addressing lots of these.  The 2012-2014 drafts (so far at least) are looking to be real good. 

[Parker Hageman]

Again, that makes a statement that isn't true (insert Mark Twain quote here).

 

 

No, the statement is the Twins have not had success drafting in the first round from 2006 through 2011. By the measurement of WAR, they have had the lowest returns. It is a factual statement.

 

Everything you are pointing to are reasons why the WAR has been low. You are trying to explain why in the years between 2006 and 2011 they have been bad. Those points are valid but do not necessarily change the fact that the Twins have had one of the lowest producing first round selections in those years. 

 

Revere has been the bright spot (gaining 4.2 WAR in a spot in the latter round is good) but I will add that Gibson's track record is not long enough to be considered a "success" as of yet (particularly in comparison to the rest of his draft class). Injures account for his delayed production but it doesn't change the fact that he has not produced well *yet*. There is still time for players from 2011 to also rebound as well as Hicks or maybe even Parmelee in Baltimore. All of this is acknowledged in the post. 

 

As it stands right here and now -- based on WAR and to a lesser extent the ability to get their players major league ready --  the Twins have performed poorly with their first round picks. That is what it is telling you.

[Pius Jefferson]

I think far too many times the Twins fell into the mindset of drafting for need versus drafting the best player available. Of course

[jay]

As it stands right here and now -- based on WAR and to a lesser extent the ability to get their players major league ready -- the Twins have performed poorly with their first round picks. That is what it is telling you.

That's the fact as of today. As your post there and others have pointed out, it's the why that is hard to separate out from all the variables. The icky feeling I get from the original article is that folks coming to TD to just read articles are probably pretty likely to leave with the conclusion that the Twins just suck at drafting. I think the why is a bit more complex than that.

 

I personally think draft position is a big part of those years and I'll commit to a blog post examining that.

[Seth Stohs]

I think far too many times the Twins fell into the mindset of drafting for need versus drafting the best player available. Of course

 

I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. Not in the first several rounds. Of course "Best Player Available" means different things to different organizations when you're talking about a bunch of high school and college players. 

 

Scout A - who saw Alex Wimmers throughout high school and college in Ohio said that he may top out at 91, but he's polished, has good control, has great work ethic and has a changeup that is nearly big league ready. 

 

Scout B - who saw him just once in person and once on TV saw two average performances.

 

Evaluator C - sees that he only hits 91 and says no thank you.

 

Evaluator D - sees the stats and thinks he's worth the risk.

 

And that can all be inside of one organization. It's not a science, that's for sure.

[gunnarthor]

No, the statement is the Twins have not had success drafting in the first round from 2006 through 2011. By the measurement of WAR, they have had the lowest returns. It is a factual statement.

 

These are also true factual statements that also mislead the reader

 

Since the Pohlads took over the Twins, only the large market Yankees and Red Sox have won more World Series.

Over the last 17 years, Astros first round picks have amassed a total of 8 WAR.

The Arizona Diamondbacks have the fewest losses in MLB history. 

 

At this point, I think we're just talking past each other.  I do think that the Twins drafts should be examined but picking arbitrary endpoints - after Garza, before Buxton - confirms the results you are looking for rather than a fair look at draft history.  And, as I already pointed out, it lets you whitewash the good 07 and 09 drafts.

[gunnarthor]

I think far too many times the Twins fell into the mindset of drafting for need versus drafting the best player available. Of course

I think you can criticize the Twins for a lot of things but this doesn't seem like one of them.  If they were drafting for need, they would have taken Gausman, Appel or Zimmer over Buxton.  Draft cheap?  Sure.  Stay away from certain agents? Sure.  Refuse to go over slot? You bet.  But not draft for need.  It just doesn't work in baseball.  By the time a guy is ready, the need for the ML club is probably different.

[USAFChief]

Since the Pohlads took over the Twins, only the large market Yankees and Red Sox have won more World Series.

 

That is both deceptive, and non- factual. :-)

[gunnarthor]

That is both deceptive, and non- factual. :-)

Oh, right, I forgot the Giants.  My bad.

[old nurse]

How do the statistics change if you throw out the supplemental first round players?  Some years there were 14 supplemental players, some years 34. What is a first rounder one year is a second rounder another

[Thrylos]

I suspect that that 6.5 is decreased as far as Twins' WAR contribution goes, since it includes Revere and his Phillies seasons.

 

a couple of comments:

 

a.  Want to see drafting suckiness?  Look at the WAR in a Twins' uniform for the Twins first round draft picks from 1961 till Knoblauch (1989).  Much less that the aforementioned 6 and change.

 

b. I think that it takes a full 10+ years to judge a draft, so, yeah we can say that Parm sounds like a bust, but Michael?  Who knows?

 

c. going back to the data from a. above.  Look at the second round.  Much better than the first.  Frank Viola, Butch Wynegar and Tim Teufel (even Alan Anderson) help.  Look at third round:   There is a guy named Blyleven, a guy named Castino and a guy named Garvey (who did not sign.).   There are more than one rounds in a draft and (despite the dogma) the first round is as important as the rest...

[jimmer]

 The icky feeling I get from the original article is that folks coming to TD to just read articles are probably pretty likely to leave with the conclusion that the Twins just suck at drafting. 

Or they'll think, 'Hey here's a site that doesn't ignore the bad and is willing to discuss the bad along with the good.'.  

 

This is a team that has lost 92 or more game for four straight years. I don't think it's news to any Twins fan that there are real problems with this team right now, nor should it be news that our drafts didn't go so well for awhile in the most important round.

 

It wouldn't be constructive at all to just talk about the positive and ignore the negative, but it would sure cut down on the amount of threads/posts to read.

Edited January 29, 2015 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not sure why we keep calling this sample "arbitrary".  I would imagine these years were chosen because they are the most relevant to our recent struggles.

 

Either way, we shouldn't be attacking this as some kind of negative propaganda.  Any six year stretch of draft failures, no matter when they happen, is going to be problematic for your organization.  It's useful to examine why you hit a drought like that, especially when the farm system is so vital to your success.

Edited January 29, 2015 by TheLeviathan

[jay]

Or they'll think, 'Hey here's a site that doesn't ignore the bad and is willing to discuss the bad along with the good.'.

 

This is a team that has lost 92 or more game for four straight years. I don't think it's news to any Twins fan that there are real problems with this team right now, nor should it be news that our drafts didn't go so well for awhile in the most important round.

 

It wouldn't be constructive at all to just talk about the positive and ignore the negative, but it would sure cut down on the amount of threads/posts to read.

I'm absolutely not saying we should ignore the bad or the negative, so please don't insinuate that from my post. What I'm saying is that I think it's far more valuable to understand "why" and we don't have any of that in the article.

 

I'd be happy to hear your theories on what should have been done differently... other than just pick the guys that actually ended up making it.

[jimmer]

I'm absolutely not saying we should ignore the bad or the negative, so please don't insinuate that from my post. What I'm saying is that I think it's far more valuable to understand "why" and we don't have any of that in the article.

 

I'd be happy to hear your theories on what should have been done differently... other than just pick the guys that actually ended up making it.

and that's fine, but what does that have to do with the part of your post I quoted, which was: 'The icky feeling I get from the original article is that folks coming to TD to just read articles are probably pretty likely to leave with the conclusion that the Twins just suck at drafting.'. The quote seems to be concerned with how people visiting this site will evaluate their desire to visit this site based on a negative evaluation of a Twins process, in this case drafting.

 

I'm not trying to be combative, I must have missed what you meant by that specific statement, and I'm just trying to understand why that was said because this explanation doesn't seem to touch on that, but rather other parts of your post which I didn't respond to.  Again, just wondering, please don't take it as any kind of attack because it's not meant that way.

 

As far as what I would have done different, not sure it's important what some guy in nowhere USA would have done, only what people considered to be a qualified GM and Director of Scouting would have done and how what they did compared to people in those positions for the other 29 teams.

 

I look forward to the thread you will start that elaborates in this one. I'm sure it will be enjoyable.

Edited January 29, 2015 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

I'm absolutely not saying we should ignore the bad or the negative, so please don't insinuate that from my post. What I'm saying is that I think it's far more valuable to understand "why" and we don't have any of that in the article.

 

I'd be happy to hear your theories on what should have been done differently... other than just pick the guys that actually ended up making it.

 

Sometimes you have to identify the problem before you can examine how it happened.  At this point we're still having trouble acknowledging something went wrong for that stretch.

 

I wonder if a lot of it was just a new regime moving in to the scouting department and the difficulty with that transition. 

[jay]

and that's fine, but what does that have to do with the part of your post I quoted, which was: 'The icky feeling I get from the original article is that folks coming to TD to just read articles are probably pretty likely to leave with the conclusion that the Twins just suck at drafting.'. The quote seems to be concerned with how people visiting this site will evaluate their desire to visit this site based on a negative evaluation.

Didn't intend anything about causes for desire to visit the site. My intent from that specific line was that without more analysis on the "why", it's too easy to simplify the explanation.

 

The Twins didn't get great results out of those top draft picks. That's clearly a problem and there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. When I see a problem, I look for justifiable explanations and/or solutions. I'm curious to see whether draft position provides a sufficient explanation on its' own or not.

[markos]

I did a quick analysis using the simplistic WAR estimator devised here: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/the_draft_and_w.php

 

The 11 picks discussed in the article have an expected total value of ~19 WAR over their first 6 years of service time. The Hicks pick (#14) has an expected value of 2.5 WAR, while the Boyd pick (#55) has an expected value of 1.2 WAR. 

 

As of right now, these picks are ~13 WAR short. Considering that Gibson and Hicks each have 5 years left and Revere has 3 years left, it isn't completely out of the question that those 3 alone will do well enough for this group to hit their expected production. Throw in the fact that there are a handful of players that are still working their way through the system (Michael and Harrison in particular), it seems like this group of maligned draft picks are on track to meet their expectations.

[bird]

I guess I'm one of those guys who sees that some things went wrong during the drafts from 2006 through 2011, but I'm still very skeptical that what went wrong for the Twins during that period is so very different from what went wrong for other organizations that faced the most similar set of circumstances in each of those very different drafts.

 

My first suggestion would be to limit the evaluation of each of those years to the five teams that drafted in front of the Twins and the five that drafted immediately after them. Then, throw out the supplemental picks. Third, toss out injury casualties. Last, include as a surrogate first-rounder each team's highest-cost international signing from the year being reviewed.

 

The questions I would love to have truthful answers to are: 1) why was their success limited in any given draft year; 2) are there patterns that we can confidently say were in place; 3) are there steps that could have and/or have been taken to remove the causes of any deficiency of judgment; 4) relative to other teams whose draft position most closely mirrored ours, how did we fare; and 5) what was different about the 2014 draft process from the 2011 draft process?

[jimmer]

I did a quick analysis using the simplistic WAR estimator devised here: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/the_draft_and_w.php

 

The 11 picks discussed in the article have an expected total value of ~19 WAR over their first 6 years of service time. The Hicks pick (#14) has an expected value of 2.5 WAR, while the Boyd pick (#55) has an expected value of 1.2 WAR. 

 

As of right now, these picks are ~13 WAR short. Considering that Gibson and Hicks each have 5 years left and Revere has 3 years left, it isn't completely out of the question that those 3 alone will do well enough for this group to hit their expected production. Throw in the fact that there are a handful of players that are still working their way through the system (Michael and Harrison in particular), it seems like this group of maligned draft picks are on track to meet their expectations.

and how much better will the players from the other team's drafts get over the same time frame, cause their WAR will continue to grow too. Right now, according to Parker, we are pretty much 10 WAR behind league median and 21 percent behind league median in actually getting our guys to the majors.

Edited January 29, 2015 by jimmer

[jay]

I did a quick analysis using the simplistic WAR estimator devised here: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/the_draft_and_w.php

 

The 11 picks discussed in the article have an expected total value of ~19 WAR over their first 6 years of service time. The Hicks pick (#14) has an expected value of 2.5 WAR, while the Boyd pick (#55) has an expected value of 1.2 WAR. 

 

As of right now, these picks are ~13 WAR short. Considering that Gibson and Hicks each have 5 years left and Revere has 3 years left, it isn't completely out of the question that those 3 alone will do well enough for this group to hit their expected production. Throw in the fact that there are a handful of players that are still working their way through the system (Michael and Harrison in particular), it seems like this group of maligned draft picks are on track to meet their expectations.

 

Lol... this is the blog post I'm drafting right now in far fewer words. 

[jay]

and how much better will the players from the other team's drafts get over the same time frame, cause their WAR will continue to grow too. Right now, according to Parker, we are pretty much 10 WAR behind league median and 21 percent behind league median in actually getting our guys to the majors.

 

Other teams wouldn't have the same number of expected WAR.  That figure is dependent on both the number of draft picks and the position of those draft picks.  The whole point is that it's not apples to apples and you can't use a median to accurately compare.

[kab21]

I'm not sure how someone can even debate that the Twins 1st round drafts were anything but bad during this period.  Out of 11 picks it looks like there are 2 average players from the 1st rounds.  that is bad.  You could say that it conveniently excludes better drafts on each side of that but these years are the players that are supposed to be supplying the MLB team with young talent to fill holes and very few young players came up during the last 5 years (until the last season).  These drafts are a big reason that the Twins have been bad but on the bright side the more recent Twins drafts (and their int'l signings and later round picks) have been doing much better.

 

I also disagree that the Twins were drafting for need.  I think they had a profile that they liked (safe college pitcher and toolsy HS athlete) that led to a lot of busts.

[Kwak]

It seems that this thread has followed the same course as the others with a similar vein:  "there is a problem";  followed by a supporting premise, ... .  Some posters agree, and perhaps add some more data, then quickly followed by the defenders of the organization enter using the arguements of:  1) "not their fault"  2) "who could have done better?" 3) "the initial premise is wrong" and  4) "we need just a bit more time because this next group of minor-leaguers will set MLB on fire", thus demonstrating that the organization is just fine.

 

One thing that is overlooked--the thread never pointed a finger at anyone thus no one needs defending.  One can disagree with the premises of 1st Round Busts, WAR, or that the time frame is invalid--but not who did the player selection or why someone was selected--because those weren't the premise  of the thread.  I believe that a slightly longer period is actually more relevant because those players would either still be with the team or have been replaced (via trade or draft compensation) to support that the Twins 1st Round draft selections have been poor.  But it's not my thread so I'll run with the time frame selected.  So, YES, I agree with the premise.  But I firmly believe that there are several more factors responsible for the poor seasons of the recent past.