Article: First Round Busts?

[kab21]

Of course there are more factors responsible for the recent struggles but this has to be a big reason.  If you aren't bringing in FA's then you have to hit on your early picks.  The Twins didn't.  There are other ways to retool a team but depending on late round picks, waiver wire gems and rule V picks is a bigger crapshoot than 1st rd picks.

[jay]

I get the Parmelee and Boyd storylines for choosing 2006-2011, but the data presented here isn't the best choice for correlating to the terrible team performance from 2011-2014.  Plenty of big time prospects from the '11 and even the '10 classes haven't even debuted yet (especially the HS picks) and players from before 2006 are still big-time contributors. 

 

The more relevant previous drafts don't look much better, so no, that's not an attempt to justify or defend anything.  The premise and results would be largely the same, but let's at least look at the right window and the right data if we're going to relate it to the losses.

Edited January 29, 2015 by jay

[tobi0040]

Very imperfect science here. I just took the five guys drafted behind us in each draft.

 

2006 (Parmelee – 20) – Ian Kennedy, Colton Willems, Maxwell Sap, Cody Johnson, and Hank Conger.  Best pick, Kennedy.

 

2007 (Revere 28)– Wendell Fairley, Andrew Brackman, Josh Smoker, Nick Noonan, and Jon Gilmore. Best pick…great question.  It might actually be Ben Revere.

 

2008  (Hicks, 14) – Ethan Martin, Brett Lawrie, David Cooper, Ike Davis, and Andrew Cashner.   Best pick, probably Lawrie.
(Gutierrez, 28) – Gerrit Cole (did not sign with NYY, no chance he would have with us), Lonnie Chisenhall, Casey Kelly, Odorizzi.  (Hunt 31) – Bradley Holt, Zach Collier, Evan Fredrickson, Mike Montgomery, Connor Gillespie Best pick, probably Odorizzi.

 

2009 (Gibson, 22) – Jared Mitchell, Randall Grichuk, Mike Trout (just threw up), Eric Arnett, Nick Franklin.   Bashore was 46th, I have never heard of the three guys behind him and I would have to look up another round.  Best pick, Mike Trout.  Gibson probably #2.

 

2010 (Wimmers, 21) – Kellin Deglan, Yelich, Gary Brown, Zach Cox, Kyle Parker.     Best pick, Yelich

 

2011 (Michael, 30) – Mikie Mahtook, Jake Hager, Kevin Mathews, Brian Goodwin, and Jacob Anderson
 

(Harrison 50 and Boyd 55).  Dante Bichette, Blake Snell, Dwight Smith, Brett Austin, Kes Carter, Kevin Comer, Jace Peterson, Grayson Garvin, and James Harris.  Have not heard of any of them.

 

Kind of highlights the high bust rate in the draft, especially where we were drafting for many of these years.

Edited January 29, 2015 by tobi0040

[bird]

That was interesting stuff, tobi. It points out the very high bust rate, but it also suggests to me that we could likely go out to most other organization's version of TD and find a thread like this one, with the same premise that the home team produced poor results from the draft during this period. 

 

Hopefully, we can take this a step further as a community and generate an honest appraisal of how our organization fared compared to others facing the most similar opportunity in each of these particular drafts, and thereby either confirm or dispel the notion that the Twins are other really lousy at this business of acquiring raw talent or maybe not so bad after all.

[Mike Sixel]

Well, looking at the picks and comparing the WAR generated does just that. It compares their outcomes achieved to other teams. And, they don't fare well.

 

Those arguing that the time frame should include the last 3 drafts.....go for it. I bet the actual MLB outcomes produced look no better for the Twins.

 

There can be all kinds of explanations or excuses, but the outcomes are the outcomes. 

 

If they are so awesome at getting in talent, whey are 4 of 5 starting pitchers on next year's roster from outside the organization? If they are so good at getting talent, why do they have 4 straight years of 90+ losses (so far)? 

 

I don't get why people get so defensive about this. They are terrible. They have been terrible for at least 4 years. That is driven by an insufficient number of good players. Why is that hard to acknowledge?

[JB_Iowa]

Very imperfect science here. I just took the five guys drafted behind us in each draft.

 

 

I found your post to be the most helpful of this whole discussion.  It compares the Twins to their peers,  It could be expanded to include the WARs of the players if someone wants to do that.

 

Thanks for looking at things a little differently.

[tobi0040]

If they are so awesome at getting in talent, why are 4 of 5 starting pitchers on next year's roster from outside the organization? If they are so good at getting talent, why do they have 4 straight years of 90+ losses (so far)? 

 

 

I think this is a tad misleading.  Gibson, Meyer, and May could end up being anywhere between 40-60% of the starts this year.  We drafted Gibson and traded guys we drafted for Meyer and May. Had Revere and Span been total busts we would not have gotten May and Meyer.

 

Looking at the draft window, we took three pitchers in the first round (top 30 picks).  Of those guys, it looks like we may be 1 for 3, which may actually be better than the rate of all the guys drafted.  The other four guys were position players.

Edited January 29, 2015 by tobi0040

[gunnarthor]

 

If they are so awesome at getting in talent, whey are 4 of 5 starting pitchers on next year's roster from outside the organization? If they are so good at getting talent, why do they have 4 straight years of 90+ losses (so far)? 

 

Because baseball is designed to by cyclical.  Unless teams can spend their way out of it, the system of player acquisition is specifically designed to punish successful teams.  (And, for years, the system to acquire international talent was designed to punish poor teams).  Nothing about the Twins current 4 losing years is anything but normal compared to the rest of the AL.

 

As to Parker's work, I don't dispute that they have had some bad drafts.  I do think the conclusions and methodology are weak and were designed with the conclusion already made.

[Mike Sixel]

Because baseball is designed to by cyclical.  Unless teams can spend their way out of it, the system of player acquisition is specifically designed to punish successful teams.  (And, for years, the system to acquire international talent was designed to punish poor teams).  Nothing about the Twins current 4 losing years is anything but normal compared to the rest of the AL.

 

As to Parker's work, I don't dispute that they have had some bad drafts.  I do think the conclusions and methodology are weak and were designed with the conclusion already made.

 

Who here is arguing anything other than the outcomes? Not an explanation, not an expectation, but whether the outcomes are good?

[jimmer]

 

 

I do think the conclusions and methodology are weak and were designed with the conclusion already made.

I don't think that's fair to Parker. He doesn't strike me as the kind of writer who says this is what I think/want to say and now I'm going to go cherry pick info to fit my narrative.  He doesn't strike me as a person whose goal is to paint this team in a bad light.  

 

I think he decided to look at the draft years that he felt should have the most affect on our current roster and see how our first round picks, the ones believed to be the most impactful draft picks, faired production-wise against those of other teams. 

 

What I have seen in here is that some posters have an idea that the picture painted by the results is unfairly dire, that there's a bunch of reasons/excuses for why it's so dire, and are planning to do their own study in order to prove that.  Seems those would fit more along the lines of what you're saying Parker did, which was come to conclusion and then do a study for the sole purpose of proving that conclusion.

[gunnarthor]

Again, that's an explanation. I'm not arguing for or against that at all. Neither is Parker, I'm arguing they have not been successful at acquiring talent. That's all Parker was doing. That's all anyone on this thread is trying to do (on "our" side). It is the "other side" that is arguing why it happened, or saying we should expect it to happen.

Right, and as some have shown, Parker's methodology is weak and his conclusions aren't really supported by his findings.  That's the concern "our side" has.  (And you're dismissal of Tobi's May/Meyer doesn't really hold.  They were acquired b/c other teams valued the players the Twins picked in the draft.  Flipping a second round pick into a 2 WAR pitching season is a good result of a draft).  

[Mike Sixel]

Once May and Meyer add wins, we can count those. do we also count the negative WAR from Worley as part of the value of Revere?

[Parker Hageman]

As to Parker's work, I don't dispute that they have had some bad drafts.  I do think the conclusions and methodology are weak and were designed with the conclusion already made.

 

 

Look, I don't know what you are thinking you have read and/or getting out of the original post but let me reiterate one final time before ending this conversation so you can continue to do research on this matter until you find a conclusion and methodology that are strong like bull:

 

(1) Using WAR, how did the Twins fare with their first round picks compared to other teams between 2006 and 2011?

 

(2)  Conclusion. Poorly. Those of us who followed the team in that time recognize that the conclusion was already there. These numbers are just highlighting to what extent using WAR.

 

There are teams that have drafted at higher positions who have fared better and there are teams with lower draft slots who did worse in that time. If you care to re-read the post, you will find that there is no definitive statement suggesting the team is doing anything wrong. Also, there is a statement saying that this study is complete considering there are still players who could make the major league level and provide more positive value. 

 

This was not intended to be an inch wide and a mile deep. If you felt misled, I'm sorry. That was not the intent. Again, it was a simple question and simple conclusion. The Twins have had one of the lowest success rates of first round picks based on WAR from 2006 to 2011 at this point. True story.

 

If you care to continue to further your research in perfecting the methodology and conclusion to demonstrate to what extent the Twins underachieved, overachieved or just achieved, then I recommend contacting TD member Jay in assisting him in his blog post. Otherwise, I think this conversation has run its course. 

 

http://24.media.tumblr.com/55b2b8063859b27c9d04eaf739772082/tumblr_meqar76mwj1rmmshbo1_250.gif

[USAFChief]

My takeaway from this article: yet another confirmation of my long held opinion that the draft is an unreliable and unpredictable method of talent acquisition that needs to be supplemented by every means possible at every opportunity.

 

I dont think the Twins are appreciably better or worse than other teams at drafting.

 

I think they have relied too much on the draft

[TheLeviathan]

Kind of highlights the high bust rate in the draft, especially where we were drafting for many of these years.

 

It's fair to point that out, but Parker's approach normalizes some of that better than just a random pick of how many guys behind them were also busts.  Many of these drafts look to have been poor in talent in general, but that's why a comparison relative to other teams is still fairly reliable.

 

So, yes, the Twins made bad choices in some thin drafts that many other teams struggled with as well.  Parker's analysis just shows that even in a field of bad choices, the Twins were subpar.

[TheLeviathan]

I think they have relied too much on the draft

 

Exactly.  If you're going to put all your eggs in that basket....you better have a damn fine bunch of eggs or you're going to quickly cause problems for your ability to stay competitive.  

[tobi0040]

It's fair to point that out, but Parker's approach normalizes some of that better than just a random pick of how many guys behind them were also busts.  Many of these drafts look to have been poor in talent in general, but that's why a comparison relative to other teams is still fairly reliable.

 

So, yes, the Twins made bad choices in some thin drafts that many other teams struggled with as well.  Parker's analysis just shows that even in a field of bad choices, the Twins were subpar.

 

Most teams seemed to get about one, maybe two MLB players in that period.  We got Revere, then flipped him for a minor leaguer.  Gibson was moving quickly, was out 1.5 years of TJ, then had to be built back up (pitch counts, confidence, etc.). He was on his way up here, starting in 2012 and would have three full years under his belt.  That WAR number would be much different.

 

Part of this was circumstance versus being terrible relative to our peers. Not to mention, the 2004-2005 first rounders would have added 21 WAR to the equation (Garza and Plouffe).  And nobody is knocking the Twins drafting from 2012 to 2014 either.

 

I think what Chief is alluding to key.  Prior to about 2012, the Twins all but ignored free agency and older international free agents.  Then success on the field pushed us towards the back of the draft, exposing the fact that we have historically relied upon the draft and the draft only.   Mike Trout could very well be the only guy out of those 50 or so drafted in our window to play in an all star game. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by tobi0040

[TheLeviathan]

I think what Chief is alluding to key.  Prior to about 2012, the Twins all but ignored free agency and older international free agents.  Then success on the field pushed us towards the back of the draft, exposing the fact that we have historically relied upon the draft and the draft only.   Mike Trout could very well be the only guy out of those 50 or so drafted in our window to play in an all star game. 

 

There was talent further down from 5 behind us though.  It's not like right at our pick the well ran completely dry.  I found more than a few guys 10-20 picks later that look to be very good players.  

 

I agree that adding in Garza or Plouffe would have likely shifted things, but I'm not sure why that matters.  A team that puts this much emphasis on the draft can't afford a stretch of drafting like this no matter when you want to pull the years.  That's the problem, now we have to speculate why.  Part of that answer could be thin talent in those drafts, but that alone isn't explanation enough.

[tobi0040]

There was talent further down from 5 behind us though.  It's not like right at our pick the well ran completely dry.  I found more than a few guys 10-20 picks later that look to be very good players.  

 

I agree that adding in Garza or Plouffe would have likely shifted things, but I'm not sure why that matters.  A team that puts this much emphasis on the draft can't afford a stretch of drafting like this no matter when you want to pull the years.  That's the problem, now we have to speculate why.  Part of that answer could be thin talent in those drafts, but that alone isn't explanation enough.

 

You are gettting no argument from me that we put too much emphasis on the draft.

 

But to be fair, anytime you compare our pick and go back 10-20 players, with hindsight you are almost never going to want the guy you drafted.  I don't think that is a phenomenon limited to the Twins. 

 

The Cards are gospel around here. Here are the picks they made from this time period:

 

2011

Kolten Wong 2B Hawaii

   2010

Zack Cox 3B Arkansas

2010

Seth Blair RHP Arizona State

2010

Tyrell Jenkins RHP Henderson (Tex.) High School

2009

Shelby Miller

RHP Brownwood (Texas) HS

2008

Brett Wallace

3B Arizona State

2007

Peter Kozma

SS Owasso (Okla.) HS

2006

Adam Ottavino

 

Wong has a 1.5 WAR.    Miller’s WAR is 5.6.  Kozma .9.  Wallace is -.6  I think they are the only one’s to reach the big leagues.  About the same WAR as Revere and if Gibson had 3 years under his belt on the initial path our track record would be better than the almighty Cards.  Heck, if we add their 2005 and 2004 picks, Rasmus, Green, and Lampert and add in Garza and Plouffe we easily top them.  Again, other organizations supplement in areas the Twins have not.

 

Here is a list prior to 2004 for them:

 

2003 Daric Barton C Marina HS (CA) 28

2001 Justin Pope RHP U. of Central Florida 28

2000 Blake Williams RHP San Marcos, TX 24

2000 Shaun Boyd 2B Oceanside, CA 13

1999 Chance Caple RHP Texas A&M U. 30

1998 J.D. Drew OF No School 5

1997 Adam Kennedy

[jay]

So, yes, the Twins made bad choices in some thin drafts that many other teams struggled with as well.  Parker's analysis just shows that even in a field of bad choices, the Twins were subpar.

 

This is completely in line with what I've found so far in the analysis I'm working on. 

 

The Twins should have expected below average results based on their draft position, but the results have been even further below that.

[jimmer]

 

I agree that adding in Garza or Plouffe would have likely shifted things, but I'm not sure why that matters.  

I think the think we need to look at a few aspects about Plouffe's journey.

 

-He was a first round pick.

-He couldn't play the position he was drafted to play.

-It took until he reached the majors for the Twins to see the light and move him to 3B.

-He made the team because he was out of options and the guy he had to beat out was Luke Hughes. Luke Hughes, who was also out of options, but didn't have the advantage of being a former first rounder.

-It took him over 10 years to finally have a good season.

 

Now, I think he has finally found it myself, but that's not something that screams MAN he was worth a first round pick. many here are ready to jettison him now and don't trust his defensive improvements.

Edited January 29, 2015 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

You are gettting no argument from me that we put too much emphasis on the draft.

 

But to be fair, anytime you compare our pick and go back 10-20 players, with hindsight you are almost never going to want the guy you drafted.  I don't think that is a phenomenon limited to the Twins. 

 

 

Right, but that's why Parker's analysis is helpful.  It eliminates the limitations and lets us look at our choices relative to others.  What you're doing by going back 5 choices, Parker already did embedded in his comparison.

[tobi0040]

Right, but that's why Parker's analysis is helpful.  It eliminates the limitations and lets us look at our choices relative to others.  What you're doing by going back 5 choices, Parker already did embedded in his comparison.

 

Respectfully, that is not really the case. Parker's analysis includes players that were drafted before the Twins had the chance to pick.  My analysis includes player we could have actually taken.

 

Our draft position in the first round, 20, 28, 14, 22, 21, and 30.  Then a slew of picks like 46, 50, and 55, which the Twins likely had more of as we lost more players to free agency.   If you look back, the track record of players in the top 5 and 10 versus where we have drafted is quite substantial.  So to include guys in that range and then conclude we didn't draft well is pretty poor analysis.

 

The  Red Sox had a draft position similar to us over this period.  The Red Sox actually had 15 first round picks if we add the supplementals as we did for the Twins, only two players have reached the big leagues (Bard and Kelly), for a total Bref WAR of 3.4. 

 

I think you have to account for some players, like Longoria, Price, Lincecum, Bumgarter, etc. not being available when we picked.  Out of the 50-60 guys in our range, we have one guy that has made an all star game that we missed on.  Almost all of MLB missed on him as well.

Edited January 29, 2015 by tobi0040

[Otto von Ballpark]

2008  (Hicks, 14) – Ethan Martin, Brett Lawrie, David Cooper, Ike Davis, and Andrew Cashner.   Best pick, probably Lawrie.

Agreed on Lawrie, but just noting that Andrew Cashner has come on strong the last two years.

[Parker Hageman]

Respectfully, that is not really the case. Parker's analysis includes players that were drafted before the Twins had the chance to pick.  My analysis includes player we could have actually taken.

 

 

Technically, the Twins could have taken anyone in the draft. You could argue that the Twins COULD HAVE drafted Wil Myers in the first round in 2009 or COULD HAVE drafted Tyson Ross in 2008. I understand what you are driving at but there are a lot of roads to travel if you are conducting your study in this manner. 

 

Our draft position in the first round, 20, 28, 14, 22, 21, and 30.  Then a slew of picks like 46, 50, and 55, which the Twins likely had more of as we lost more players to free agency.

 

 

Right. Obviously if we were trying to gauge each pick you would take the position and see what the WAR value is on average, you could then see what each individual pick did in terms of under, over or simply achieve. No question.  

 

For a straightline analysis against other teams in that time, the Twins median selection was at 28. 12 teams drafted at a lower median position from them at that time and nine of those teams had higher WAR totals from those picks.

 

The Cardinals are probably the most apt comparison in that time -- selecting at comparable slots in that time. They managed to milk 23.7 WAR out of there picks. On the other hand, Boston -- a well thought of analytical team who similarly drafted near the Twins but had more picks overall -- only got 3.4 WAR out of their picks.

 

I wrote this in the article and I will reiterate it now: Draft position factors in quite a lot as to what level of talent is available, but having a high pick does not guarantee success either.

 

Having a low pick does not preclude a team from not succeeding in the draft either. 

 

So to include guys in that range and then conclude we didn't draft well is pretty poor analysis. 

 

 

I'll say this one more time: The conclusion presented in the post isn't that "the Twins didn't draft well". The conclusion is that the first round picks have failed to perform. 

[tobi0040]

Technically, the Twins could have taken anyone in the draft. You could argue that the Twins COULD HAVE drafted Wil Myers in the first round in 2009 or COULD HAVE drafted Tyson Ross in 2008. I understand what you are driving at but there are a lot of roads to travel if you are conducting your study in this manner. 

 

 

Right. Obviously if we were trying to gauge each pick you would take the position and see what the WAR value is on average, you could then see what each individual pick did in terms of under, over or simply achieve. No question.  

 

For a straightline analysis against other teams in that time, the Twins median selection was at 28. 12 teams drafted at a lower median position from them at that time and nine of those teams had higher WAR totals from those picks.

 

The Cardinals are probably the most apt comparison in that time -- selecting at comparable slots in that time. They managed to milk 23.7 WAR out of there picks. On the other hand, Boston -- a well thought of analytical team who similarly drafted near the Twins but had more picks overall -- only got 3.4 WAR out of their picks.

 

I wrote this in the article and I will reiterate it now: Draft position factors in quite a lot as to what level of talent is available, but having a high pick does not guarantee success either.

 

Having a low pick does not preclude a team from not succeeding in the draft either. 

 

 

 

I'll say this one more time: The conclusion presented in the post isn't that "the Twins didn't draft well". The conclusion is that the first round picks have failed to perform. 

 

I am pushing back against some concluding your analysis proves we didn't draft well while ignoring your caveats, like draft position.

[bird]

Who here is arguing anything other than the outcomes? Not an explanation, not an expectation, but whether the outcomes are good?

I hope you regard this as friendly push-back, mike. I will suggest that you, as much as anyone who regularly posts on TD, is arguing something other than outcomes. I think there's a pretty broad albeit imperfect consensus that these drafts didn't produce great outcomes. The discussion I'm following on here is tuned to questions about why the outcome was what it was to-date, and how it compares.

 

Some of us are wondering whether, were the analysis focused more narrowly on a peer group that  removes some of the noise related to draft position, if the relative outcomes would be much different. That's why I would suggest looking at the third of teams whose draft position in a given year more closely matched up with our own. Wouldn't that provide us with a better understanding?

 

I've been closely following and participating in discussions, and some arguments as well, about the question of whether the Twins are awful at drafting for years. Quite honestly, it's really rare that someone says the Twins are exceptional at drafting, and it's practically a daily occurrence that someone makes the statement that they're poor at it. I push back hard when someone asserts that they're lousy at it, but I also don't believe they're superior drafters either. I see evidence that draft position is an incredibly dominant factor and that health and luck are also key determinants that make simply looking at outcomes and comparing them to the entire universe to be a bit of a garbage-in garbage-out exercise.

 

This is the closest any discussion I've witnessed here has come to answering the question of whether the Twins have in recent history been any good at the process relative to their peers. As usual, Parker has done a great job, and to HIS credit, he hasn't drawn conclusions that reach way way beyond the analysis itself.

Edited January 29, 2015 by birdwatcher

[DJL44]

Over the same time period

 

Josmil Pinto - signed 2006

Oswaldo Arcia - signed 2007

Danny Santana - signed 2007

Miguel Sano - signed 2009

Jorge Polanco - signed 2009

Max Kepler - signed 2009

Kennys Vargas - signed 2009

[DJL44]

This is completely in line with what I've found so far in the analysis I'm working on. 

 

The Twins should have expected below average results based on their draft position, but the results have been even further below that.

 

They're less than one standard deviation below average over a small sample

[Otto von Ballpark]

Over the same time period

 

Josmil Pinto - signed 2006

Oswaldo Arcia - signed 2007

Danny Santana - signed 2007

Miguel Sano - signed 2009

Jorge Polanco - signed 2009

Max Kepler - signed 2009

Kennys Vargas - signed 2009

Good point.  Prior to Sano (or 2007, if you want to include Arcia etc.), the Twins by their own admission were really under-utilizing Latin America.  So when they have a few bad drafts in the 2006-2011 window, it follows that there weren't international prospects ready to pick up the slack, not really until the last year or so.

 

The same combination of busted first rounders and little significant international activity probably stalled the late 1990s rebuild an extra year or two too.