Article: Drafting College Relievers

[Seth Stohs]

 

Then why do power arms on the free agent market often sign for as little as 2/11 (Mark Lowe)?  Even Andrew Miller, arguably one of the best in the league, only signed for 4/36.

 

Because they work 60-70 innings instead of 160-200 innings. 

[Tom Froemming]

 

Difference is Jay was a college reliever.  He's probably not going to be on a starting pitcher fast track through the minors.  He probably won't reach AAA as quickly as Sale or the Cardinals pitchers, which will make it harder to predict if he could actually make the immediate jump to the MLB pen.

 

Heck, if he is still starting come July, they will probably have to think about shutting him down due to an excess of innings rather than aggressively promoting him.

Very true, putting Jay on a fast track to the bullpen is probably not going to be best for his long-term development. It did work for Sale, who was drafted in 2010 and made his debut that August. But, the takeaway I get when you look at the big picture like Seth has here is there are backup options like this. If they don't add anyone significant, and the bullpen starts out poorly or we have injuries, there are a lot of Plan Bs out there.

 

Another one would be using Berrios in the pen if he can't crack the starting rotation and putting him on a development path similar to Johan or Liriano. That would allow you to ease him into the majors while also giving a big boost to the pen. Again, probably shouldn't be Plan A, but it's a backup option.

[sane09]

 

 

it is 100% clear that some of these guys would never be starters, yet they kept trying to make them starters. Also, weren't a couple of them hurt in college, heck I think one had already had surgery.. 

If the current trend continues, TJ surgery will soon be performed when the umbiical chord is cut.

[sane09]

Sign 'em

Slice 'em

Send 'em to Elizabethton.

NEXT!

[tobi0040]

 

Very true, putting Jay on a fast track to the bullpen is probably not going to be best for his long-term development. It did work for Sale, who was drafted in 2010 and made his debut that August. But, the takeaway I get when you look at the big picture like Seth has here is there are backup options like this. If they don't add anyone significant, and the bullpen starts out poorly or we have injuries, there are a lot of Plan Bs out there.

 

Another one would be using Berrios in the pen if he can't crack the starting rotation and putting him on a development path similar to Johan or Liriano. That would allow you to ease him into the majors while also giving a big boost to the pen. Again, probably shouldn't be Plan A, but it's a backup option.

 

Not to mention the obvious.   You can't compare any top draft pick to a one of the best in the game.

 

Well it worked for Chris Sale.....any path would have worked for Chris Sale.  Starter, reliever, fast track, slow track.  The guy has 22 WAR in four years.

 

 

[Guest]

 

 

I'm also suspicious of the top end velocity on some of these guys.  I saw Clay start later in the year in Cedar Rapids and my recollection is that he had just modest speed, say topping at 90-91.  It looked like he'd need a running start to hit 97.

 

It's fine to be suspicious of supposed top end velocities, but you need to also be careful about relying on MPH readings shown in ballparks. For example, the readings on the scoreboard in CR run about 2-3 MPH lower than actual speed, due to the positioning of the equipment used. If you saw Clay sitting at 90-91, he was probably actually at 92-94. I don't recall what Sam's velo was when he came back late in the season.

[Tom Froemming]

 

Not to mention the obvious.   You can't compare any top draft pick to a one of the best in the game.

 

Well it worked for Chris Sale.....any path would have worked for Chris Sale.  Starter, reliever, fast track, slow track.  The guy has 22 WAR in four years.

Yeah, that's a lofty bar to set, but why can't we go there? Jay was taken 6th overall, expectations should be pretty high for a guy you make that kind of commitment to, right?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Because they work 60-70 innings instead of 160-200 innings. 

Then why invest a ton of top draft picks for those 60-70 innings?  That's my point, you should be drafting to find players that are harder to get by other means.

 

That's generally not the case for relievers, the Royals pen has been comprised of a few failed starters, a 10th round draft pick, an international guy, a minor league free agent, a Rule 5 guy (and now an MLB free agent, in Soria), etc.

[Guest]

"While a big deal is made of the Twins taking a bunch of college relievers and making them starters, it’s not as common as we want to think. In these eight years, they did it with Carlos Gutierrez, Madison Boer, Tyler Duffey, Michael Cederoth and Sam Clay. A 20% success rate would be pretty good."

 

You should add Melotakis to that list, Seth.

 

In addition, while you covered college pitchers drafted in the top few rounds, there are still some college pitchers that were drafted in lower rounds that continue to make progress. Taylor Rogers and Brett Lee come to mind. I think they were both 10-11 round picks, but may have actually been starters in college, I don't recall for sure.

 

I'm probably in the minority, but I like seeing the college guys getting starts at Class A. You need to find out quickly whether these guys are the real deal or not and I don't think you do that by watching them pitch 1-2 innings every 2-3 days or so. You learn how to pitch by pitching and getting more innings that first year or two of pro ball is better, in most cases. Guys like Burdi and Reed are exceptions, but you have to have SOME starting pitchers.

 

I think, as much as anything else, you've reminded us just how much of a numbers game professional baseball is. The fact is that, regardless of where guys are drafted, their chances of surviving the meatgrinder of MiLB are pretty low.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I don't get the argument that MLB FA relievers are too unpredictable to be worth $20 mil -- but somehow college relievers are worth a ton of top draft choices?  Draft slots are very valuable resources too.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Very true, putting Jay on a fast track to the bullpen is probably not going to be best for his long-term development. It did work for Sale, who was drafted in 2010 and made his debut that August. But, the takeaway I get when you look at the big picture like Seth has here is there are backup options like this. If they don't add anyone significant, and the bullpen starts out poorly or we have injuries, there are a lot of Plan Bs out there.

Yeah, but given where Jay is coming from, I'm not really sure he will be in position to be a Plan B in 2016 if he goes into it as a starter.  I don't think you'll get enough information from him as a starter at lower levels to know if he can be an MLB pen asset, and if you are waiting for Plan A's to fail, I don't think there will be enough time left to switch him back to an accelerated relief path that ends in MLB in 2016.

[dxpavelka]

 

Summary of above study:

"However, at least in my opinion, beginning a career in professional baseball out of high school gives a pitcher a greater chance for both longevity and success as a big leaguer"

Opinions are like.....  Research could fairly easily prove or disprove this theory..  Not that I have the time or inclination to do said research.

 

[tobi0040]

 

Yeah, that's a lofty bar to set, but why can't we go there? Jay was taken 6th overall, expectations should be pretty high for a guy you make that kind of commitment to, right?

 

That was a pretty good draft in hindsight, Harper, Machado, Sale, Harvey, etc..   But in addition to Sale and Harvey you had Taillon, Pomeranz, Loux, Whitsen, McGuire, and Covey in the top 15 (Some may turn out still I know).  So a stud hit rate of 2 of 8 so far.  I am not saying we should be excused if we miss every time.  My point is we can’t look in hindsight and pick the best guy, then say that team had the right approach with them, i.e. Sale going almost straight to the MLB pen, then moving to the rotation.  The reality is Sale would have been really good no matter the approach or timeline.  We used to see on these boards comparisons between Trout and Buxton as far as time in the minors as well.   The reality is Buxton was not on a 10 WAR pace his first year like Trout and it was the scouting and hitting the jackpot with Trout that was the coup, not the approach. Same with Sale.

[sane09]

Opinions are like.....  Research could fairly easily prove or disprove this theory..  Not that I have the time or inclination to do said research.

Agreed.

[biscuit]

If two out of that bunch can be effective in the Major Leagues, that would be a big deal.

[Seth Stohs]

 

"While a big deal is made of the Twins taking a bunch of college relievers and making them starters, it’s not as common as we want to think. In these eight years, they did it with Carlos Gutierrez, Madison Boer, Tyler Duffey, Michael Cederoth and Sam Clay. A 20% success rate would be pretty good."

 

You should add Melotakis to that list, Seth.

 

In addition, while you covered college pitchers drafted in the top few rounds, there are still some college pitchers that were drafted in lower rounds that continue to make progress. Taylor Rogers and Brett Lee come to mind. I think they were both 10-11 round picks, but may have actually been starters in college, I don't recall for sure.

 

I'm probably in the minority, but I like seeing the college guys getting starts at Class A. You need to find out quickly whether these guys are the real deal or not and I don't think you do that by watching them pitch 1-2 innings every 2-3 days or so. You learn how to pitch by pitching and getting more innings that first year or two of pro ball is better, in most cases. Guys like Burdi and Reed are exceptions, but you have to have SOME starting pitchers.

 

I think, as much as anything else, you've reminded us just how much of a numbers game professional baseball is. The fact is that, regardless of where guys are drafted, their chances of surviving the meatgrinder of MiLB are pretty low.

 

I should have had Melotakis to that list... 17%

 

And yes, I thought about adding others... but i had to cut it off somewhere. Also, Rogers was a starter all three years in college, so he wouldn't have qualified under the College Reliever plan. 

 

You make a great point. Look at high school pitchers drafted. It's really hard to get all the way up to the big leagues. 

[ALessKosherScott]

My flaw with it isn't so much drafting college relievers. It's drafting college relievers under the guise of making them starters. College pitching coaches have made them relievers for reasons (usually mechanical ones). 

[h2oface]

Such promise and hope! I don't see one name that has made it and contributed with any significance at all to the Twins, yet. Sure it is hard to guess right. And many in this article are still developing, right? Looks good on paper, but the fact is...... no lasting results yet that have had any impact for an extended time. There is always the future and hope, though.

Edited December 15, 2015 by h2oface

[h2oface]

 

You make a great point. Look at high school pitchers drafted. It's really hard to get all the way up to the big leagues. 

 

Yet, when drafted, many are considered top ten, and even top 5 prospects as they pitch in the lower minors. Articles and laurels are heaped upon them. Hype wins over historical actuality.  And use them for proven MLB players by trade right away, while they have the highest value they probably will ever have? Don't even think about it in Twinsland.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

If two out of that bunch can be effective in the Major Leagues, that would be a big deal.

 

This.  and given how the progression has been, I think it's pretty safe to say that some of these guys will at least make the show.  It's looking promising.  Given that RP seems to be the new money ball, perhaps the Twins were on top of this a bit earlier than we thought?

 

Side note, I don't think this is a trust issue.  Most of these guys are still in the lower minors.  There's some AA success here.  That's a far cry from 'we dont' trust you'.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Do the Twins promote college relievers too slowly? Anyone have any data comparisons?

[bird]

It's difficult to look back and then put everything into proper perspective. We tend to elevate our level of optimism about our own prospects.

 

I try to remind myself about how dismal the success rate is, and remember that the success rate starts to fall off a cliff even before the end of the first round. And by the second round, expect one in six to ultimately become a contributing MLB regular. If one gets a Google Machine and points it at The Interweb, one might see a study or two, perhaps from a site called BA, that supports this.

 

Whether a team has a "strategy" of selecting high-velo pitchers (low-velo pitchers throw hard too) or athletic outfield prospects with their non-first round picks, the odds absolutely suck for those prospects, like 17% success for a 2nd rounder and that falls off to closer to 5% for a 5th round guy IIRC. Worse I'd guess for pitchers because of the injury toll.

 

I'm not sold on an intense focus on drafting high-velo guys in those early rounds, although it might be that there aren't many left to pick from after the early rounds other than the types who grow into their bodies and increase their velo.

 

So, if the odds of MLB success are roughly one in six for guys picked after the first round, we should probably feel fortunate if two or three of these guys pan out.

[Thrylos]

 

While a big deal is made of the Twins taking a bunch of college relievers and making them starters, it’s not as common as we want to think. In these eight years, they did it with Carlos Gutierrez, Madison Boer, Tyler Duffey, Michael Cederoth and Sam Clay. A 20% success rate would be pretty good.

 

I think that is it more complicated than that:

 

a. We need to know what is the league success rate?  If the average is 50% with the top 4 picks, that 20% looks pretty bad.

b. "Success" is a gradient that needs to be defined and weighted:  Getting the next Johan Santana or Clayton Kershaw, should count more than getting the next Tommy Milone or the next Phillip Humber or the next Sam Deduno.

c. Look at it as a piece of a bigger strategy that should provide some fruit.   I'd dare to say that the Twins' pitcher drafting strategy in that time frame, 2008- failed miserably since all they have to show is: a mid-rotation starter (Gibson), a few replacement level relievers (Tonkin, Achter, Darnell, O'Rourke,) and a guy who shows mid-rotation potential (Duffey) but pitched only in 10 MLB games.

 

The results (c. above) do not really favor their overall drafting of pitchers from 2008 on.  I'd venture to say that they are in the worst 5 teams in drafting pitchers during that time.

 

[h2oface]

 

This.  and given how the progression has been, I think it's pretty safe to say that some of these guys will at least make the show.  It's looking promising.  Given that RP seems to be the new money ball, perhaps the Twins were on top of this a bit earlier than we thought?

 

Side note, I don't think this is a trust issue.  Most of these guys are still in the lower minors.  There's some AA success here.  That's a far cry from 'we dont' trust you'.

 

Perhaps the new money ball will be trading totally unproven but highly rated prospects for real major league players in the future, before they spend 3 years of disappointment in the farm (like Kohl Stewart)...... like Dansby Swanson getting traded for Shelby Miller.... and Meyer for Span (prospect losing the trade for 3 years and counting). Let the prospects fail on another team while they are traded for proven pros that can help you now and in the future, instead of hope and dreams. Trade for the pros that have weathered the farm system and succeeded, instead of trading pros for prospects that fail over 80% of the time.

Edited December 16, 2015 by h2oface

[Seth Stohs]

 

I think that is it more complicated than that:

 

a. We need to know what is the league success rate?  If the average is 50% with the top 4 picks, that 20% looks pretty bad.

b. "Success" is a gradient that needs to be defined and weighted:  Getting the next Johan Santana or Clayton Kershaw, should count more than getting the next Tommy Milone or the next Phillip Humber or the next Sam Deduno.

c. Look at it as a piece of a bigger strategy that should provide some fruit.   I'd dare to say that the Twins' pitcher drafting strategy in that time frame, 2008- failed miserably since all they have to show is: a mid-rotation starter (Gibson), a few replacement level relievers (Tonkin, Achter, Darnell, O'Rourke,) and a guy who shows mid-rotation potential (Duffey) but pitched only in 10 MLB games.

 

The results (c. above) do not really favor their overall drafting of pitchers from 2008 on.  I'd venture to say that they are in the worst 5 teams in drafting pitchers during that time.

 

a.) Sure, but if anything related to the draft is close to 50%, I'd be pretty shocked.

 

b.) Fair enough, but I guess I think setting the bar of success at Clayton Kershaw isn't going to look good on pretty much everyone.

 

c.) With this one, again, you'd have to go through each and every team and find out how they did. Two mid-rotation starters is nothing to scoff at, and four relievers... and frankly, 5 more years before you can really grade most of the drafts since 2008. 

[DJL44]

On average each team produces fewer than two major leaguers of significance (worth the signing bonus) every draft. This is just the reality of a 25 man roster.

[big dog]

 

Yeah, that's a lofty bar to set, but why can't we go there? Jay was taken 6th overall, expectations should be pretty high for a guy you make that kind of commitment to, right?

Realistic expectations?  No.  Not very many players ever get to Sale's level.  You shouldn't expect the top 6 players every year to get there.

[dbminn]

 

a.) Sure, but if anything related to the draft is close to 50%, I'd be pretty shocked.

 

 

 

About 70 percent of pitchers who ranked as Top 50-100 Prospects gave their major league teams less than 3.0 WAR total during their 6 years under control according to this research:

 

http://www.thepointofpittsburgh.com/how-much-an-mlb-prospect-is-worth-updated-trade-surplus-values/

 

Gibson and Duffey have been reasonably successful and should end up contributing well above average WAR while under control. Too early to tell about Burdi, Reed, Cederoth, Williams, Jay and others drafted in recent years.

 

RE: RP and aging. I have a real problem with the aging curves put together by FanGraphs. A lot of RP have one good year in middle relief, get a couple more years to prove themselves but can't continue to develop.

 

Instead, look at last year's top 30 RP, either by WAR or WPA (preferred, IMO). Average age was 28.6 years old. Only Ken Giles was under 25 for WPA. Add Osuna at 20 years old if you prefer WAR. 

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=y&type=c,4,5,11,7,8,13,-1,36,37,40,43,44,48,51,-1,6,45,62,-1,59,63,3&season=2015&month=0&season1=2015&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=20,d