FanGraphs: How the Teams Have Drafted in This Millenium

[Vanimal46]

I found this article to be fascinating, because I'm certainly not going to put in the effort to put this together. Jeff Sullivan compiled data from the last 17 drafts, and plotted a few graphs showing how many players were drafted, signed, and made the majors for each team. As well as how they performed via Baseball-Reference WAR. 

The Giants had the most amount of players that were developed and made the majors. The Twins are tied for last. 

Jeff Sullivan admits that he's not sure how to interpret the results. "Everything is part draft pick, part player development, and part luck. In theory, a team could have drafted all the right guys, and then the organization could’ve messed them all up. That shouldn’t fall on the drafting, but it’s impossible to create separation. Think of this as just a retrospective summary."

[Mike Sixel]

Tied for last.... You aren't last by luck, over that length of time.

[70charger]

So the drafts that were most likely to produce the successful core of the first decade of the 2000s aren't here, by definition. The drafts that happened over the last few years are unlikely to have produced many players yet, by simple timing. And in between we have five of six seasons of absolutely tragic win-loss records.

 

And Jeff Sullivan is unsure how to interpret the results? Sounds like they've already been interpreted. I'd be shocked if they were interpretable any other way...

[Taildragger8791]

 

So the drafts that were most likely to produce the successful core of the first decade of the 2000s aren't here, by definition. The drafts that happened over the last few years are unlikely to have produced many players yet, by simple timing. And in between we have five of six seasons of absolutely tragic win-loss records.

And Jeff Sullivan is unsure how to interpret the results? Sounds like they've already been interpreted. I'd be shocked if they were interpretable any other way...

 

I don't think it's quite that dismissable. It's still a strong data point to support the general sense that the Twins have been poor at drafting and developing talent for a while now. The last few years aren't going to change much, we'll add a few major leaguers to the total but it won't move the needle that much in the context of a 17-year sample. Other teams will likely match our gains and we'll still bordering on last place. In fairness the article shows we're closer to middle of the pack in WAR, but 20% of that is concentrated in a single 1-1 pick: Joseph Patrick Mauer. Not criticizing Mauer or drafting him, just pointing out that he alone vaults the Twins from last place to middle of the pack on that chart.

When looking at individual years there are plenty of defensible reasons brought up for why the Twins failed to draft enough quality MLB players. But over 17 years? No. Just...no. That's systemic failure.  The most common one I've grown tired follows this format: "Other teams passed on [insert player] so you can't blame our front office for not realizing they were a promising player worth drafting". I hate that argument because if it were valid then it instantly removes any and all liability for failure to acquire talent. You're effectively saying the draft is 100% a lottery and we may as well fire the scouting department and just knock $1 off all items at the concession stand instead.

[Mike Sixel]

So the drafts that were most likely to produce the successful core of the first decade of the 2000s aren't here, by definition. The drafts that happened over the last few years are unlikely to have produced many players yet, by simple timing. And in between we have five of six seasons of absolutely tragic win-loss records.

 

And Jeff Sullivan is unsure how to interpret the results? Sounds like they've already been interpreted. I'd be shocked if they were interpretable any other way...

Uh. Isn't that part true of all teams, that recent picks haven't delivered much? Being last over 17 years indicates nothing about process?

[Taildragger8791]

 

Uh. Isn't that part true of all teams, that recent picks haven't delivered much? Being last over 17 years indicates nothing about process?

 

This. Everybody is on equal footing and 17 years isn't a small sample. Also, the only recent picks we've had that aren't in the majors and might move the needle are Gordon and a bunch of relievers, who by nature have a limited impact. Kirilloff and this year's 1-1 pick are far too much of unknowns to argue about. So it doesn't change the fact that we're in the bottom tier of draft & development success.

 

Hopefully the new front office will right the ship. It'll take time to see results though, so we'll have to be willing to show some patience (which goes against the nature of a fan, I know).

[70charger]

I don't think it's quite that dismissable. It's still a strong data point to support the general sense that the Twins have been poor at drafting and developing talent for a while now.

Which is more or less what I said. And which is exactly what the last several years proves.

 

I suppose I should add that this win-loss analysis does depend on the team having failed to acquire high impact free agents (i.e. isolating the draft in the analysis) which I think we all agree is mostly true. But if you fail at that and you fail at the draft, you end up with our 2011-2016.

 

Some fluctuations may be noise but with the lack of impact free agents, only a massive failure at the draft could explain the Twins' utter futility over the last several years.

 

When it comes to our team, these results are laughably easy to interpret.

[70charger]

 

Uh. Isn't that part true of all teams, that recent picks haven't delivered much? Being last over 17 years indicates nothing about process?

 

I think all three of us who have replied are on the same page, but maybe talking past each other. I'll go ahead and take responsibility for being the inscrutable one.

 

To simplify my point, you would 100% expect a total failure at drafting and development to put a team where the Twins have been over the last several years. That failure indicates everything about the process. (Which may be where I was unclear? I didn't think I suggested anything other than a general indictment of the Twins' process.) The actual results in the win-loss column would be exactly what you would expect for a team at the very bottom of the chart that was posted originally. Thus, at least for the Twins, this chart is not confusing in the slightest. It indicates what we already know.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I tried quantifying MLB drafts a couple years ago, but gave up early. Glad to know that a staff writer for Fangraphs also tried and failed, too.

 

For example, Sullivan mentions Ben Zobrist. Zobrist earned most of his WAR for the Tampa Bay Rays, but won a World Series with the Royals, and then another with the Cubs. But he was drafted by Houston, so Houston gets all the credit for Zobrist in Sullivan's study. It's a really, really difficult task to quantify drafts in whole, or to separate drafting from development. Glad to see people keep trying. Someone will eventually hit on an idea of how to make sense of this.

[The Wise One]

The most amount of player has little correlation to WAR accumulated. It would be strange to praise a team for being able to draft well when the large number of players produce little results.  Some here seem to think the number of players is significant. The important piece of the draft is to produce productive players.  If over the last 17 years the Twins managed to draft a fifth starter, a long reliever, other bullpen arms and a utility player to go along with their one good player every other year they would be called great drafters of talent by the logic of those deriding the Twin's drafting. Now, the other extreme, if every draft the Twins plucked one player who produced 10 WAR or more, and not any other players that made the major leagues, they would not be good drafting by the number of players reaching the major leagues, but they could have one heck of a good team. I think the stat geeks need to find a better method to evaluate.