Article: Draft Theories

[tarheeltwinsfan]

 

So Rooker won't be here for 4 years?

 

Wright and McKay won't be in the majors for 4 years?

When were Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Berrios, Polanco, Gonsalves, Jay, Thorpe,Gordon, Garver, Stewart, Burdi, Reed, Granite, Shaggy and Duffy drafted? Where is each of them in their progress to becoming a productive Twin player? Add Hicks also. How long is it taking these guys? 

[mikelink45]

I know there are lots of theories - mine is simple.  Pick the best player you can get and put emphasis on the places your system is weak in.  That is it.  Wish I could give you lots of metrics, but I just want the best nine players we can put on the field at the same time. 

[ashbury]

I know there are lots of theories - mine is simple.  Pick the best player you can get and put emphasis on the places your system is weak in. 

How do you factor in the inherent uncertainty when scouting young players?

 

Literally no franchise consistently picks future major-leaguers in the second round and beyond. They're all trying to pick the "best player". The misses outnumber the hits, and yet gold is found in the later rounds.

 

How does "pick the best player" provide any guidance? I don't mean to be belligerent, I'm just trying to understand what you're offering.

[wabene]

I think a good rule of thumb is if someone is perceived as a fast riser or very polished you can hope they will ascend quickly but probably shouldn't count on it

[Mike Sixel]

 

When were Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Berrios, Polanco, Gonsalves, Jay, Thorpe,Gordon, Garver, Stewart, Burdi, Reed, Granite, Shaggy and Duffy drafted? Where is each of them in their progress to becoming a productive Twin player? Add Hicks also. How long is it taking these guys? 

 

None of those guys were 22 yo college players, other than the RPs.....who got hurt.

 

Think more Matt Garza, or look at what other teams do with college seniors. 

[mikelink45]

 

How do you factor in the inherent uncertainty when scouting young players?

 

Literally no franchise consistently picks future major-leaguers in the second round and beyond. They're all trying to pick the "best player". The misses outnumber the hits, and yet gold is found in the later rounds.

 

How does "pick the best player" provide any guidance? I don't mean to be belligerent, I'm just trying to understand what you're offering.

I think the Twins organization knows the talents and has them ranked by major league potential.  I say take the highest potential for MLB with one exception when your system has an obvious weakness then shade the choices if you have a good option to fill a need.   For most of us - especially me - I have know idea who these players are that they are choosing so I have to go by the ratings of TD, Law, and other services.  They are not perfect but they give us some idea.

 

When I look at positions pitcher is number one, just like QB in the NFL and you shade to that side.  What I do not like to hear is that we are drafting someone because we can save money for later rounds.  There is something special about the number one over all and with luck you will never have that pick again, so go for the potential gold.  Yes players like Appel prove that #1 overall is not a sure thing, but if there is a potential for superstardom on the staff this is where it might be.  The money saved on the signing of some agreeable player will not equal the eventual cost of signing the ACE.

 

The potential for MLB in the last 20 rounds is 7% according to the stats accumulated over previous drafts so the fact that we have taken 11 pitchers in the bottom of the draft simply means we might be lucky, but expect to have full minor league rosters.  It is only in the top 5 rounds that teams have historically gotten 33% of the choices to the majors.  

 

We may have been exceptionally good in our picks, I cannot tell and we will not know for three years, but I have not liked some of the comments I have read surrounding the picks.  

[Willihammer]

Summary from Bollinger at MLB.com. Some quotes from the FO. They are pretty happy with the outcome.

 

http://m.twins.mlb.com/news/article/236492416/twins-go-heavy-on-pitching-in-2017-draft/

[maxisagod]

This draft will be measured in 3 ways (unfairly maybe) 

1, Comparing Lewis to other top picks. It might not be Lewis vs Greene, it will be Lewis vs ‘whoever is the best of the top five’. If Gore (for example) starts becoming a superstar, it will turn into a “we should have draft Gore debate” and Greene, Wright, and McKay will be left out of the debate (especially if they end up doing nothing).

2, Comparing Lewis to everyone! If Alex Lange for example becomes the best from the draft, some people will conder Lewis a missed, cause Lange went 30th instead of 1st. 
 

3, Carlson vs Enlow. If Carlson becomes super star, and Enlow never makes it past AA it will hit fans hard. 

[ashbury]

I think the Twins organization knows the talents and has them ranked by major league potential. 

A couple/three problems I see with this.

 

I consider myself on the more analytic end of the spectrum here, and I want numbers to back up my management decisions, but I find it hard to believe a ranking of amateur baseball prospects is absolute enough to do more than put them into rough groupings. The 1:1 pick can be a little special, in that some years one player may stand out alone. Otherwise, even at the top you have a group where the best forecasting is still just "well, one of these [four, whatever] guys will probably turn out to have the best Career WAR^* [or whatever metric] out of everyone". And then after the team's first pick, the fuzziness only increases; there's not a lot of daylight there between a dozen or more choices.

 

Second, and maybe more importantly, the draft pool money system MLB instituted has a huge impact. If you have identified a few top choices, as the Twins no doubt did, and had a guess for both Career WAR and signing demand, it may be wiser to do as the Twins did.

 

Say your WAR estimate^** for Greene is 50 (borderline HOFer) and for Lewis it's only 30 (everyday player for years), but Greene will cost a lot, then clearly you should just go ahead pick Greene anyway, because you can't make up the lost 20 WAR by picking up one or more high schoolers who drop, and whom you can lure with a million additional dollars, with your next picks.

 

But I'm betting that a competent probabilistic forecast would put the candidate prospects much closer in estimated career WAR than that, this year at least. Suppose the best minds in your front office guesstimate Greene 50, Wright 48, Gore 47, Lewis 47, McKay 42, but you've also got your eye on Enlow at 30 who you think may drop due to signability, and anyone else likely still there at your second pick is more like a 20 at best, such as Rooker, then (as actually occurred) picking whoever in that top group will sign cheap enough could give you 47+30 instead of 50+20.

 

I think the disagreements here (or anywhere) on whom to pick 1:1 come down to an assumption whether there is a lot of separation or a little.

 

Precision, separation, and draft pool. These are what lead me away from expecting to construct a predefined ranking of prospects and then just pick the top one at each turn.

 

^{_{* Just to be clear, I'm referring to "WAR" very generically here, and not a specific implementation seen anywhere. Simply, "how many wins do you think this guy will add to your standings over the years?" As the analytic type, I do think you have to look at it in approximately those terms. Accomplishing it is the trick.}}

 

^{_{** And by WAR estimate I mean an average over all reasonable outcomes, including injury preventing a career at all, but also the faint chance of a 120 WAR meaning an inner-circle HOFer. Expectation value, for those who think in those terms. Not simply best ceiling, or best floor (whatever floor means for an untested amateur).}}

[Mike Sixel]

Not sure which thread to post it in.....but KLAW has his writeup up.....

 

"Early reviews around the game on the Twins' draft have been ... less than glowing."

 

He likes the Enlow pick for sure. It's kind of hard to really get a handle on his thoughts, really....

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post?id=7244#MIN

 

[markos]

 

Not sure which thread to post it in.....but KLAW has his writeup up.....

 

"Early reviews around the game on the Twins' draft have been ... less than glowing."

 

He likes the Enlow pick for sure. It's kind of hard to really get a handle on his thoughts, really....

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post?id=7244#MIN

The way I read it, he seems to think (based on his own opinion and maybe that of others in the industry?) that the Twins will end up leaving bonus pool money unspent. Personally, I don't think that is surprising, as it kind of mirrored my own initial thoughts. At first glance, the combination of players that they drafted could lead people (myself included) to overestimate the amount of savings they will have to work with. For example, I am surprised to see reports that Lewis is going to sign for $6.7M - more than any other high school player has signed for and $600K more than what Moniak signed for last year as the 1-1. As someone who certainly was NOT the consensus #1 player and frequently not even in consideration as the #1 player by many analysts, that price point does seem a little strange. But it is what it is. Moving on, Rooker and Leach both fit a profile of an underslot signing as well (older college hitter; 3rd-4th round HS pitcher overdrafted). Aware of Enlow's $2M deal but not knowing anything else, it certainly seems like the Twins are potentially leaving $1M+ on the table (especially if you include the $700K extra they could spend without forfeiting a future draft pick). Anyway, I think the Twins draft seems like it is missing one more $2M+/top-30 player, but we will see once they have everyone signed.

[maxisagod]

http://m.twins.mlb.com/news/article/236553468/twins-used-no-1-pick-to-have-best-2017-draft/

 

Jim Callis seems to thinks the Twins had the best draft! 

[Steve Lein]

 

The way I read it, he seems to think (based on his own opinion and maybe that of others in the industry?) that the Twins will end up leaving bonus pool money unspent. Personally, I don't think that is surprising, as it kind of mirrored my own initial thoughts. At first glance, the combination of players that they drafted could lead people (myself included) to overestimate the amount of savings they will have to work with. For example, I am surprised to see reports that Lewis is going to sign for $6.7M - more than any other high school player has signed for and $600K more than what Moniak signed for last year as the 1-1. As someone who certainly was NOT the consensus #1 player and frequently not even in consideration as the #1 player by many analysts, that price point does seem a little strange. But it is what it is. Moving on, Rooker and Leach both fit a profile of an underslot signing as well (older college hitter; 3rd-4th round HS pitcher overdrafted). Aware of Enlow's $2M deal but not knowing anything else, it certainly seems like the Twins are potentially leaving $1M+ on the table (especially if you include the $700K extra they could spend without forfeiting a future draft pick). Anyway, I think the Twins draft seems like it is missing one more $2M+/top-30 player, but we will see once they have everyone signed.

 

I think guys like Bechtold and De La Torre will eat up any of what you're thinking is left.

 

And even though they can go $700K over their pool (I would let them if I was running the team) without losing a pick if they wanted, not everybody does that and I think the Twins are in that group.

 

Only about half of all pools in the draft pool era have been exceeded.

[wagwan]

 

How do you factor in the inherent uncertainty when scouting young players?

 

Literally no franchise consistently picks future major-leaguers in the second round and beyond. They're all trying to pick the "best player". The misses outnumber the hits, and yet gold is found in the later rounds.

 

How does "pick the best player" provide any guidance? I don't mean to be belligerent, I'm just trying to understand what you're offering.

Pick the best player means don't do maneuvers like signing for under slot. I think that The Twins picked under slot at picks 35 and 37. Or even at 1 for that matter. Picks 8, 9 and 10 were also under slot picks since they were seniors with no leverage.  This matters because Picks 1 - 10 are where the most emphasis is. The goal is to get all of those guys signed, and then sign as many of the rest as you can. So why take under slot guys?

 

Since this is such a crap shoot don't mess around. Take the top guy on your board  when your pick comes up. 

[Willihammer]

 

1 - 10 are where the most emphasis is. The goal is to get all of those guys signed, and then sign as many of the rest as you can. So why take under slot guys?

So you can afford a player or two who falls like Enlow did. 

Overslot spending must be combined with downdraft / underslot picks, particularly in rounds 1-10 where slot values are subtracted when players don't sign.

[Mr. Brooks]

I think guys like Bechtold and De La Torre will eat up any of what you're thinking is left.

 

And even though they can go $700K over their pool (I would let them if I was running the team) without losing a pick if they wanted, not everybody does that and I think the Twins are in that group.

 

Only about half of all pools in the draft pool era have been exceeded.

To me, the Twins are cheap if they don't go over the 5% they are allowed to.

And so are any other teams that don't.

[ashbury]

Take the top guy on your board  when your pick comes up. 

The top guy on your board is going to be some over-slot guy every time. That's why (apart from the 1:1) pick) they are still available - nobody else felt they could afford them either, nor take a chance on drafting but not signing them. Nobody has the draft budget to do it that way, not because of cheapness by the individual team but because of the draft pool process.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood...who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly...." Theodore Roosevelt. Therefore I say "Thank you" to Derek Falvey and Thad Levine for being willing to suffer the slings and arrows of Twins Daily readers.

[dgwills]

 

I think guys like Bechtold and De La Torre will eat up any of what you're thinking is left.

 

And even though they can go $700K over their pool (I would let them if I was running the team) without losing a pick if they wanted, not everybody does that and I think the Twins are in that group.

 

Only about half of all pools in the draft pool era have been exceeded.

That very well may take up the rest of their pool. It's just not a great use of the money. Assuming that you did not have Lewis in the top tier of this draft, it takes two guys like Enlow to make it worth passing on the better players. The Twins may of had Lewis in the top tier, but I really didn't hear anyone else having him there before the draft. 

Time will tell of course.

[Steve Lein]

 

That very well may take up the rest of their pool. It's just not a great use of the money. Assuming that you did not have Lewis in the top tier of this draft, it takes two guys like Enlow to make it worth passing on the better players. The Twins may of had Lewis in the top tier, but I really didn't hear anyone else having him there before the draft. 

Time will tell of course.

 

I'm a really big fan of Rooker... I'd put him in the group you're thinking of along with Enlow. Twins may have had Leach there too. He had a lot of helium going into draft.

[Steve Lein]

 

To me, the Twins are cheap if they don't go over the 5% they are allowed to.
And so are any other teams that don't.

 

I don't disagree. But paying over $1.2MIL to spend $700K extra is nothing to scoff at for a lot of teams.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Pick the best player means don't do maneuvers like signing for under slot. I think that The Twins picked under slot at picks 35 and 37. Or even at 1 for that matter. Picks 8, 9 and 10 were also under slot picks since they were seniors with no leverage.  This matters because Picks 1 - 10 are where the most emphasis is. The goal is to get all of those guys signed, and then sign as many of the rest as you can. So why take under slot guys?

 

Since this is such a crap shoot don't mess around. Take the top guy on your board  when your pick comes up. 

 

The problem is that there was no BPA.  I don't think I can emphasize enough.  I grow rather tired of people saying 'pick the BPA' when there's no consensus there. Go read the draft thread, and for that matter, all of the experts.  They had different opinions.  The one thing that was obvious is that no one agreed as to who said BPA was, which tells you just how subjective it is.  I have no doubt the Twins had Lewis on the top of their board with McKay.  They took the one that would net them better talent further down the draft.  They effectively walked away with (on their board) a top 2 overall talent, a top 15-20 overall talent, and two guys in their top 30. 

 

That's 3-4 first round picks (the latter of whom have a much better chance of making the majors then their draft position indicates) because they played those games. 

 

Overall, the added more talent at the expense of a clear need, which ultimately means more BPAs with this strategy than going the other way.  I'm not liking the expense of a clear need issue, but if they took McKay at 1, there's no way they end up with Enlow at 4 (who I might add also fits the same need, just on a longer term trajectory) as well as one of those HS guys they took later on day 2.

[ashbury]

I don't disagree. But paying over $1.2MIL to spend $700K extra is nothing to scoff at for a lot of teams.

True. But any smart team will have various benchmarks as to what a million dollars is worth. For instance I've seen a guideline that buying free agent costs about $6M per win. Free agency is kind of steep, but even if it's more like $3M per win when running a team ($250M total revenue, 81 wins is about par), then the FO has to ask themselves if spending an extra mil gets them a 1-in-3 chance at an additional win sometime down the road. If they believe a draftee has that potential, i.e. a decent chance to have more than a cup of coffee as a career, they ought to pony up the dough.

[Otto von Ballpark]

After hearing the Wright buzz for the last few weeks, and seeing his over-slot deal with the Braves, plus McKay's rumored bonus with Tampa, I was wondering if part of the Twins strategy was kicking the tires on as many guys as possible at #1, to hopefully inflate their values and give other teams less financial flexibility.

 

Obviously there are limits to this, but I think draft bonuses are often more art than science, so it's something to do at the margins when there is no consensus top pick.

[Mike Sixel]

 

After hearing the Wright buzz for the last few weeks, and seeing his over-slot deal with the Braves, plus McKay's rumored bonus with Tampa, I was wondering if part of the Twins strategy was kicking the tires on as many guys as possible at #1, to hopefully inflate their values and give other teams less financial flexibility.

 

Obviously there are limits to this, but I think draft bonuses are often more art than science, so it's something to do at the margins when there is no consensus top pick.

 

I'm fascinated that both of them got over slot deals, frankly. Fascinated. 

[Willihammer]

Wright's deal is the most surprising to me. $7m for #5? That's $2.3m overslot and ~71% of the Braves pool.

 

McKay is a little easier to grasp IMO, the Rays had a lot of money and I could see them trying to max his value as a two-way guy.

[dgwills]

 

I'm a really big fan of Rooker... I'd put him in the group you're thinking of along with Enlow. Twins may have had Leach there too. He had a lot of helium going into draft.

Rooker seems like a good pick. We will need a replacement for Mauer and although we have some options, none of them are a sure thing. We just did not need extra cap space to sign him. He went a little over slot I hear, but that was likely not necessary.

It really comes down to Leach as some other posters have mentioned. So let's say the consensus view is that the tier one players in this draft are Greene, Mckay, and Wright. Tier 2 is Gore and Lewis (I believe this to be the case although there are people who would put Gore or Lewis in tier 1). You're already getting Rooker and likely Enlow without saving money on the first pick. Maybe you have to save a little in the later rounds to make this happen. Who do you have to add to that equation to make it worth taking a tier 2 player over a tier 1 player with the first pick? I'd say it would have to be someone like Baz or Carlson. Or anyone in-between.

The Twins were able to get some good players in the later rounds that would not be possible with this strategy, but the odds of any of them becoming mlb average players is really low.

Maybe the Twins out scouted the other teams and saw a lot of value that others did not see. This is something that will have to be proven since there is not any track record of the Twin's doing this.

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by dgwills

[Otto von Ballpark]

Wright's deal is the most surprising to me. $7m for #5? That's $2.3m overslot and ~71% of the Braves pool.

Only $1.3 mil over slot. Still pretty high, though.