keith law chat April 4th

[Jeremy Nygaard]

We have threads started on a lot of potential draftees. This would be another place to start.

 

http://twinsdaily.com/twins-minor-league-talk/5559-article-draft-board-v-2-0-3-13-a.html

[PseudoSABR]

(other than by arguing SSS which I don't disagree with but when you're talking elite pitchers you're always going to be talking SSS in which case you work with the data you have)

Right. As far as the data, we are just stuck. Some of us--because of our principles, our experience, our silly tendency to believe that such a thing as 'aces' is quantifiable (if I only could discern it)--are unwilling to draw conclusions from the modest amount data, even if that's all we have.

 

I'm speculating, but I imagine if we looked at any player position, we'd see a similar break down of where the 'stars' (as opposed to 'aces') were drafted and acquired. So, on a hunch really, I'm willing to contend that the standard differentiation of acquiring starting pitching is no greater than position players.

 

If you want to contend that it's very difficult to acquire all-star or hall-of-fame level players and that the Twins might not be doing everything right in their quest for such players, well you're probably right. There are few opportunities to acquire top of the rotation pitching as there are few opportunities to acquire top of the line position players.

 

If we're honestly asking the question of the Twins capacity to acquire ace pitchers; I'm encouraged by the acquisition of Meyer and May, the drafting Berrios. Let's remember the Twins have picked in the bottom half of the draft for a decade, during that time they acquired Liriano and Santana on the stupid cheap. Certainly there's any number of clubs that do so much better, but let's also not pretend that there's some ready-made formula for the successful acquisition of star players.

[Oxtung]

Right. As far as the data, we are just stuck. Some of us--because of our principles, our experience, our silly tendency to believe that such a thing as 'aces' is quantifiable (if I only could discern it)--are unwilling to draw conclusions from the modest amount data, even if that's all we have.

 

I'm speculating, but I imagine if we looked at any player position, we'd see a similar break down of where the 'stars' (as opposed to 'aces') were drafted and acquired. So, on a hunch really, I'm willing to contend that the standard differentiation of acquiring starting pitching is no greater than position players.

 

If you want to contend that it's very difficult to acquire all-star or hall-of-fame level players and that the Twins might not be doing everything right in their quest for such players, well you're probably right. There are few opportunities to acquire top of the rotation pitching as there are few opportunities to acquire top of the line position players.

 

If we're honestly asking the question of the Twins capacity to acquire ace pitchers; I'm encouraged by the acquisition of Meyer and May, the drafting Berrios. Let's remember the Twins have picked in the bottom half of the draft for a decade, during that time they acquired Liriano and Santana on the stupid cheap. Certainly there's any number of clubs that do so much better, but let's also not pretend that there's some ready-made formula for the successful acquisition of star players.

 

I must admit I am confused by your post. I have no idea if you were being straightforward or sarcastic in your opening paragraph.

 

The rest of your post seems to have little to do with my small sample size quote you seem to be responding to. So in case you misunderstood my point: Whether you narrow the "aces" down to 8 or 16 or 25 all those are going to overwhelmed by the uncertainty of small sample size. However, when you're talking about elite pitchers there is ALWAYS going to be the uncertainty of small sample size by definition of the term "aces". Artificially increasing the sample to 25 pitchers dilutes the term "aces", imo, and at the same time doesn't include enough pitchers to not be overshadowed by small sample size. At the same time you do the best with what you have. A small sample is better than nothing.

 

As for the rest of your post I am contending nothing. I am simply wondering if certain positions are harder to find later in the draft than others. If true it seems to make sense to draft those positions earlier or at least at a higher rate earlier in the draft than positions which can be found more readily in later rounds.

 

As I said, I didn't really understand the point of much of your post so if you wish to rephrase perhaps I'll understand next time.

[cmb0252]

A few interesting things from Jim Callis' April 3rd chat regarding the draft.

Could you see the Cubs taking RHP Jon Gray if the Astros pop Appel at 1-1?

Jim Callis: I could. If the draft were today, I’d expect Appel and Gray to go 1-2 or 2-1.

 

If the draft was tomorrow, who are your top three picks, in order?

Jim Callis: Stanford RHP Mark Appel, Oklahoma RHP Jonathan Gray, Georgia high school OF Austin Meadows. I actually wrote my column for our last magazine issue on who I’d take with each of the first 10 picks, and that will post with our updated Draft Top 50 Prospects tomorrow. I wrote that column about 10 days ago, and I’ve shuffled my choices since then.

 

This one is the most interesting to me

With a projection of Appel/Gray at 1 & 2 (in whatever order), the Rockies seem pinched at #3, probably looking at one of the prep OFers in Frazier or Meadows or possibly Bryant. Yes, you go BPA, but for a team that needs pitching and has some depth in the OF in the minors, isn't this almost a worst-case scenario?

Jim Callis: I wouldn’t say worst-case scenario, but I agree that the best case would be for Appel or Gray to fall to the Rockies, or for a third college pitcher (Manaea) to assert himself that high. Nothing wrong with taking Frazier or Meadows if they’re the best available.

 

Even if a third guy emerges as a potential ace the Twins might not get the chance.While it is still early Twins fans who want an ace, who should be all of us, at 4 might be out of luck.