Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • First Round Busts?


    Parker Hageman

    For the Minnesota Twins, two events in this past week bookend a disappointing era for first-round draft picks.

    On Friday it was announced that the team’s 55th pick overall in 2011, pitcher Hudson Boyd, was suspended for 50 games for a second violation of a drug of abuse. Two days later, Chris Parmelee, who was drafted 20th overall in 2006, signed a minor league contract with the Baltimore Orioles after he was released by the Twins earlier in the offseason.

    Without much to show from their first-round picks from 2006 through 2011, how bad has it been for the Twins compared to other teams?

    Twins Video

    When you consider the production provided from 11 first-round picks in those six years, the Twins are near the bottom of the league. The 6.5 wins above replacement (WAR) is the sixth-lowest return on investment among all the major league teams in that span. Only the Indians, Rockies, Padres, Red Sox and Phillies managed to get less value out of their first round picks.

    http://i.imgur.com/YARiOQO.png

    To make matters worse, it is not just the fact that first-round picks have failed to perform for the Twins, it is that they have had troubles even reaching the game’s highest level. Just four of the 11 picks have made it through the system. Only the Atlanta Braves, San Diego Padres and Tampa Bay Rays have churned out a lower percentage of major league players than Minnesota.

    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. For instance, in those six years the Kansas City Royals found themselves selecting at a median spot of fourth but wound up with 15.7 runs above replacement for seven players in what were highly coveted draft positions. On the other hand, the Cincinnati Reds drafted at a median spot of 15 and had a return of 44.5 wins above replacement (the fourth best in that time) on their nine players.

    “You cannot go into the draft saying, ‘we’re going to take position players this year,” said Roy Clark, a former Atlanta Braves scouting director and recent national cross-checker for the Los Angeles Dodgers, in the book ‘Scouts Honor’. “And then all of a sudden, we’re picking seventy-first, and all of the position players are gone or all of the good pitchers are gone. You never know who is going to be there. I like picking thirtieth every year. I want to pick thirtieth every year.”

    Based on that, Clark surely must have been envious of the Reds’ recent draft positions which were huddled in his sweet spot of the first rounds. Those selections turned into major league contributors in Drew Stubbs, Devin Mesoraco and Yasmani Grandal and resulted in the fourth most wins above replacement in that time frame. Meanwhile, in the same period, the Twins were drafting slightly lower than Clark’s ideal spot - and certainly further down the list than the Reds.

    ****

    It didn’t always used to be this way for the Twins. While sitting in Terry Ryan’s office earlier this winter, the topic of the 1989 amatuer draft came up.

    When reviewing the first four picks by the Twins at Baseball-Reference.com, one cannot help but be impressed by the fruit that that draft bore. It was a work of art in the scouting world -- probably something veteran scouts talk about over bourbon and cigars.

    That year’s draft provided the Twins with two vital components to their eventual World Series title in 1991: a top of the lineup catalyst and an excellent defender at a key up-the-middle position in Chuck Knoblauch (1st round, 25th overall) and a 20-game winner in Scott Erickson (4th, 112th overall). In between was left-handed pitcher Denny Neagle (3rd, 85th) from the University of Minnesota, who would later be flipped to Pittsburgh in 1992 so the Twins could acquire 20-game winner John Smiley, and go on to have a solid career of his own.

    Of course, in addition to noticing the noteworthy careers of Knoblauch, Neagle and Erickson, one cannot also help but be drawn to the one name on the Baseball-Reference.com list that does not include a hyperlink to a major league career: John Gumpf.

    “Gumpf,” Ryan said to himself in his office while reminiscing about the draft that helped lay a foundation for the organization’s second World Series title. He shook his head and seemed to be kicking himself all over again. He and his staff had gone three-for-four but swung and missed badly on that second pitch.

    As the team’s scouting director, Ryan was at the helm of his third amateur draft in 1989. They were looking to supplement the farm system with power and Gumpf’s name surfaced in the war room while the team was on the clock. Reports on the high school kid from Riverside, CA said he had plenty of pop in his bat. With the fifty-fifth overall pick -- the same spot in which the Twins would take high school pitcher Hudson Boyd twenty-two years later -- they added their slugger.

    Or so they thought.

    Gumpf’s professional career never amount to much. Over four seasons in the minors, he knocked out 15 home runs in 291 games and retired with a .329 slugging percentage over his minor league career.

    How did that happen? How did the Twins who were on a roll miss so poorly with their second pick? Ryan shrugged. Couldn’t make an adjustment here or didn’t make an adjustment there or maybe the reports were overblown. Either way, Gumpf was out of professional baseball and that year’s draft was a resounding success.

    Sometimes you just miss.

    ****

    Did the Twins scouting department lose its innovative edge from the era in which they were winning drafts? Have they since been outmaneuvered by other teams who have found ways to exploit the draft? Did the development system fail the players? Is this simply a case of bad luck in what is after all a small sample size?

    Going back to 2006 through 2011, teams with picks in the top ten -- the Rays, the Giants, the Dodgers -- were able to lock in marquee picks like David Price, Madison Bumgarner and Clayton Kershaw. Naturally they wound up getting plenty of value from those players. Those outside of that area either had to spend additional money (like the Tigers in landing Rick Porcello) or just simply had to be better than everyone else at evaluating talent. The St. Louis Cardinals seemed to exemplify that.

    With their lowest pick at 13th, much like the Minnesota Twins, the majority of the Cardinals' first rounders came on the wrong side of 25. Nevertheless, they were able to generate 23.7 WAR while graduating 72% of their first rounders so they could help the parent company. Part of it helps to be lucky but, like Branch Rickey touted, luck is the residue of design.

    As a team that was selecting players in the latter portions of the draft, the Cardinals found success by ensuring the lines of communication were open among all departments.

    “[W]e had a great interaction between scouting and player development,” former Cardinals scouting director and now Astros’ GM Jeff Luhnow told FoxSports.com in regard to what made his 2009 draft class so special. “[Cardinals chairman and CEO] Bill DeWitt’s responsible for that; it’s his vision. My first charter was to coordinate between different silos – there was a scouting silo, a player-development silo; it happens – so I took everyone on an international trip. Eventually there was a process in place. Analytics, scouting, medical, mechanics: Ultimately everything has to come together in a ranking. It’s not absolute, but a guide. Partly art, partly science.”

    ****

    Despite losing Parmelee for nothing, the Twins still have several players who could provide value to rescue their numbers.

    Kyle Gibson (22nd overall, 2009) is coming off a year where he became a stabilizing force in the rotation and could make big steps forward in 2015. Meanwhile, from 2006 to 2011, the highest the Twins drafted was 14th in 2008 and that resulted in Aaron Hicks. At his age, Hicks still has every opportunity to provide positive value but has plenty of adjustments to make in order to do so. Same goes for Levi Michael, Travis Harrison, Alex Wimmers and Boyd. But picks like Matt Bashore, Carlos Gutierrez and Shooter Hunt are forever filed under missed opportunities.

    The cyclical nature of the draft seems to have paved the way for a brighter future for the team. After several years of underperforming because of poor returns in the first round, the Twins were able to make selections when premium talent was still on the board. Byron Buxton, Jose Berrios, Luke Bard, Kohl Stewart and Nick Gordon have the makings to provide a solid foundation.

    Of course, if and/or when the team begins to win again, learning from mistakes and ensuring that the draft continues to provide major league talent should be a top priority.

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers
    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums
    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a Twins Daily Caretaker

     Share


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    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 by jay
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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 by tobi0040
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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 by tobi0040
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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).  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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 by tobi0040
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    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 by jimmer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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 by tobi0040
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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 by birdwatcher
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...