Tank Watch - one game left (page 7). Down to the wire.

[HeyNowHK]

It's all irrelevant with the team likely to opt for either another high floor/low ceiling type of bat or a prep arm that will take 5 years to develop if his arm doesn't explode.

1. Aside from Michael Fulmer, this team has never taken a prep arm especially early and even Fulmer was the 44th pick. So not sure why you'd think that's especially likely, although obviously it could theoretically happen.

2. "Low ceiling" bats don't go in the top 10 unless it's a clear money saving move. Honestly, can't think of any this decade aside from two picks by the Royals (Hunter Dozier, Christian Colon). And yeah there were people saying Conforto was that but that was nothing more than a ridiculous statement by people who hadn't seen him and were making half-baked assumptions based off half-baked scouting reports by people who also hadn't seen him.


I, however, do think the only real difference between 5 and 9 or whatever may just be the money. And that impact has been lessened with the new CBA. Just float the second tier guy you want to your pick.

Cheech and Dom were arguably both high floor, low ceiling picks. Turns out Nimmo fits that mold too. Dunn maybe also.

As far as a prep arm, that would be my guess as to what they will pick and may end up the best use of the pick. I was just saying there is a long dev path for a pick like that and it dampens the excitement of picking so early in the draft.

[ilikeike29]

It's all irrelevant with the team likely to opt for either another high floor/low ceiling type of bat or a prep arm that will take 5 years to develop if his arm doesn't explode.

1. Aside from Michael Fulmer, this team has never taken a prep arm especially early and even Fulmer was the 44th pick. So not sure why you'd think that's especially likely, although obviously it could theoretically happen.

2. "Low ceiling" bats don't go in the top 10 unless it's a clear money saving move. Honestly, can't think of any this decade aside from two picks by the Royals (Hunter Dozier, Christian Colon). And yeah there were people saying Conforto was that but that was nothing more than a ridiculous statement by people who hadn't seen him and were making half-baked assumptions based off half-baked scouting reports by people who also hadn't seen him.


I, however, do think the only real difference between 5 and 9 or whatever may just be the money. And that impact has been lessened with the new CBA. Just float the second tier guy you want to your pick.

Cheech and Dom were arguably both high floor, low ceiling picks. Turns out Nimmo fits that mold too. Dunn maybe also.

As far as a prep arm, that would be my guess as to what they will pick and may end up the best use of the pick. I was just saying there is a long dev path for a pick like that and it dampens the excitement of picking so early in the draft.

Nimmo and Dunn were seen as high upside, low floor picks at the time. Dom was somewhere in the middle. Cecchini was seen as as high floor, low ceiling as a prep pick could be but he didn't go top 10.

[ilikeike29]

I, however, do think the only real difference between 5 and 9 or whatever may just be the money. And that impact has been lessened with the new CBA. Just float the second tier guy you want to your pick.

There's never a guarantee, but if a draft has 5 top guys (occasionally the case), a team has a chance at getting a #1 pick talent at #5. They mgiht need to overslot a little if that guy falls, but that can happen at #5. Less likely at #9 unless the player has either fallen due to unsignability or some other reason (Appel).

I think #5 has more upside and obviously more money if the team decides to underslot and spend later, but overall it's such a mixed bag that there's not a huge difference.

#5 has had more all star / 30 war players than #9. (since 2000: Posey, Braun, Tex taken at 5 vs just Zito at 9) - and yes, I get that there's a whole lot of random in that sample size and at #5, and maybe just a 1 in 6 chance at getting a Posey, Braun or Tex.

9: https://www.baseball-reference.com/draf ... type_unk=0

5: https://www.baseball-reference.com/draf ... type_unk=0

If you have the 9th pick and you really want the guy who's supposed to go 5th you can just offer him a ton of money so he makes it to you. Obviously that would kill the rest of your draft but you could still do it.

But regression studies show that the difference here is still not super reliable.

[jdawginsc]

Number 11 picks. https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?draft_type=junreg&overall_pick=11&query_type=overall_pick

Number 7 picks https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?draft_type=junreg&overall_pick=7&query_type=overall_pick

Number 4 picks https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?draft_type=junreg&overall_pick=4&query_type=overall_pick

You look at draft history and a top five pick has no more chance of producing a highly productive career as a top 15 pick. Even second picks are a crapshoot of sorts; just a more expensive one.

Only one of the three 1st picks by the Astros will likely amount to anything over their careers.

[TomInNC]

But tanking is fun

[ilikeike29]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/artic ... cleid=4026

[jdawginsc]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4026

Basically what I said; other than the number one pick which has a significant dollar cost, there is such variability in the next 12-14 rounds that tanking for the 5th is no more significant than tanking for the 9th, or 11th, etc...

Interesting data spikes for certain rounds.

I would think that mid-level teams are more functional drafters since they balance cost versus payroll. Perennial tankers (2-6) are more likely less functional franchises and therefore it shows.

[dragonfly]

Number 11 picks. https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?draft_type=junreg&overall_pick=11&query_type=overall_pick

Number 7 picks https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?draft_type=junreg&overall_pick=7&query_type=overall_pick

Number 4 picks https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?draft_type=junreg&overall_pick=4&query_type=overall_pick

You look at draft history and a top five pick has no more chance of producing a highly productive career as a top 15 pick. Even second picks are a crapshoot of sorts; just a more expensive one.

Only one of the three 1st picks by the Astros will likely amount to anything over their careers.

You'd think that stuff to be common knowledge to baseball fans, but it sure hasn't been around these parts.

[AllWrightNow]

Number 11 picks. https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?draft_type=junreg&overall_pick=11&query_type=overall_pick

Number 7 picks https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?draft_type=junreg&overall_pick=7&query_type=overall_pick

Number 4 picks https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?draft_type=junreg&overall_pick=4&query_type=overall_pick

You look at draft history and a top five pick has no more chance of producing a highly productive career as a top 15 pick. Even second picks are a crapshoot of sorts; just a more expensive one.

Only one of the three 1st picks by the Astros will likely amount to anything over their careers.

You'd think that stuff to be common knowledge to baseball fans, but it sure hasn't been around these parts.

The problem is because of what Luhnow and Theo did, people are going to associate tanking with sustained success cause they got it right and hit on enough of their high picks.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4026

Basically what I said; other than the number one pick which has a significant dollar cost, there is such variability in the next 12-14 rounds that tanking for the 5th is no more significant than tanking for the 9th, or 11th, etc...

Interesting data spikes for certain rounds.

I would think that mid-level teams are more functional drafters since they balance cost versus payroll. Perennial tankers (2-6) are more likely less functional franchises and therefore it shows.

Well part of the problem is that drafting is based as much on signability as talent once you get past a certain point (and then go back to picking talented guys in the later rounds but most of them don't sign), so it's kind of a pointless exercise to try to ascertain trends after the first few rounds of the draft.

[acerimusdux]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4026

To me, it looks from that like the #5 pick is worth at least 4 WAR (on average) more than the #9, and that in turn is worth at least 3 WAR more than the #15. At current free agent prices, around $8M per win, that would make the #5 pick worth about $32M more than the #9, and $56M more than the #15.

It's certainly no guarantee of future success, but if a team has high picks 3-4 years in a row, there's probably a decent chance they are really coming away with 20+ more future wins from those drafts than a team that had average records and average picks. Those wins will be spread over a number of years, so no guarantee that makes them a contender in any one year. But it certainly increases the odds that a team will be competitive.

And of course it may not be just random either, it may be that skill in drafting and developing helps determine which teams get the most of those picks.

[R Nitelight]

Should this be moved to Football?

[LTKfRGM]

Thank you Acer - finally a voice on the side of - yes it does matter. No, it's never a guarantee, but it helps drafting earlier.

Look at it this way.

The mets took Cecchini at 12. I don't think they take him at 9 and they definitely don't take him at 5.

Nimmo at 13. Now, I like Nimmo but same as above. I'm skeptical that they take him at 9 and I know they don't take him at 5.

Dom . . . Dom's an interesting case. He had the best swing in his HS class and at the time, was seen as an elite glove, potential power bat. His weight problems and lack of power weren't concerns in HS. Mets might have taken Dom at 5.

And Conforto - I believe the mets would have taken Conforto at 5, possibly at #1.

But Cheech/Nimmo were clealry guys the mets took cause the top guys were gone at that point, and odds are, drafting 5 or 9 those two seasons would have lead to a better draft.