Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:23 am
ilikeike29 wrote:HeyNowHK wrote: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.
Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:39 am
HeyNowHK wrote:ilikeike29 wrote:HeyNowHK wrote: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.
Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:41 am
LTKfRGM wrote:ilikeike29 wrote:
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
Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:09 am
Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:20 am
Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:52 am
Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:00 pm
ilikeike29 wrote:http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4026
Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:48 pm
jdawginsc wrote: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.
Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:32 pm
dragonfly wrote:jdawginsc wrote: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.
jdawginsc wrote:ilikeike29 wrote: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.
Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:05 pm
ilikeike29 wrote:http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4026
Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:50 pm
Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:21 pm