989 replies to this topic

[Mackus]

In some ways, I'm more interested in seeing who the Orioles gets a shot at at #30. Hendrick? Casey Mears? Jordan Walker? Austin Wells?

 

There's about a 1-in-10 chance of a player drafted around #30 becoming a regular and 1-in-30 of becoming a star, at least based historically on how well players taken at the end of the first have produced for their careers.  I'm defining regular as >12 career WAR and star as >30.  And roughly approximating the odds based on the results at a couple picks before and after.  I guess the math changes on a case-by-case basis, and if you think you're getting a top-15 talent at #30 for signability reasons then things could change.  I'm talking long-term trends, not specific players in this year's class as you have mentioned.

 

It's an interesting conversation of whether you'd rather have slot-type signings at both #2 and #30, which basically gives you a 1-in-3 regular (1-in-10 star) and 1-in-10 regular (1-in-30 star), versus going underslot early and overslot late, which could give you two guys who have true talents in the low teens.  So maybe you end up with two guys who each are a 1-in-4 of being a regular and 1-in-20 shot at being a star.

[Mike B]

 I am taking Torkelson.

I think the Tigers may beat you and the Orioles to him.

[dude]

edit above....I said Casey Mears, I meant Casey Martin.

[Mackus]

I think the Tigers may beat you and the Orioles to him.

 

Martin and Hancock seem like pretty good consolation prizes.  

[dude]

I think the Tigers may beat you and the Orioles to him.

 

I agree they take Torkleson.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Martin and Hancock seem like pretty good consolation prizes.  

 

Yep, hoping for either one.  

But can't have really strong opinions here.  Just based on the scouting reports I've read. 

[Mackus]

Yep, hoping for either one.  

But can't have really strong opinions here.  Just based on the scouting reports I've read. 

 

Not having a Spring season to see someone emerge from the small group of potential #1s is probably a benefit for the Orioles in this case.  Under a normal season, the odds of there being a clearly best player and that player falling to #2 are slim.  The random odds that will exist for this draft give the O's a better shot at ending up with such a player.

[SportsGuy]

I couldn't disagree more.
 
You should draft to get the most Talent on your board, not straight draft (BPA) your board.

What’s the difference?

Whoever you rate as the best player when it’s your time to pick, assuming cost issues, is the player you should take.

[SportsGuy]

Because of what’s going on, im even more inclined to take the hitter with the second pick.

Whatever pitcher you draft is probably going to be behind the curve in terms of innings pitched. May have to be that much more careful with them.

[Mackus]

What’s the difference?

Whoever you rate as the best player when it’s your time to pick, assuming cost issues, is the player you should take.

 

You're saying the exact same thing that dude is saying.  The "assuming cost issues" part makes the opinions identical, just worded differently.

[dude]

What’s the difference?
Whoever you rate as the best player when it’s your time to pick, assuming cost issues, is the player you should take.

 

I don't agree.  If you really like a guy that may not be as high on other lists, then you may be able to get him in the 3rd (or whatever) round even if he was the next guy you should pick, by your list, with your CompA pick.  Pick another guy that doesn't make it to the 3rd round and take the guy you like better, later.

 

If you think one guy is so incredible that you don't want to risk him getting selected by another team, fine, but if you're picking guys 70 or 200 spots out of line with published outlets, my guess is you could have waited a round or 2 on those guys.

 

I've made these comments with guys like Mountcastle and Sisco.  If you like them, great, but you should be able to get them later and pick a different guy that is highly rated on your list even if he's not your BPA for that pick.

 

Happened in 2016 with Nolan Jones.  They take Akin at #54 and Jones goes #55 (to CLE).  They had another pick at #69.  Akin wasn't so highly rated.  If you like him more than Jones, OK, but take Jones at #54 and Akin is probably still around at #69 (15 picks later) where they took Dietz.  Now, if you like Akin and Dietz better than Jones, maybe we need to re-evaluate the scouting team.

[SportsGuy]

You're saying the exact same thing that dude is saying.  The "assuming cost issues" part makes the opinions identical, just worded differently.

That’s what I thought..he’s the one disagreeing.

[dude]

You're saying the exact same thing that dude is saying.  The "assuming cost issues" part makes the opinions identical, just worded differently.

 

Cost can play a role, but it's really Talent evaluation.  

 

In other pro sports drafts I'd suggest there's a lot more collective certainty and in a shorter draft from a smaller and better defined pool, I could understand why you'd go BPA.

 

....but in baseball, you could have kids in a much deeper and varied pool that you really like that could certainly last 1-3 (or more) rounds later than he falls on your straight Talent list.

 

Don't be a slave to your list (that's BPA), understand how to draft (and sign) the most Talent on your list.

[SportsGuy]

I don't agree. If you really like a guy that may not be as high on other lists, then you may be able to get him in the 3rd (or whatever) round even if he was the next guy you should pick, by your list, with your CompA pick. Pick another guy that doesn't make it to the 3rd round and take the guy you like better, later.

If you think one guy is so incredible that you don't want to risk him getting selected by another team, fine, but if you're picking guys 70 or 200 spots out of line with published outlets, my guess is you could have waited a round or 2 on those guys.

I've made these comments with guys like Mountcastle and Sisco. If you like them, great, but you should be able to get them later and pick a different guy that is highly rated on your list even if he's not your BPA for that pick.

Happened in 2016 with Nolan Jones. They take Akin at #54 and Jones goes #55 (to CLE). They had another pick at #69. Akin wasn't so highly rated. If you like him more than Jones, OK, but take Jones at #54 and Akin is probably still around at #69 (15 picks later) where they took Dietz. Now, if you like Akin and Dietz better than Jones, maybe we need to re-evaluate the scouting team.

Well I think everyone’s board is so vastly different that this isn’t really an accurate way of looking at things.

Basically what you are saying is that if BA says player X is ranked 130th and you take him 65th, the team should have waited.

Your assumption is that BA (or whoever) is right.

While I get that’s all we have to go off of and make opinions based off of that, it doesn’t mean it’s actually reality.

[dude]

Well I think everyone’s board is so vastly different that this isn’t really an accurate way of looking at things.

Basically what you are saying is that if BA says player X is ranked 130th and you take him 65th, the team should have waited.

Your assumption is that BA (or whoever) is right.

While I get that’s all we have to go off of and make opinions based off of that, it doesn’t mean it’s actually reality.

 

Right.  Let's agree there's more answers than BA, but that's what we're talking about. 

 

Having a feel for the draft and everything that's going on (there's likely many indicators) to get the most Talent on your list, not just straight draft your list.

 

If you think that's too hard and want to straight draft your internal list, OK, but that's what I'm saying I disagree with.

[SportsGuy]

Right.  Let's agree there's more answers than BA, but that's what we're talking about. 
 
Having a feel for the draft and everything that's going on (there's likely many indicators) to get the most Talent on your list, not just straight draft your list.
 
If you think that's too hard and want to straight draft your internal list, OK, but that's what I'm saying I disagree with.

But again, you are only disagreeing because some publication tells you to disagree.

It doesn’t mean that the actual scouts and people who do this for a living agree, especially on any one individual player.

[Mackus]

dude is talking about opposition research.  This is something the Ravens have always done a good job of in the NFL draft.  It's not just about putting together your list, but you need to have a guess at every other team's list so you know when you're picking, which guys might still be around the next time you choose and which likely won't.  It's bigger in the NFL where trading picks is a major part of the thing, but the MLB pool of talent is so large and wide that it does apply a bit in MLB even without being able to move up and down.

 

I don't really think that's much of a novel idea.  I'd argue that it's as basic of a function of draft strategy as anything else.  Anyone who has ever done a fantasy draft employs the same strategy, so I'm sure that every MLB team uses this to a degree, with varying levels of accuracy or success.

[dude]

dude is talking about opposition research.  This is something the Ravens have always done a good job of in the NFL draft.  It's not just about putting together your list, but you need to have a guess at every other team's list so you know when you're picking, which guys might still be around the next time you choose and which likely won't.  It's bigger in the NFL where trading picks is a major part of the thing, but the MLB pool of talent is so large and wide that it does apply a bit in MLB even without being able to move up and down.

 

I don't really think that's much of a novel idea.  I'd argue that it's as basic of a function of draft strategy as anything else.  Anyone who has ever done a fantasy draft employs the same strategy, so I'm sure that every MLB team uses this to a degree, with varying levels of accuracy or success.

 

Right.  I didn't suggest it's novel, but it's different than BPA. 

 

If you say draft BPA, I disagree because I think you should be doing [whatever you want to call it, above].

 

I think it's much harder for a guy to fall a full round in the NFL, NBA or NHL drafts.  The Talent Pool is much smaller at least in terms of collective understanding of what excellence looks like.  I think you probably see it more in Football if you like a guy and you think you can slide back in the draft and still get him and add [something else] to your draft.

 

In baseball, there's so much development, if you're good and can figure somethings out, you can add more/better Talent across your draft.  Of course we can go back to your Draft/WAR assessment and conclude that nobody is actually any good at it,  Ever.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Best college position player available at #2.

[Chris B]

Kiley McDaniel

@kileymcd

·

5h

 

Sources: MLB & the MLB Players Association have the framework of an agreement that could be finalized as soon as today. Discussed terms on the draft: - A draft sometime in July - Likely 10 rounds, possibly 5 - Bonus deferment: 10% upfront, 45% in July '21, 45% in July '22

 

Kiley McDaniel

@kileymcd

·

5h

 

a maximum bonus for undrafted players has been discussed. Most discussed number for that is $10,000. Could push lots of high school talent to college, middle-tier college talent to return to school.

 

In a way, the season postponement may have helped Manfred and MLB to fulfill their goal of eliminating minor league teams.