989 replies to this topic

[Slidemaster]

While Rob has a fair counterpoint to this the bottom line is that this says that the underslot early approach to have more to spend lately is a big mistake.This clearly says get the very best guy you can in round 1.

I see it that way too.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

While Rob has a fair counterpoint to this the bottom line is that this says that the underslot early approach to have more to spend lately is a big mistake.This clearly says get the very best guy you can in round 1.

I absolutely believe they had Kjerstad with the highest FV as anyone in the draft. If thats the case going underslot is what you should be doing.

[Mackus]

While Rob has a fair counterpoint to this the bottom line is that this says that the underslot early approach to have more to spend lately is a big mistake.This clearly says get the very best guy you can in round 1.

 

It's a mistake to look at one team's result and draw conclusions about the entire league's drafting.  I also don't know if the Astros went slot most of the way or played games.  Many of those later picks could be throwaways (4th year seniors given very low bonuses so you could go overslot early).

 

Additionally, I'd say that the approach to go underslot early and overslot late is in fact attempting to leverage the above bell curve.  You want more picks of guys near the top, and the way to do that is to go underslot early and overslot late (or accrue picks through losing FAs).  DIstinguishing the correct order of the guys at the top is damn near impossible.  But there is a pretty typical trend of there being way more good players who were drafted in the first or second round than there are guys who were drafted much later. 

 

Using what the O's did as an example...I think it's quite likely that historically a pick in the 10-15 range and two picks in the early-to-mid 2nd would yield better typical results than a #2 overall pick and picks in the early 4th and early 5th.  I haven't tracked the 2nd thru 5th rounds at all, so can't say for certain.  I'd be highly confident in the above statement if we started with the 3rd overall pick, because by the time you're at #3 there really isn't any difference between that and the next several picks, so taking the 10th best talent instead of the 3rd on your board rarely leads to much difference.  2nd and especially 1st overall you do see a noticeable increase in productivity compared to later on.

[SportsGuy]

That's fair and it does have value. But it doesn't change that they drafted these guys and none of them made it (still some time for the more recent guys). Certainly lots of blame to go around (injuries, development) and frankly, I doubt that getting no good players over half a decade from rounds 2 thru 10 really is that bizarre of a statistical anomaly. But I don't think there is much of strong argument based on his time in Houston as Elias and his staff as being particularly adept at drafting. Maybe there are some double digits round success stories, I didn't look that deep in the draft.

I mean, they have drafted multiple All Stars and several guys who were ranked highly and got them key pieces to make deep playoff runs.

Not defining that as success is funny to me but hey, to each their own.

Most teams aren’t coming close to that.

[Mackus]

I mean, they have drafted multiple All Stars and several guys who were ranked highly and got them key pieces to make deep playoff runs.

Not defining that as success is funny to me but hey, to each their own.

Most teams aren’t coming close to that.

First round success is clear, they've had that.

Beyond that, at least for rounds 2 thru 10, I don't think you can label it as success in terms of those draftees becoming players. Even if management they found a way to cash out those players before they lost all their value, that doesn't mean that the scouting and evaluation of them was accurate.

[dude]

While Rob has a fair counterpoint to this the bottom line is that this says that the underslot early approach to have more to spend lately is a big mistake.This clearly says get the very best guy you can in round 1.

 

well, not really.

 

2011: Springer was taken 11th and is in the group of 6 guys that have performed the best in the top 11 (with Gole/1, Bauer/3, Rendon/6, Lindor/8 and Baez/9)

 

2012: Correa wasn't considered the top pick in the draft (he was underslot, even if he was at the top of the Astros board)

 

2015: The only reason they got Bregman was because they didn't sign Aiken (who they took at 1-1). Bregman was in the discussion with Swanson and Rodgers, neither of which has performed nearly as well.  Of course we know that Bregman's performance is, at best, tainted.

 

Kyle Tucker was taken 1-5 by the Astros in 2015 and they haven't trusted him yet.  He's been of zero consequence to their 2017-2019 performance nad the Astros intentionally went out and signed Brantley instead of handing him the job despite his top prospect ranking and a full season at AAA in 2018.  He still has time to do something, but he's not proof of anything at this point (even as a top5 pick) and the Astros didn't trust him enough to use him.

 

....so the prospect success through the draft is all over the map in the early rounds for all of these guys.  The best of the group WAS a product of the underslot approach.  Drafting the best guy didn't work out twice.  Tucker wasn't underslot at 1-5 and he still hasn't done anything.

 

If you want to say the Astros haven't been successful in the later rounds with the underslot approach (because we have no examples of it working), ok, but it's not like nobody in those rounds had success.  Rio Ruiz was supposed to be the big answer and now he's handed time in Baltimore 8 years later with an OPS under .700.  If you pick the wrong guys, that's not an issue with the approach (it turned out good for the first pick), it's an issue with the selection.

[dude]

While Rob has a fair counterpoint to this .....

 

It's not a counterpoint.  He moved the goalposts to try and get a response that could be a counterpoint, but it's not.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Ok all fair discussion. Lots of caveats, only one team, etc.  All valid. But for the Astros, overslot/underslot, not ready yet they have WAY more success with their 1st round pick then all the rest combined. And perhaps they did have Kjerstad as their top guy? Just all makes for interesting discussion since its the ONLY baseball we have to talk about.....so sad....

[Mackus]

Usually at #1 or #2 I wouldn't advocate the underslot approach. I do think you can get a better value lottery ticket with those picks, and often times the #1 guy really distinguishes himself, so take that guy.

This year I didn't think it was possible to really identify a distinguishable #1 guy. I know Torkelson ended up as the yyeveryone kenw was going #1, but I don't think it's clear that he's better than Martin or Lacy or Hancock. And that's why I liked the underslot strategy more than in a given year. It's always a viable strategy, but this year when the #2 pick has less value than usual because we just don't know which guy is deserving of being that high versus a bit later...it made more sense to me to try to diversify.

I wanted to go over at 30 and 39, though, to get top-20ish talent rather than the results they ended up with of going over in the 4th and 5th to get 2nd round talent. I don't give them credit for wanting to do that original plan but the guys having been taken ahead of them (if it's true that happened). I think the underslot/overslot thing is kind of like stealing third. If you're gonna do it, you better be right and be able to get guys that justify it.

[SportsGuy]

First round success is clear, they've had that.
Beyond that, at least for rounds 2 thru 10, I don't think you can label it as success in terms of those draftees becoming players. Even if management they found a way to cash out those players before they lost all their value, that doesn't mean that the scouting and evaluation of them was accurate.

Well, the fallacy here is that you need those players to be good for you..or good at all.

Every player you draft is a potential asset.

They have cashed those assets into pieces to help in other moves.

Whether they develop, stay healthy, etc..is largely irrelevant. What matters is that they have helped them win, whether directly or indirectly.

I also don’t think most teams are seeing much, if any success, outside of the first few rounds anyway.

[Mackus]

Well, the fallacy here is that you need those players to be good for you..or good at all.

Every player you draft is a potential asset.

They have cashed those assets into pieces to help in other moves.

Whether they develop, stay healthy, etc..is largely irrelevant. What matters is that they have helped them win, whether directly or indirectly.

I also don’t think most teams are seeing much, if any success, outside of the first few rounds anyway.

 

The things you mention are important for the organization and if the GM can translate those guys into other assets, that's good.

 

But if the players never develop, that is a knock on the scouting director and the cross-checker and the GM who picked them.  Having value in trade is a silver lining, not the intentional act, when drafting a player.

 

The last sentence is a very valid point.  And I said the same thing, so glad you agree.  It's not clear that a team having no success in rounds 2 thru 10 over a half decade or so is even a statistical anomaly.  If the average team develops 3 guys from that number of picks, it's not really a major anomaly if another team develops 5 or 1 or none.  All those numbers made up, I've got nothing but guesses as how often a 2nd, 3rd, etc round pick develops into a career 5+ WAR player or however you wanna define a decent enough MLB player.

[SportsGuy]

Yea I agree that the idea of a player not developing is on the whole process but I think it falls less on the drafting.

I mean, I think you have to also consider that I guarantee you that Elias knew it was extremely unlikely for most/any of the picks to develop into anything meaningful.

The MLB draft doesn’t seem to be like the NFL draft, where you expect to see a lot role players and starters from any given draft.

Teams punt a lot of picks because of the desire to sign other guys.

[ZachSpedden]

A breakdown of the signing bonuses the Orioles have handed out so far, and are still expected to award, to the players in their 2020 draft class. https://www.baltimor...igning-bonuses/

[StephenCLoftus]

BSL: The DRAFT Model and the Undrafted

 

 

https://www.baltimor...odel-undrafted/

[Mike B]

Good Stuff.  The write up points out the pluses and Minuses of each player.

 

Like UDFA's in football, the hope is one or two make a real contribution to the big team.

[ZachSpedden]

This is good info, glad to see these players analyzed in the DRAFT Model. If nothing else, I think Bowens and Mundy give the Orioles more of the 1B/DH depth that they need in the lower full-season minors going into 2021. 

[BSLChrisStoner]

MASN: Jim Callis with props for O’s draft, plus other notes

https://www.masnspor...ther-notes.html

[Mike B]

Nice to see Callis talk so highly about our draft.  He has been critical in the past, so seeing him like the 6 players selected is good.

[Ruzious]

MASN: Jim Callis with props for O’s draft, plus other notes

https://www.masnspor...ther-notes.html

 

That was a great read.  The only pick I criticize is the Westburg pick because he's iffy to stay at SS, and he hasn't shown the game power to move to 3B - and going on 22, why would they expect that his game power is going to come around?  Picking him at 30 seemed too high.  I think 3rd rounder SS Servideo is a more compelling prospect.  

[BSLChrisStoner]

That was a great read.  The only pick I criticize is the Westburg pick because he's iffy to stay at SS, and he hasn't shown the game power to move to 3B - and going on 22, why would they expect that his game power is going to come around?  Picking him at 30 seemed too high.  I think 3rd rounder SS Servideo is a more compelling prospect.  

I liked the Westburg pick myself.  Does have a chance to stick at SS.  There was some belief he underproduced, but didn't see many people questioning the talent.  Fair point on the age, but he should move pretty quick if the light bulb comes on.