574 replies to this topic

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Im sold on a Cowser underslot. Though it'll be interesting to see how much you could get him to underslot. Im thinking it may still be in the #8-10 range. He doesnt have the ceiling of Watson or House but he has a higher floor and you get to spend the money elsewhere.

[dude]

Elias won't draft a pitcher there and I doubt he wants a HSer.

 

That basically leaves 4 players to pick from.

 

Today, I think they'd draft Davis if he's there as likely the most opportunity to impact the lineup.  Davis takes you out of the underslot route.

 

If Davis goes ahead of them, then you are in the Cowser/Frelick/McLain group who all fit the underslot play.

 

I'll say Davis goes in top 4 and I get to stick with my pick. 

[TwentyThirtyFive]

House and Watson are absolutely in play for Elias. He may go underslot and as I said above Im in favor if its Cowser, but Watson and House are in play. Interesting in the latest Fangraphs mock the authors say the Os would jump on the opportunity to draft Leiter or Davis. Would end your Elias wont take a pitcher theory. Wont happen though, as Mayer and Leiter are the 2 stone cold locks to go Top 4.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

I guess I don't get it. The article makes a mathematical argument that you should not go underslot. The best available draft logic gets you a score of 35. No underslot approach got you the same value. Yes a couple were close.

 

We all know that there are lots of variables and assumptions. But going the underslot adds even more assumptions to the mix.

[dude]

Would end your Elias wont take a pitcher theory. 

 

I don't think it's a theory.  He got burned multiple times by pitchers (Appel, Akin, Whitely) and they've had success with hitters (Correa, Bregman, Tucker) with that high pick.

 

They want to be data driven and the lowest confidence data sets come from HS, especially pitchers (not to mention injury risk with HS pitchers).

 

You get the best looks (volume, competition) from college bats in better conferences and that's the place they've taken up shop for their drafts.

 

For me, it is what it is.  If you are reading that negatively, you'd be reading it wrong.

 

Do the most with the picks you have, but I'd rather never pick this high.

[BSLChrisStoner]

It's not a theory that the more information they have, the more comfortable they will be.
It's not a theory that all things being equal, they'd lean towards bats. 

It is a theory to say they wouldn't take a pitcher, and one that I don't think is right. 

In particular, Elias has been quoted as saying he inherited a system which had more arms, which allowed him to further lean into going positional player heavy in the initial two drafts... but that wouldn't necessarily always be the case going forward. 

[TwentyThirtyFive]

I mentioned the Fangraphs mock above that said the Os wouldnt pass on Leiter. We wont get the chance to find out on that one. What was interesting was reading a blurb in another mock that linked them to having interest in Rocker. We might get to see if that one is true. Will say that thats the first time Ive heard the Os linked to Rocker and Im also not his biggest fan.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

The mock I saw ultimately had the Os taking Watson and thought they could get him at a bit underslot. Thats pretty intriguing as well


Btw BA just dropped their latest mock. If someone wants to PM who they have us taking Id appreciate it.

[makoman]

I guess I don't get it. The article makes a mathematical argument that you should not go underslot. The best available draft logic gets you a score of 35. No underslot approach got you the same value. Yes a couple were close.

 

We all know that there are lots of variables and assumptions. But going the underslot adds even more assumptions to the mix.

The difference is that we don't all get to see some video game rating of these guys, and we don't know how Elias actually views these guys. That has a major impact. 

 

Underslotting really wins when you are smarter than everyone else. If your #5 pick is consensus #12 and you pay him #12 money, and also you believe he is the #12 guy, eh that's ok I guess. As far as I can tell, that's the OP article, as it's based on consensus score.

 

If your #5 pick is consensus #12 and you pay him #12 money, but you really think of him as the #7 guy, that's good value, and the score you think you are getting is better than the consensus score in the article.

 

Carlos Correa was a great pick because not only was he under slot to get McCullers later (and Rio Ruiz!) but also he was the best player in the draft. You win later by going under slot, but you also win in the 1st by being smarter. If they had gone under slot to pick Mike Zunino it would have been ok I guess as they still got to use the extra money later, but far worse in the 1st.

[Mike B]

The difference is that we don't all get to see some video game rating of these guys, and we don't know how Elias actually views these guys. That has a major impact. 

 

Underslotting really wins when you are smarter than everyone else. If your #5 pick is consensus #12 and you pay him #12 money, and also you believe he is the #12 guy, eh that's ok I guess. As far as I can tell, that's the OP article, as it's based on consensus score.

 

If your #5 pick is consensus #12 and you pay him #12 money, but you really think of him as the #7 guy, that's good value, and the score you think you are getting is better than the consensus score in the article.

 

Carlos Correa was a great pick because not only was he under slot to get McCullers later (and Rio Ruiz!) but also he was the best player in the draft. You win later by going under slot, but you also win in the 1st by being smarter. If they had gone under slot to pick Mike Zunino it would have been ok I guess as they still got to use the extra money later, but far worse in the 1st.

I think the danger of consistently using the underslot theory, is you are counting on yourself being the smartest guy in the room.  When the consensus says your #5 guy is actually #12, they likely are right.

[Mike B]

Like most professional sports drafts, this has been analyzed to death.  Let Sunday get here and get some answers.

[makoman]

I think the danger of consistently using the underslot theory, is you are counting on yourself being the smartest guy in the room.  When the consensus says your #5 guy is actually #12, they likely are right.

I agree with your first sentence. I don't know if your second sentence is correct or not. The MLB draft is a lot harder to get right than any other.

 

I think Elias and Sig think they are smarter than most other front offices (or that their models are better, whatever). Time will tell. 

[Mackus]

I think the danger of consistently using the underslot theory, is you are counting on yourself being the smartest guy in the room.  When the consensus says your #5 guy is actually #12, they likely are right.

 

There is nearly no difference historically in success rates of #5 picks versus #12 picks.  That's the whole basis for the strategy, that it doesn't matter if you get the guy everyone thinks is the 5th best, since nobody really knows anything because of how volatile and far from the majors all of these guys are.  Sure, if all things are equal, take the guy you currently are higher on.  But you can make things unequal and gain an advantage later on by going underslot.

 

Now that applies further down as well.  Or it may, I haven't investigated past the 30th pick.  I have no idea how much more likely to succeed the 20th best guy may be compared to going slot at #41 or wherever your next pick is.  Or how much more likely to succeed the 50th-60th best guys are compared to #125 and #160, which is basically what the Orioles did last season by going underslot at #2 and taking a guy rated mainly in the 8-12 range.

[Mackus]

I guess I don't get it. The article makes a mathematical argument that you should not go underslot. The best available draft logic gets you a score of 35. No underslot approach got you the same value. Yes a couple were close.

 

We all know that there are lots of variables and assumptions. But going the underslot adds even more assumptions to the mix.

 

If you based your decision on this model or one like it then you wouldn't want to go underslot this year.  Unless you really value diversification.

[BobPhelan]

Btw BA just dropped their latest mock. If someone wants to PM who they have us taking Id appreciate it.

 

They did a mock draft where their staff members picked for the teams. They had us taking Henry Davis and Lonnie White Jr.

 

MLB Pipeline also has us taking Henry Davis in their latest mock.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

They did a mock draft where their staff members picked for the teams. They had us taking Henry Davis and Lonnie White Jr.

 

MLB Pipeline also has us taking Henry Davis in their latest mock.

Starting to feel like Davis is a pretty good bet to be gone in the Top 4 as well with Mayer and Leiter. Not the lock that the other two are but likely. Id be surprised if Bos passes on any of the 3. The interesting thing to me is what Bos does if those 3 are the top 3.

[dude]

I know 'need' isn't really a thing in the MLB Draft, but in a draft where you can probably go 8 players pretty flat in terms of impact, FIT could certainly play some role.

 

Pirates could likely cut slot (this thread!) and sign Davis for 7.1M and give him better than 1-4 money and the prestige of 1-1.

 

Rangers are probably picking from the HS SS group and all things being largely equal, the local kid (Lawler) makes sense and you probably don't have to fight slot there.

 

Tigers are excited to get Mayer and give him something just over slot.

 

RedSox excited to have Lieter sitting there and Boston would seem like a great fit.

 

SO...

1) Pirates: Davis - 7.1M

2) Rangers: Lawler - 7.5M

3) Tigers: Mayer - 7.55M

4) RedSox: Lieter - 6.75M

5) Orioles....you're up.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Balt Sun: The Orioles could have a chance at one of the draft’s top pitchers at No. 5 overall. Would they actually choose one?

[Slidemaster]

I don't know if they will take a pitcher or not. However, part of me hopes they don't, since they've shown no ability to make good on any pitching rospect, whether they're taken high or not.

It may be overly dramatic to say, but taking a pitcher high up in the draft almost feels like throwing away their pick.

[Slidemaster]

Balt Sun: The Orioles could have a chance at one of the draft’s top pitchers at No. 5 overall. Would they actually choose one?

As I said the other thread, I hope that they don't pick one, because I feel as though they have no track record of showing they can develop him to his potential.