I think the implication is that it's all luck after the first round. I'm thinking teams could save millions of dollars on scouting and MLB could just do a lottery and assign players that way. At least that's how some see things. In any event there also isn't any way to judge scouts performance so I think I've found my new career. Who doesn't want a job with zero accountability?
So, if they aren't taken round one, they don't count as good drafting? What round do we cut it off?
Back to the examples: Boston hit on Youkilis with the 243rd pick. Meaning they passed on him 8 times and instead took prospects that sucked. And they took the risk, 193 times if you believe whydidn't's hypothetical, that all 29 other teams were too stupid to project him as any better than worthy of the 244th pick. Why did Boston do that? whydidnt was arguing that it was smart and intentional and an indication of skill.
Boston missed on Matt Carpenter and Brian Dozier. All three teams passed on both of them many times over and instead took a bunch of prospects that sucked. The Cards and Twins were smart enough to know that Boston and 28 other teams would be stupid enough to pass on Carpenter and Dozier many times over.
Boston, St. Louis, and the Twins are all good at drafting. Personally, I think Boston and the Cards have both likely been just a tad better at talent evaluation than the Twins, but I can't prove it. All three teams have been really smart and really stupid. Fans often want to point to their team's misses and the other teams' hits to justify their opinion that their own team's "mistakes" are blameworthy.
The reason I reject simplistic conclusions about good and bad drafting based on adding up a bunch of WAR generated by players like those mentioned? Two reasons. One, you guys haven't explained to me how teams can somehow be such geniuses and so stupid one round of the draft to the next, and how teams are so dang good at calculating the brainpower of the scouts on the other 29 teams and therefore know they're all going to stupidly pass on Brian Dozier 251 times or whatever it is.
As I pointed out, the Cards have generated 82 WAR from players taken in the 4th round and later from 2001-2010. The Twins have gotten 41.6 WAR. Personally, my bet is this difference is much more because of better player development than better talent evaluation. I can't prove it. I might be wrong.
But all of the inconsistencies I just described here, all this genius and stupidity exhibited by the same people? You guys want me to add up a bunch of WAR, or accept a list of random genius selections as evidence of good scouting? Trout's selection makes LAA geniuses, and yet they have two B- prospects or better in their system compared to the Twins' 14?
For years, I've been saying they're all good at evaluating talent, and they all hit on some and miss on others. And yes, luck is involved. Lots of luck. It's the draft.
If you want to make a case that the Twins are lousy at the draft that I will accept, you're going to have to do better with the presentation of the evidence. And please don't point to the W-L record, or even to a list of their starting pitchers, and then tell me they don't know talent when they see it. I now view those "arguments" as obtuse rants. Those same evaluators passed muster on Ervin Santana and Brian Kintzler and Stephen Gonsalves and Fernando Romero and Lewis Thorpe and Taylor Rogers and...
And please, please, NEVER use the word "excuses" when you refer to a counter argument someone makes, Mr. whydidnt. It's disrespectful, okay? Thank you.
Edited by birdwatcher, 20 May 2017 - 04:19 AM.