Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Article: Draft Theories

mlb draft draft royce lewis brent rooker blayne enlow
  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#21 bluechipper

bluechipper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,261 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 10:51 AM

I'm happy overall with how it played out. I wanted either McKay or Wright at 1-1, but I can live with the upside pick of Lewis. The next 3 picks sound promising too, especially Enlow and Rooker.


#22 SarasotaBill

SarasotaBill

    Member

  • Members
  • 177 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 12:25 PM

Derek & Thad had a plan:

-- maximize talent by squeezing the top draft pick

-- see if McKay would accept a under slot #4 pick deal to save even more

-- favor position over pitcher at 1:1 to lower risk

-- obviously really wanted Rooker at 35

-- do an over slot deal in the 3rd instead of the 2nd to lower risk (could negotiate overnight)

 

Their draft seems to have had good reviews. We'll know a lot more in 4 years.

  • Mike Sixel, BigSkyTwinsFan, beckmt and 2 others like this

#23 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 15,304 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 12:49 PM

 

-- do an over slot deal in the 3rd instead of the 2nd to lower risk (could negotiate overnight)

Doesn't seem like Enlow was a tough sign, sounds like he is quite willing to sign for roughly 35/37 pick money.  So I'm not sure the round or extra night really bought them anything in regards to him.

 

I think the plan must have had Leach in it, even at the risk of losing Enlow.  (And perhaps they did lose Carlson over it.)

  • diehardtwinsfan and markos like this

#24 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Twins Mods
  • 13,286 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 14 June 2017 - 01:18 PM

 

Doesn't seem like Enlow was a tough sign, sounds like he is quite willing to sign for roughly 35/37 pick money.  So I'm not sure the round or extra night really bought them anything in regards to him.

 

I think the plan must have had Leach in it, even at the risk of losing Enlow.  (And perhaps they did lose Carlson over it.)

 

I tend to agree.I think they really liked Leach and had a couple guys Enlow/Carlson that they were willing to let drop.Not many teams had the bandwidth to sign them all at that point. 

 

Edit:I'd add that if they don't have extra money, they had no plans of getting both.


#25 SarasotaBill

SarasotaBill

    Member

  • Members
  • 177 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 02:10 PM

When the numbers come out, they will provide further insight. In the mean time, my guess is they valued getting Leach at under slot and thought there would be a few overslot guys remaining after the first day.

 

General analytics would assume price dropping overnight. Maybe the overslot guys price dropped overnight from 2.6 (slot #24) to 2.2M (slot #30). If so, another 400k saved to add more talent.


#26 Dman

Dman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,456 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 03:14 PM

 

My theory is a little more big-picture: FalVine are all about gearing up for the cohort that marks the next five-year window of contention. Only Rooker looks like he might contribute significantly in a year or two. The extreme emphasis on high-schoolers for the high-end-talent portion of the draft won't start to bear fruit until 2021 at the soonest.

 

The major league team needs pitching now. They no doubt have some kind of plan for addressing it, while the current cohort still is together and productive. A major free-agent signing, a major trade involving the current pipeline of prospects... some combination. But not this draft. (Bluebirds among the new college draftees of course may always fall into one's lap.) That's my draft theory. The tactics of this draft are an interesting but secondary matter. The strategy is much easier to execute when the constraint of worrying about the current 40-man roster is removed. That's how I read the 1:1 pick, and most of what followed.

 

I agree with you.  I really thought the new regime would go for fast moving pitching to try and help this current wave out.  Instead they seemed to pick players with high end tools and projection.  So while they did a nice job there is no real immediate help on the horizon with this draft.  

 

So with the results of this draft the only way to help the current window would be trades and there is no guarantee they get a deal that works for them or that they have the players to get what they need.

 

I guess if all else fails then they wait for wave two to arrive.  Then we should have some valuable players to trade like Kepler, Sano, Polcanco, Buxton maybe others. With younger options to fill in like Gordon, Palacios, Whitefield,etc.  We should have money to keep some core talent while younger talent rises.  Will be interesting to see how things play out, but I am starting to doubt they can turn things around soon enough to help the current team.


#27 tarheeltwinsfan

tarheeltwinsfan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,012 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 03:30 PM

Jeremy, This is one of the best, well thought out articles I have read on TD. Thanks.
  • Jeremy Nygaard likes this

#28 tarheeltwinsfan

tarheeltwinsfan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,012 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 03:38 PM

I agree the Twins need pitching now, but you can't solve today's problem areas in a draft. In a draft, you try to prevent future problem areas, 4-8 years down the road.

#29 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,138 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 03:48 PM

 

I agree the Twins need pitching now, but you can't solve today's problem areas in a draft. In a draft, you try to prevent future problem areas, 4-8 years down the road.

 

So Rooker won't be here for 4 years?

 

Wright and McKay won't be in the majors for 4 years?

  • adorduan likes this

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....


#30 Taildragger8791

Taildragger8791

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 936 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 04:53 PM

 

So Rooker won't be here for 4 years?

 

Wright and McKay won't be in the majors for 4 years?

 

That isn't what he said. He said 'prevent future problem areas 4-8 years down the road'. Obviously this is supposed to be interpreted as a general timeframe, a.k.a. not this year or next but for the long haul. Since we can't predict needs that far in advance we shouldn't try to draft specifically for them.

 

Even if players make it in 2 years, a pretty aggressive timeline, they aren't typically a full-time or impact player right away. 3-4 years to become fully established in the majors would be as fast of a development as you should expect for any player that isn't a generational talent or has an unusually advanced development coming out of college. Sometimes guys move faster, but planning for it is a pretty risky and bound to fail. Just look at our bullpen approach this year to see how much can go wrong when you depend on prospects to advance, and most of those guys were in AA-AAA already.

 

Of course this doesn't necessarily apply to relievers due to their niche role.

  • birdwatcher, Mike Sixel and Original Whizzinator like this

#31 tarheeltwinsfan

tarheeltwinsfan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,012 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 05:49 PM

 

So Rooker won't be here for 4 years?

 

Wright and McKay won't be in the majors for 4 years?

When were Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Berrios, Polanco, Gonsalves, Jay, Thorpe,Gordon, Garver, Stewart, Burdi, Reed, Granite, Shaggy and Duffy drafted? Where is each of them in their progress to becoming a productive Twin player? Add Hicks also. How long is it taking these guys? 

  • Taildragger8791 and Original Whizzinator like this

#32 mikelink45

mikelink45

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 2,346 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 07:20 PM

I know there are lots of theories - mine is simple.  Pick the best player you can get and put emphasis on the places your system is weak in.  That is it.  Wish I could give you lots of metrics, but I just want the best nine players we can put on the field at the same time. 


#33 ashbury

ashbury

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,654 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, NV

Posted 15 June 2017 - 06:40 AM

I know there are lots of theories - mine is simple.  Pick the best player you can get and put emphasis on the places your system is weak in. 

How do you factor in the inherent uncertainty when scouting young players?

 

Literally no franchise consistently picks future major-leaguers in the second round and beyond. They're all trying to pick the "best player". The misses outnumber the hits, and yet gold is found in the later rounds.

 

How does "pick the best player" provide any guidance? I don't mean to be belligerent, I'm just trying to understand what you're offering.

  • birdwatcher likes this

Nothing is impossible for the one who doesn't have to do the work.


#34 Original Whizzinator

Original Whizzinator

    Wahoo

  • Members
  • 563 posts
  • LocationDuluth

Posted 15 June 2017 - 06:44 AM

I think a good rule of thumb is if someone is perceived as a fast riser or very polished you can hope they will ascend quickly but probably shouldn't count on it

#35 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,138 posts

Posted 15 June 2017 - 08:06 AM

 

When were Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Berrios, Polanco, Gonsalves, Jay, Thorpe,Gordon, Garver, Stewart, Burdi, Reed, Granite, Shaggy and Duffy drafted? Where is each of them in their progress to becoming a productive Twin player? Add Hicks also. How long is it taking these guys? 

 

None of those guys were 22 yo college players, other than the RPs.....who got hurt.

 

Think more Matt Garza, or look at what other teams do with college seniors. 

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....


#36 mikelink45

mikelink45

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 2,346 posts

Posted 15 June 2017 - 08:39 AM

 

How do you factor in the inherent uncertainty when scouting young players?

 

Literally no franchise consistently picks future major-leaguers in the second round and beyond. They're all trying to pick the "best player". The misses outnumber the hits, and yet gold is found in the later rounds.

 

How does "pick the best player" provide any guidance? I don't mean to be belligerent, I'm just trying to understand what you're offering.

I think the Twins organization knows the talents and has them ranked by major league potential.  I say take the highest potential for MLB with one exception when your system has an obvious weakness then shade the choices if you have a good option to fill a need. For most of us - especially me - I have know idea who these players are that they are choosing so I have to go by the ratings of TD, Law, and other services.  They are not perfect but they give us some idea.

 

When I look at positions pitcher is number one, just like QB in the NFL and you shade to that side.  What I do not like to hear is that we are drafting someone because we can save money for later rounds.  There is something special about the number one over all and with luck you will never have that pick again, so go for the potential gold.  Yes players like Appel prove that #1 overall is not a sure thing, but if there is a potential for superstardom on the staff this is where it might be.  The money saved on the signing of some agreeable player will not equal the eventual cost of signing the ACE.

 

The potential for MLB in the last 20 rounds is 7% according to the stats accumulated over previous drafts so the fact that we have taken 11 pitchers in the bottom of the draft simply means we might be lucky, but expect to have full minor league rosters.  It is only in the top 5 rounds that teams have historically gotten 33% of the choices to the majors.  

 

We may have been exceptionally good in our picks, I cannot tell and we will not know for three years, but I have not liked some of the comments I have read surrounding the picks.  

  • Mike Sixel likes this

#37 Willihammer

Willihammer

    Nostrombolimus

  • Members
  • 7,252 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 15 June 2017 - 09:13 AM

Summary from Bollinger at MLB.com. Some quotes from the FO. They are pretty happy with the outcome.

http://m.twins.mlb.c...-in-2017-draft/
  • Mike Sixel likes this

Well, there's that.

-Dark Star, RIP


#38 maxisagod

maxisagod

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 480 posts
  • LocationThe Moon

Posted 15 June 2017 - 09:14 AM

This draft will be measured in 3 ways (unfairly maybe) 

1, Comparing Lewis to other top picks. It might not be Lewis vs Greene, it will be Lewis vs ‘whoever is the best of the top five’. If Gore (for example) starts becoming a superstar, it will turn into a “we should have draft Gore debate” and Greene, Wright, and McKay will be left out of the debate (especially if they end up doing nothing).

2, Comparing Lewis to everyone! If Alex Lange for example becomes the best from the draft, some people will conder Lewis a missed, cause Lange went 30th instead of 1st. 
 

3, Carlson vs Enlow. If Carlson becomes super star, and Enlow never makes it past AA it will hit fans hard. 

  • markos likes this

#39 ashbury

ashbury

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,654 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, NV

Posted 15 June 2017 - 09:44 AM

I think the Twins organization knows the talents and has them ranked by major league potential. 

A couple/three problems I see with this.

 

I consider myself on the more analytic end of the spectrum here, and I want numbers to back up my management decisions, but I find it hard to believe a ranking of amateur baseball prospects is absolute enough to do more than put them into rough groupings. The 1:1 pick can be a little special, in that some years one player may stand out alone. Otherwise, even at the top you have a group where the best forecasting is still just "well, one of these [four, whatever] guys will probably turn out to have the best Career WAR* [or whatever metric] out of everyone". And then after the team's first pick, the fuzziness only increases; there's not a lot of daylight there between a dozen or more choices.

 

Second, and maybe more importantly, the draft pool money system MLB instituted has a huge impact. If you have identified a few top choices, as the Twins no doubt did, and had a guess for both Career WAR and signing demand, it may be wiser to do as the Twins did.

 

Say your WAR estimate** for Greene is 50 (borderline HOFer) and for Lewis it's only 30 (everyday player for years), but Greene will cost a lot, then clearly you should just go ahead pick Greene anyway, because you can't make up the lost 20 WAR by picking up one or more high schoolers who drop, and whom you can lure with a million additional dollars, with your next picks.

 

But I'm betting that a competent probabilistic forecast would put the candidate prospects much closer in estimated career WAR than that, this year at least. Suppose the best minds in your front office guesstimate Greene 50, Wright 48, Gore 47, Lewis 47, McKay 42, but you've also got your eye on Enlow at 30 who you think may drop due to signability, and anyone else likely still there at your second pick is more like a 20 at best, such as Rooker, then (as actually occurred) picking whoever in that top group will sign cheap enough could give you 47+30 instead of 50+20.

 

I think the disagreements here (or anywhere) on whom to pick 1:1 come down to an assumption whether there is a lot of separation or a little.

 

Precision, separation, and draft pool. These are what lead me away from expecting to construct a predefined ranking of prospects and then just pick the top one at each turn.

 

* Just to be clear, I'm referring to "WAR" very generically here, and not a specific implementation seen anywhere. Simply, "how many wins do you think this guy will add to your standings over the years?" As the analytic type, I do think you have to look at it in approximately those terms. Accomplishing it is the trick.

 

** And by WAR estimate I mean an average over all reasonable outcomes, including injury preventing a career at all, but also the faint chance of a 120 WAR meaning an inner-circle HOFer. Expectation value, for those who think in those terms. Not simply best ceiling, or best floor (whatever floor means for an untested amateur).

  • tarheeltwinsfan likes this

Nothing is impossible for the one who doesn't have to do the work.


#40 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,138 posts

Posted 15 June 2017 - 10:04 AM

Not sure which thread to post it in.....but KLAW has his writeup up.....

 

"Early reviews around the game on the Twins' draft have been ... less than glowing."

 

He likes the Enlow pick for sure. It's kind of hard to really get a handle on his thoughts, really....

 

http://www.espn.com/...ost?id=7244#MIN

 

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: mlb draft, draft, royce lewis, brent rooker, blayne enlow