Thread: 2013 Draft

Originally Posted by old nurse

Originally Posted by kab21

Those college pitchers may never be Santana part two, but their floors were a Scott Baker and the likeliness that they hit that is pretty high.

The list above that I posted (all pitchers #1-#9 from 2001-2009) indicate that their floors were probably not Scott Baker and that it was unlikely that they hit it.

Despite evidence to the contrary, I will believe what I want.

Awesome

Originally Posted by old nurse

Originally Posted by kab21

Those college pitchers may never be Santana part two, but their floors were a Scott Baker and the likeliness that they hit that is pretty high.

The list above that I posted (all pitchers #1-#9 from 2001-2009) indicate that their floors were probably not Scott Baker and that it was unlikely that they hit it.

Despite evidence to the contrary, I will believe what I want.

Words to live by!!!!

BPA is a subjective phrase people like to throw around when they feel safer picking a bat. It should probably be changed to BBA; best batter available.

Of the top 10 pitchers this year in WAR, 5 were 1st round draft picks and 3 were highly sought after international free agents, while 2 were drafted outside of the first round. In 2011, 8 of the top ten were 1st rounders while 2 were outside of the first round. The offensive WAR leaders simlarly are made up of 1st round picks, but we see top offensive teams miss the playoffs all the time while strong rotations rarely miss out.

Missing out on a top outfielder can be overcome with postive contributions from the other postions on a daily basis. Your team can still make up for the runs lost from not drafting the All-Star centerfielder by getting solid contributions from players in other positions, but if your starting pitcher stinks, there's no rectifying the situation as the runs he gave up are already on the board and damage he's done is uncorrectable. Pitching is obviously more of a risk, but much, much more important.

Originally Posted by nicksaviking

BPA is a subjective phrase people like to throw around when they feel safer picking a bat. It should probably be changed to BBA; best batter available.

Of the top 10 pitchers this year in WAR, 5 were 1st round draft picks and 3 were highly sought after international free agents, while 2 were drafted outside of the first round. In 2011, 8 of the top ten were 1st rounders while 2 were outside of the first round. The offensive WAR leaders simlarly are made up of 1st round picks, but we see top offensive teams miss the playoffs all the time while strong rotations rarely miss out.

Missing out on a top outfielder can be overcome with postive contributions from the other postions on a daily basis. Your team can still make up for the runs lost from not drafting the All-Star centerfielder by getting solid contributions from players in other positions, but if your starting pitcher stinks, there's no rectifying the situation as the runs he gave up are already on the board and damage he's done is uncorrectable. Pitching is obviously more of a risk, but much, much more important.

Would not the same single factor analysis of batters show the same trend as for pitchers? For the most part they would be high draft picks? If the analysis of the pitching prospects is of a low ceiling versus a higher ceiling batter, shouldn't you take the position player? Lastly, there were 20 hitters with a WAR above 5.2 and only 4 pitchers. That would leave me to believe that the probability of drafting a superstar with an early pick would be to grab the best player available even if it is a position player.
Also note that 3 of the top 10 pitchers were on playoff teams while 10 of the top 20 batter were on playoff teams

How do you ever get a good pitcher if you will not draft them, will not trade away your future for them, and will not sign them to market deals, oh, and will not trade your good current players for prospects?

Given that there are 9 starting hitters, and 5 starting pitchers on a roster, would you not expect there to be more good hitters on playoff rosters? I do not think anyone is saying never pick a hitter, but some are basically never take a pitcher unless he is Strasburg.

Originally Posted by old nurse

Would not the same single factor analysis of batters show the same trend as for pitchers? For the most part they would be high draft picks? If the analysis of the pitching prospects is of a low ceiling versus a higher ceiling batter, shouldn't you take the position player? Lastly, there were 20 hitters with a WAR above 5.2 and only 4 pitchers. That would leave me to believe that the probability of drafting a superstar with an early pick would be to grab the best player available even if it is a position player.
Also note that 3 of the top 10 pitchers were on playoff teams while 10 of the top 20 batter were on playoff teams

The top batters are similarly first round picks and I acknowledged so, but my theory is that top position players are far less important that top pitchers. As I mentioned, on a daily basis, a team can make up for the lack of production from a super-star batter by having other quality players make up for the lost runs; you cannot do that with a starting pitcher. A good reliever can stop the bleeding, but he cannot get back those runs your league average starting pitchers contiunally give up.

Originally Posted by nicksaviking

Originally Posted by old nurse

Would not the same single factor analysis of batters show the same trend as for pitchers? For the most part they would be high draft picks? If the analysis of the pitching prospects is of a low ceiling versus a higher ceiling batter, shouldn't you take the position player? Lastly, there were 20 hitters with a WAR above 5.2 and only 4 pitchers. That would leave me to believe that the probability of drafting a superstar with an early pick would be to grab the best player available even if it is a position player.
Also note that 3 of the top 10 pitchers were on playoff teams while 10 of the top 20 batter were on playoff teams

The top batters are similarly first round picks and I acknowledged so, but my theory is that top position players are far less important that top pitchers. As I mentioned, on a daily basis, a team can make up for the lack of production from a super-star batter by having other quality players make up for the lost runs; you cannot do that with a starting pitcher. A good reliever can stop the bleeding, but he cannot get back those runs your league average starting pitchers contiunally give up.

I'm sure there are some real GM's who take the same approach to the draft, though they may not admit it to their fan base. I'm guessing it would be more common at the end of the 1st round than at the beginning. In most drafts, the talent can fall of quickly after a certain point at the top of first round, and like last year the argument is looking like it's over a potential All star hitter and a #2 pitcher, instead of All star hitter and a # 1 pitcher. It's funny, there are always some light hitting shortstops who make it into the 1st round projections, because there the best "True" player at their position. I think a lot of mocks and lists take position scarcity into account already.

Just curious: of the 13 WAR leaders among starters drafted as 1st rounders in 2011 and 2012, how many of those were available when the Twins order in the draft came up?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by maxisagod

Originally Posted by nicksaviking

Originally Posted by old nurse

Would not the same single factor analysis of batters show the same trend as for pitchers? For the most part they would be high draft picks? If the analysis of the pitching prospects is of a low ceiling versus a higher ceiling batter, shouldn't you take the position player? Lastly, there were 20 hitters with a WAR above 5.2 and only 4 pitchers. That would leave me to believe that the probability of drafting a superstar with an early pick would be to grab the best player available even if it is a position player.
Also note that 3 of the top 10 pitchers were on playoff teams while 10 of the top 20 batter were on playoff teams

The top batters are similarly first round picks and I acknowledged so, but my theory is that top position players are far less important that top pitchers. As I mentioned, on a daily basis, a team can make up for the lack of production from a super-star batter by having other quality players make up for the lost runs; you cannot do that with a starting pitcher. A good reliever can stop the bleeding, but he cannot get back those runs your league average starting pitchers contiunally give up.

I'm sure there are some real GM's who take the same approach to the draft, though they may not admit it to their fan base. I'm guessing it would be more common at the end of the 1st round than at the beginning. In most drafts, the talent can fall of quickly after a certain point at the top of first round, and like last year the argument is looking like it's over a potential All star hitter and a #2 pitcher, instead of All star hitter and a # 1 pitcher. It's funny, there are always some light hitting shortstops who make it into the 1st round projections, because there the best "True" player at their position. I think a lot of mocks and lists take position scarcity into account already.

By your logic then in 2005 the Nationals with the 4th pick rather than Ryan Zimmerman they should have taken Mike Pelfrey (first pitcher taken after Zimmerman). With a high pick you need to pick the best player available. More drafts than not it will be a pitcher, but if the right player is still available, you take that player. If you look at the pitchers taken in the top quarter of the draft between 2005-2010 you will find bonafide star pitchers taken within the first couple of selections. After that, a few pitchers that are stars, but twice as many flat out busts as stars and an equal number of serviceable number three pitchers as busts. Selecting a pitcher is no sure bet.

when did this argument ever turn into BPA = best batter available. that's not true at all. Close to half of the drafts back to 2000 have a pitcher as the 1A or 1B BPA (Prior, Verlander, Price, Strasburg and 2011). Last year the 6 best available players included 3 batters and 3 pitchers. This year Appel definitely falls into the top 5 talent wise and I'm hoping they take him regardless of Boras.

The point is that you need to take what is available in a draft and you can't lock into taking a certain position in a draft especially 9 months before the draft.

Originally Posted by kab21

when did this argument ever turn into BPA = best batter available. that's not true at all. Close to half of the drafts back to 2000 have a pitcher as the 1A or 1B BPA (Prior, Verlander, Price, Strasburg and 2011). Last year the 6 best available players included 3 batters and 3 pitchers. This year Appel definitely falls into the top 5 talent wise and I'm hoping they take him regardless of Boras.

The point is that you need to take what is available in a draft and you can't lock into taking a certain position in a draft especially 9 months before the draft.

9 months from now, if Appel is the third best player available, the Twins will take him. Last year they thought Buxton was better than Apple. There is a likelihood of one of the top two teams doing something out of the box with their pick unless the second coming of Strasberg, Harper and Price magically appear. That is why I think the Twins will get the third best player regardless of position. The argument against college pitchers is the abuse college coaches do to top pitchers. Perhaps drafting someone like Gonsalves or Holton, pitchers coming out of high school, would be a better idea.