Article: Draft Board v.2.0 (3/13)

[Brad Swanson]

I agree that drafting for need CAN be a bad strategy, but the problem with BPA is that is so incredibly subjective that unless you are looking at Strasburg/Harper type talent, there is no such thing as a clearcut BPA. The lists here prove that. People don't universally rank Buxton ahead of everyone else (just look at Sickle's list), and Gausman/Zimmer are flipped around too. All are very good prospects. All have very high ceilings. But this idea that Buxton was somehow clearly better is odd. He's not, and that is where need comes into things. Gausman and Zimmer will be collecting major leage pay checks in 2 years and Buxton will be lucky to sniff AA... Given his rookie league status, I wouldn't be expecting him to light things up in Cedar Rapids. Here's to hoping I'm wrong on that. But when the players are very close, need must be considered.

I'm not trying to denigrate Buxton as a prospect, but I am pointing out one of the huge flaws in this system. People get all googley eyed over the tools and then start brandishing completely subjective terms around such as BPA and ignore the results and the organizational needs, and for all the love of sabermetrics around here, I find that incredibly odd.

No one here knows if Buxton was the BPA of that draft. He had plenty of question marks going into it and those still remain today. You don't pass on a similarly good player at a position of need in that case.

However, the reality is that Gausman and Zimmer could be struggling in the minors or out with injuries as well and Buxton could be killing AA pitching. No team ever really knows who the best player available is. Just go to baseballreference.com and sort their draft columns by WAR or whatever stat you like. It never works out the way players were drafted.

My overall point is that the Twins should take the player they think is the best fit for their organization. If that means taking a college pitcher or a HS outfielder, I don't care. I just don't want them passing up better players to fill needs. There are better ways to fill immediate needs than through the draft.

[mike wants wins]

There are other ways, but we know some things, right?

They will not sign expensive free agents
They will not trade for expensive players (David Price, for example)
Most teams will not trade inexpensive great players

You also said "best fit for their organization", and fit needs to be considered not in a vaccuum, imo.

So if you have shut off several avenues to getting very good/great pitchers, don't you need to use the one you are still willing to use?

[kab21]

I agree with Appel and Manaea pretty much being locks to be BPA's if they fall to the Twins at 4. I think many are overplaying exactly how safe these top college starters are though. Similar guys bust all the time. toolsy HS hitters bust more often but I don't think we can neglect how often 'safe' prospects bust.

I disagree with this draft a pitcher because the Twins need one. If you do that you aren't drafting a potential top of the rotation arm. You are reaching and this is one of the things that Royals and Pirates did wrong for so many years. remember that this is a considered a weak draft and the Twins are picking 4 instead of #1 or #2.

So far i'm hoping that Gray (hoping for him currently) and/or Stanek can deservedly move into 3rd/4th BPA. Unlike others I won't have a problem if Meadows, Frazier, Smith or Humpries are picked. They are making a pretty good argument to be the BPA to the Twins especially if the top 2 pitchers go early. Picking in the top ten is about adding above average players (or near elite) and I'm not sure if I could support targeting a starter that might be average because he might be up in a year or two.

It will be very interesting to watch the Astros and Cubs strategies this year. Will the Astros repeat last year and bank money to use later? Will the Cubs pass on Appel if he's considered the no doubt BPA?

Is there a Max Fried out there this year? He was a late riser and I really like him overall. Maybe Trey Ball? More risk but that might be what you need to do if you want to find a potential #1/2 and Appel/Manaea are gone.

[Vervehound]

I agree with Appel and Manaea pretty much being locks to be BPA's if they fall to the Twins at 4. I think many are overplaying exactly how safe these top college starters are though. Similar guys bust all the time. toolsy HS hitters bust more often but I don't think we can neglect how often 'safe' prospects bust.

I disagree with this draft a pitcher because the Twins need one. If you do that you aren't drafting a potential top of the rotation arm. You are reaching and this is one of the things that Royals and Pirates did wrong for so many years. remember that this is a considered a weak draft and the Twins are picking 4 instead of #1 or #2.

So far i'm hoping that Gray (hoping for him currently) and/or Stanek can deservedly move into 3rd/4th BPA. Unlike others I won't have a problem if Meadows, Frazier, Smith or Humpries are picked. They are making a pretty good argument to be the BPA to the Twins especially if the top 2 pitchers go early. Picking in the top ten is about adding above average players (or near elite) and I'm not sure if I could support targeting a starter that might be average because he might be up in a year or two.

It will be very interesting to watch the Astros and Cubs strategies this year. Will the Astros repeat last year and bank money to use later? Will the Cubs pass on Appel if he's considered the no doubt BPA?

Is there a Max Fried out there this year? He was a late riser and I really like him overall. Maybe Trey Ball? More risk but that might be what you need to do if you want to find a potential #1/2 and Appel/Manaea are gone.

i haven't seen a lot of needs analysis for the three teams picking ahead of us but that is half the equation for our pick at no.4.

astros: wanted a college arm last year but luhnow is a bit of a wildcard. they've established a preference for up the middle players so frazier/meadows may be in play. all early indications are the best college arm not name mark appel.

cubs: most pitching starved minor league system around almost certainly will go college arm without a standout prep to consider. appel makes a ton of sense for them.

rockies: best case scenario for us landing manaea would be for the rockies to fall in love with one of the prep of'ers. they popped dahl last year and b.a. indicated they'd be the most likely team to go position player at the front of the draft, ostensibly b/c they have some decent young arms at the mlb level.

[Jeremy Nygaard]

Sean Manaea proved himself to be an elite draft prospect tonight. You can read more about his game on his thread.

[Oxtung]

Well, the law of numbers would say that most are taken out of the top 5 or 10....the key would be to look at percentages of those taken in the top part, vs those taken in the latter part of the first round....because there are a lot less players taken in the top 5 than the next 2000 picks, right?

But, it is great that you did the work. I'd have to look at it also to be more certain......but then, you are making a different point. It IS possible to get good players later in the draft, refuting the argument made here daily that the Twins minors were bad because they picked "too late" in round 1 to get good players......

I went back and reread my post and found it very confusing. That's what I get for trying to post at 3AM. I'll try and clarify my points.

Where do "Ace" pitchers come from? I thought this was an intriguing question. To see my methods of determining an "Ace" pitcher see the Method section below. There is an interesting split in the data between those players acquired before 2001 and those players drafted/signed since 2001. So I will break down the data along those lines.

Data
Before 2001:

• 16 Aces
• 4 were 1st round draft picks
• 4 were international signings
• 8 were drafted after 1st round

Since 2001:

• 8 Aces
• 7 were 1st round draft picks
• 1 (King Felix) was an international signing
• 0 were drafted after 1st round
• 5 of the 7 drafted were taken in the first 12 picks.

This interesting split potentially implies that in today's game the only way to acquire an "Ace" is to use a very high draft pick.

For reference here are the "Since 2001 Aces" (number of times ranked, draft position in 1st round):
Felix Hernandez (3, Int)
Clayton Kershaw (3, 7)
Tim Lincecum (3, 10)
Matt Cain (2, 25)
Cole Hamels (2, 17)
Verlander (2, 2)
Jared Weaver (2, 12)
David Price (2, 1)

You can view the full data set in google Drive by following this link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...UE&usp=sharing

Method
I looked at the number of times a pitcher was ranked in the top 10 players in ERA for a single season. I choose the years 2003-2012; since my last post I looked back an additional 5 years for more data points. If a player was ranked at least 1 time between 2003-2012 I included all of their ranked seasons in the data regardless if they all fell in that 10 year range. For example Roger Clemens only had two seasons ('03-'04) ranked but I included his other 8 seasons he was ranked (occurring between '86 & '98) so I could get a better picture of just how big of an "Ace" he really was in comparison to other pitchers. Well OK, I didn't really need the data to tell me Clemens >>> Erik Bedard. If a player didn't have a single season ranked between '03-'12 I didn't include them in the data. Sorry Greg Maddux. To qualify as an "Ace" a player drafted/signed before 2001 must have ranked in 3 separate seasons. A player drafted/signed since 2001 must have ranked 2 times. This allows young players like David Price, Justin Verlander and Jared Weaver, who are still in their prime and probably most would consider to be Aces today, to be considered.

[kab21]

I would consider expanding the list further because a sample size of 8 is too small to draw any conclusions. Here is a list of the top 25 ranked(smoltz and Pettitte excluded) by ERA- (fangraphs). 600 inning min (2005-2012).

Summary - No big surprises here. if you want a potential ace then either you have the #1 (maybe #2) pick and get an elite college arm (not available this year) or you take your chances with a HS 1st rd'er. Big bonus int'l FA's are poor investments (as starters, RPers are different story). It is interesting how many aces were late rd picks from 1999-2002.

One additional conclusion is that it's unlikely that the college arms after Appel and Manaea can be considered potential 1-2 starters. Most likely #3's. Even Appel and Manaea are unlikely to be #1 and probably not #2's. The same is true of Zimmer and Gausman last year.

1st 2 rds and HS - 7 - notice how most of these are late 1st rd'ers
Kershaw 1-7 (2006) - HS
Carpenter 1-15 (1993) - HS
Halladay 1-17 (1995) - HS
Hamels 1-17 (2002) - HS
CC 1-20 (98) - HS
Cain 1-25 (2002) - HS
Wainwright 1-29 (2002) - HS

1st rd college players - 5 - Price and Verlander (and Strasburg) were considered BPA in their drafts and there isn't a comparable college arm out there this year.
Price 1-1(2007) - UNI
Verlander 1-2 (2004) - UNI
Lincecum 1-10 (2006) - UNI
Sheets 1-10 (1999) - uni
Weaver 1-12 (2004) - UNI

late rd college players - 7
Haren rd2 (2001) - uni
Hudson rd6 (1997) - UNI
Harden rd 17 (2000) - uni
Wilson rd5 (2001) - uni
Webb rd 8 (2000) - UNI
Lee rd4 (2000) - UNI
Oswalt rd 23 (1996) - (CC)

late rd HS'ers - 3 - I'm not sure if any of these were overslot big bonus picks though
Lester rd2 (2002) - HS
JJohnson rd4 (2002) - HS
Peavy rd 15 (1999) - HS

International arms - 3
Felix - int'l FA (big bonus) - ('02)
Santana int'l FA (low bonus) (95)
Cueto int'l FA (2005) - small bonus I think

[Oxtung]

I would consider expanding the list further because a sample size of 8 is too small to draw any conclusions. Here is a list of the top 25 ranked(smoltz and Pettitte excluded) by ERA- (fangraphs). 600 inning min (2005-2012).

Summary - No big surprises here. if you want a potential ace then either you have the #1 (maybe #2) pick and get an elite college arm (not available this year) or you take your chances with a HS 1st rd'er. Big bonus int'l FA's are poor investments (as starters, RPers are different story). It is interesting how many aces were late rd picks from 1999-2002.

One additional conclusion is that it's unlikely that the college arms after Appel and Manaea can be considered potential 1-2 starters. Most likely #3's. Even Appel and Manaea are unlikely to be #1 and probably not #2's. The same is true of Zimmer and Gausman last year.

1st 2 rds and HS - 7 - notice how most of these are late 1st rd'ers
Kershaw 1-7 (2006) - HS
Carpenter 1-15 (1993) - HS
Halladay 1-17 (1995) - HS
Hamels 1-17 (2002) - HS
CC 1-20 (98) - HS
Cain 1-25 (2002) - HS
Wainwright 1-29 (2002) - HS

1st rd college players - 5 - Price and Verlander (and Strasburg) were considered BPA in their drafts and there isn't a comparable college arm out there this year.
Price 1-1(2007) - UNI
Verlander 1-2 (2004) - UNI
Lincecum 1-10 (2006) - UNI
Sheets 1-10 (1999) - uni
Weaver 1-12 (2004) - UNI

late rd college players - 7
Haren rd2 (2001) - uni
Hudson rd6 (1997) - UNI
Harden rd 17 (2000) - uni
Wilson rd5 (2001) - uni
Webb rd 8 (2000) - UNI
Lee rd4 (2000) - UNI
Oswalt rd 23 (1996) - (CC)

late rd HS'ers - 3 - I'm not sure if any of these were overslot big bonus picks though
Lester rd2 (2002) - HS
JJohnson rd4 (2002) - HS
Peavy rd 15 (1999) - HS

International arms - 3
Felix - int'l FA (big bonus) - ('02)
Santana int'l FA (low bonus) (95)
Cueto int'l FA (2005) - small bonus I think

I agree that 8 is a SSS but on the other hand when you're talking true aces that in it self means SSS by definition.

I'm not sure if you clicked my link to see my whole list or not but almost every player you listed is on my full list so it is good to see we agree who the best pitchers over the last 10 years or so have been even though we are looking from separate criteria.

The pre-2001/post 2001 split is evident in your analysis too. I think the real question we should be asking is what is causing that. Is that an artifact of SSS, and maybe this is what you're trying to argue, or has there been a change in how pitchers are evaluated? Given the informational/statistical revolution that has occurred in the last few decades I think it is plausible that we are just better at predicting who the best pitchers will be. Another reason could be the increased team incomes of the last 15 years. Maybe this has allowed teams to put more money into their scouting departments and they get to see more pitchers. Perhaps previously there were insufficient resources to see all the potential pitchers.

As a comparison here is a list of "Aces" during the '90s and Round they were drafted/acquired:

• Roger Clemens (Round 1, College)
• Kevin Brown (1, College)
• Mike Mussina (1, College)
• Randy Johnson (2, College)
• Tom Glavine (2, HS)
• Greg Maddux (2, HS)
• Curt Schilling (2, College)
• Al Leiter (2, HS)
• David Cone (3, HS)
• Jason Schmidt (8, HS)
• Bret Saberhagen (19, HS)
• Andy Pettitte (22, HS)
• John Smoltz (22, HS)
• Pedro Martinez (INT)

Most elite pitchers drafted in the '80's weren't 1st round acquisitions. That isn't what we're seeing today. So I guess my question is why? If we think there truely is a reason, and not just SSS, then it behoves the Twins to draft a pitcher with their first pick because Mike is right. The only way to acquire an "Ace" is to draft or trade, making the safe assumption we won't acquire one in FA.

[Oxtung]

I think my previous post needs to come with the caveat that provided the Twins believe a pitcher and hitter are at least marginally comparable. If there are only 3 big pitching prospects and they go 1-3 and the Twins have the next 8 players as hitters on their board I think you have to go hitter. But as long as a hitter and pitcher are close on their draft board I think you go pitcher.

[diehardtwinsfan]

However, the reality is that Gausman and Zimmer could be struggling in the minors or out with injuries as well and Buxton could be killing AA pitching. No team ever really knows who the best player available is. Just go to baseballreference.com and sort their draft columns by WAR or whatever stat you like. It never works out the way players were drafted.

Yes, that is a possiblity. My point though is that satistically speaking, Buxton is far more likely to fall prey to this problem. He's younger and will spend more time in the minors. Gausman and Zimmer have also excelled against much tougher competition. Part of BPA is risk. I agree that picking 2 over all, you want a guy who is going to be an all star. Personally, I think all 3 could likely be. They all have top flight ceilings, but the risk is lower with both pitchers and they happen to fit an area of need. I don't see Buxton as such a standout that he was worth grabbing. Good pick, yes absolutely... but the wrong one.

[kab21]

Part of the problem with using 2001 as a cut date is that int'l FA's signed that year are still only about 28. HS draftees have just hit 30. Most of the HS/int'l pool in the >2001 period doesn't show up in your list because they haven't hit their peak yet. This is also true of later rd picks. They don't move through the minors as fast and typically debut later. This skews your post 2001 acquisition conclusions imo to college players drafted early.

A player might appear on your overall list but you eliminated them (only 1 top season) from your analysis so I only consider your short list since that is what you have analyzed. I guess I didn't say it but part of the reason I expanded the list was to include a bigger cut of top of the rotation arms. They don't have to be absolute stud aces but the guys that you want on the mound in big games. I can see trends with 25 names that I can't see with 8 names.

[Badsmerf]

Great thread dudes. One thing that comes to mind immediately about that time is steroids. Not only were the MLB guys doping, but HS kids and college kids were too. A prospect doping would make their numbers look better than they should have and get exposed at higher levels. Just a hypothesis to throw around.

[Oxtung]

My point though is that satistically speaking, Buxton is far more likely to fall prey to this problem. He's younger and will spend more time in the minors. ...but the risk is lower with both pitchers...

Do you have any evidence to back this claim up? There is a reason TINSTAAPP exists.... I haven't seen data one way or the other on hitters vs. pitchers but I would doubt it is a clear cut as you are making it out to be.

[Oxtung]

Part of the problem with using 2001 as a cut date is that int'l FA's signed that year are still only about 28. HS draftees have just hit 30. Most of the HS/int'l pool in the >2001 period doesn't show up in your list because they haven't hit their peak yet. This is also true of later rd picks. They don't move through the minors as fast and typically debut later. This skews your post 2001 acquisition conclusions imo to college players drafted early.

A player might appear on your overall list but you eliminated them (only 1 top season) from your analysis so I only consider your short list since that is what you have analyzed. I guess I didn't say it but part of the reason I expanded the list was to include a bigger cut of top of the rotation arms. They don't have to be absolute stud aces but the guys that you want on the mound in big games. I can see trends with 25 names that I can't see with 8 names.

I went back and looked at how quickly "Ace" players developed excluding the players acquired since 2001. I saw no correlation between how they were acquired, early draft pick/late draft pick/international, and when they were first ranked. Through their age 26 season 66% of the pitchers were ranked at least 1 time. However only 25% of pitchers were ranked 2+ times through age 26 season.

There was no difference in the development rate of 1st round picks and late round picks. So since we have 7 1st round picks already at "Ace" status and 0 late round picks that is significant.

Young international signees are different though. If a latin player signed as a 16yo and placed at 26 for the first time they would have had to have been signed in 2002. Certainly I may have excluded some here. However, this doesn't take into account players like Hernandez, signed as a 16yo and by 21 already was ranked, or Zambrano, signed by 16yo and ranked by 22. They are two of the three youngest ranked; Saberhagen is the third, drafted in the 19th round and ranked at 21. It also doesn't take into account the recent influx of Asian pitchers that are already mature. The banner carrier here is Hideo Nomo who signed at 26 and ranked in his age 26 & 27 seasons. There have been several pitchers acquired from Asia with hype but that didn't produce at "Ace" levels.

If you think 2001 is unfair to international signees, which I'm not sure if I agree with but for the sake of argument:

• Carlos Zambrano (signed in 1997, 3 seasons ranked)
• Johan Santana (signed in 1995, 4 seasons ranked)
• Hideo Nomo (signed in 1995, 3 seasons ranked)

I might also have culled some recent pitchers from "Ace" status by requiring 2 seasons being ranked. I did this because I needed a way to remove those pitchers that had 1 great season but were certainly not "Ace" material. I'm looking at you, Dontrelle Willis. It is possible that some of the others that have been ranked 1 time could still turn into "Aces" later in their careers. Randy Johnson and Kevin Brown weren't ranked until their age 31 seasons. Here is the list of players that were acquired between 2001-2006 (anything more recent and they haven't turned 26 which is an important number as shown earlier), have been ranked 1 time and I think still have a chance of becoming "Aces":

• Josh Johnson
• Zach Greinke
• Johnny Cueto
• Gio Gonzalez
• Clay Buckholz
• Dan Haren
• Jaime Garcia

Of those players only Haren, Johnson and Garcia weren't 1st round picks.

So to summarize; 1st round picks and late round picks historically develop at the same rate. Since we have 7 first round "Aces" already and no late round "Aces" is notable I think. Of the potential "late bloomer" Aces only 3, Haren, Johnson and Garcia, weren't 1st round picks. International signees may not fit well within my pre-2001/post-2001 assumptions but even if you bump their acquisition date back 5 years to 1996, making them essentially equivalent to 21 year old college pitchers, only Carlos Zambrano is added to our list.

So our new list of Post-2001 Aces would look like:

• Carlos Zambrano (Int, 3 Seasons ranked)
• Felix Hernandez (Int, 3 Seasons)
• Matt Cain (round 1, 2 Seasons)
• Cole Hamels (round 1, 2 Seasons)
• Justin Verlander (round 1, 2 Seasons)
• Jared Weaver (Round 1, 2 Seasons)
• Clayton Kershaw (Round 1, 3 Seasons)
• Tim Lincecum (Round 1, 3 Seasons)
• David Price (Round 1, 2 Seasons)

Potential Additions would be:

• Dan Haren (round 2, 1 Season)
• Josh Johnson (round 4, 1 Season)
• Zach Greinke (round 1, 1 Season)
• Johnny Cueto (Int, 1 Season)
• Gio Gonzalez (Round 1, 1 Season)
• Clay Buckholz (Round 1, 1 Season)
• Jaime Garcia (Round 22, 1 Season)

[Mr. Brooks]

Is there any steam behind Oscar Mercado right now?
As much as we need SP, I agree we do, I think we need an elite SS prospect in our system just as badly.
I'm not saying reach for this guy, but if he shoots up the draft boards and is considered a top 5 or 6 pick by June, I wouldnt mind having him in the mix.

[Jeremy Nygaard]

From what I've gathered, he's the Twins top SS target, with Crawford being less certain to stick at SS. Both getting mid- to late-first round grades. Unless he demonstrates new power, I don't see him jumping up boards, but could be a possibility in the 2nd, though I'd bet on him being gone by then. (Which could put the PR kid in play.)

[mike wants wins]

Question, if you need five starters, and they fail at a high rate, isn't that an argument for taking even more pitching early? I mean, you need a ton of prospects to fill in the roster, right?

[diehardtwinsfan]

One of the things this research tends to ignore is that there were a bazillion more pitchers taken in later rounds too. There is only a very limited number of picks in the top 10 each year (10 to be exact), while their are over a thousand picks at the lower numbers. Nearly half of those picks will be pitchers. The problem with picks that far down is that your odds of finding that ace are very difficult. Everyone is taking guys tha have some projectable upside, but the reality is that they are raw and the vast bulk of them won't make it, much less turn into somethign you'd call an ace.

Can you find an ace after the first round? Yes, but you are far more likely to find that guy in the first round than later.

[Mr. Brooks]

Question, if you need five starters, and they fail at a high rate, isn't that an argument for taking even more pitching early? I mean, you need a ton of prospects to fill in the roster, right?

Thats a fair point, but at the same time, pitching is only 1/3 of the game.
If you spend too much of your capital looking for pitchers, you risk becoming the Mariners, a team with a bunch of legit pitchers and pitching prospects, but one that cant win because it cant score any runs.
Its a delicate balance.

[FrodaddyG]

Question, if you need five starters, and they fail at a high rate, isn't that an argument for taking even more pitching early? I mean, you need a ton of prospects to fill in the roster, right?

Or you use other assets to trade for pitching, or sign useful free agents to fill in gaps wherever they may be on the roster. There are many avenues to fill needs, which is why drafting for need is so pointless. In the period of time it will take virtually any prospect to move through the system, your needs will most likely have changed greatly from the day they were selected.