Standings

[Mike Sixel]

 

For the years 1987 through 2011 here is the average WAR for the draft positions that have been mentioned in this thread:

 

#1 - 26.22

#15 - 6.58

 

The #1s from this time frame includes Ken Griffey Jr. (83.6), Chipper Jones (85) and Alex Rodriguez (117.9). If you eliminate three of the best to ever play from the equation, that number drops to 16.7 avg. WAR for the remaining 22 players.

 

#4 - 6.78

#10 - 11.74

 

So, yes, there's a noticeable difference between 1 and 15, but it's much less noticeable in the 4-10 range.

 

Uh, take out the best players from one sample, and then compare? The whole point of #1 or 2 is better is that you get a shot at the generational players you don't otherwise get. Taking those players out, is really flawed. Awful even.

[Vanimal46]

 

For the years 1987 through 2011 here is the average WAR for the draft positions that have been mentioned in this thread:

 

#1 - 26.22

#15 - 6.58

 

The #1s from this time frame includes Ken Griffey Jr. (83.6), Chipper Jones (85) and Alex Rodriguez (117.9). If you eliminate three of the best to ever play from the equation, that number drops to 16.7 avg. WAR for the remaining 22 players.

 

#4 - 6.78

#10 - 11.74

 

So, yes, there's a noticeable difference between 1 and 15, but it's much less noticeable in the 4-10 range.

Hmm, wonder which All-Star(s) were selected at #10 to skew the number higher than the people selected at #4 overall? 

[Winston Smith]

A lower pick say top 5 gives you a much larger bonus pool allowed for signing not only draft picks but also Int. singings, unless those rules change.

 

However, it probably would make the Pohlads happy if the max allowed to spend is lower.

 

Long term get the best draft position you can in a lost season. In a couple years nobody will care if they lost 90 or 95 this year, imo.

 

2016 #1 Pool Int. 5.6m and draft 13.9m = 19.5

#5 Int. 4.1m and draft 11.2 = 15.3

#10 Int. 2.9 and draft 9.1 = 12

 

Drafting 10 instead of 5 gives you over a million less dollars for Int. signings if they actually would spend it all.

[markos]

 

I assume you're talking about Harrison?

 

He'd go no higher than low A in 2017. He might jump all the way to AA in 2018 but that's unlikely, as teams often retard their catching prospects a bit to make sure they have a grip on the fundamentals.

 

The very earliest we'd see him is halfway through the 2019 season, probably more likely the 2020 season.

 

I'm all in favor of the Twins patching their catching situation but that's a long-term concept. We'd see the guy right as Sano and possibly Buxton are hitting arbitration. He might not even be any good until 2021-22.

 

That's a long time from now.

I think there is a slightly better chance than you might thing, particularly for top-10 drafted college catchers. Posey got a cup-of-coffee his first full season after being drafted and was up for good after a couple months at AAA to start the next year (presumably for service time reasons). (And remember, Posey was drafted back when the signing deadline was mid-August, so he could have moved faster with today's deadline.) Yasmani Grandal had a similar promotion schedule as Posey (he also had a late-August signing). Mike Zunino made it to AA the year he was drafted, and he was called up halfway through the next season - his first full season. The only top-10 catcher that didn't move fast was Tony Sanchez. So I don't think it is unreasonable to think that a top college catcher drafted in 2017 could be in the majors as the full-time starter for 2019. And depending on how the spring goes, both Harrison and Schwarz could fit the bill.

[mickeymental]

in 2012, correa was #1 and buxton #2. the #11 was addison russell, the #18 was corey seager, the #19 was michael wacha, the #22 was marcus stroman and the #36 was stephen piscotty. seems like a crapshoot to me.

[Mike Sixel]

 

in 2012, correa was #1 and buxton #2. the #11 was addison russell, the #18 was corey seager, the #19 was michael wacha, the #22 was marcus stroman and the #36 was stephen piscotty. seems like a crapshoot to me.

 

I agree, using 1 year of data is the best way to analyze something.

[mickeymental]

 

I agree, using 1 year of data is the best way to analyze something.

in 2011, garrit cole was #1 and danny hultzen was #2. the #6 was anthony rendon, the #8 was francisco lindor, the #11 was george springer, the #14 was jose fernandez, the #18 was sonny gray, the #29 was joe panik and the #40 was jackie bradley jr. seems like a crapshoot to me.

[ScrapTheNickname]

 

You wanna make a bet on 15 vs 1, average career WAR?

Got stats? I'd love to see them to compare.

[ScrapTheNickname]

 

in 2011, garrit cole was #1 and danny hultzen was #2. the #6 was anthony rendon, the #8 was francisco lindor, the #11 was george springer, the #14 was jose fernandez, the #18 was sonny gray, the #29 was joe panik and the #40 was jackie bradley jr. seems like a crapshoot to me.

Anecdotal, but very crapshooty.

[mickeymental]

 

Anecdotal, but very crapshooty.

in 2010, bryce harper was #1 and Jameson Taillon was #2. the #3 was manny machado, the #7 was matt harvey, the #13 was chris sale, the #23 was christian yellich, the #34 was aaron sanchez and the #38 was noah syndergaard. seems like a crapshoot to me.

 

that's three straight years of anecdote.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

in 2012, correa was #1 and buxton #2. the #11 was addison russell, the #18 was corey seager, the #19 was michael wacha, the #22 was marcus stroman and the #36 was stephen piscotty. seems like a crapshoot to me.

That doesn't look like a crapshoot at all.

 

At #1, you have a legit superstar in the making.

 

At #2, you have an immensely talented player who is scuffling now but can easily become a star in time.

 

Then you drop a full nine places.

 

At #11, you have a guy whose future is bright but it's not like he's destroying the world with his 97 OPS+ and 3-ish WAR.

 

Then you drop another eight places.

 

At #19, you have a guy who is having a fantastic season.

 

What about the other 14 draft picks that fell between #3-19? Saying it's a crapshoot because random first-round guys thrive down the list isn't great analysis in my opinion. It's discarding the vast majority of draftees and ignoring the talent of the top two draft picks because 12.5% of picks #3-19 look good.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

in 2010, bryce harper was #1 and Jameson Taillon was #2. the #3 was manny machado, the #7 was matt harvey, the #13 was chris sale, the #23 was christian yellich, the #34 was aaron sanchez and the #38 was noah syndergaard. seems like a crapshoot to me.

 

that's three straight years of anecdote.

Whoa, I don't understand how you're parsing this data.

 

At #1, we have a generational player with 21 career WAR.

 

At #2, we have a rookie with 50 IP. Time will tell there but he's looking solid thus far.

 

At #3, we have a great player with 23 career WAR.

 

Then you drop four spots to illustrate the point.

 

Then you drop another six.

 

Then ten.

 

Then twelve.

 

Don't you see the problem here? You're bunching the top 2-3 picks together and then skipping 5-7 picks down the chain to find success stories.

 

Those skipped players count, too.

[mickeymental]

 

That doesn't look like a crapshoot at all.

 

At #1, you have a legit superstar in the making.

 

At #2, you have an immensely talented player who is scuffling now but can easily become a star in time.

 

Then you drop a full nine places.

 

At #11, you have a guy whose future is bright but it's not like he's destroying the world with his 97 OPS+ and 3-ish WAR.

 

Then you drop another eight places.

 

At #19, you have a guy who is having a fantastic season.

 

What about the other 14 draft picks that fell between #3-19? Saying it's a crapshoot because random first-round guys thrive down the list isn't great analysis in my opinion. It's discarding the vast majority of draftees and ignoring the talent of the top two draft picks because 12.5% of picks #3-19 look good.

or, three straight years (2010-12) of a superstar #1 and a struggling #2. still looks to me like a crapshoot (at least after #1). 

[jimmer]

All this does is confirm to me that there's talent of be had throughout the draft.  I'd be ecstatic to have a Corey Seager or an Addison Russell right now and it didn't take a top 10 pick to get either?

 

Our 1st round picks from '06-'11.  All of them stink.  That's 11 straight 1st round picks.

[Vanimal46]

Woah, are we arguing that the MLB Draft is not a crapshoot? 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

or, three straight years (2010-12) of a superstar #1 and a struggling #2. still looks to me like a crapshoot (at least after #1). 

Dude, Tallion isn't struggling. He has 50 IP and looks pretty solid thus far. He had a 3.49 ERA in MiLB with a 2.4 BB rate and an 8.5 K rate.

[big dog]

 

That doesn't look like a crapshoot at all.

 

At #1, you have a legit superstar in the making.

 

At #2, you have an immensely talented player who is scuffling now but can easily become a star in time.

 

Then you drop a full nine places.

 

At #11, you have a guy whose future is bright but it's not like he's destroying the world with his 97 OPS+ and 3-ish WAR.

 

Then you drop another eight places.

 

At #19, you have a guy who is having a fantastic season.

 

What about the other 14 draft picks that fell between #3-19? Saying it's a crapshoot because random first-round guys thrive down the list isn't great analysis in my opinion. It's discarding the vast majority of draftees and ignoring the talent of the top two draft picks because 12.5% of picks #3-19 look good.

If the choice is the first pick in the draft, the second pick in the draft, or picks 3-35, I'll take the last one please.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Woah, are we arguing that the MLB Draft is not a crapshoot? 

It's a partial crapshoot. My problem with the analysis is that it's lumping the first three picks in with the rest of the first round.

 

Those first 2-3 picks are far more reliable than the rest.

[gunnarthor]

 

Well if your scouting department consistently misjudges talent and wastes high draft picks on guys like Kohl Stewart #4 (wildly overrated soft tossing righty) and Tyler Jay #6 (a career RP whom the Twins were attempting to convert into a starter and apparently have given up on), yeah it doesn't matter if we have the #4 or #10. 

Both guys are still good prospects and both were very good picks.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If the choice is the first pick in the draft, the second pick in the draft, or picks 3-35, I'll take the last one please.

Uh, yeah. Of course.

 

But that doesn't mean pick 19 is the same "crapshoot" as pick 2.

[Mike Sixel]

 

 

Woah, are we arguing that the MLB Draft is not a crapshoot? 

 

Picks 1-15 or so, yes, not a crapshoot.

 

After that......(actually, I think it is pick 40) it is randomish.

[big dog]

 

Uh, yeah. Of course.

 

But that doesn't mean pick 19 is the same "crapshoot" as pick 2.

Agreed.  I was not arguing with your post, just offering my perspective on the post you were discussing.  Seems to me that's the thing I learned from the anecdotal evidence, but I knew it already.

[Vanimal46]

 

It's a partial crapshoot. My problem with the analysis is that it's lumping the first three picks in with the rest of the first round.

 

Those first 2-3 picks are far more reliable than the rest.

Sure, I agree that there's a group of 2-3 people that stand out over the rest by the time the draft rolls around. That's not much different than any other major sports' drafts. I can't speak for mickeymental, but I think he was trying to illustrate that there's no rhyme or reason for where successful players are drafted. 

There's as many colossal failures in the first 15 picks as there are success stories.

[Vanimal46]

 

Picks 1-15 or so, yes, not a crapshoot.

 

After that......(actually, I think it is pick 40) it is randomish.

Maybe we view crapshoots differently. The way I see it, if this process is not a crapshoot, shouldn't the best 15 players that year's draft has to offer go in sequence drafted #1 to #15? We have as many failures of top selected players as we do successes. 

[mickeymental]

 

Sure, I agree that there's a group of 2-3 people that stand out over the rest by the time the draft rolls around. That's not much different than any other major sports' drafts. I can't speak for mickeymental, but I think he was trying to illustrate that there's no rhyme or reason for where successful players are drafted. 

There's as many colossal failures in the first 15 picks as there are success stories.

bingo.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Maybe we view crapshoots differently. The way I see it, if this process is not a crapshoot, shouldn't the best 15 players that year's draft has to offer go in sequence drafted #1 to #15? We have as many failures of top selected players as we do successes. 

No, that's not a crapshoot. Just because the "best" players aren't picked in successive order does not automatically mean random chance is the only remaining option.

 

Mike posted this but edited the post so I'm going to throw it up again:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-net-value-of-draft-picks/

 

Any single player can bust. No one is disputing that point. But in the aggregate, the top five picks are consistently better and bust less frequently. 6-10 are a notch below that but still outperform 11-15. As you carry that down the chain, the numbers begin to bunch together, which implies more (but not complete) randomness (ie. a "crapshoot").

 

You can make the argument that once you get past pick 15, it becomes more of, but not a total, crapshoot. As you approach the second round, it's so close that randomness becomes a larger factor.

 

But we shouldn't conflate the value of pick 6 and pick 17, as that wrongly implies both have an equal chance of success. They don't.

 

As shown in those tables, there is a clear downward trend from pick one to pick 50, where the list stops. In no situation has a lower pick outperformed a higher pick in the aggregate, which means the draft cannot be random.

[Brock Beauchamp]

In short, I believe the mistake people are making here is viewing the draft with tunnel vision.

 

Yes, some players picked after, for example, Byron Buxton have outperformed him thus far. But that's ignoring the swath of players who have not outperformed Buxton. The latter number is far larger than the former. Besides, looking at one player is the wrong way to go about an analysis of something as large as the MLB draft.

 

The only way the draft can be analyzed is in the aggregate. Picking and choosing individual players leads to, well, cherry-picking. Only when viewed as a whole do we see the overall picture.

 

And that picture is pretty clear. The further you are up the draft ladder, the more likely you are to find a quality player.

[gocgo]

I think we have a shot at not being the worst team in the AL Central.  Went to the game yesterday in TB and one thing that I noticed was how little some of the outfielders in TB seemed to care.  At this point in the season, there are a lot of teams just going thru the motions.  As long as the Twins don't take that approach, they will continue to climb.  Another thing I noticed was that the TB outfielders have scouting cards in their back pockets that they check before the hitters to position themselves whereas the Twins outfielders rely on the coaches to position them.

[Vanimal46]

 

No, that's not a crapshoot. Just because the "best" players aren't picked in successive order does not automatically mean random chance is the only remaining option.

 

Mike posted this but edited the post so I'm going to throw it up again:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-net-value-of-draft-picks/

 

Any single player can bust. No one is disputing that point. But in the aggregate, the top five picks are consistently better and bust less frequently. 6-10 are a notch below that but still outperform 11-15. As you carry that down the chain, the numbers begin to bunch together, which implies more (but not complete) randomness (ie. a "crapshoot").

 

You can make the argument that once you get past pick 15, it becomes more of, but not a total, crapshoot. As you approach the second round, it's so close that randomness becomes a larger factor.

 

But we shouldn't conflate the value of pick 6 and pick 17, as that wrongly implies both have an equal chance of success. They don't.

 

As shown in those tables, there is a clear downward trend from pick one to pick 50, where the list stops. In no situation has a lower pick outperformed a higher pick in the aggregate, which means the draft cannot be random.

Perhaps I am looking at it differently than you. You're making the argument about the data on a grand scale over the course of 15-20 years. That I can agree with, that out of all potential players selected in that category, they had the best WAR. 

I'm looking at it on a year to year basis. And there's examples of colossal failures where a team selects something called Greg Reynolds and Luke Hochevar over Evan Longoria, Clayton Kershaw, and Max Scherzer. 

Maybe that's where we're disconnecting on this discussion. In theory I agree with your stats, but there's cases every year where a team selects the wrong player. And if it weren't a crapshoot, IMO, each team would know that Clayton Kershaw is going to be the best player, he's going #1 overall, followed by Scherzer and Longoria, etc. etc. 

[Loosey]

 

Maybe we view crapshoots differently. The way I see it, if this process is not a crapshoot, shouldn't the best 15 players that year's draft has to offer go in sequence drafted #1 to #15? We have as many failures of top selected players as we do successes. 

Basically whether the Twins end up with #1 pick or the #10 pick, there is a good chance they will choose a very good baseball player.  The odds of MLB success decline the further away from #1 you get, BUT a good, All-Star level player will be available at #10, I guarantee it.  The Twins will just have to choose correctly because there will also be guys who never make it available at #10 or where every they pick as well.