75% of the season is complete, how do the Twins finish?

[TheLeviathan]

How can anyone argue with an assertion that 45 + 9 = 9 + 4?

Ironclad math.  

[Irishman]

I read Startribune Sports today.  Ex-relievers shining elsewhere.    Were they not wanting to play for Twins?  Or Pitching coach’s fault?

[Mike Sixel]

11 hours ago, ashbury said:

Good data. It lines up nicely with what I was summarizing above.

Wut? The delta between number 5 and number 10 is massive. I have no idea how this data backs you up. Or anyone else saying draft position doesn't matter. 

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Or anyone else saying draft position doesn't matter. 

Good one.

That's not what I said, at all.  I'm not going to continue a bickerfest.

[Mike Sixel]

5 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Good one.

That's not what I said, at all.  I'm not going to continue a bickerfest.

What did this part mean? "Having a higher draft position helps in the first round but can be viewed as a slight drag in the rest of the draft. "

Also, if you put an unnecessary comma in my post, you'll see that I was referring to you, and also to others...not that you both said it doesn't matter ....but that they did.

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

What did this part mean? "Having a higher draft position helps in the first round but can be viewed as a slight drag in the rest of the draft. "

Also, if you put an unnecessary comma in my post, you'll see that I was referring to you, and also to others...not that you both said it doesn't matter ....but that they did.

That's the exact line that stuck out to me too.  Also....sure, pick 33 is roughly equal to pick 32....but pick 33 is someone's SECOND choice.  They have two players drafted at that point.  How is it at all fair to make a comparison of the value of a draft position and then just ignore the rounds?  I mean, can I slam dunk my argument by comparing 4th rounds to 22nd rounds too?

It's a cooked argument that makes zero sense.  Mike's chart makes abundantly clear that having a better draft position has a significant value to the team.  Which is obvious....you ALWAYS have more available players than the teams after you.  The Boogeyman Dodgers GM is always picking after you. You always get to choose your players, per round, before them.  What's the alternative?  Let them make all 70 of their picks before anyone else just so we aren't scared to pick in their wake?

[Number3]

After the last 4 games (I know, they really don't make much difference) I would say that, in the remaining games, accomplish the following:

Get Buxton back in the lineup and as much PT as possible

Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate so that off season decisions are as productive as possible. As of now not many more games left than the Grapefruit schedule so consider that there are about 80 games to determine what to do for the 162 that follow.

Keep number 11. Everyone else is negotiable

[Otto von Ballpark]

On 8/23/2021 at 10:59 PM, Mike Sixel said:

Here is a great study on the value of picks....I can't believe anyone is arguing picking earlier isn't valuable. 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-update-on-how-to-value-draft-picks/

 

22 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Wut? The delta between number 5 and number 10 is massive. I have no idea how this data backs you up. Or anyone else saying draft position doesn't matter. 

That Fangraphs link is a nice reference, thanks for sharing.

I don't think anyone was arguing that earlier isn't more valuable, in absolute terms, or that draft position doesn't matter. The question seemed to be how much fans should care about the relative difference? I think the difference is slight enough that fans can justify it either way depending on subjective preferences.

The estimated value difference between picking 5th and 10th from your link is $8.6 mil (and that steadily decreases from there -- 7 to 12 is $6.3 mil, etc.).

At the MLB level, that's a one-time difference of ~1 WAR on the FA market. Or, we can compare it to the Fangraphs prospect valuations at the following link:
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-update-to-prospect-valuation/

A generic 50 FV prospect alone is estimated to be worth $21 mil (pitcher) to $28 mil (position player). So in draft pick terms, moving up from 10 to 5 is like a fractional generic prospect upgrade? In top 100 terms, swapping 10 for 5 is maybe #75 to #45?

Absent any further context, those are not differences that fans should necessarily care about either.

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, Otto von Ballpark said:

 

That Fangraphs link is a nice reference, thanks for sharing.

I don't think anyone was arguing that earlier isn't more valuable, in absolute terms, or that draft position doesn't matter. The question seemed to be how much fans should care about the relative difference? I think the difference is slight enough that fans can justify it either way depending on subjective preferences.

The estimated value difference between picking 5th and 10th from your link is $8.6 mil (and that steadily decreases from there -- 7 to 12 is $6.3 mil, etc.).

At the MLB level, that's a one-time difference of ~1 WAR on the FA market. Or, we can compare it to the Fangraphs prospect valuations at the following link:
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-update-to-prospect-valuation/

A generic 50 FV prospect alone is estimated to be worth $21 mil (pitcher) to $28 mil (position player). So in draft pick terms, moving up from 10 to 5 is like a fractional generic prospect upgrade? In top 100 terms, swapping 10 for 5 is maybe #75 to #45?

Absent any further context, those are not differences that fans should necessarily care about either.

That difference is more than 50%......the relative difference is the key, not the absolute difference. A 1 WAR difference is massive, btw. The delta between a 2 WAR player and 3 WAR is quite large. Value isn't linear, really. 

It is clear we won't agree, though. I appreciate the polite and well thought discussion.

[Dodecahedron]

On 8/23/2021 at 12:12 PM, a-wan said:

Except going into NY the Twins had won series against Chicago, Tampa, and Houston, in addition to the Cleveland series. Can you not always jump to a hot take?

For a short time, the manager was making sound decisions.  He has since gone back to dice rolling, tarot, horoscopes, or whatever else he is doing when he's not making any sense.

But yes, we will all have fond memories of the two week stretch in 2021 when Baldelli managed the Twins effectively, giving the team real chances to win ball games that don't require flawless execution by the pitchers and as many dingers being hit as possible by the offense.

[Dodecahedron]

14 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Value isn't linear, really. 

Your mom is linear!

15 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I appreciate the polite and well thought discussion.

Oh, I thought we were fighting.  Nevermind.

[Otto von Ballpark]

4 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

That difference is more than 50%......the relative difference is the key, not the absolute difference. A 1 WAR difference is massive, btw. The delta between a 2 WAR player and 3 WAR is quite large. Value isn't linear, really. 

It is clear we won't agree, though. I appreciate the polite and well thought discussion.

Just to clarify, what difference is more than 50%? $23.3 mil (10th pick) to $31.9 mil (5th pick) is 37%, no? Just want to be on the same terms here.

Also, clarifying, we're not talking about the difference between a 2 WAR player and 3 WAR player -- that's a single-season 1 WAR difference that will grow over time. We're talking about a total difference of 1 WAR. It's more like a 3 WAR career vs a 2 WAR career, or a team signing 10 future WAR vs 9 future WAR in an offseason -- spread over multiple seasons, that difference isn't particularly large.

[insagt1]

Wow---you guys have taken this WAY above my paygrade!!? And there is a LOT of passion expressed here.

For me, I wish the whole draft system would either be scrapped or totally revamped.  I intensely dislike 'rewarding losing in this way...especially if losing can be manipulated to look like 'tanking' in order to get a higher pick...which supposedly nets you a better prospect. (well, a higher pick, maybe NOT a better prospect...which has been discussed) The talent pool is very large and a young player doing well in high school (yes, its come to that these days) or college is not a slam-dunk that player will amount to anything professionally. I'm not getting into the money aspect of the picks because I don't feel qualified to enter that ring)

Again, for me, I want my team to compete at the highest level possible...all the time. And let the picks fall where they may. Good players will be available. But to re-state..I hate the present system. but thats a discussion for another day gentlemen.  thanks for all the hard work expressed in this thread.

[Otto von Ballpark]

14 minutes ago, insagt1 said:

For me, I wish the whole draft system would either be scrapped or totally revamped.

I think everyone could agree on this -- except MLB players and owners, of course.

[a-wan]

1 hour ago, Dodecahedron said:

For a short time, the manager was making sound decisions.  He has since gone back to dice rolling, tarot, horoscopes, or whatever else he is doing when he's not making any sense.

But yes, we will all have fond memories of the two week stretch in 2021 when Baldelli managed the Twins effectively, giving the team real chances to win ball games that don't require flawless execution by the pitchers and as many dingers being hit as possible by the offense.

This fasciculation, about Baldelli is funny. "He's too much of a robot to stats, he doesn't have any instincts." No it is the opposite he is being too illogical.

[TheLeviathan]

57 minutes ago, insagt1 said:

Wow---you guys have taken this WAY above my paygrade!!? And there is a LOT of passion expressed here.

For me, I wish the whole draft system would either be scrapped or totally revamped.  I intensely dislike 'rewarding losing in this way...especially if losing can be manipulated to look like 'tanking' in order to get a higher pick...which supposedly nets you a better prospect. (well, a higher pick, maybe NOT a better prospect...which has been discussed) The talent pool is very large and a young player doing well in high school (yes, its come to that these days) or college is not a slam-dunk that player will amount to anything professionally. I'm not getting into the money aspect of the picks because I don't feel qualified to enter that ring)

Again, for me, I want my team to compete at the highest level possible...all the time. And let the picks fall where they may. Good players will be available. But to re-state..I hate the present system. but thats a discussion for another day gentlemen.  thanks for all the hard work expressed in this thread.

What alternative would you suggest?

Note that baseball already puts many teams at a sizable financial disadvantage for established players, that should be a factor in any alternatives presented.  I'm curious because while I understand the impetus for your position, when I consider the alternatives it reminds me of an old line in politics: "The draft is the worst way to do this.  Except for all the other ways"

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, a-wan said:

This fasciculation,

Ooo, I just learned a new word!

[Otto von Ballpark]

1 minute ago, ashbury said:

Ooo, I just learned a new word!

I saw that too, but I'm not sure if I actually learned it.