Article: Embracing the Suck

[jdotmcmahon]

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=2178-Embracing-the-Suck

[Twins Daily Admin]

Ok, but can we say the same thing about the Astros next year? Or the next year? At some point, a team has to move forward, and they can't do that by embracing the suck. I'm not sure what the difference is between embracing the suck and "establishing a culture of losing."

[Zephrin]

Losing at the Major League level shouldn't hurt minor league talent if they establish their own culture of winning. Getting a great core of players that comes up at the same time can bring with it a winning culture. A lot of the kids that Played at E-town last year are winning again in Cedar Rapids, and Ft. Myers has played well this year, too.

[Zephrin]

While you could argue that stocking Rochester with career minor leaguers may be holding some kids back, it is important for prospects to experience winning. CR, FtM and Roch should all make playoffs this year, which is good for grooming a winning culture. I don't have the stats in front of me, but did guys like Plouffe, Parmelee, Dozier, etc play on winning minor league teams ever?

[raindog]

The Twins aren't going to finish with a worse record than the Astros unless they literally try to lose.

 

As for embracing the suck in general, I don't think finishing last or in the bottom 5 makes much of a difference. The draft is such a crap shoot. The Twins will have the chance to draft huge talent for the next couple years, no matter how bad the record.

 

I agree with you on Luhnow. When he took control of the Astros, they had a horrible major league team and nothing to look forward to in the farm system. In a short period of time, he has turned the Astros outlook around. With an owner that understands his vision, the Astros have a bright future.

[raindog]

I realize that sounded like I was contradicting myself. I agree that sucking has its benefits. Just how sucky you end up is not going to make a huge difference. The Twins are going to have high draft picks the next couple years.

[NoCal]

A long term strategy is better than "embracing the suck". For example, build your team up the middle (catcher, ss, cf); pitching is 75% of the game; tailor your team to your ballpark. Using those principles as a guide, an organization can make decisions about drafting, trading, roster construction. It takes time, it takes patience. It probably also requires taking bloggers with a grain of salt.

[cmb0252]

A long term strategy is better than "embracing the suck". For example, build your team up the middle (catcher, ss, cf); pitching is 75% of the game; tailor your team to your ballpark. Using those principles as a guide, an organization can make decisions about drafting, trading, roster construction. It takes time, it takes patience. It probably also requires taking bloggers with a grain of salt.

 

Crap shoot? Out of the 900+ players in the first 10 rounds they have a 1/6th chance to make it at least for a cup of coffee. Players drafted in the 3-5 rounds have ~47% chance, 1st round supplemental-2nd round have a 57% chance to make it, and first rounders have a 73% chance to make it. If we break down the first round players drafted 1-5 have a 88% chance to at least make it to the bigs while the rest of the first round is about 70%. There are always exceptions but historically drafting in the top 5 doesn't only increase the chance of the player making it to the bigs but increases the chance of them having an impact.

 

Moral of the story: If you are drafting high, draft real high! That or just don't suck so you don't have to worry about it.

[TheLeviathan]

This new CBA didn't make tanking any more or less effective. We are just in a cycle with a lot of savvy small markets having success - they tend to be more conservative with the assets they trust which is why you see less player movement.

 

High draft picks are nice, but the Twins have to add talent when they can. Waiting for the stars to align is an expression we use more flippantly, but when you look at it literally you get a more realistic picture of what it means: it can take a very, very, very long time. And it certainly doesn't happen frequently enough to start making baseball decisions on that philosophy. I doubt even Ryan believes any such thing, he's just diametrically opposed to spending money outside a self-selected set of parameters.

[old nurse]

Crap shoot? Out of the 900+ players in the first 10 rounds they have a 1/6th chance to make it at least for a cup of coffee. Players drafted in the 3-5 rounds have ~47% chance, 1st round supplemental-2nd round have a 57% chance to make it, and first rounders have a 73% chance to make it. If we break down the first round players drafted 1-5 have a 88% chance to at least make it to the bigs while the rest of the first round is about 70%. There are always exceptions but historically drafting in the top 5 doesn't only increase the chance of the player making it to the bigs but increases the chance of them having an impact.

 

Moral of the story: If you are drafting high, draft real high! That or just don't suck so you don't have to worry about it.

 

You can suck with high draft picks as easily as not. Your numbers are nice but do not tell much as to not sucking. Percentages of players making it to the big leagues does not say much as to where the quality players come from..

[big dog]

I found that study interesting, but I think there's one problem with it that is difficult to address. Using an appearance in the majors as your measure of success biases the results toward high draft picks; if someone is the first-round pick, teams are much more likely to bring them up, at least for a bit, just because they were a first-rounder so there must be something there (Adam Johnson). That doesn't make them a real major league ball player. The same player who was a 14th round pick never gets the call. At worst, all the study shows is that clubs are more likely to promote top picks, not that they make better ball players. I don't think the bias is that severe, but I think it does put the value of results in some question.

[Top Gun]

All bull, pays to suck? pay up and you won't suck!

[John Bonnes]

You can suck with high draft picks as easily as not. Your numbers are nice but do not tell much as to not sucking. Percentages of players making it to the big leagues does not say much as to where the quality players come from..

 

Shoot - we had this posted during the draft, but I forget where. I just looked and can't find it.

 

The reality is that picks 2 thru 10 or so are kind of a crap shoot, though that makes it sound like the chances are stacked against you. They're not. Odds are you'll do pretty well.

 

But picking #1 is a totally different proposition. When someone separates himself from the pack at an early age, it often means they're going to be exceptional. That's not true for every draft, but for some drafts, it just plain means superstar. So when you look at the value of MLB players that have been drafted at different places, the #1 position exceeds the #2 position by multiples, not by just a little.

 

Just thought I'd add that so we have some data going forward with this discussion. (One can argue that MLB should implement a lottery for that #1 pick. I"m a little surprised they haven't yet.)

[Mike Sixel]

The Astros traded their vets, committed to a rebuild, and were honest with their fans about the process. Not sure how you can compare that to the Twins at all. As for higher picks, do people really argue that a good group of scouts is not more likely to get good players if they pick earlier?

[IdahoPilgrim]

The Astros traded their vets, committed to a rebuild, and were honest with their fans about the process. Not sure how you can compare that to the Twins at all. As for higher picks, do people really argue that a good group of scouts is not more likely to get good players if they pick earlier?

 

And for that honesty the fans have rewarded them by ... not coming to ballgames. They are 28th in attendance, ahead of only the two Florida franchises.

[cmb0252]

And for that honesty the fans have rewarded them by ... not coming to ballgames. They are 28th in attendance, ahead of only the two Florida franchises.

 

Hey, it's pretty awesome for me as a Twins fan who lives in Houston! Astros vs Twins tickets are going for about 8-10 bucks! My girlfriend and I can see the whole series for about 50 bucks.

[cmb0252]

You can suck with high draft picks as easily as not. Your numbers are nice but do not tell much as to not sucking. Percentages of players making it to the big leagues does not say much as to where the quality players come from..

 

I'm just using the available data instead of coming up with my own general assumptions. The same study that I took the above stats from also looked into chance to make an impact. Top 5 picks had a 37% chance to have a 10+ War career. That's pretty good.

 

Also, the elephant in the room here is how easy it is to devalue prospects because they aren't proven while assuming big leave players are. While prospects may never reach the bigs they are at least cheap investments. Big leaguers suffer injuries, have a bad year (years), and rarely live up to their contracts. Good teams build via the draft and if you are building through the draft studies have shown the higher the pick, the better.

[Guest USAFChief]

You might not be "advocating intentionally trying to lose," but you sure seem to be in favor of doing what they can to avoid winning.

 

Embrace the suck? No thanks. It makes a sham of everything that's good about major league baseball, IMO, while doing nothing to guarantee anything for the future.