Looking Back: Recent Twins Drafts

Thanks!  Based on how bad the Twins were over the last 5+ years its hard to believe that only 3 guys have made it to the Big Leagues since 2013.  And all of them this year, none of them are really impact guys either.  Hildenberger could become one, but for now Granite, Slegers and Hildy are it.  Not great when you have been rebuilding team.  2012 is a better with Berrios, Buxton, Duffey etc.  

But man, that 2011 draft, Woof!

wasn't as bleak as I thought it'd be!

It was a fun read but Seth I'm onto you being a sleeper agent for the Twins. Based on this article, I expect no less than 3 trips to the World Series over the next 6 years or so. 

2016 Draft remains my fav.   I just love the moonshots they took on all the high risk/high reward HS kids.  

Its doubtful anyone from that draft will be in the mix for the 25 man roster until at least 2020.  But that will be a fun to group to follow as they move up.  Based off their ages, the '16 draft will go a long way in determining if the MLB team is competitive in the 2021-2025 years.

(But I am very disappointed none of these kids will be playing an all-star game on Mars in 2025)  

Earlier this year I was thinking that we could have an entire Bullpen made up of the 2012 Draft. Still a possibility.

Based on how many big leaguers there are and 33% international players the expectation should be 1.5 players per draft will actually contribute.

When I first saw Trevor Hildenberger pitch for the Twins I thought he was a flash in the pan, that hitters would study a little video and then they'd be all over his little submarine curves and slow stuff. Boy, was I glad to be wrong. What Hildenberger appears to have is a very high level of command, especially of his change and his curve. He is legitimately a crafty, skilled pitcher whose bulldog attitude reminds me a little of Eddie Guardado. 

Shows how many of the drafted guys don't really pan out. You spend a lot of money here on potential. Man, put that 2011 behind us (and probably will when only one guy is kept on the 40-man, if even now, from that class).

As a side note, sometimes interesting to see what players have drifted to other organizations from these classes. Only notables are Tyler Jones and Kyle Barraclough from the class of 2011. A bit more than a dozen players from all those draft classes are playing, or signed, with different organizations.

Based on how many big leaguers there are and 33% international players the expectation should be 1.5 players per draft will actually contribute.

Let's examine this common thought of a successful draft netting a team 1.5 contributors, on average, and look back 15 years to 2001. Let's arbitrarily assign 3.0 WAR as the definition of a contributor. That's double FanGraph's number.

Of the 15 drafts from 2001 through 2016, making extremely conservative assumptions about the last two drafts, 2011 stands out as the only draft that didn't produce a single contributor. There were four drafts where they got a single contributor.

Using the standard of 3.0 WAR or better, by my quick calculations the Twins have averaged and are on pace to continue to average close to two players per draft.

As many of you know, I have the reputation of pushing back at the draft resistors who like to claim incompetence on the part of the organization's scouting department. This, to me, is more evidence that they have not been terribly deficient historically. And even if they were slightly overmatched by a few competitors, there are some clear signs that things have improved, perhaps from strategy, spending and technology standpoints if nothing else.

Mauer, Blackburn, Span, Crain, Neshek, Baker, Plouffe, Perkins, Swarzak, Garza, Slowey, Duensing, Tolleson, Valencia, Revere, Hicks, Gibson, Dozier, Rosario, Buxton, Berrios, Rogers, Duffey....and then from there we take the leap of faith to feel good about Gordon, Hildenberger, Garver, Gonsalves, Granite, Slegers, Curtiss, Reed Chargois, Bard, Melo, and the 2015 and 2016 collection.

My own conclusion is that the recent drafts are going to be extremely productive for at least three reasons: 1) the selections were influenced by the same competent talent evaluators (scouts) that have been in place for a long time; 2) favorable draft order, and 3) a more sound draft strategy, greater internal discipline regarding the process, and probably better information-gathering due to the introduction of and use of the new information. That said, I think that 1.5 players/draft standard is raised and we should expect more like 2 or 2.5/draft on average going forward.

Evaluating "contributors" on a per-draft basis makes no sense - it's fine as a conceptual shorthand but doesn't tell you how the Twins did. Returns have to be evaluated on a per-pick basis, to account for years in which the club had supplemental or other additional picks (or the less common case where they lost a pick for signing a FA).

The Twins have not drafted very well in the 21st century . . . they weren't dead last but the most optimistic spin would be around average, and the more realistic assessment would be below average. 

Looking at the 2011-16 time-frame, we see one draft that completely busted, and another (2015) that is almost certainly a failure, though they may get a couple of relievers out of it. So it's already unlikely that the Twins total production from 2011-16 will be above average.

It's possible you could pick an arbitrary time-frame during which the Twins did somewhat better, essentially by excluding one or more of their complete whiffs (e.g., 2012-14), but that would be cherry-picking to avoid an accurate assessment of their drafting performance.

Yeah just tallying up contributors like that also doesn't differentiate between a 3 WAR career, and a 30 WAR career.

The Twins failing the last 10 years, IMO, has been lack of quality, not quantity.

I agree they've taken more upside the last 2 drafts, so hopefully that will change.

I still think their problem is more development than draft personally. I'd note that same span there has been an impressive class (2012) and one that is looking like it will be very impressive (2016)...  so to that extent, it can average out a bit. I'm think I'd challenge you on the idea that it's unlikely that the total production will be above average...at least not yet. Both 2016 and 2017 are looking to be very impressive drafts when you look at the returns from the high ceiling guys the grabbed (specifically the HS players).

Development is most likely a significant cause of the Twins' underwhelming draft results, but that's not something we can really evaluate in a meaningful way. Looking at the draft results as a whole still works, insofar as the organization both selected and then coached the players . . . we can't quantify those aspects but we can quantify the end results.

I ignored 2017 entirely as too recent and even 2016 should fall into that category . . . there certainly is zero evidence that the end results for the 2016 draft will be "very impressive." Kirilloff is hurt, Rortvedt has a .603 OPS, Miranda and Baddoo are in rookie ball where stats have little predictive value, Jax basically isn't going to be able to play because of the military rule change, Hackimer is a low-upside reliever, Balazovic is struggling in the GCL, Schick is hurt . . . 

None of that is to say that some of those guys won't make it. But nothing has happened to really improve the outlook of that draft, either. High-round selections should be expected to often do fairly well in the low minors. It takes more than that to change the overall outlook, and of course ultimately only MLB production is relevant.

Evaluating "contributors" on a per-draft basis makes no sense - it's fine as a conceptual shorthand but doesn't tell you how the Twins did. Returns have to be evaluated on a per-pick basis, to account for years in which the club had supplemental or other additional picks (or the less common case where they lost a pick for signing a FA).

 

The Twins have not drafted very well in the 21st century . . . they weren't dead last but the most optimistic spin would be around average, and the more realistic assessment would be below average. 

 

Looking at the 2011-16 time-frame, we see one draft that completely busted, and another (2015) that is almost certainly a failure, though they may get a couple of relievers out of it. So it's already unlikely that the Twins total production from 2011-16 will be above average.

 

It's possible you could pick an arbitrary time-frame during which the Twins did somewhat better, essentially by excluding one or more of their complete whiffs (e.g., 2012-14), but that would be cherry-picking to avoid an accurate assessment of their drafting performance.

Evaluating the quality of decisions on a per-pick basis makes much less sense. This is especially true when making a "per pick"  judgment about prospects in any round past the first. People ignore what other teams did with their selections immediately following their team's first round selection. Was Gibson a bad pick?

I can agree with your statement but would expand it to make it accurate: no major league team has drafted very well in the 21st century...and I can partially agree with your personal assessment that, were someone to do a credible analysis factoring in all the variables, the Twins would probably rank somewhere on one side or the other of average, both in terms of a qualitative measurement of their decisions and a quantitative measurement of their results, results of course being altered by uncontrollable factors like injury, individual lifestyle choices, etc.

I disagree with your premature conclusion about 2015, and believe the 2011-2016 drafts will eventually be regarded as "better than average".

Are you calling 2012-2014 complete whiffs? Or is simply mentioning Buxton Berrios, Duffey, Rogers, Chargois, Burdi, Bard, Melo, Granite, Slegers, Garver, Gonsalves, Gordon, Hildenberger, Curtiss, Reed along with the others dating all the way back to 2001 cherry-picking?

Evaluating the quality of decisions on a per-pick basis makes much less sense. This is especially true when making a "per pick"  judgment about prospects in any round past the first. People ignore what other teams did with their selections immediately following their team's first round selection. Was Gibson a bad pick?

 

I can agree with your statement but would expand it to make it accurate: no major league team has drafted very well in the 21st century...and I can partially agree with your personal assessment that, were someone to do a credible analysis factoring in all the variables, the Twins would probably rank somewhere on one side or the other of average, both in terms of a qualitative measurement of their decisions and a quantitative measurement of their results, results of course being altered by uncontrollable factors like injury, individual lifestyle choices, etc.

 

I disagree with your premature conclusion about 2015, and believe the 2011-2016 drafts will eventually be regarded as "better than average".

 

Are you calling 2012-2014 complete whiffs? Or is simply mentioning Buxton Berrios, Duffey, Rogers, Chargois, Burdi, Bard, Melo, Granite, Slegers, Garver, Gonsalves, Gordon, Hildenberger, Curtiss, Reed along with the others dating all the way back to 2001 cherry-picking?

The per-pick assessment is not an exercise in hindsight - I only mean that expected production depends on the picks that were available (e.g., a team with 0 picks would expect 0 production). It was basically just stating the obvious, but in response to the idea that we should think about success in some other way. Of course, once a team does have picks, then some amount of production should be expected; just meeting that expectation isn't necessarily a great success.

The draft is a relative exercise - success or failure is only real in the context of the other 29 clubs. Of course most prospects don't pan out, but the simple fact is that some teams get more out of the draft than others. The Twins have generally been below average at getting production out of the draft, in my opinion, but the exact answer depends on how you frame the question. The Twins certainly have not been good enough at the draft to offset their payroll limitations, which ultimately is the most salient fact of all.

My point about 2012-14 was simply that the Twins appear to have done better in those years, so by omitting 2011 and 2015, I would be painting a rosier picture of their draft results. That's just an example of how one can cherry-pick results, if desired. 

The per-pick assessment is not an exercise in hindsight - I only mean that expected production depends on the picks that were available (e.g., a team with 0 picks would expect 0 production). It was basically just stating the obvious, but in response to the idea that we should think about success in some other way. Of course, once a team does have picks, then some amount of production should be expected; just meeting that expectation isn't necessarily a great success.

 

The draft is a relative exercise - success or failure is only real in the context of the other 29 clubs. Of course most prospects don't pan out, but the simple fact is that some teams get more out of the draft than others. The Twins have generally been below average at getting production out of the draft, in my opinion, but the exact answer depends on how you frame the question. The Twins certainly have not been good enough at the draft to offset their payroll limitations, which ultimately is the most salient fact of all.

 

My point about 2012-14 was simply that the Twins appear to have done better in those years, so by omitting 2011 and 2015, I would be painting a rosier picture of their draft results. That's just an example of how one can cherry-pick results, if desired. 

I think we agree on your opinion that they've gotten less production out of the draft over the years. The issue I have is about the conclusion that this is a result of this one thing, which is poor talent evaulation. I reject that conclusion and have examined it in depth and have confidence that any deficiencies in "results" is a function of many other variables and not scouts who make bad recommendations. If anything, I think the organization's scouting department is stronger than average.

I think we agree on your opinion that they've gotten less production out of the draft over the years. The issue I have is about the conclusion that this is a result of this one thing, which is poor talent evaulation. I reject that conclusion and have examined it in depth and have confidence that any deficiencies in "results" is a function of many other variables and not scouts who make bad recommendations. If anything, I think the organization's scouting department is stronger than average.

I've always avoided comment on the quality of Twins scouts - I don't see how anyone outside the front office could perform an effective evaluation of them. Regardless, for many years I think it was clear that the Twins didn't have the right front office philosophy and infrastructure . . . that was bound to impact the draft just as it did the various other aspects of the organization.