Badsmerf

Nice outing by Baxendale! Mid-90's FB with nice secondary stuff? Sounds like a nice arm! He is giving me another reason to follow this team.

Top 9 for each position over that time. So, I think it was a little over 60 players. Still, the players on this list are very very good players. Obviously to be in the top 9 in WAR over 7 season a player needs to be good for a long period of time, which is what any team wants in a position player. Some of the guys were surprising. Both JJ Hardy and Jason Bartlett were on the list as SS. Considering how dreadful the Twins have been at the position yet had 2 of the best and got rid of them... pretty unbelievable. Using WAR might not be the best way to judge, but it includes offense and defense and WAR over a large sample size of games is a pretty good judge IMO. I could name the players I used if everyone would like...

Their drafting philosophy was flawed. The last guy they drafted that even profiled that high was Garza. Arguments can be made that Wimmers and Gibson profile as #2... but that is ceiling, not what they are thought to become. I reserve judgement until after this draft since I was satisfied with last year and they might have changed how they scout.

Oxtung, I finished my data for hitters... very intriguing. The pre-2001 and post-2001 splits are evident too. To recap my findings I'll start from the beginning. I used WAR data for the top 9 (was going for 10 but found out i had copied it wrong when I was finished...) position players for C,1b,2b,ss,2b,3b,cf,of from 2006 to 20012. Not too bad of a spread. But! The splits for pre-2001 and 2001-current are amazing. [TABLE=width: 500] [/TD][TD]1st INTL FA 2nd 3-5 6-10 10+ All 34% 19% 14% 11% 9% 13% pre-2001 33% 0 17% 17% 11% 22% 2001-current 35% 26% 13% 9% 9% 9% [/TABLE] As you can see, the likely-hood that one of these players was drafted in the 1st round is 34%. The lack of players taken after round 2 that made it into this group is incredibly small post 2001. Only 27%, compared to 50% pre-2001. That is a significant statistical shift that IMO validates our data about pitchers drafts as well. However, a lot of INTL FA make up the post 2001 data as well (players signed after 2001 to be clear). What to do with this data? This isn't at all being used to predict likelihood of becoming one of these players, just where these players were acquired. Since we've agreed that 64-88% of Ace pitchers (depending on definition, 64 being the most forgiving) are drafted in the first round and only 34% of the position players were drafted in the first round the better bet would be to draft as many pitchers in the first round to try and hit on an ace, and find position players via INTL FA or the 2nd round. I didn't anticipate the data to turn out this way. Rounds 1 and 2 along with INTL FA are the most important part of building talent. Side fact, the Twins have done very well in this range of data. Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Torii Hunter and Jason Bartlett all made the cut. I know Bartlett was a trade and not a draftee, but still the Twins are well represented.... If only they could have drafted 1 pitcher with that group...

thrylos, where is your research? Before claiming something is BS you should present some evidence why it is BS, otherwise your claim is weak.... especially since some of us have been looking at this data and tracking it for a few weeks. Oxtung, I believe #1 is true based solely on numbers. There are 8 positions to play and only 5 starting pitchers. If you are considering bullpen arms in this I might change my mind. Latin American influence is also more heavily represented in the field I believe (see below for upcoming study). Reading through the entire study from the guy on that link (I used MLB Draft Prospects: MLB Draft - Success Rates of Prospects by Position ) It was really unclear. This data is also only from 1987 to 2001... which lines up perfectly with our agreed upon data shift. I don't think we can use this for much evidence because it is just numbers. He doesn't clearly define his criteria. The most useful is the minor leaguer stat IMO, which still isn't clear. I want to know more detail about his numbers before I use them to come to conclusions. That still leaves out the post 2001 data. Which, yes, I think we are in agreement that there was a clear shift. I'm going to have to dig a little to find where successful position players are drafted. I'll most likely use a compilation of WAR on fangraphs with the top 10 at each position in the last 7 seasons. I'll get back to you about that after I've compiled the data. To me, it looks like the trend since 2001 has been elite college arms at the top of the draft and HS arms at the bottom of the 1st round are the best chance to get an Ace. Depending on where top position players are drafted (we'll have a bigger sample size), we should be able to break it down from there.

At least he is holding up his end on defense. Man, the guy is playing hard out there and I know that is what Gardy wants. Hopefully his bat starts to come around too. The potential is there, reminds me of Brendan Harris at the dish.... too bad Harris was a terrible fielder.

If you didn't jump on that, I would have. No way does East Coast seafood compare to West Coast! I'm from Alaska, so a little bias here...

How it is supposed to work. Previously, it hadn't worked like that. With the new CBA and if drafting trends continue we will see more "bad" teams getting high quality pitchers. I'm not sure I would trade Buxton for Appel at this point.

Garza would qualify as the last to come up that was drafted, I would consider him pretty good. He was the 25th pick overall. What we are discussing is where Ace pitchers come from. It seems pre-2001 the draft was much more of a crap shoot than it is today. Its also clear that the top pitchers are now going to college first rather than coming straight from HS.

Isn't it obvious? What do we do now, that we didn't pre-2001? The elephant in the room is the internet IMO, with steroids mixed in. There is greater access to information about prospects and their tools than ever before. Also, steroids had to be around at the prospect level making guys look better than they actually were causing them to be drafted higher. The lack of INTL guys is very strange and surprising at the same time. That is what I can't seem to explain. Seems to me there should be more high quality arms to come from Latin America than there actually is. Maybe their arms are getting destroyed at a young age? Santana and Felix were drafted at 16 and sheltered. To me, that means to find an ace out of there you need to identify them at 16... which is incredibly young.

I anticipate this to turn into an awesome thread, so I'll start out with my criteria. I took all the top 20 ERA's from qualified starters since the 2007 season and highlighted anyone that appeared more than once. Note, this list is semi-flawed as it is a sample and guys like Smoltz only made it one year and Strasburg hasn't pitched enough to qualify. So, theoretically, this list could be longer. I didn't want to make exceptions since I believe that would flaw the sample. Savvy? The results: 24 pitchers made the list. I'll list the name and where they were selected. We can discuss from there. I believe this is a fairly accurate list of guys you could call an Ace. Kershaw: 7th overall 2006 Price: 1st overall 2007 Verlander: 2nd overall 2004 Dickey: 18th overall 1996 Cain: 25th overall 2002 Weaver: 12th overall 2004 Gonzalez: 38th overall 2004 Hamels: 17th overall 2002 Hernandez: INTL FA 2002- 16 years old Lee: 4th round 105th overall 2000 Kuroda (surprised he made it): INTL FA in 2007- 32 years old Vogelsong (surprised again... only 2 good years happen to be in the cut): 5th round 158th overall 1998 Halladay: 17th overall 1995 Lincecum: 10th overall 2006 Beckett: 2nd overall 1999 Sabathia: 20th overall 1998 Haren: 2nd round 72nd overall 2001 Johnson: 4th round 113th overall 2002 Wainwright: 29th overall 2000 Oswalt: 26th round 684 overall 1996 Hudson: 6th round 185th overall 1997 Santana: INTL FA 1995- 16 years old Peavy: 15th round 472nd overall 1999 Webb: 8th round 249th overall 2000

Whoa there friend... clean yourself up and lets try to be patient....

Oxtung, I followed along with your research and disagree with your criteria for being an Ace. First of all, your list is too exclusive. You can't limit the sample to potential HOF pitchers, it has be more encompassing. Maybe we should move this to another thread, as it is an interesting discussion. To start, define Ace pitcher. To me, an Ace pitcher is elite, not necessarily HOF worthy or even Cy Young caliber. There were 662 pitchers that saw MLB time last season, 88 of them were classified as "qualified" starters. I'm not purposing there should be 30 Ace pitchers for 30 MLB teams, but the top 20% would put it at about 17 for last season alone. I really don't think that is too gracious. The problem with limiting it to super high caliber pitcher is the data will be skewed. Guys like Verlander and Strasburg are no-brainer top picks. They are few and far between, and your data proves that you need a top pick to grab one. However, lighten up on your standards and very high quality pitchers can be found later.

First week of baseball in the minors. Pretty sure they are on orders to keep them on a strict pitch count. Meyersie was pulled after 75 pitches, so I'm betting he didn't even hit 90.

Correct on your points.

There is a problem with this argument. The first is the assumption that Mauer will have 50 extra baserunners on in front of him, the next that they would be RISP, and the next is that Mauer would drive them in. Plus, if you have a #2 hitting getting on-base at one of the lowest levels of any player in the entire MLB, you are giving essentially giving the 2nd most AB's in a season to one of the worst hitters in the MLB on purpose. This is completely illogical. Many would be fine with Mauer hitting 3rd if there was a legit option on the roster. OBP doesn't make this argument. The benefit of Mauer batting second is the immediate pressure he puts on pitchers. Almost 60% of the time a runner will be on base with 1 out when Willingham hits in the 1st inning now (assuming Mauer 40% Hicks 33% and the odds that neither reach base is about 40%). So, now you have your best chance to get an XBH in the next 2 AB's and a runner that can score from first. With an incompetent 2 hitter and since Mauer doesn't hit many XBH, the odds of scoring are less. Anyway, just a little statistics to consider.

If it was me, I bring in Perkins. Gardy doesn't like doing that, especially at the beginning of the year. He did start to throw Nathan when needed in the 8th, so I'm guessing he is giving Robertson a chance here. I don't believe Robertson is going to make it in the MLB. Free Slama!! On Hendriks. He needs Mauer to catch him IMO. He is a nibbler like Slowey. Instead of attacking hitters and getting ahead in counts and dropping that sick curve in the dirt, he tries to nibble and make the perfect pitch. When you are always working from behind in a count the odds are against you, whether pitcher or hitter. His curve was much better than I remembered it and if he can work in front of hitters I think he will he a lot of misses on it. This is why I believe Mauer will help him. I think Mauer calls a better game to begin with, but He is also better at blocking balls in the dirt (sans so far in 2013 which I'm attributing to the cold weather so far).

Slightly impressed so far this season. I think the starting SS role shouldn't have been handed to Florimon in the first place. I know Juan Castro once hit .300 into May... so not trying to get crazy. Just thought he has looked much better than I anticipated. O, and Florimon is not a very good SS.

I think it will be between them two for the first position player to pitch.... Man I hope that game happens.

SPEED! *not really, just feel like saying it again

Flag. Inappropriate question about an obvious in-game decision that apparently isn't obvious.

Twins baseball!!! SPEED!

Slow clap.

You can find very good pitchers in the top 20. Chris Sale was selected at 13, Zach Wheeler at 6 in recent drafts. I know you can always cherry pick guys that make it, my point is that pitchers don't have to be selected number 1 to pan out. Drafting a position player would just be stubborn unless that player is far and away better than the next starting pitcher, which I don't think is the case. I'd rather have them draft a starting pitcher and see them not develop into a top of the rotation guy, then see them draft another toolsy HS outfielder (which they've done 4 of the last 8 drafts).

I'm torn on Hicks. Just a year ago I was pretty down on him and had doubts about his ability to hit. He put together a nice season last year and boosted his prospect status. This spring in the few AB's I watched him I was pretty impressed with his approach. However, it was Spring Training. So far this season it has gone similar to how I anticipated. He is going to struggle hitting LH. So bad were his splits prior to last year, that I wondered how the Twins are allowing him to keep switch hitting. It might take him a little while to adjust, it is a big jump and contact problems wont help him. IMO, he either couldn't hit balls and drew walks by the inability of minor league pitchers to throw strikes (worst case) or he struck out too often because umps were inconsistent and put him in tough spots (best case). Either way, he is not a .300 hitter and shouldn't be expected to be.