SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2018 Draft
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 13:55:35 GMT -5
I know I'm probably going to get a whole lot of pushback on this for several reasons, but I don't want the Sox taking Gilbert, Rolilson, or any other pitcher in the first round. Bunch of reasons for this:
1. We're not good at drafting 1st round pitchers. Johnson, Owens, Ball - that's all I'm saying. I know it's unfair to judge Houck and especially Groome at this point, but the initial results could be better. This isn't unique to the Sox, which leads me to...
2. 1st round pitching prospects don't pan out as often as 1st round hitting prospects. I can't find the stat that I thought was in this string, but someone has the exact numbers and hitters are generally safer bets.
3. We don't have a lot of daft capital. We have one of the smallest money pools in mlb so I'd prefer if the organization didn't get too risky in the 1st round where we're going to commit nearly half of our pool money. It's not like in the good ol' days when you could buy your way out this problem on the international market. If fact, I believe we're only connected to one top international prospect right now who is #23 overall so apparently our talent this year is coming from the milb draft.
4. 7 of our top 20 prospects are pitchers in A ball. I know you don't draft on need, but I think it's fair to draft on expectation and my expectation is that 1-3 of these guys starts for the Red Sox in the coming years (ok, not 3 but at least one). If that's the case then the system may need some more balance.
5. I'm not overly confident in any of our current milb hitters to contribute to the mlb team. Again, you generally don't draft on need but the way our farm system looks right now might justify making an exception to the rule. Breathe some life into the milb offense.
Looking at all of these things collectively, I just find it hard to take a pitcher in the 1st round even though there may be some logic in doing so.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on May 31, 2018 14:04:07 GMT -5
I know I'm probably going to get a whole lot of pushback on this for several reasons, but I don't want the Sox taking Gilbert, Rolilson, or any other pitcher in the first round. Bunch of reasons for this: 1. We're not good at drafting 1st round pitchers. Johnson, Owens, Ball - that's all I'm saying. I know it's unfair to judge Houck and especially Groome at this point, but the initial results could be better. This isn't unique to the Sox, which leads me to... 2. 1st round pitching prospects don't pan out as often as 1st round hitting prospects. I can't find the stat that I thought was in this string, but someone has the exact numbers and hitters are generally safer bets. 3. We don't have a lot of daft capital. We have one of the smallest money pools in mlb so I'd prefer if the organization didn't get too risky in the 1st round where we're going to commit nearly half of our pool money. It's not like in the good ol' days when you could buy your way out this problem on the international market. If fact, I believe we're only connected to one top international prospect right now who is #23 overall so apparently our talent this year is coming from the milb draft. 4. 7 of our top 20 prospects are pitchers in A ball. I know you don't draft on need, but I think it's fair to draft on expectation and my expectation is that 1-3 of these guys starts for the Red Sox in the coming years (ok, not 3 but at least one). If that's the case then the system may need some more balance. 5. I'm not overly confident in any of our current milb hitters to contribute to the mlb team. Again, you generally don't draft on need but the way our farm system looks right now might justify making an exception to the rule. Breathe some life into the milb offense. Looking at all of these things collectively, I just find it hard to take a pitcher in the 1st round even though there may be some logic in doing so. No strong pushback from me....you make some fair points to consider. I suppose I lean toward the best-player-available mentality, so if Gilbert drops, and he's the best player, you snag him. That said, I think the best-player-available philosophy is often flawed in that players tend to rank into tiers and we need more sophisticated decision rules to select players among tiers. As I craft my own preference list in Round 1, I find myself leaning toward bats which seem to have smaller error bars in predicting future success.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 14:12:44 GMT -5
I'm with you, more certainty with hitters. I do generally like the best player available argument, but that gets hard when you take into account the variability like you mentioned. So much easier in the NBA or NFL to draft because there's so much more certainty, it's a tough job ranking amateur talent for mlb.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 31, 2018 15:20:11 GMT -5
I know I'm probably going to get a whole lot of pushback on this for several reasons, but I don't want the Sox taking Gilbert, Rolilson, or any other pitcher in the first round. Bunch of reasons for this: 1. We're not good at drafting 1st round pitchers. Johnson, Owens, Ball - that's all I'm saying. I know it's unfair to judge Houck and especially Groome at this point, but the initial results could be better. This isn't unique to the Sox, which leads me to... 2. 1st round pitching prospects don't pan out as often as 1st round hitting prospects. I can't find the stat that I thought was in this string, but someone has the exact numbers and hitters are generally safer bets. 3. We don't have a lot of daft capital. We have one of the smallest money pools in mlb so I'd prefer if the organization didn't get too risky in the 1st round where we're going to commit nearly half of our pool money. It's not like in the good ol' days when you could buy your way out this problem on the international market. If fact, I believe we're only connected to one top international prospect right now who is #23 overall so apparently our talent this year is coming from the milb draft. 4. 7 of our top 20 prospects are pitchers in A ball. I know you don't draft on need, but I think it's fair to draft on expectation and my expectation is that 1-3 of these guys starts for the Red Sox in the coming years (ok, not 3 but at least one). If that's the case then the system may need some more balance. 5. I'm not overly confident in any of our current milb hitters to contribute to the mlb team. Again, you generally don't draft on need but the way our farm system looks right now might justify making an exception to the rule. Breathe some life into the milb offense. Looking at all of these things collectively, I just find it hard to take a pitcher in the 1st round even though there may be some logic in doing so. Yeah, not too much pushback here, either. I think your reasoning is pretty sound, caveats noted. A couple thoughts, which harken back to your thoughts on position vs pitching, as well as the nature of the draft in general: 1) There are lots of first-round busts. It’s not just pitchers (though more on that in a second). I was actually surprised to find that the bust rate is high (>50%), but that players who do succeed are actually more likely to be very good rather than just OK: www.fangraphs.com/community/success-rate-of-mlb-first-round-draft-picks-by-slot/2) College position players are the best bet to make, and at least contribute “something” at the MLB level. Some of “sticking” may be wishing on talent or giving a guy extra chances for the investment already made, but those are the data: d1baseball.com/analysis/mlb-draft-study-1996-2011/3) In the study above, it’s interesting to note that “making it to MLB” has remained fairly static for some time, especially towards the top of the draft. My sense is that, again, a substantial part of that may be “sunk cost” thinking. So despite the changes in amateur play, showcases, and new metrics, the draft remains a crapshoot. 4) This isn’t draft data, but I think it’s a great (if older) study on “top prospect” success. With a whole bunch of caveats (including the big one that it requires some degree of faith to extrapolate these data to say, roughly, the top50-60 picks, who likely represent a range from top-20 in MiLB down into the 300-500 overall range), there’s still some important takeaways. One is that, positionally, OF, 3b, and SS are, in that order, the best bets to excel. But 1b, “CIF”, and C are most likely to have *some* value (and I might argue that, for 1b/DH types, they’re at a WAR disadvantage defensively, so they’re probably overrepresented with the proverbial all-hit players, whose value is limited). And 2b and all PITCHERS are just really bad bets. www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects5) Not a great study and idk about his methodology, but re-affirmation that Collegiate over HS in the higher rounds has a pretty clear advantage both in success rate and in the overall quality of the player’s career. www.google.com/amp/s/www.minorleagueball.com/platform/amp/2011/7/3/2255951/mlb-draft-success-rates6) So, yeah, like Ramireja, I mostly agree with you. I think the BPA approach obviously is the way to go if a high-quality player falls (I still love the Groome pick for that reason), but I think the approach should be tempered with recognizing that pitchers are a generally bad bet, and it’s why I like the Sox’s “up-the-middle” approach looking for C, SS and CF talents.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on May 31, 2018 15:43:21 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 15:49:27 GMT -5
Great point about first round busts, no pick is truly safe. Some real interesting research on the topic too. I'm definitely carrying some personal bias because of how the Red Sox drafts have played out recently and would probably be more indifferent on the subject if Houck was dealing, Groome was healthy, or the farm was loaded.
And yes, Groome was an awesome pick no matter how his career plays out.
|
|
|
Post by soxfando on May 31, 2018 16:17:53 GMT -5
I know I'm probably going to get a whole lot of pushback on this for several reasons, but I don't want the Sox taking Gilbert, Rolilson, or any other pitcher in the first round. Bunch of reasons for this: 1. We're not good at drafting 1st round pitchers. Johnson, Owens, Ball - that's all I'm saying. I know it's unfair to judge Houck and especially Groome at this point, but the initial results could be better. This isn't unique to the Sox, which leads me to... Michael Kopech was drafted in the 1st round and he's still a top 20 prospect according to fangraphs (#5 pitching prospect). But yeah, outside of him, the Sox have not done well with pitchers in the first round, unless you want to include Barnes as a quality pitcher.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 31, 2018 16:53:25 GMT -5
Since 2000, 26 Red Sox draftees became regulars in the majors for at least two or three years, not all of them with the Sox. Of the 26, 7 were pitchers and 19 were position players. I counted RPs that have had meaningful appearances over three years or so. I also counted Benintendi, who is in only his second year. He also is the first draftee since 2011 to became a MLB regular.
That 26 number, less than two regulars per draft, is very illuminating of what a crap shoot the draft is.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jun 1, 2018 7:12:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by juanpena on Jun 1, 2018 10:51:13 GMT -5
So I guess he's soft.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jun 1, 2018 15:19:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jun 1, 2018 15:30:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 1, 2018 15:37:01 GMT -5
Okay, I'm drunk already.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jun 1, 2018 16:46:41 GMT -5
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 1, 2018 17:13:13 GMT -5
And note that Fangraphs has Seth Beer going #52
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jun 1, 2018 17:15:49 GMT -5
They also have the Sox going with Durbin Feltman, RHP, TCU in the second round.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 1, 2018 17:38:43 GMT -5
We've certainly made a point to select a pure reliever who could move quick, of which Feltman might be the best in this draft. That said, we've waited until the 6th round to select these guys for the past two years (Schellenger in 2017, Nogosek in 2016).
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jun 1, 2018 18:26:15 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 20:21:10 GMT -5
He's a legit prospect, but the the article has him ranked as 20th overall prospect and FanGraphs has him landing with the Sox at 26. Don't the projected "Face of Franchise" prospects generally go higher than that? Wouldn't surprise me at all if his agent had something to do with this and he's trying to generate some media buzz so the hometown team Marlins draft him at 13.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 1, 2018 22:38:39 GMT -5
I’m not sure he makes it to them. I generally dislike 1b/DH/LF type players as high picks, because the bat really needs to be special. That said, I’m encouraged by the reports on his arm and agility (LF is actually kinda weak across mlb right now, and with a plus arm and reasonable range, he could actually be a defensive boon in Fenway). And frankly, the bat is pretty special. I think the only way he falls is if the positional limits scare some teams off, but if so I hope the Sox jump. He’s a guy whose abilities would only be enhanced with the Wall. Still like Jenista as a safe bet, but Casas is BPA if he drops.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 1, 2018 22:41:39 GMT -5
He's a legit prospect, but the the article has him ranked as 20th overall prospect and FanGraphs has him landing with the Sox at 26. Don't the projected "Face of Franchise" prospects generally go higher than that? Wouldn't surprise me at all if his agent had something to do with this and he's trying to generate some media buzz so the hometown team Marlins draft him at 13. I think the unsettled nature of the top and his positional limitations could scare teams off. 13 is awfully high for an NL team to pick a guy whose value is almost entirely in his bat (as terrific as it is). At least, that’s my hope.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 1, 2018 22:45:53 GMT -5
We've certainly made a point to select a pure reliever who could move quick, of which Feltman might be the best in this draft. That said, we've waited until the 6th round to select these guys for the past two years (Schellenger in 2017, Nogosek in 2016). Yeah, that seems *awfully* aggressive for a reliever, unless they think they can turn him into a starter. Your point about their usual fast-moving-reliever selections is well-taken. I could maybe see rd 3-4, but 2? Idk...relief pitching value has changed, so maybe, but it just seems really early to burn a pick on the most risky subset (of the most risky subset) of draftees.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jun 2, 2018 17:23:57 GMT -5
Casas would be interesting. I’ve seen articles where Freddie Freeman is mentioned as his ceiling if the hit tool can click with a decent bet as a Lucas Duda type floor.
Curious from those with better scouting eyes what would set him apart from Beer? Casas seems like a 1B/DH only which is always risky to bet on pure bat. Beer has produced at high levels for three years and could be on a Benitendi type projection through the minors. Casas could be an over slot candidate also with a bunch of teams with multiple picks towards the back end of round 1 and comp rounds could make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jun 2, 2018 18:43:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 2, 2018 19:31:46 GMT -5
Maybe he's around in round 2?
|
|
|