2023 National Rankings (in season)

42% of the picks in that range from the 2020 draft and on have been pitchers, so it's been disproportionately hitters in those rounds (though you could stretch an argument that, since you're aiming to draft starters first and foremost, the proportions are a bit more even), but it's not like they've avoided it entirely, it's been relatively even. So unless you think they should be drafting mostly pitchers, I would say "drafting a few" is exactly what they're already doing.

I would say that that's relatively cherrypicked (Dalton Rogers wasn't one of their first three selections but was a third round pick so that doesn't count?) and I would never want a draft strategy to be so put into a limited box like that, but if you really want to see it, that can certainly be your preference.

I would also imagine that their pitching acquisitions in international free agency, both A) the sheer quantity they have signed in recent years and B) the relative success they've seemed to have developing them vs. domestic pitchers (that's purely anecdotal) probably affects how they value pitching in the draft, as well. Not that they'd pass up on a guy they really liked for it by any means, but my perception is that they lean relatively heavy on the IFA route for pitching. I am likely reading too far into it.

In the parameters given, rounds 2-6, it has been relatively even. If you'd like to make a different argument you're certainly welcome to, but that's just manipulating the discussion into something else entirely. If you want to argue that they haven't invested the most valuable draft capital into pitchers, that is certainly a fair statement. But again, not related to what I was talking about.

A potential caveat to this is the extensive data showing high school pitchers, no matter how highly ranked, have the absolute lowest odds of making it to MLB of all draft picks. In the first round, I believe it was right around 25% - not a lot of return on that investment. The odds fall-off precipitously from there. I've not seen similar data on international pitcher signings, who tend to be even younger than high schoolers.

That said, the Guardians and Dodgers have made a successful habit of picking (mostly) college pitchers in rounds 3-6 with a certain profile who they believe they can add 3-6 mph on the FB with each team's insight on better technique/player development sorcery.

Sure that logic is fine enough I suppose, but I'm saying that I don't think the Red Sox choosing not to invest in that is evidence that Law is right that it should matter. He's saying balance is important, they are indicating by their actions that they don't necessarily believe that (or that they think there's better ways to bring in pitching talent than the draft).

Are they basically going for quantity over quality? And if so wouldn`t it take longer for the pitching to catch up to the hitting? It would create very good depth with much less fanfare.

Alex Speier on the Red Sox rise in the rankings, but really focuses almost primarily on The Baseball America ranking, with attributed quotes from Geoff Pontes at BBA. Some excerpts and highlight points:

“They have a lot of everything for everyone,” said Baseball America’s Geoff Pontes, a contributor to the ranking process. “There’s just a very clear vision now with this system.”

Some of the Stated Reasons:

"▪ The explosion of Roman Anthony: Baseball America pegged him at No. 19 in its August rankings, just behind top prospect Marcelo Mayer (15)."

"▪ Catching a high pick: The selection of Mayer in 2021 has yielded one of the top prospects in baseball...And this year, the availability of Kyle Teel with the No. 14 pick brought the Sox a highly regarded player who stands out as one of the top two-way catching prospects in the sport. Baseball America already has Teel as a top-100 player."

"▪ Pitchers found the zone: Pontes described the organization’s pitchers as a potentially underrated group in the vein of the Astros of the last several years."

"▪ Prospect hoarding: The Sox have traded few prospects — and no top prospects — since 2018."

But he also charts some dissent among other evaluators:

"Others take a more skeptical view of such players. MLB.com’s Pipeline, for instance, recently pegged the Sox as the No. 16 system, describing their pitching as being 'as thin as any organization.' Evaluators for several teams, meanwhile, expressed surprise that the Sox were ranked as a top-five system by publications."

“I don’t think their system is that good,” said an NL evaluator. “They have some interesting pieces; they have quite a few volatile profiles that might not actualize. I’d say top 15.”

So, like the rankings themselves, there's disagreement, especially regarding the volatile (i.e. low minors and developmental league) prospects. Of course, the whole piece has much, much more.

Word on the street is that he’s the same guy that said the Sox overpaid for Yoshida.

I love Masa and think he will be a very good MLB pro once he adjusts to the season's length and the travel - which is much more extensive and long than in Japan. But as of right now given the fWAR conversion into $$$, Yoshida has been a significant overpay in year 1 (so far).

He's currently a 1.1 fWAR player who has generated $9M in value - nothing to sneeze at but nowhere near worth his $18.0M AAV (so far).

ADDED: That sets Masa as the 39th best OF by WAR - certainly not a 4th OF but in the bottom 1/3 of all qualifiers. His wRC+ on the other hand, is 15th, just below Christian Yelich.

Then again, among DHs, he's 10th, though still just a 1.1 fWAR player as such. For reference, JDM is 7th and Justin Turner is 5th. So, a better performer at DH-only, but not a great value in that position.

I don’t doubt that the extent of his thoughts range beyond that soundbite, but if you have all of that information and decide to boil it down to that summary, it’s lazy (in my opinion).