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.
2021 MLB Draft
|
Post by jdog2020 on Mar 7, 2021 16:11:34 GMT -5
Leiter leaves after pitching 5+ IP. Obviously has incredible stuff, but he's going to need to start throwing more strikes (57/94 pitches for strikes). Having watched both Leiter and Rocker's starts, I'm really not sure who I'd prefer at this point. Once they start facing SEC competition it'll get interesting. I much prefer Leiter. I would be comfortable taking him at #4. Otherwise, I'd prefer to draft Mayer. I like several other pitchers such as Jordan Wicks, Mason Black, etc. Pelio could be a local option..
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 7, 2021 16:18:20 GMT -5
I'm starting to think more and more that Leiter, Lawlor, and Mayer are all gone before the Red Sox pick 4th.
The Sox will probably be picking among Rocker, Hill (although he struggled mightily last time out), maybe Madden, who has pitched extremely well, Del Castillo, House, and who knows who else?
I mean, if any of Leiter, Lawlor or Mayer slip to 4, you'd think the Sox would have to jump on it, but I don't like the odds of the best pitcher, and the two best SS who are 1a and 1b, falling to #4.
I think the Sox will wind up having a tough decision to make. And there could eventually (or not) be some rueful feelings about that final day victory last season that moved the Sox from the #3 pick down to #4 behind the Tigers.
In my very unprofessional opinion, if Rocker can't consistently command his FB and has to overly rely on his slider, I wouldn't be surprised to see him come down with arm issues or wind up in the pen. I want to start paying more attention to Ty Madden.
|
|
|
Post by jdog2020 on Mar 7, 2021 16:23:03 GMT -5
I'm starting to think more and more that Leiter, Lawlor, and Mayer are all gone before the Red Sox pick 4th. The Sox will probably be picking among Rocker, Hill (although he struggled mightily last time out), maybe Madden, who has pitched extremely well, Del Castillo, House, and who knows who else? I mean, if any of Leiter, Lawlor or Mayer slip to 4, you'd think the Sox would have to jump on it, but I don't like the odds of the best pitcher, and the two best SS who are 1a and 1b, falling to #4. I think the Sox will wind up having a tough decision to make. And there could eventually (or not) be some rueful feelings about that final day victory last season that moved the Sox from the #3 pick down to #4 behind the Tigers. In my very unprofessional opinion, if Rocker can't consistently command his FB and has to overly rely on his slider, I wouldn't be surprised to see him come down with arm issues or wind up in the pen. I want to start paying more attention to Ty Madden. Ty Madden is another option at #4. He and Leiter are the only two I would even entertain the thought of drafting at #4 in terms of pitchers. I'm really on the Mason Black train. He is filthy.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 7, 2021 17:43:37 GMT -5
Well, we don't have the #1 pick. Can you do the #1-5 picks? Or at least the #4 picks? Added: #4 picks 1990-2013: 17 pitchers, 4 over 10 WAR ( incl 28.5, 27.6. 15.7. 11.2 (and still going, Gausman), one at 8.9 at age 28 7 hitters, 2, over 10 WAR, one of them 38.5, the other Dimitri Young's 12.2 If you start at 1985 you get Kevin Brown 67.8 and Barry Larkin 70.5 and one more P at 12.8 I looked at 1995-2005 Considered both (1) all picks in round 1 and 1S, and (2) picks 1-10 broke them into college, high school, and other (JC & intl) broke them into pitchers & hitters used bWAR as a metric. Calculated percentage of draftees with career bWAR>=10, and percentage of draftees with career bWAR >=20 1995-2005 Rounds 1 and 1S
| Total Draftees | # with bWAR >=10 | % with bWAR >=10 | # with bWAR >=20 | % with bWAR >=20 | College - Hitters | 89 | 29 | 33% | 20 | 22% | College - Pitchers | 132 | 19 | 14% | 7 | 5% | High School - Hitters | 118 | 24 | 20% | 14 | 12% | High School - Pitchers | 110 | 19 | 17% | 12 | 11% | Other - Hitters | 2 | 2 | 100% | 2 | 100% | Other - Pitchers | 11 | 1 | 9% | 0 | 0% | Total | 462 | 94 | 20% | 55 | 12% |
1995-2005 Picks 1-10
| Total Draftees | # with bWAR >=10 | % with bWAR >=10 | # with bWAR >=20 | % with bWAR >=20 | College - Hitters | 21 | 15 | 71% | 8 | 38% | College - Pitchers | 35 | 7 | 20% | 3 | 9% | High School - Hitters | 29 | 12 | 41% | 7 | 24% | High School - Pitchers | 22 | 6 | 27% | 5 | 23% | Other - Hitters | 2 | 2 | 100% | 2 | 100% | Other - Pitchers | 1 | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | Total | 110 | 42 | 38% | 25 | 23% |
I had expected college pitchers to do pretty well as it seems they would be the easiest to scout. I had assumed that hitters performance can only be evaluated relative to the pitchers they faced, while you could objectively evaluate pitches (speed, control, break, etc). Clearly that is wrong as college pitchers chosen high in the draft have the worst subsequent performance. if you were wondering, of the 192 college pitchers taken in rounds 1 and 1S 1995-2005 below are all who exceeded career bWAR of 10. Its possible that with the new scouting tools our ability to scout pitchers has improved...or maybe not. J. Verlander 71.8 Jered Weaver 34.6 Barry Zito 31.9 R.A. Dickey 23.7 Ben Sheets 23.2 Matt Morris 20.4 Mark Mulder 20.0 Jeremy Guthrie 18.4 Mark Prior 16.6 Eric Milton 16.5 Jeff Weaver 15.2 Huston Street 14.5 Matt Thornton 13.4 Kris Benson 12.9 Matt Garza 12.5 Joe Blanton 11.9 Paul Maholm 11.9 Jason Jennings 11.2 Noah Lowry 10.0 Well, I'd say this settles it - no one should ever draft a pitcher.
I'm slilghtly joking, obviously, but this does seem like a bit of a mystery. This is about the most basic analysis you could do on the draft and I'm sure teams are aware of these patterns - and yet there seems to be a pretty consistent trend of pitchers being drafted higher than they "should" be. Why is that? Is there a logic to teams drafting pitchers even when they know there's a higher chance of them washing out?
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Mar 7, 2021 17:57:43 GMT -5
Leiter leaves after pitching 5+ IP. Obviously has incredible stuff, but he's going to need to start throwing more strikes (57/94 pitches for strikes). Having watched both Leiter and Rocker's starts, I'm really not sure who I'd prefer at this point. Once they start facing SEC competition it'll get interesting. Just looked - Vanderbilt plays Oklahoma State (#15) and Texas plays South Carolina (#14) next weekend. Should be good tests for Leiter, Rocker, and Madden.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 7, 2021 18:05:43 GMT -5
I looked at 1995-2005 Considered both (1) all picks in round 1 and 1S, and (2) picks 1-10 broke them into college, high school, and other (JC & intl) broke them into pitchers & hitters used bWAR as a metric. Calculated percentage of draftees with career bWAR>=10, and percentage of draftees with career bWAR >=20 1995-2005 Rounds 1 and 1S
| Total Draftees | # with bWAR >=10 | % with bWAR >=10 | # with bWAR >=20 | % with bWAR >=20 | College - Hitters | 89 | 29 | 33% | 20 | 22% | College - Pitchers | 132 | 19 | 14% | 7 | 5% | High School - Hitters | 118 | 24 | 20% | 14 | 12% | High School - Pitchers | 110 | 19 | 17% | 12 | 11% | Other - Hitters | 2 | 2 | 100% | 2 | 100% | Other - Pitchers | 11 | 1 | 9% | 0 | 0% | Total | 462 | 94 | 20% | 55 | 12% |
1995-2005 Picks 1-10
| Total Draftees | # with bWAR >=10 | % with bWAR >=10 | # with bWAR >=20 | % with bWAR >=20 | College - Hitters | 21 | 15 | 71% | 8 | 38% | College - Pitchers | 35 | 7 | 20% | 3 | 9% | High School - Hitters | 29 | 12 | 41% | 7 | 24% | High School - Pitchers | 22 | 6 | 27% | 5 | 23% | Other - Hitters | 2 | 2 | 100% | 2 | 100% | Other - Pitchers | 1 | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | Total | 110 | 42 | 38% | 25 | 23% |
I had expected college pitchers to do pretty well as it seems they would be the easiest to scout. I had assumed that hitters performance can only be evaluated relative to the pitchers they faced, while you could objectively evaluate pitches (speed, control, break, etc). Clearly that is wrong as college pitchers chosen high in the draft have the worst subsequent performance. if you were wondering, of the 192 college pitchers taken in rounds 1 and 1S 1995-2005 below are all who exceeded career bWAR of 10. Its possible that with the new scouting tools our ability to scout pitchers has improved...or maybe not. J. Verlander 71.8 Jered Weaver 34.6 Barry Zito 31.9 R.A. Dickey 23.7 Ben Sheets 23.2 Matt Morris 20.4 Mark Mulder 20.0 Jeremy Guthrie 18.4 Mark Prior 16.6 Eric Milton 16.5 Jeff Weaver 15.2 Huston Street 14.5 Matt Thornton 13.4 Kris Benson 12.9 Matt Garza 12.5 Joe Blanton 11.9 Paul Maholm 11.9 Jason Jennings 11.2 Noah Lowry 10.0 Well, I'd say this settles it - no one should ever draft a pitcher.
I'm slilghtly joking, obviously, but this does seem like a bit of a mystery. This is about the most basic analysis you could do on the draft and I'm sure teams are aware of these patterns - and yet there seems to be a pretty consistent trend of pitchers being drafted higher than they "should" be. Why is that? Is there a logic to teams drafting pitchers even when they know there's a higher chance of them washing out?
One thing, though, is that “all hitters” isn’t perfectly parallel. That is, I wonder if you’d see variation if you broke it down by position. For example, how have catchers done? And that leads to the second asymmetry: you take a guy like Bryce Harper. He has obviously worked out great... but not as a catcher. Now, I don’t think anyone is complaining, but there is a greater safety net for hitters. If you can’t stick at the position you were drafted at, you can move. If you can’t hit one side, you can platoon, etc. But I don’t think anyone cares what position you were drafted at (even though Harper’s bat would be even more valuable at C as in the OF). The only move a failed starter can make is to the bullpen, and even a great reliever would barely make the 10 bWAR cut (Ottavino is 10.2 I think). So I guess it is no surprise the pitchers fail at a significantly higher rate. I don’t know if that means you shouldn’t keep taking the risk. Add: looking at the current top-15 in active WAR, it is 1st rounders plus, Lester (2nd) and de Grom (9th). King Felix was not drafted. Then Kluber (4th) and a few more Int’ls. So 9 of 15, with 3 more international signings. It just seems like you have to take a chance sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 7, 2021 18:31:02 GMT -5
Well, I'd say this settles it - no one should ever draft a pitcher.
I'm slilghtly joking, obviously, but this does seem like a bit of a mystery. This is about the most basic analysis you could do on the draft and I'm sure teams are aware of these patterns - and yet there seems to be a pretty consistent trend of pitchers being drafted higher than they "should" be. Why is that? Is there a logic to teams drafting pitchers even when they know there's a higher chance of them washing out?
One thing, though, is that “all hitters” isn’t perfectly parallel. That is, I wonder if you’d see variation if you broke it down by position. For example, how have catchers done? And that leads to the second asymmetry: you take a guy like Bryce Harper. He has obviously worked out great... but not as a catcher. Now, I don’t think anyone is complaining, but there is a greater safety net for hitters. If you can’t stick at the position you were drafted at, you can move. If you can’t hit one side, you can platoon, etc. But I don’t think anyone cares what position you were drafted at (even though Harper’s bat would be even more valuable at C as in the OF). The only move a failed starter can make is to the bullpen, and even a great reliever would barely make the 10 bWAR cut (Ottavino is 10.2 I think). So I guess it is no surprise the pitchers fail at a significantly higher rate. I don’t know if that means you shouldn’t keep taking the risk. Add: looking at the current top-15 in active WAR, it is 1st rounders plus, Lester (2nd) and de Grom (9th). King Felix was not drafted. Then Kluber (4th) and a few more Int’ls. So 9 of 15, with 3 more international signings. It just seems like you have to take a chance sometimes.Well, every draft pick is a roll of the dice - even #1 picks only turn out well a little more than half the time. But the weird thing is that teams seem to be systematically taking bigger chances on pitchers than hitters. I.e., they're systematically playing worse odds. If the MLB draft were a totally efficient market, it seems like pitchers would be drafted lower than they are. But obviously all those same top-15 WAR guys would still have been drafted if pitchers generally were appropriately valued in terms of risk.
But again, maybe there's a logic that I'm just not seeing.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,585
|
Post by radiohix on Mar 7, 2021 18:50:51 GMT -5
I'm really glad the Rangers pick ahead of us: Can't think of an organization that is worst at drafting and developing baseball talent (at the exception of Joey Gallo) than Texas under Jon Daniels regime. The one they'll pick will have the highest bust chances, it's like having someone walking in front of you while crossing a landmine 😅
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 7, 2021 19:22:49 GMT -5
One thing, though, is that “all hitters” isn’t perfectly parallel. That is, I wonder if you’d see variation if you broke it down by position. For example, how have catchers done? And that leads to the second asymmetry: you take a guy like Bryce Harper. He has obviously worked out great... but not as a catcher. Now, I don’t think anyone is complaining, but there is a greater safety net for hitters. If you can’t stick at the position you were drafted at, you can move. If you can’t hit one side, you can platoon, etc. But I don’t think anyone cares what position you were drafted at (even though Harper’s bat would be even more valuable at C as in the OF). The only move a failed starter can make is to the bullpen, and even a great reliever would barely make the 10 bWAR cut (Ottavino is 10.2 I think). So I guess it is no surprise the pitchers fail at a significantly higher rate. I don’t know if that means you shouldn’t keep taking the risk. Add: looking at the current top-15 in active WAR, it is 1st rounders plus, Lester (2nd) and de Grom (9th). King Felix was not drafted. Then Kluber (4th) and a few more Int’ls. So 9 of 15, with 3 more international signings. It just seems like you have to take a chance sometimes.Well, every draft pick is a roll of the dice - even #1 picks only turn out well a little more than half the time. But the weird thing is that teams seem to be systematically taking bigger chances on pitchers than hitters. I.e., they're systematically playing worse odds. If the MLB draft were a totally efficient market, it seems like pitchers would be drafted lower than they are. But obviously all those same top-15 WAR guys would still have been drafted if pitchers generally were appropriately valued in terms of risk.
But again, maybe there's a logic that I'm just not seeing.
All true. It may simply be collective chicken. You may not see the logic... because it may be irrational.
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Mar 7, 2021 19:46:26 GMT -5
Someone posted this earlier in the thread. Shows the land rate of prospects. I'm taking a college arm.
sabr.org/journal/article/the-chances-of-a-drafted-baseball-player-making-the-major-leagues-a-quantitative-study/
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 7, 2021 19:58:05 GMT -5
Someone posted this earlier in the thread. Shows the land rate of prospects. I'm taking a college arm. Why? That article says this:
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Mar 7, 2021 20:45:53 GMT -5
Someone posted this earlier in the thread. Shows the land rate of prospects. I'm taking a college arm. Why? That article says this:
Bcs we are not talking about rounds 2,3,4,5. We are talking about the first round where the safest pick is a college arm.
|
|
|
Post by tyler3 on Mar 7, 2021 21:37:16 GMT -5
Then you gotta jump on the Ty Madden train unitspin, plenty of room on board.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 7, 2021 22:14:38 GMT -5
Why? That article says this:
Bcs we are not talking about rounds 2,3,4,5. We are talking about the first round where the safest pick is a college arm. The conclusion is the same for first-rounders: college pitchers underperform college position players.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Mar 7, 2021 22:59:17 GMT -5
Bcs we are not talking about rounds 2,3,4,5. We are talking about the first round where the safest pick is a college arm. The conclusion is the same for first-rounders: college pitchers underperform college position players. I think taking a position player like House or Fabian is much safer than taking a chance on a pitcher. I going with do t worry about position or age. Take best position player available.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Mar 7, 2021 23:47:49 GMT -5
Someone posted this earlier in the thread. Shows the land rate of prospects. I'm taking a college arm. sabr.org/journal/article/the-chances-of-a-drafted-baseball-player-making-the-major-leagues-a-quantitative-study/ Looks like you may have missed rasimon's post here?
|
|
|
Post by tyler3 on Mar 8, 2021 0:40:22 GMT -5
Prospects Live will have their new board out tomorrow. I love what they do. If I had to guess top five I would probably say 1: Leiter, 2: Lawlar, 3:Mayer, 4:Rocker, 5: Madden. Fabians slow first weekend dings him slightly and Adrian Del Castillo’s power has yet to really emerge. To make it crazy I say House stays as their number 6, and Henry Davis takes the seventh spot. These guys really keep an eye on both the college kids and the HS kids. www.prospectslive.com/prospect-lists/
|
|
|
Post by tyler3 on Mar 8, 2021 1:40:54 GMT -5
And one more thing to keep in mind with Brady House. He’s essentially a year younger than Lawlar. So he struggled over the summer then he excelled during the fall circuit. But think about that. A year younger. Imagine he was able to come back next summer and do the circuit again at the same age as Lawlar is now. That’s why you’ll see House higher on some boards than others. He’s young comparatively and the difference between 18 and 19 can mean a lot.
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Mar 8, 2021 5:23:04 GMT -5
Someone posted this earlier in the thread. Shows the land rate of prospects. I'm taking a college arm. sabr.org/journal/article/the-chances-of-a-drafted-baseball-player-making-the-major-leagues-a-quantitative-study/ Looks like you may have missed rasimon's post here? He only used 95-05 as a time period and then threw an outlier of a random 10 war to judge whether the pick was worth it or not. The other assessment views a far bigger time frame and judges on whether they make the league or not. In the first round more college arms make it to the bigs then any other group. So to label them a higher risk is inaccurate. If you go back from 2005-2015 only picks 1-4 you find the most reliable picks are college arms and hs bats. The 95-05 era used very little analytics to judge draftees so using that as a reference point its apples to oranges to the game today.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,139
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 8, 2021 7:01:18 GMT -5
He only used 95-05 as a time period and then threw an outlier of a random 10 war to judge whether the pick was worth it or not. The other assessment views a far bigger time frame and judges on whether they make the league or not. In the first round more college arms make it to the bigs then any other group. So to label them a higher risk is inaccurate. If you go back from 2005-2015 only picks 1-4 you find the most reliable picks are college arms and hs bats. The 95-05 era used very little analytics to judge draftees so using that as a reference point its apples to oranges to the game today. "Whether you make the big leagues or not" or more specifically, their criterion of whether you have one appearance or at bat in more than three seasons, is a poor measure of a successful pick at #4. Anthony Ranaudo and Craig Hansen and Michael Bowden would be good picks by that measure. That study seems completely useless for the top of round 1. Rasimon's long detailed post looking at WAR over 10 and over 20, and at round 1 and also picks 1-10, seems much better.
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Mar 8, 2021 7:02:29 GMT -5
I love this kid!!!! If Rocker and Leiter are gone. I’m taking him or Adrian Del Castillo. I can’t wait for this draft it’s going to be a fun one! The more we watch this kid and get reports on his progress, the more people will realize he is just a notch below ARod and Junior Griffey (phenom level) and will lock up the one spot by May unless someone outperforms him (tall task). This kid seems to be getting better by the day. I'm surprised he is not getting more attention, as far as some form of televised games.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Mar 8, 2021 9:14:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Mar 8, 2021 9:41:56 GMT -5
He only used 95-05 as a time period and then threw an outlier of a random 10 war to judge whether the pick was worth it or not. The other assessment views a far bigger time frame and judges on whether they make the league or not. In the first round more college arms make it to the bigs then any other group. So to label them a higher risk is inaccurate. If you go back from 2005-2015 only picks 1-4 you find the most reliable picks are college arms and hs bats. The 95-05 era used very little analytics to judge draftees so using that as a reference point its apples to oranges to the game today. "Whether you make the big leagues or not" or more specifically, their criterion of whether you have one appearance or at bat in more than three seasons, is a poor measure of a successful pick at #4. Anthony Ranaudo and Craig Hansen and Michael Bowden would be good picks by that measure. That study seems completely useless for the top of round 1. Rasimon's long detailed post looking at WAR over 10 and over 20, and at round 1 and also picks 1-10, seems much better. Craig Hansen was drafted at #26 not top ten? And we are drafting at #4 so including the top ten is inaccurate and using a time period where limited analytics were used to justify an argument in a completely different era of baseball is useless. As well Benny is just shy of 10 war and ppl on this board believe a bench player is more valuable then him, you guys need to make up your minds and stick with it.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 8, 2021 9:43:49 GMT -5
He only used 95-05 as a time period and then threw an outlier of a random 10 war to judge whether the pick was worth it or not. The other assessment views a far bigger time frame and judges on whether they make the league or not. In the first round more college arms make it to the bigs then any other group. So to label them a higher risk is inaccurate. If you go back from 2005-2015 only picks 1-4 you find the most reliable picks are college arms and hs bats. The 95-05 era used very little analytics to judge draftees so using that as a reference point its apples to oranges to the game today. "Whether you make the big leagues or not" or more specifically, their criterion of whether you have one appearance or at bat in more than three seasons, is a poor measure of a successful pick at #4. Anthony Ranaudo and Craig Hansen and Michael Bowden would be good picks by that measure. That study seems completely useless for the top of round 1. Rasimon's long detailed post looking at WAR over 10 and over 20, and at round 1 and also picks 1-10, seems much better. Though it doesn't seem to be doing much good, I'll just point out again that the study unitspin is citing comes to the opposite conclusion of what he's saying. So there's also that.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,139
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 8, 2021 10:16:21 GMT -5
"Whether you make the big leagues or not" or more specifically, their criterion of whether you have one appearance or at bat in more than three seasons, is a poor measure of a successful pick at #4. Anthony Ranaudo and Craig Hansen and Michael Bowden would be good picks by that measure. That study seems completely useless for the top of round 1. Rasimon's long detailed post looking at WAR over 10 and over 20, and at round 1 and also picks 1-10, seems much better. Craig Hansen was drafted at #26 not top ten? And we are drafting at #4 so including the top ten is inaccurate and using a time period where limited analytics were used to justify an argument in a completely different era of baseball is useless. As well Benny is just shy of 10 war and ppl on this board believe a bench player is more valuable then him, you guys need to make up your minds and stick with it. Yes, but using that study to say that we should not draft a pitcher at #4 is to endorse their criterion that success = appearing in mlb in more than 3 seasons. Seems useless.
|
|
|