Draft Hindsight - Don't Count Out Class of '09

[Frobby]

I know it was generally a pretty weak draft by what made it to the majors, but to have 6 picks in the first and supplemental and find ONE ML player is pretty awful. I know they were taking players they thought they could sign cheap because they had so many picks, and I think that in part is why it wasn't a very good draft. Guys like Crawford and Lackey were out there in the 2nd, but even at the time of the draft a lot of people were scratching their heads over some of those picks. It was such a waste.

Point is, they had 7 picks, not 6, and 3 of them made it to the majors. One became an excellent player, one had a couple of half-decent seasons and then fizzled, and one just got a cup of coffee. That's a pretty typical yield for 7 picks in the 13-50 range.

Also, I believe that Stahl and Cenate had injuries that derailed them.

[jcarm]

Point is, they had 7 picks, not 6, and 3 of them made it to the majors. One became an excellent player, one had a couple of half-decent seasons and then fizzled, and one just got a cup of coffee. That's a pretty typical yield for 7 picks in the 13-50 range.

Also, I believe that Stahl and Cenate had injuries that derailed them.

Stahl was a top prospect until injuries derailed him. Cenate, I believe only played 1 or 2 years before injuries caused him to retire.

[allstar1579]

Point is, they had 7 picks, not 6, and 3 of them made it to the majors. One became an excellent player, one had a couple of half-decent seasons and then fizzled, and one just got a cup of coffee. That's a pretty typical yield for 7 picks in the 13-50 range.

Also, I believe that Stahl and Cenate had injuries that derailed them.

You're right, I forgot about Cenate. It's typical for a team in a given year in that range, but not with 7 picks. You don't see teams miss that often in one year with that many picks. Most teams get 2-3 picks in that range, not 7. For example some of the teams with multiple picks inside the top 50:

2001: Mets go 2-2 with Heilman and D. Wright; and the A's go 2-3 with Bonderman and Crosby

2002: The A's go 3-7 with Teahan, Blanton and Swisher; and the Cubs go 0-4 which are the next closest and similar to the O's miss in '99.

2003: ARZ goes 2-2 with C. Jackson and Quentin

2004: A's go 1-5 with Street; Rays go 2-2 with Neimann and Brignac

2005: BOS goes 5-5!! with Ellsbury, Hansen, Bucholz, Bowden and Lowrie

2006: BOS goes 1-5 with Bard, SEA goes 2-2 with Morrow and Tillman; ARZ goes 2-3 with Scherzer and B. Anderson

2007: TOR goes 2-4 with Arencibia and Cecil; could turn into 0-4, but SF goes 2-4 with Bumgarner and Alderson

2008: NYM go 2-3 with R. Havens and I. Davis.

From '07 forward it's hard to gauge because guys aren't really busts yet. Just saying that with their big 2-7 in 1999 the O's are up there for some of the worst top 50 picks in recent memory.

[mweb]

You're right, I forgot about Cenate. It's typical for a team in a given year in that range, but not with 7 picks. You don't see teams miss that often in one year with that many picks. Most teams get 2-3 picks in that range, not 7. For example some of the teams with multiple picks inside the top 50:

2001: Mets go 2-2 with Heilman and D. Wright; and the A's go 2-3 with Bonderman and Crosby

2002: The A's go 3-7 with Teahan, Blanton and Swisher; and the Cubs go 0-4 which are the next closest and similar to the O's miss in '99.

2003: ARZ goes 2-2 with C. Jackson and Quentin

2004: A's go 1-5 with Street; Rays go 2-2 with Neimann and Brignac

2005: BOS goes 5-5!! with Ellsbury, Hansen, Bucholz, Bowden and Lowrie

2006: BOS goes 1-5 with Bard, SEA goes 2-2 with Morrow and Tillman; ARZ goes 2-3 with Scherzer and B. Anderson

2007: TOR goes 2-4 with Arencibia and Cecil; could turn into 0-4, but SF goes 2-4 with Bumgarner and Alderson

2008: NYM go 2-3 with R. Havens and I. Davis.

From '07 forward it's hard to gauge because guys aren't really busts yet. Just saying that with their big 2-7 in 1999 the O's are up there for some of the worst top 50 picks in recent memory.

Actually, he is saying they did fine relative to the other picks in that range(13-50) even when considering they had 7 of them. And they did quite well later in the draft. Frobby's stats make your position a tough one to defend imo.

[allstar1579]

Actually, he is saying they did fine relative to the other picks in that range(13-50) even when considering they had 7 of them. And they did quite well later in the draft. Frobby's stats make your position a tough one to defend imo.

I dunno, I just gave a bunch of examples of people doing as well as the O's did with 2 or 3 picks, when we had 7.

I just think it's a huge black eye for a scouting department to miss with 5-6 picks in the top 50, those are supposed to be the easiest picks to make.

[mweb]

I dunno, I just gave a bunch of examples of people doing as well as the O's did with 2 or 3 picks, when we had 7.

I just think it's a huge black eye for a scouting department to miss with 5-6 picks in the top 50, those are supposed to be the easiest picks to make.

Frobby showed that their picks had a better average return rate than the picks in the range they picked that year. It's irrelevant what teams did in better draft classes with multiple picks. Frobby's quote:

The Orioles had no picks higher than 13, and if you exclude the 12 players picked ahead of them, only 16 of 39 (41%) made it to the majors. The O's had 3 of 7 (43%), including BRob, who despite being the 50th overall pick is no. 3 in that entire 1st round in total WAR (only overall no. 9 Zito and no. 2 Beckett have done better to date; overall no. 1 pick Josh Hamilton is likely to pass BRob). Bigbie, who was the 21st pick, ranks 14th in WAR among the 1/1s picks that year. Throw in the fact that we stole Bedard in the 6th round and plucked a solid player in Willie Harris in the 24th round and I'd say that's an excellent draft.

They got the best player drafted in the first round from the point they started picking. They had a success rate higher than average in terms of picks making the majors. They got a very good SP in the 6th round. There draft was 3rd in WAR amongst all teams and only trailed the team with the #1 pick and the team that picked a future top 10 or so all time player in the 13th round.

How is that a black eye?

[allstar1579]

Frobby showed that their picks had a better average return rate than the picks in the range they picked that year. It's irrelevant what teams did in better draft classes with multiple picks. Frobby's quote:

They got the best player drafted in the first round from the point they started picking. They had a success rate higher than average in terms of picks making the majors. They got a very good SP in the 6th round. There draft was 3rd in WAR amongst all teams and only trailed the team with the #1 pick and the team that picked a future top 10 or so all time player in the 13th round.

How is that a black eye?

Because there were better players out there that they could have taken and they didn't. Bedard was in the 6th, not in the top 50. They had 7 picks in the top 50 and their scouting was so bad they drafted ONE player worth keeping. You can't just look at it as what everyone else drafted, you have to look at it as there were players still on the board that were good players, why didn't we take them? I don't care what round they went in, I know that Crawford profiled similarly to Keith Reed, and they took the wrong one. They took Paradis over Jason Jennings and Kurt Ainsworth who was similar. You can't even give them credit for taking Roberts, because he wasn't that high on their list, they took him as a favor to BJ Surhoff who was a former tarheel and friend of Brian's dad IIRC. He was an afterthought after all those other picks. Lackey was still on the board and profiled close to Paradis, and Jennings.

All of this is sidetracking from the OP, so I'll stop my rant.

[Frobby]

I dunno, I just gave a bunch of examples of people doing as well as the O's did with 2 or 3 picks, when we had 7.

I just think it's a huge black eye for a scouting department to miss with 5-6 picks in the top 50, those are supposed to be the easiest picks to make.

Let me come at this from a slightly different angle. The Orioles had the 13th, 18th, 21st, 23rd, 34th, 44th and 50th picks in the draft. If you look at all players picked at those spots since the draft was insitituted, you would expect to receive 19 total WAR from all 7 picks combined. The Orioles have gotten 23.4 WAR out of Roberts, Bigbie and Reed.

[mweb]

Because there were better players out there that they could have taken and they didn't. Bedard was in the 6th, not in the top 50. They had 7 picks in the top 50 and their scouting was so bad they drafted ONE player worth keeping. You can't just look at it as what everyone else drafted, you have to look at it as there were players still on the board that were good players, why didn't we take them? I don't care what round they went in, I know that Crawford profiled similarly to Keith Reed, and they took the wrong one. They took Paradis over Jason Jennings and Kurt Ainsworth who was similar. You can't even give them credit for taking Roberts, because he wasn't that high on their list, they took him as a favor to BJ Surhoff who was a former tarheel and friend of Brian's dad IIRC. He was an afterthought after all those other picks. Lackey was still on the board and profiled close to Paradis, and Jennings.

All of this is sidetracking from the OP, so I'll stop my rant.

Yeah I and Frobby said Bedard was in the 6th. But what's your point? If the O's had taken him in the first round instead of the 6th then the draft would have been good?

And there's always better players out there. Of course the O's could have done better, but they did do better than average with their picks and found a very good player in the 6th round.

The facts are very clear here and they don't side with your position.

[allstar1579]

Let me come at this from a slightly different angle. The Orioles had the 13th, 18th, 21st, 23rd, 34th, 44th and 50th picks in the draft. If you look at all players picked at those spots since the draft was insitituted, you would expect to receive 19 total WAR from all 7 picks combined. The Orioles have gotten 23.4 WAR out of Roberts, Bigbie and Reed.

I see what you are saying, but the drafts don't work that way for me at least, different teams, different players in those slots each year. You have a huge outlier there and are justifying the rest of their draft by it. Yes in practicality looking back to say you got 2-3 good ML players in one draft is a good draft, it was an ok draft in that sense. It would have been a good draft if they hit twice in 50 picks with one in each round, but they had an extra 6 picks before their second rounder and missed on all but that 7th pick. For me, it's a necessity to get those 2-3 players later in the draft, but when you have that many picks in the top 50 you better hit on a couple of them too.

I guess what I'm saying is with every pick you add inside the top 50 I expect a better % of hits. So yes, I also agree with your view on it, but in a normal draft with the usual allotment of picks; when you start adding more picks with a lower degree of difficulty, I expect better results. Maybe that's just me.

[allstar1579]

Yeah I and Frobby said Bedard was in the 6th. But what's your point? If the O's had taken him in the first round instead of the 6th then the draft would have been good?

And there's always better players out there. Of course the O's could have done better, but they did do better than average with their picks and found a very good player in the 6th round.

The facts are very clear here and they don't side with your position.

The facts are only clear if you look at it from a partial statistical view. If you work out a formula where top 50 picks have a higher weight because they are easier picks to make, and then add up all those higher weighted picks they missed, it would really reduce the value for their draft compared to another team that hit the usual 2-3 players in a good draft with only their usual allotment of picks. You can't just ignore that top 50 picks should be much easier picks because of the amount of time you have seen them, and how many people in your department have seen them compared to say a 33rd round pick, and they missed on a LOT of those picks when players with similar profiles were there and went soon after going on to be successful players.

[mweb]

The facts are only clear if you look at it from a partial statistical view. If you work out a formula where top 50 picks have a higher weight because they are easier picks to make, and then add up all those higher weighted picks they missed, it would really reduce the value for their draft compared to another team that hit the usual 2-3 players in a good draft with only their usual allotment of picks. You can't just ignore that top 50 picks should be much easier picks because of the amount of time you have seen them, and how many people in your department have seen them compared to say a 33rd round pick, and they missed on a LOT of those picks when players with similar profiles were there and went soon after going on to be successful players.

No one is ignoring the top 50 picks. Frobby posted info about those picks that showed the O's were above average in terms of WAR and players reaching the majors. Every team misses on players so I'm not sure why you're making their misses into such a big deal. Neither Frobby or I are saying they did great with those picks, but as the facts show, there is nothing to be embarrassed by and they helped make up for their missed later in the draft.

[allstar1579]

No one is ignoring the top 50 picks. Frobby posted info about those picks that showed the O's were above average in terms of WAR and players reaching the majors. Every team misses on players so I'm not sure why you're making their misses into such a big deal. Neither Frobby or I are saying they did great with those picks, but as the facts show, there is nothing to be embarrassed by and they helped make up for their missed later in the draft.

I think the disconnect is because my issue is with the number of high picks they had and missed on in one year. It's one thing if they missed their normal first and maybe a supplemental, going 0-2 I can live with, but missing 6 picks in the top 50 is really hard to do. It's almost like they were picking names out of a hat, but I think they would have had better odds doing that I mean, I know you follow the draft a little bit, if I gave you 7 picks in the top 50, just reading media reports, not even the info a scouting team could give you, I feel like you could do better than 1-7.

It wasn't like it was isolated to that year either, he went on to bomb the first round for the next 4 years after that too. That stretch, 1999-2004 is one of the worst drafting periods I've ever seen for any ML team, ever.

I've never been a big fan of DeMacio, he went to PIT for a couple years after here (when their drafts were being seriously criticized) and I think is now the Braves' scouting director.

[Frobby]

I think the disconnect is because my issue is with the number of high picks they had and missed on in one year. It's one thing if they missed their normal first and maybe a supplemental, going 0-2 I can live with, but missing 6 picks in the top 50 is really hard to do. It's almost like they were picking names out of a hat, but I think they would have had better odds doing that I mean, I know you follow the draft a little bit, if I gave you 7 picks in the top 50, just reading media reports, not even the info a scouting team could give you, I feel like you could do better than 1-7.

Well, you are simply incorrect about your expectations. For the 7 spots where the Orioles picked, the average number of players who reach the major leagues is just a tick under 50% -- so, the average would be ~3.5 players reaching the majors. The Orioles had three. And if you look around, most of the players who make it to the majors don't have long careers.

In the 47 years there has been a major league draft, BRob has the 4th highest WAR of any player chosen at no. 50.

In the 47 years there has been a major league draft, Bigbie has the 12th highest WAR of any player chosen at no. 21.

Bigbie is clearly not a "miss." Was he great? No. Was he much better than the average no. 21 pick? Yes.

Keith Reed barely got a cup of coffee in the majors, but that's better than 24 of the 47 players drafted at no. 23 can say. From a WAR point of view, he was 15th of 47 guys picked in that spot.

So, the yield the O's got out of their top 7 picks, both in terms of the number of players to reach the majors out of the 7, and the total WAR production out of the 7, was absolutely typical.

And here is another point: the Orioles had no 4th or 5th round pick, so getting Bedard in the 6th was a major, major coup, even moreso than already stated.

I guess you can still say that the O's didn't maximize their opportunity, and nobody is saying that they did. But they did fine with that draft, including the 1st round.

[mweb]

I think the disconnect is because my issue is with the number of high picks they had and missed on in one year. It's one thing if they missed their normal first and maybe a supplemental, going 0-2 I can live with, but missing 6 picks in the top 50 is really hard to do. It's almost like they were picking names out of a hat, but I think they would have had better odds doing that I mean, I know you follow the draft a little bit, if I gave you 7 picks in the top 50, just reading media reports, not even the info a scouting team could give you, I feel like you could do better than 1-7.

It wasn't like it was isolated to that year either, he went on to bomb the first round for the next 4 years after that too. That stretch, 1999-2004 is one of the worst drafting periods I've ever seen for any ML team, ever.

I've never been a big fan of DeMacio, he went to PIT for a couple years after here (when their drafts were being seriously criticized) and I think is now the Braves' scouting director.

Yet somehow those 7 picks ended up producing more WAR than the average picks in those same slots as Frobby showed and a higher % of those picks made the majors than the average of picks within that range that year. So again, they did better than their peers with picks in that range in either way of judging them. And it wasn't 1-7 either. So you should just have a problem with the ways teams in general drafted, since they did worse than the O's within that range.