Maybe the Angels Drafted Pitchers for Us

[emmett16]

33 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Sure, pretty good, as you would expect given the draft picks he's had to work with.

But not top echelon.

Gunnar, Westburg, Cowser, Stowers, Holiday, Mayo as all legit top 100 guys.  I’d say 5-6 players in top 100 would be considered…..fantastic  

[emmett16]

1 minute ago, emmett16 said:

Gunnar, Westburg, Cowser, Stowers, Holiday, Mayo as all legit top 100 guys.  I’d say 5-6 players in top 100 would be considered…..fantastic  

Forgot Kjerstad….

[tntoriole]

On 7/14/2021 at 12:33 PM, Tony-OH said:

I believe this as well. It's not that I don't think they don't have some eyes on guys, but I think they are very connected to their analytcis that determines the best probability to gain WAR at the major league level.

I am sure there is data about this but I wonder what the average WAR for World Series winners looks like and are there patterns that are predictive.  Meaning do you have to have a certain WARs from certain positions.. TOR or Position stars to get a championship. 
As opposed to a collection of similar WAR players. 

[tntoriole]

Yes there is data lol

 

WAR can be used to describe the average team playing in the World Series, with the average winner having a team total WAR value of 47.0, or 13.7 above the 2017 MLB team average. Through historical analysis, WAR as a statistic and its values appear to be validated when comparing team total WAR values with actual winning percentage and general opinion. WAR values also don’t vary much between decades, with the 1950s being the exception. Although the WAR value analysis for each World Series shows that teams with a higher WAR value win about 57.3 percent of the time, there is no correlation between the WAR difference between teams and winning percentage, leaving postseason outcomes subject to intangible factors.

https://sabr.org/journal/article/war-and-the-world-series-is-war-an-indicator-of-october-success/

 

[Hallas]

I think you can leave WAR out of this and just focus on the grand strategy of stockpiling position players vs getting and developing pitchers.  WAR is a measuring stick, and it's helpful due to the fact that it's normalized for both pitchers and position players, but it's not fundamental to this approach.  It's not some crazy conclusion that position players are easier to develop and have lower injury risks.  Using this information to drive a draft strategy that almost completely ignores pitchers is a bit more unique, of course.

 

My main concern with this approach is that prospect-for-prospect trades are uncommon as far as I can tell - I don't really recall too many 55 or 60 grade prospects changing hands on both sides of the trading table.  Furthermore I would be concerned that you are not going to get 100% value out of your trades if you trade prospects for prospects.  If the longer term approach is to trade year 1-3 players that don't have a spot on the Major League team for high level prospects then i think it becomes a bit more plausible and likely that we will get good value.  Also, if Elias believes that selling prospects for 80% value is still better than trying to develop pitchers, that's also plausible. It's difficult to know whether that is the case and I don't have the time to pore through trade data to see, but I can see a world where the data says as much.

[OriolesMagic83]

Do any of the pitchers look like they could be starters.  I'm guessing most of them are just potential bullpen arms.

[oh-wee-ohs]

1 hour ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

Do any of the pitchers look like they could be starters.  I'm guessing most of them are just potential bullpen arms.

What does that even mean anymore? Not even trying to be facetious. In the age of 3-5 inning pitchers it doesn't even matter. I guess the "really special" ones in the future are those that give you 5-7 average. The #3s, 4s and 5s will probably average 3-5 in the future. We're already there, just look at our major league staff. Nothing wrong with that. Just the new blueprint. Draft the guys that give you the best shot at dominance in one turn thru the lineup.

Also, to add, sometimes one of those pitchers struggles and comes out in less than two. The next one steps in, and maybe they buzzsaw thru the lineup and cover 5 easily. Kinda seems like that's our plan.

 

[now]

On 7/14/2021 at 9:33 AM, Tony-OH said:

I believe this as well. It's not that I don't think they don't have some eyes on guys, but I think they are very connected to their analytcis that determines the best probability to gain WAR at the major league level.

Also when totaling WAR, it's not just a matter of more pitchers failing due to injury (They All Break); it's also loss of more playing time (e.g., Hall, GRod 2022) even for those that survive, thus undercutting their cumulative WAR. (And yeah, there are the YDiazes and DJStewarts on the position side too, just not nearly as often).

[baltfan]

2 hours ago, oh-wee-ohs said:

What does that even mean anymore? Not even trying to be facetious. In the age of 3-5 inning pitchers it doesn't even matter. I guess the "really special" ones in the future are those that give you 5-7 average. The #3s, 4s and 5s will probably average 3-5 in the future. We're already there, just look at our major league staff. Nothing wrong with that. Just the new blueprint. Draft the guys that give you the best shot at dominance in one turn thru the lineup.

Also, to add, sometimes one of those pitchers struggles and comes out in less than two. The next one steps in, and maybe they buzzsaw thru the lineup and cover 5 easily. Kinda seems like that's our plan.

 

This is exactly right.  Anyone that is confused as to what the strategy is should be asked to name the Rays starters beside McClanahan.   That’s the model. They have some young guys and then a guy like Kluber who isn’t that expensive but solid.