What constitutes a good draft? My study of 1998-2005

[GuidoSarducci]

And here is the raw data if anyone is interested ..

	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999
1	85.3	0	15.9	117.5	2	32.3	12.8	-0.6	18.9	28.2
2	12.3	0.3	6.8	7.8	8.4	2.9	7.3	44.9	20	35.7
3	15.3	-2.1	0	10	11.3	19.6	8.2	38.1	9.7	-1.4
4	28.5	12.2	8.6	0.1	-0.8	27.6	5.4	4.6	-0.7	0
5	-2.6	0	-0.9	-0.9	0	3.2	5	28.6	44.9	0
6	-1.6	-0.5	71.3	-0.2	-0.3	0	0	0	0	0
7	13	-0.6	2.1	21.2	0	-1	0	-0.1	13	0.4
8	-0.7	14.3	0	0	10.5	61.8	0	-1.3	7.5	0
9	0	-0.1	6.4	0	-1	21.9	21.3	17.8	5.5	31.9
10	20.4	-0.5	8.1	1.4	4.4	-3.6	38.3	0	25.5	23.2
11	2	10.4	0.1	0	0	0	4.6	0	0	0
12	6.1	10.9	0	27.7	44.3	20.4	3	0	12.6	14.6
13	5.4	69.3	0	0	28.1	9.4	0	0.3	0	0
14	-0.3	25.9	3.6	34.5	24.2	-0.6	-2.9	-0.9	15.2	0
15	-0.2	0	1.7	34.2	0	0	0	-0.9	0	0
16	-0.1	34.7	-0.1	1.3	0	-0.8	-1	52	8	11.2
17	19.9	0.9	-1.1	0	3	64.2	0	0	7.9	0
18	-0.4	0	0	0	0	0	23.7	0	-0.7	0
19	0	2.8	24.9	2.8	0	0	-0.5	0	-0.3	27.3
20	82.8	6.3	0	50.7	5.3	0	16.5	20.9	62.6	0
21	0	2.7	-1.4	24.2	0.2	0	13.1	1	2.4	2.5
22	11.1	-0.6	20.2	0	-0.2	0.8	16.8	29.2	13.4	0
23	-0.4	20.1	41.7	5.6	-1.7	0	-0.3	0	-1.6	-0.1
24	28.2	0	0	0	0.4	0	0.1	0	0	-0.3
25	-0.3	-2.5	-0.3	3.4	2.6	-2.9	0	0	-0.7	3.8
26	0	5.5	-0.8	3.1	1.9	-0.5	0	0.9	0	0
27	0	1	-0.5	-1.1	0	0	0	0.1	0	0
28	6.2	0	22.6	9.2	-1.6	2.7	0	-2.3	-0.1	0
29	0.9	0	-0.2	3.2	15.4	0	0	0	0	0
30	0	0	0	0.2	2.7	0.2	-1.1	9.4	0	0

Edited August 14, 2021 by GuidoSarducci

[GuidoSarducci]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

This makes more sense. It was shocking that the no. 5 pick was in negative territory before.   Kind of funny how no. 20 was so productive that decade, with Mussina, Sabathia, Torii Hunter, Ian Kennedy and Eric Milton all popping.   The first three of those are the top three no. 20 picks in the 55+ year history of the draft, and they were all drafted in the same decade.   Fluky stuff like that happens.  

In 1990 the Orioles had the 20th pick and selected Mike Mussina. In 1993 they had the 19th pick and selected Jay Powell.  The next two picks in '93 (20th and 21st) were Torri Hunter and Jason Varitek.   If only they had lost a few more games in 1992 ... 

[Pickles]

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

It’s interesting because whatever the total WAR was for 2001, 150ish of that came from 3 players…Mauer, Tex and David Wright.  Another 15 from Gavin Floyd.

I wonder how normal that is during the years?   I suspect that a few players really end up skewing the numbers each year.  
 

 

This right here.

I've heard Frobby (and this is no criticism of frobby) before mention things like "He had the 17th most WAR out of all people ever picked 23rd overall."

But there's only been 55 23rd overall picks.  That's an extremely small sample.

And it introduces issues of median and mean, which he touched on in the OP.

I refuse to throw my hands up in the air and say "It's a crapshoot.  We can't analyze it accurately."

However, the real lesson from this analysis should be not only how little we do know, but how much we will never be able to know.

[Pickles]

3 hours ago, GuidoSarducci said:

Well after I posted that I went backed and looked again... and was wrong again. This should be right.  Unless I'm losing my mind..

 

1	31.23
2	14.64
3	10.87
4	8.55
5	7.73
6	6.87
7	4.80
8	9.21
9	10.37
10	11.72
11	1.71
12	13.96
13	11.25
14	9.87
15	3.48
16	10.52
17	9.48
18	2.26
19	5.70
20	24.51
21	4.47
22	9.07
23	6.33
24	2.84
25	0.31
26	1.12
27	-0.06
28	3.67
29	1.93
30	1.27

Ok, this makes more sense.  Your original list had almost a negative correlation with drafting high, w the exception of first overall.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Pickles said:

Ok, this makes more sense.  Your original list had almost a negative correlation with drafting high, w the exception of first overall.

Yes but what his list does show is that tanking (especially for several years) is stupid, at least in baseball.  
 

If you don’t get the first pick or 2, there is very little difference the rest of the draft.(and a high pick is basically your only advantage to tanking)

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes but what his list does show is that tanking (especially for several years) is stupid, at least in baseball.  
 

If you don’t get the first pick or 2, there is very little difference the rest of the draft.

There are still issues of bonus pool money.  Since that change, I would imagine it makes more sense to "tank."

There are as many kinds of tanks as there have been attempts to rebuild.  I wouldn't say anything too concrete about such a general topic.

However, yes, if your plan to rebuild is no more complicated than lose as much as possible for high draft picks, then it is probably going to fail.

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Pickles said:

There are still issues of bonus pool money.  Since that change, I would imagine it makes more sense to "tank."

There are as many kinds of tanks as there have been attempts to rebuild.  I wouldn't say anything too concrete about such a general topic.

However, yes, if your plan to rebuild is no more complicated than lose as much as possible for high draft picks, then it is probably going to fail.

The draft pool money is a bit overrated because most of it is tied into the higher pick.

And when you look at the lists and you see how little WAR the players towards the end of the first round tend to give you, I think you can imagine that it doesn’t go up in the comp rounds, 2nd round, 3rd round, etc….So essentially you tank for guys who are very unlikely to become anything.  
 

I don’t see how that is a good enough reason to throw away seasons.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

The draft pool money is a bit overrated because most of it is tied into the higher pick.

And when you look at the lists and you see how little WAR the players towards the end of the first round tend to give you, I think you can imagine that it doesn’t go up in the comp rounds, 2nd round, 3rd round, etc….So essentially you tank for guys who are very unlikely to become anything.  
 

I don’t see how that is a good enough reason to throw away seasons.

No, I wouldn't throw away seasons when I had a legitimate chance to compete for that.

Now in seasons when I didn't, I very well might.

Calling what the Braves did in 2014 vs. what the Orioles are doing in 2021 the same thing is grave disservice.  

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

The draft pool money is a bit overrated because most of it is tied into the higher pick.

And when you look at the lists and you see how little WAR the players towards the end of the first round tend to give you, I think you can imagine that it doesn’t go up in the comp rounds, 2nd round, 3rd round, etc….So essentially you tank for guys who are very unlikely to become anything.  
 

I don’t see how that is a good enough reason to throw away seasons.

I think that in a vacuum there is more value than you are suggesting but that value is diminished by the popularity of the strategy.  

The O's have pretty much been trying to lose these past three seasons and so far have not secured a 1-1 out of it. 

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think that in a vacuum there is more value than you are suggesting but that value is diminished by the popularity of the strategy.  

The O's have pretty much been trying to lose these past three seasons and so far have not secured a 1-1 out of it. 

It certainly is different than it was even ten years ago, which again, changes the calculations.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think that in a vacuum there is more value than you are suggesting but that value is diminished by the popularity of the strategy.  

The O's have pretty much been trying to lose these past three seasons and so far have not secured a 1-1 out of it. 

Right…the more teams that do it, the worse the plan is.

I don’t care if you tank for a season or 2..anything beyond that is bs and just stealing from fans.

[7Mo]

1 hour ago, Pickles said:

There are still issues of bonus pool money.  Since that change, I would imagine it makes more sense to "tank."

There are as many kinds of tanks as there have been attempts to rebuild.  I wouldn't say anything too concrete about such a general topic.

A lot of very smart people will agree that the MLB draft is very challenging because you're projecting what someone will become in a few years. There are just so many variables that it's virtually impossible to find a sure thing. But one thing we can all count on is if you don't pick Jordan Lawlar, you're stupid. I learned that right here.

[Can_of_corn]

27 minutes ago, 7Mo said:

A lot of very smart people will agree that the MLB draft is very challenging because you're projecting what someone will become in a few years. There are just so many variables that it's virtually impossible to find a sure thing. But one thing we can all count on is if you don't pick Jordan Lawlar, you're stupid. I learned that right here.

You see surprises and busts in the NFL and NBA drafts as well.

[7Mo]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

You see surprises and busts in the NFL and NBA drafts as well.

Definitely do. It's hard to project how someone will make decisions as they mature. The longer time frame from draft to breaking in to MLB makes it that much more difficult. 

[now]

14 hours ago, GuidoSarducci said:

Well after I posted that I went backed and looked again... and was wrong again. This should be right.  Unless I'm losing my mind..

 

1	31.23
2	14.64
3	10.87
4	8.55
5	7.73
6	6.87
7	4.80
8	9.21
9	10.37
10	11.72
11	1.71
12	13.96
13	11.25
14	9.87
15	3.48
16	10.52
17	9.48
18	2.26
19	5.70
20	24.51
21	4.47
22	9.07
23	6.33
24	2.84
25	0.31
26	1.12
27	-0.06
28	3.67
29	1.93
30	1.27

That data shows so clearly that if you're not drafting #1 overall, it hardly matters. 

With the notable exception of #20, which also clearly shows the shortcomings of small sample size. 

Data is so important to guide decision making... except when it isn't.