Some 2022 MLB Mock Drafts are starting to roll in. Brooks Lee # 1 ?

[waynebug]

So a small consensus seems to think Orioles will go with California-poly shortstop at 1-1.   6'2" and 205 lbs. Switchhitter with all fields power and good hit tool.  Can make the routine plays flawlessly but some people question his range and think he ends up at 3rd.

He would have a 1st round pick out of high school but he went to college to play for his dad.

There were some other high school names mentioned for 1-1.  Elijah Green, Andrew Jones' son, Temarr Johnson.  

I can't see Elias taking a high schooler.  The fan base wants results NOW, not in 4 or 5 years.

 

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, waynebug said:

So a small consensus seems to think Orioles will go with California-poly shortstop at 1-1.   6'2" and 205 lbs. Switchhitter with all fields power and good hit tool.  Can make the routine plays flawlessly but some people question his range and think he ends up at 3rd.

He would have a 1st round pick out of high school but he went to college to play for his dad.

There were some other high school names mentioned for 1-1.  Elijah Green, Andrew Jones' son, Temarr Johnson.  

I can't see Elias taking a high schooler.  The fan base wants results NOW, not in 4 or 5 years.

 

He obviously isn't taking the fanbase's desires into consideration. 

Which he shouldn't.

The idea is to create an organization that can maintain competitiveness over an extended period.  Drafting high school players can be a part of that. 

Also HS players selected 1-1 tend not to spend an extended period of time in the minors.

[Sports Guy]

Look at any mock draft right now is  essentially a waste of time.  Its something to discuss but they mean nothing this far away from the draft.

I am all in on a high upside HS player though.  They tend to be the guys who are the best players in the sport.(along with the int'l FAs)

College guys are safer but generally speaking have lower ceilings.

[Frobby]

50 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Look at any mock draft right now is  essentially a waste of time.  Its something to discuss but they mean nothing this far away from the draft.

I am all in on a high upside HS player though.  They tend to be the guys who are the best players in the sport.(along with the int'l FAs)

College guys are safer but generally speaking have lower ceilings.

I think that’s fair.  I think though that the super high upside HS guys are usually pretty obvious.   If there’s three guys to choose from out of HS with no clear favorite, that’s probably a time to favor a college guy.   

[waynebug]

From what we know about Elias I think he wants a college hitter who fits a need and will consider an underslot deal. 

Yeah, sounds like he might be an Elias type guy.

[Aristotelian]

On 10/20/2021 at 2:46 PM, Frobby said:

I think that’s fair.  I think though that the super high upside HS guys are usually pretty obvious.   If there’s three guys to choose from out of HS with no clear favorite, that’s probably a time to favor a college guy.   

What if all three have more upside than the college guy? It's rare but if you had three Bobby Witt type players and no Rutschman, I wouldn't make the difficulty of choosing which Witt-type prevent you from choosing one. 

[Frobby]

11 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

What if all three have more upside than the college guy? It's rare but if you had three Bobby Witt type players and no Rutschman, I wouldn't make the difficulty of choosing which Witt-type prevent you from choosing one. 

I don’t disagree with your hypothetical, but it’s a pretty unlikely scenario.  You have to consider both upside and floor.   Let’s say you have a HS guy with a 65 upside but 40 floor, and a college guy with a 60 upside but a 50 floor.   Do you take the guy with the higher upside?   I think the Elias Doctrine says no in that scenario.   And I’d bet their analysis is a bit more probabilistic than I described, i.e., they probably model the likelihood of the ceiling, floor and in between outcomes based on their data.

[Aristotelian]

9 hours ago, Frobby said:

I don’t disagree with your hypothetical, but it’s a pretty unlikely scenario.  You have to consider both upside and floor.   Let’s say you have a HS guy with a 65 upside but 40 floor, and a college guy with a 60 upside but a 50 floor.   Do you take the guy with the higher upside?   I think the Elias Doctrine says no in that scenario.   And I’d bet their analysis is a bit more probabilistic than I described, i.e., they probably model the likelihood of the ceiling, floor and in between outcomes based on their data.

I guess what I am saying is take every draft and every player on a case by case basis. If there are multiple HS players worthy of #1 don't pick the college guy just because it's hard to choose from the HS guys. I do think Elias likes college guys and that is fine if that's what the models say. I am just saying pick the college player because you think he will have the best return relative to risk, period.

[Frobby]

4 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

I guess what I am saying is take every draft and every player on a case by case basis. If there are multiple HS players worthy of #1 don't pick the college guy just because it's hard to choose from the HS guys. I do think Elias likes college guys and that is fine if that's what the models say. I am just saying pick the college player because you think he will have the best return relative to risk, period.

Hard to disagree with this.  

[BohKnowsBmore]

On 10/22/2021 at 11:18 PM, Frobby said:

I don’t disagree with your hypothetical, but it’s a pretty unlikely scenario.  You have to consider both upside and floor.   Let’s say you have a HS guy with a 65 upside but 40 floor, and a college guy with a 60 upside but a 50 floor.   Do you take the guy with the higher upside?   I think the Elias Doctrine says no in that scenario.   And I’d bet their analysis is a bit more probabilistic than I described, i.e., they probably model the likelihood of the ceiling, floor and in between outcomes based on their data.

One interesting thing about expected value models for drafts, though, is the ultimate scarcity of roster / positional space. To make an extreme hypothetical, if you had 30 guaranteed FV50 players and 30 players who had a 33% chance of being an FV 65 and 67% chance of being a complete bust (0 FV), the latter is actually likely better despite being a lesser collection of future value in total. You would have to weed out approximately the same number of guys under scenario 1 as were busts in Scenario 2.

Admittedly, this is oversimplified and neglects value of tradechips in the org, etc., but hopefully makes the point about the merits of high variance / high upside prospects in a limited slot at ML level environment.

[Jammer7]

On 10/23/2021 at 8:57 AM, Aristotelian said:

I guess what I am saying is take every draft and every player on a case by case basis. If there are multiple HS players worthy of #1 don't pick the college guy just because it's hard to choose from the HS guys. I do think Elias likes college guys and that is fine if that's what the models say. I am just saying pick the college player because you think he will have the best return relative to risk, period.

I think/hope this is who Mike Elias is. Hard to say, just yet. He was part of the Astros group that selected Carlos Correa, but what role did he play in that exactly?

We know their model favors track record/data, but I believe him when he says it is a balance with scouting. I think we’ll see him take high upside HS gambles, but I tend to think not this next draft at 1-1. If there is a guy like Lee, who will hit and hit with power from both sides, that is tough to pass on. If you take a guy like Elijah Greene, you had better be sure.

[Jammer7]

14 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

One interesting thing about expected value models for drafts, though, is the ultimate scarcity of roster / positional space. To make an extreme hypothetical, if you had 30 guaranteed FV50 players and 30 players who had a 33% chance of being an FV 60 and 67% chance of being a complete bust (0 FV), the latter is actually better despite being a lesser collection of future value in total. You would have to weed out approximately the same number of guys under scenario 1 as were busts in Scenario 2.

Admittedly, this is oversimplified and neglects value of tradechips in the org, etc., but hopefully makes the point about the merits of high variance / high upside prospects in a limited slot at ML level environment.

They should take some shots at high upside risks, absolutely. Gunnar Henderson, Coby Mayo and Carter Baumler represent that, I think, but in a place where it would not hurt as much as missing at 1-1. 

I wonder if they believe they are deep enough to take that level of risk at 1-1, just yet. At some point soon, he should be turning some of the prospect capital into major league pitchers. Of course we should not be drafting in the top 5 picks of the draft after this year. And the international player pipeline should start bearing more high end prospects as well. 

[7Mo]

6 hours ago, Jammer7 said:

They should take some shots at high upside risks, absolutely. Gunnar Henderson, Coby Mayo and Carter Baumler represent that, I think, but in a place where it would not hurt as much as missing at 1-1. 

I wonder if they believe they are deep enough to take that level of risk at 1-1, just yet. At some point soon, he should be turning some of the prospect capital into major league pitchers. Of course we should not be drafting in the top 5 picks of the draft after this year. And the international player pipeline should start bearing more high end prospects as well. 

Agree with all of your post.

If the O's win 70 next year, that's an 18 game improvement. Pretty big step. If they'd won 70 this year, they'd be picking 6th so I think there's one more year with higher picks than I would have guessed. 

[Jammer7]

On 10/25/2021 at 4:35 PM, 7Mo said:

Agree with all of your post.

If the O's win 70 next year, that's an 18 game improvement. Pretty big step. If they'd won 70 this year, they'd be picking 6th so I think there's one more year with higher picks than I would have guessed. 

You may be correct. We may see them drafting in the top 10 for another year, maybe two, but after that Elias will have some explaining to do. 

[odogs101]