Is the overslot strategy worth it?

[RZNJ]

13 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

First of all, of course Callis talks to scouts but it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have his own opinions.  Secondly, we don’t know how many people told him that?  Was it 1 scout? 5 scouts? 100 scouts?  Even your feeble mind understands there is a difference there.  Without context and knowledge of those things, that comment doesn’t mean much.  You want to hold onto it, go right ahead but it doesn’t really mean much without more info behind it but you can keep bringing it up to make you feel better about your point and the idea that you mentioned the source.  Good for you.  

Secondly, it absolutely lowers his ceiling.  It lowers his hit tool which lowers his ceiling.  It’s like Johnson, his hit tool is what makes him the highly ranked guy he is.  He has some power upside and a great bat to ball game.  That hit tool gets him in the realm of an 80 hit grade. If he was swinging and missing like Green, his hit tool wouldn’t have the same grade and he wouldn’t be viewed as a viable candidate to be a top 5 pick.

Green, despite having some questions about his bat, has the highest ceiling, according to many, in this draft. PERIOD.

If you're too much of a moron to grasp that, too bad.  You can lead a horse to water, and he might not drink it. What do they say about jackasses?

[RZNJ]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know where McDaniel and Callis get their information from.  It only takes a full wit.  Not a half-wit.

[Frobby]

At the end of the day, we don’t know if Mike Elias and his staff agree with McDaniel, Law or anyone else with regard to evaluation of the player’s ceiling, probability of reaching their ceiling, etc.   Overslot strategy depends on how you evaluate the player’s tools, how you weigh those tools, etc.   The majority view isn’t always the right one.   So, having zero scouting chops myself and having never watched these guys play, I tend not to get too worked up about what the supposed consensus is.

[Just Regular]

Finally got through this thread, and it has some great floor and ceiling of its own.

Continuing to 2018, here are a few teams that at a moment's glance notably underpaid their 1st round pick relative to other picks near them, and any interesting big bonuses from later in that team's draft.

2018 Mets 1-6 - High School bat Kelenic "only" 4.5mm

3rd round Carlos Cortes one of only three 7-figure bonuses (so was Blaine Knight)

Their 2nd round Simeon Woods-Richardson fit in with his round, and I didn't see anyone past half a million later.

2018 Blue Jays 1-12 - High School bat Jordan Groshans "only" 3.4mm

Allowed 2.5mm spend on 3rd rounder Adam Kloffenstein

2018 Twins 1-20 - NCAA bat Trevor Larnach "only" 2.5mm (a pick I could have imagined Elias making as Not Grayson Rodriguez, for polished bat savings)

Allowed $500k spend on 6th round high school SS Charles Mack (2nd highest 6th round bonus that year.

Almost four years out, no notable big wins seem to be emerging from those cases.

 

[Jammer7]

Wow, this thread is one for the books.

The facts are facts, sure. But what do they mean? To me, it means the league, as a whole, has had some limited success with over slot picks. Ok, sure. But, does that mean each organization has had the same level of success? No. Some have had a much better record than others. Elias happens to have been involved in one of the more successful organizations, the Astros. 

The one draft cited that talks about Elias’ draft in Houston seems to counter the main point of the OP.

There are several factors that dictate success. Do they take riskier pitchers, or stick to more stable position players? Who is doing the scouting and drafting, are they diligent and well prepared? How capable is their player development system, are they on the same page as the amateur scouting group, what are they good at developing and does the scouting group draft that? Does the organization have the resources available to support the coaches and the players selected? That goes far beyond signing day. Do they have processes in place for the players’ growth in all facets of their physical, mental, psychological, emotional and financial well-being? Success doesn’t just happen by the player seeking it out on their own very often. I used to wonder why MLB organizations did not do more than just sign them and give them a uniform.

Elias went under-slot in the previous years to maximize the draft pool to build as much depth as he could. I believe he calculated the value of all players available and selected the best player in their evaluation that they could get the most from as a player. He leveraged their general status. It remains to be seen if that was right or not. Opinions vary. He could not have seen Kjerstad’s path so far. And I’m not worried about Cowser, not yet.

This seems like the year he can justify taking a riskier/toolsy pick. Maybe it’ll be Greene, who knows? The depth is built up and he can begin dealing from the depth. 

The naysayers will always find something to bitch about. Facts, hard to come by just yet in Elias’ draft classes in Baltimore, especially in regards to Over and Under slot applications of the draft pool. Some point to Gunner Henderson, Coby Mayo, Carter Baumler, John Rhodes and Creed Willems as a major success employing this tactic. Some say Lawler and Martin were better picks than Kjerstad and Cowser. Maybe they were, maybe not. You cannot jump to any conclusions yet, at least not any reasonable ones. 

[Frobby]

You make good points, @Jammer7.  I still think SG provided some useful information to inform the discussion.   And I’d like to come back to this thread a few times in the next several years to see if the picture has changed.   

[Jammer7]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

You make good points, @Jammer7.  I still think SG provided some useful information to inform the discussion.   And I’d like to come back to this thread a few times in the next several years to see if the picture has changed.   

Absolutely, SG, and others, made several good points. I just want to be sure we try to interpret the data in our subset. To criticize the tactic because some in the industry made poor decisions seems incomplete analysis. There is so much more to what happens after they are selected. 

[Sports Guy]

38 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:

Absolutely, SG, and others, made several good points. I just want to be sure we try to interpret the data in our subset. To criticize the tactic because some in the industry made poor decisions seems incomplete analysis. There is so much more to what happens after they are selected. 

I don’t think it has anything to do with mistakes in the industry.

Its just that those players have a low success rate in general, so when your strategy is to go cheaper early to get those guys, it seems like a poor strategy when you have higher upside guys sitting there for you…especially since you can still get the higher upside guys and go overslot anyway.

[foxfield]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I don’t think it has anything to do with mistakes in the industry.

Its just that those players have a low success rate in general, so when your strategy is to go cheaper early to get those guys, it seems like a poor strategy when you have higher upside guys sitting there for you…especially since you can still get the higher upside guys and go overslot anyway.

I cannot imagine you will find a GM who will actually admit to taking a player he likes less than another for the sake of money.  That doesn't mean it has not happened.  But I do not think this is the binary choice you present it as.  IE take a better player for the top dollar or a lesser player because they will take less.

Jones is the best player available.  He should sign for pretty close to slot.  You say Green is acceptable to consider for #1.  Let's say Green's agent calls and says what will we have to sign for to get you to take us?  

As GM you like em both.  You prefer Jones and are prepared to sign him for slot and may even be willing to go slightly over.  But isn't there a number where Green is too attractive to pass on?

Im not a GM, and I haven't seen either of these players live.  Is the difference $200,000?  Is it $1,000,000?  Neither of these guys are locks for anything.  Keith Law said in his chat the other day that neither Jones nor Green are on par at this point as Rutschman and Witt.

My point is that the way that you frame the strategy is probably not really how the strategy is used.  I think it's more of a math equation and you are skipping the valuation of players by the team employing said strategy.  It's not the general consensus vs cost.  It's the drafting teams value of two players and what those respective values can be purchased for...anyway. Just my 2 cents.

Have enjoyed the debate and conversation.  Just wish everyone would be more civil.

 

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, foxfield said:

I cannot imagine you will find a GM who will actually admit to taking a player he likes less than another for the sake of money.  That doesn't mean it has not happened.  But I do not think this is the binary choice you present it as.  IE take a better player for the top dollar or a lesser player because they will take less.

Jones is the best player available.  He should sign for pretty close to slot.  You say Green is acceptable to consider for #1.  Let's say Green's agent calls and says what will we have to sign for to get you to take us?  

As GM you like em both.  You prefer Jones and are prepared to sign him for slot and may even be willing to go slightly over.  But isn't there a number where Green is too attractive to pass on?

Im not a GM, and I haven't seen either of these players live.  Is the difference $200,000?  Is it $1,000,000?  Neither of these guys are locks for anything.  Keith Law said in his chat the other day that neither Jones nor Green are on par at this point as Rutschman and Witt.

My point is that the way that you frame the strategy is probably not really how the strategy is used.  I think it's more of a math equation and you are skipping the valuation of players by the team employing said strategy.  It's not the general consensus vs cost.  It's the drafting teams value of two players and what those respective values can be purchased for...anyway. Just my 2 cents.

Have enjoyed the debate and conversation.  Just wish everyone would be more civil.

 

I understand the strategy, the reasoning, the purpose, etc…but at the end of the day, you are choosing to take a lesser player to save money later to potentially get a player whose likelihood of success is extremely low.
 

That is what boils down to.  You can try to dress it up to sound as good as you want but at the end of the day, that is the result.  
 

 

[foxfield]

31 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I understand the strategy, the reasoning, the purpose, etc…but at the end of the day, you are choosing to take a lesser player to save money later to potentially get a player whose likelihood of success is extremely low.
 

That is what boils down to.  You can try to dress it up to sound as good as you want but at the end of the day, that is the result.  
 

 

Just so that you understand.  I am not dressing anything up.  I posed a hypothetical for the two number one choices based on your comments.  I did not say anything about who you might or might not get later. (Though it might well enter your consideration)

Two players.  You have the number one pick.  You can have Jones for Slot and the agent for Green calls and says.  Hey SG, we really want Green to go number one...what do we have to sign for to make you pick us? Give me a number.

So the question is really one of valuation.  You can have either of two elite players.  One is "cheaper"

[Sports Guy]

17 minutes ago, foxfield said:

Just so that you understand.  I am not dressing anything up.  I posed a hypothetical for the two number one choices based on your comments.  I did not say anything about who you might or might not get later. (Though it might well enter your consideration)

Two players.  You have the number one pick.  You can have Jones for Slot and the agent for Green calls and says.  Hey SG, we really want Green to go number one...what do we have to sign for to make you pick us? Give me a number.

So the question is really one of valuation.  You can have either of two elite players.  One is "cheaper"

I take the BPA. 
 

We have a ton of money to spend.

[BohKnowsBmore]

15 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I take the BPA. 
 

We have a ton of money to spend.

We have a limited pool for the draft. Every dollar allocated to the top pick is not available for subsequent picks. 
 

Respectfully, you say you understand the strategy, but comments like these sort of make it seem like you don’t. 

[foxfield]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I take the BPA. 

You said the two players were both worthy of #1 consideration.  So not trying to put words in your mouth, but lets say that you have Jones #1 and comfortably ahead of Green.  I think that is a fair representation of what you have said.

There is no dollar figure that would make Green more attractive?  

That sounds nice...but Im pretty sure in the real world where GMs make real decisions.  Their top two players at any given slot....have dollar figures that make small differences larger and vice versa.

I appreciate and agree that in the purest sense of the word, drafting best player available is always the right move.  I even think most GMs would tell you that is what they do.  

Anyway, I accept your answer that Jones is your pick as you have made that clear for over a month.  He would be mine too.  I'm not as confident as you in the distance between him and Green.  

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

We have a limited pool for the draft. Every dollar allocated to the top pick is not available for subsequent picks. 
 

Respectfully, you say you understand the strategy, but comments like these sort of make it seem like you don’t. 

We have a huge amount of money to spend.  That’s not debatable.  Yes, it’s not infinite but it’s one of the largest pools in history.  They can go BPA with 1:1 and still easily go over slot, likely multiple times.