Keith Law has O's taking Tommy White at #22 in latest mock draft

[ChosenOne21]

At 22 the player you pick isn't likely to be a valuable major leaguer no matter what. You've just got to grab whoever you think is most likely to be valuable and hope for the best. 

[btdart20]

1 hour ago, ChosenOne21 said:

At 22 the player you pick isn't likely to be a valuable major leaguer no matter what. You've just got to grab whoever you think is most likely to be valuable and hope for the best. 

Who have more value?

Player A - 5% chance at a 60 FV, 50% at 40 FV, 45% at 30 FV, 95% healthy

Player B - 33% chance at 60 FV, 33% at 40 FV, 33% at 30 FV, 33% healthy

Player C - 50% chance at 50 FV, 30% at 40, 20% at 30 FV, 95% healthy

[RZNJ]

34 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

Who have more value?

Player A - 5% chance at a 60 FV, 50% at 40 FV, 45% at 30 FV, 95% healthy

Player B - 33% chance at 60 FV, 33% at 40 FV, 33% at 30 FV, 33% healthy

Player C - 50% chance at 50 FV, 30% at 40, 20% at 30 FV, 95% healthy

If I already have a decent amount of C’s, I’m going for B if it’s a pitcher.

[ChosenOne21]

29 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

Who have more value?

Player A - 5% chance at a 60 FV, 50% at 40 FV, 45% at 30 FV, 95% healthy

Player B - 33% chance at 60 FV, 33% at 40 FV, 33% at 30 FV, 33% healthy

Player C - 50% chance at 50 FV, 30% at 40, 20% at 30 FV, 95% healthy

This is obviously debatable, and it depends on what you mean by healthy. If 33% healthy means you're on the field 1/3 of the time, I'm not picking that player over A or C. If it means you have a 33% chance of avoiding the IL each year, I'd probably go with player B, though of course it depends what exactly the injury risk is.

I have a slight preference for C over A, and B seems way too likely to get injured/spend too much time injured despite the higher upside. This is slightly confounded by the value difference between a 60 and a 50 being a lot more than between a 50 and a 40.

Reasonable people can disagree on this though.

[btdart20]

27 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

This is obviously debatable, and it depends on what you mean by healthy. If 33% healthy means you're on the field 1/3 of the time, I'm not picking that player over A or C. If it means you have a 33% chance of avoiding the IL each year, I'd probably go with player B, though of course it depends what exactly the injury risk is.

I have a slight preference for C over A, and B seems way too likely to get injured/spend too much time injured despite the higher upside. This is slightly confounded by the value difference between a 60 and a 50 being a lot more than between a 50 and a 40.

Reasonable people can disagree on this though.

Agreed.  That was my point in reference to the "most likely to be valuable" comment.  That's what the SigBot model and tries to quantify.

The injury risk was along the lines of TINSTAAPP where talented pitchers get hurt and never make it.  And I do think the model has a higher injury risk value for pitchers than other positions.  Other metrics come into play building a portfolio/draft/team.  And we saw the weighting shift in the 2023 draft.  

[Jim'sKid26]

18 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

Agreed.  That was my point in reference to the "most likely to be valuable" comment.  That's what the SigBot model and tries to quantify.

The injury risk was along the lines of TINSTAAPP where talented pitchers get hurt and never make it.  And I do think the model has a higher injury risk value for pitchers than other positions.  Other metrics come into play building a portfolio/draft/team.  And we saw the weighting shift in the 2023 draft.  

An interesting question, at least for me, is what characteristics in a pitcher decrease the risk of injury while still maintaining value. Do you avoid the 100 mph thrower, for example? Do you avoid the smaller stature pitcher and go with a guy with lesser stuff who has a more "projectable" body type? What is a "more projectable body type?" I have my opinions but I don't do this for a living so I'm likely quite ill-informed.

[Jim'sKid26]

15 hours ago, RZNJ said:

I just checked picks 20-30 for every draft 2014-2023.  Feel free to correct me.   The two best demographics for those spots tend to be HS position players followed be college pitchers.   

What criteria did you use to define "best demographics." I'm assuming you mean outcomes. Did you use WAR or some other measure? Thanks.

[RZNJ]

24 minutes ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

What criteria did you use to define "best demographics." I'm assuming you mean outcomes. Did you use WAR or some other measure? Thanks.

Nothing scientific.  I just looked at the names and saw that more ML players or current top prospects came from those demographics.  By demographics, I mean 4, HS pitchers. HS position players, C position players, C pitchers.  That’s why I said, feel free to correct me.  You can go on BRef and scroll through each draft pretty easily.   I’m not about to get too detailed about it unless you disagree.  Then, I might.   

[Jammer7]

21 hours ago, RZNJ said:

I had never heard of Luke Dickerson before.  His HS is about an hour away from me.  Baseball America does a top 500 ranking.  I thought I’d find him in the top 100.  Nope.  I searched by “Luke” and he popped up at #311.  That’s some late riser!   Here’s the write up.   Is he supposed to be in top 2 rounds consideration?

311. Luke Dickerson

SS

Ht: 6'0" | Wt: 185 | B-T: R-R

Age: null

School: Morris Knolls HS, Rockaway, N.J.

Commit/Drafted: Virginia

Age At Draft: 18.9

Dickerson has been one of the better offensive performers among high school hitters in the northeast, which along with his athleticism has piqued the interest of scouts. Dickerson, who won a hockey state championship in March, has a strong, compact frame and plus speed. Scouts highest on him see an offensive-minded righthanded hitter who has shown solid feel for hitting and for the strike zone with the ability to use the middle of the field, along with an uptick in power production this spring. Dickerson has played shortstop but has experience in the center field as well, with second base or the outfield potential fits for him long term.

This was a name that Carlos Collazzo and the other guy he does the BA pod with talked about. I did the same search as you, and was mildly surprised.

[Jammer7]

5 hours ago, ChosenOne21 said:

At 22 the player you pick isn't likely to be a valuable major leaguer no matter what. You've just got to grab whoever you think is most likely to be valuable and hope for the best. 

No matter what? What is your criteria for “valuable major leaguer?” Must be pretty high.

I think scouting (and player development) has come a long way in the past 5-10 years and the odds are increasing. There are plenty of valuable players and pitchers available, historically, in the past decade. This is supposed to be a weaker draft, but there will be value there. Most likely, if we are to assume this team has a playoff/World Series window of five years or so, the player they take will be a trade chip.

In Elias’ five drafts, he has picked some very valuable picks after 1-22. No?

[ChosenOne21]

18 hours ago, Jammer7 said:

No matter what? What is your criteria for “valuable major leaguer?” Must be pretty high.

I think scouting (and player development) has come a long way in the past 5-10 years and the odds are increasing. There are plenty of valuable players and pitchers available, historically, in the past decade. This is supposed to be a weaker draft, but there will be value there. Most likely, if we are to assume this team has a playoff/World Series window of five years or so, the player they take will be a trade chip.

In Elias’ five drafts, he has picked some very valuable picks after 1-22. No?

 

I did say "unlikely" before "no matter what." Now that I re-read that though, it's kind of a bizarre sentence so I can see why you interpreted it that way. Of course there's a shot a player taken at 1-22 succeeds.

Elias is certainly above average at drafting, possibly well above average, but the odds are still against him here, as they are for pretty much any individual pick he makes.

I'm not trying to knock Elias here, just stating the fact that the vast majority of players selected in the back of the first round don't turn into solid regulars and so you shouldn't pass up someone you think is more likely to succeed here to draft "for need."

I'm certain someone who will be available at this pick will have an incredible major league career. The odds are against it being whoever we draft though. That's just math.

Edited Sunday at 10:34 by ChosenOne21

[Jim'sKid26]

I think an issue here that can not be overlooked is the dollars involved. The 2024 1-22 slot is worth $3,802,200. The Os 2024 bonus pool is $10,920,900.  That is nearly 35% of their pool on one pick. Yes, you can offer less, and the Os are good at doing that, but that usually means you are selecting a lesser talent than you could have selected if you paid full value. It's a tough place to pick to get value because of the money involved. 

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-draft-2024-bonus-pick-values

Edited Sunday at 13:37 by Jim'sKid26

[Jammer7]

7 hours ago, ChosenOne21 said:

 

I did say "unlikely" before "no matter what." Now that I re-read that though, it's kind of a bizarre sentence so I can see why you interpreted it that way. Of course there's a shot a player taken at 1-22 succeeds.

Elias is certainly above average at drafting, possibly well above average, but the odds are still against him here, as they are for pretty much any individual pick he makes.

I'm not trying to knock Elias here, just stating the fact that the vast majority of players selected in the back of the first round don't turn into solid regulars and so you shouldn't pass up someone you think is more likely to succeed here to draft "for need."

I'm certain someone who will be available at this pick will have an incredible major league career. The odds are against it being whoever we draft though. That's just math.

I gotcha. Your point is certainly valid. The odds are against all of them. Of all the 1-1 picks, only four in the HOF: Ken Griffey Jr., Harold Baines, Chipper Jones and now, Joe Mauer. Others have had great careers, but fell short. Then, there’s ARod. 

I was not thinking you were attacking Elias. I just think the Orioles currently have a very good combo of scouting and PD. Their relationship is vital as they collaborate on their picks. Bradfield was a daring pick for the Orioles. It told us more about their philosophy, and they will miss. But when they hit on some of these toolsy picks, it will be worth it.