Keith Law ranks the 2009 draft - top 10 teams and bottom 5

[nadecir]

Law doesn't have the Orioles in his top ten of team ratings for the 2009 draft. Here is how he rates the top ten teams drafting this year as:

1. Arizona

2. Minnesota

3. Boston

Here is a blurb about what Law said about the Red Sox draft.

The Red Sox landed four players from my top 100 as well as three more (David Renfroe, Brandon Jacobs, and Miles Head) who would have been in the next 30-40 names on the list.

4. Colorado

5. San Francisco

The next five teams were Oakland, Detroit, LA Dodgers, Pirates and the Nationals. These teams were in no particular order.

The bottom five were: Toronto, NY Mets, Texas. Tampa Bay, and Atlanta.

Law thought that Tyler Matzek should have went in the top 5, and he gives kudos to the Rockies for drafting him at 11 and paying $3.9 million to get him in their system. He didn't mention any other team outside the top 10 or in the bottom five. So by process of elimination that leaves the Orioles' draft somewhere between 11-25 in Law's mind. Here's the URL, but it requires an insider subscription to view:

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/news/story?id=4409866

[Mooreisbetter27]

Law doesn't have the Orioles in his top ten of team ratings for the 2009 draft. Here is how he rates the top ten teams drafting this year as:

1. Arizona

2. Minnesota

3. Boston

Here is a blurb about what Law said about the Red Sox draft.

4. Colorado

5. San Francisco

The next five teams were Oakland, Detroit, LA Dodgers, Pirates and the Nationals. These teams were in no particular order.

The bottom five were: Toronto, NY Mets, Texas. Tampa Bay, and Atlanta.

Law thought that Tyler Matzek should have went in the top 5, and he gives kudos to the Rockies for drafting him at 11 and paying $3.9 million to get him in their system. He didn't mention any other team outside the top 10 or in the bottom five. So by process of elimination that leaves the Orioles' draft somewhere between 11-25 in Law's mind. Here's the URL, but it requires an insider subscription to view:

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/news/story?id=4409866

Well then, suffice it to say that I disagree STRONGLY with Law's take.

[Crazysilver03]

Well then, suffice it to say that I disagree STRONGLY with Law's take.

Do you know how the other organizations did though?

I think the Orioles had a good draft but 10 other teams could have had better drafts. I don't know.

[Mooreisbetter27]

Do you know how the other organizations did though?

I think the Orioles had a good draft but 10 other teams could have had better drafts. I don't know.

Truth be told, I haven't followed all of the drafts. However, I have watched the Boston draft and honestly can't see how they did "better" then us.

[BaltimoreFan]

Well then, suffice it to say that I disagree STRONGLY with Law's take.

How can you possibly argue about this?

Rating the first round would probably be hard enough, but entire drafts? You have to give writers the benefit of the doubt on this one.

We know how well the O's did, but comparing their class to others is almost impossible for non-professionals.

[crawdad]

Do you know how the other organizations did though?

I think the Orioles had a good draft but 10 other teams could have had better drafts. I don't know.

I think our draft is certainly coming from a different perspective than most commercial trade scouts. It is understandable that they are not in the top ten. As mentioned before, I am not fond of who we picked, but am fond that the money was there for Jordan to pick who he wanted.

Law has been wrong on players, but he also has a pretty good eye.

We have a high risk/high upside draft. We did a lot of overslotting. By nature of overslotting, we selected players with quite varied and volatile worth.

[Abadie]

Lets be honest....its all one big cr*p shoot anyway....who cares what Law says?

[crawdad]

Lets be honest....its all one big cr*p shoot anyway....who cares what Law says?

I find referring to the draft as a crap shoot is pretty irritating and just wrong. Everyone should be capable of making the basic observation that some teams draft well and others do not. People should be able to tell the difference between Dustin Ackley and Mike Flacco. People should even be able to tell the difference between Deven Merrero and Brandon May.

The draft is not a crap shoot. It is gambling on projections of various volatility.

[Abadie]

I find referring to the draft as a crap shoot is pretty irritating and just wrong. Everyone should be capable of making the basic observation that some teams draft well and others do not. People should be able to tell the difference between Dustin Ackley and Mike Flacco. People should even be able to tell the difference between Deven Merrero and Brandon May.

The draft is not a crap shoot. It is gambling on projections of various volatility.

It's not wrong....look at the 2001 draft for conversation sake, completely random on my part.

I'll pick out starters, impact pitchers from the first 2 rounds. You would think that these type of guys would turn into productive major league ball players, ready?

Joe Mauer #1

Mark Texieria #5

Casey Kotchman #13

Gross & Heilman @ #15 & #18 are toss ups

Fontenot #19

JP Howell #52

JJ Hardy #56

Brandon League @ #59 is a toss up

Neal Cotts @ 69 is a toss up

Dan Haren @ 72

So just to recap, 11 out of the first 76 picks have become successful major leaguers...you dont know what to expect coming out of the draft, it is indeed on big CS. Take the time too look at some other drafts and you'll find similiar success rates.

[hoosiers]

Not sure how Law's perspective can be so easily dismissed.

We took several high upside guys - many keys ones have very recent injury issues (Berry, Coffey, Henry). Six or seven months ago, most draft sources thought Coffey and Berry were moving to early round status. And most draft publications would have gone in several directions before Hogbood and others are skeptical of Givens' bat. Further, I've seen varied estimates on Ohlman ranging from first day pick to four to sixth rounder. Other guys like Cowan, Wirsch, Webb and the other Berry involve lots of projection.

I think we added a significant amount of talent and think we should be pleased with the draft, but it is not surprising that our draft is not "loved" by the professional critics.

[crawdad]

It's not wrong....look at the 2001 draft for conversation sake, completely random on my part.

I'll pick out starters, impact pitchers from the first 2 rounds. You would think that these type of guys would turn into productive major league ball players, ready?

Joe Mauer #1

Mark Texieria #5

Casey Kotchman #13

Gross & Heilman @ #15 & #18 are toss ups

Fontenot #19

JP Howell #52

JJ Hardy #56

Brandon League @ #59 is a toss up

Neal Cotts @ 69 is a toss up

Dan Haren @ 72

So just to recap, 11 out of the first 76 picks have become successful major leaguers...you dont know what to expect coming out of the draft, it is indeed on big CS. Take the time too look at some other drafts and you'll find similiar success rates.

To compare craps to the draft is completely ignoring odds and probability. It is a poor comparison. Find another term because relating it to craps is misleading and wrong. You are not the only one who does this, so don't think I am jumping solely on you . . . I just finally feel the urge to let everyone know that this cliched description of the draft is wrong and counter-intuitive.

[Abadie]

To compare craps to the draft is completely ignoring odds and probability. It is a poor comparison. Find another term because relating it to craps is misleading and wrong. You are not the only one who does this, so don't think I am jumping solely on you . . . I just finally feel the urge to let everyone know that this cliched description of the draft is wrong and counter-intuitive.

Call if what you want...my point is, teams spend all that money on draft picks with very little certainty that they'll pan out. If you look at the NFL, the rate of return on draft picks is MUCH higher. I think craps and the draft make perfect sense...you bet $, roll the dice and hope it hits. The MLB draft, you give a kid $990,000 hoping that his arm fully recovers from TJ surgery and eventually progresses up the ranks in your minor league system, evading injuries and becomes a productive starter for your ball club. I personally think the draft needs to be reexamined.

[crawdad]

Call if what you want...my point is, teams spend all that money on draft picks with very little certainty that they'll pan out. If you look at the NFL, the rate of return on draft picks is MUCH higher. I think craps and the draft make perfect sense...you bet $, roll the dice and hope it hits. The MLB draft, you give a kid $990,000 hoping that his arm fully recovers from TJ surgery and eventually progresses up the ranks in your minor league system, evading injuries and becomes a productive starter for your ball club. I personally think the draft needs to be reexamined.

The problem is that in craps, the rolls are equivalent. In baseball it is not. Saying the draft is a crapshoot is saying there is no skill in evaluation. That is overly simplistic.

[tnsmith90]

The problem is that in craps, the rolls are equivalent. In baseball it is not. Saying the draft is a crapshoot is saying there is no skill in evaluation. That is overly simplistic.

Now I'm not a big craps player by any means so correct me if I'm wrong, but while the odds of each roll are equivalent in craps, you're chances at winning money depend on the way you lay your bets down. So you have to make educated plays with your bets in order to maximize your odds of winning money. That sounds pretty similar to the baseball draft to me.

[crawdad]

Now I'm not a big craps player by any means so correct me if I'm wrong, but while the odds of each roll are equivalent in craps, you're chances at winning money depend on the way you lay your bets down. So you have to make educated plays with your bets in order to maximize your odds of winning money. That sounds pretty similar to the baseball draft to me.

Maybe if people have different dice that were better than other dice being used.