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

[BringBackMagic]

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.

I can't believe you are actually bothering to argue semantics to this extent. Fact is, the MLB Amateur draft is much riskier then any other professional draft. Therefore, the metaphor of a "gamble" is applicable. The choice of the game "craps" as the term to describe the practice was surely selected for hyberbolic reasons in order to draw a greater response from someone such as yourself. The fact you are really even arguing over the metaphor is shocking. Clearly there is not going to be a tit for tat equivalence between rolling dice and drafting players, but the general theme of gambling a lot of money in a boom or bust scenario makes sense.

Coffey, Ohlman, Webb, Hoppy, Givens and Hobgood all received big money deals without proving themselves and Division I ball. Therefore, they are risks... gambles. By selecting more of them, you are increasing your odds of one of them hitting, but there is still the chance that every one falls flat and never gets to Double-A.

Ultimately, success in the MLB draft relies on in depth research and a good bit of luck. It's an instance of making your own luck, but luck does very much have a place in the picture.

In regard to Keith Law's perspective, it's all nothing but conjecture and message board fodder at this point. Many of the key pieces of this year's draft (Ohlman, Coffey, Givens, Hoppy, Berry) haven't played an inning of professional baseball year. We can properly "evaluate" and "rank" this draft come 2011 when most of these guys are in their second full seasons... when most players really get to show whether or not they belong.

[hoosiers]

I can't believe you are actually bothering to argue semantics to this extent.

It's a poor analogy.

There are a lot of factors involved in getting a prospect to the majors to make any sort of contribution - factors that include talent, desire and avoiding injury on the players part as well as the ability of an organization to maximize the training of that prospect.

Anyone dumbing down the ultimate result of the draft process to "luck" and making analogies to casino dice games is really over-simplifying - at the end of the day, one might as well say that ANYTHING that is not a 100% certainty is a dice game. In this instance, anyone saying it's the same as a dice game is adding nothing to the conversation - except to waste others' time.

[BringBackMagic]

It's a poor analogy.

There are a lot of factors involved in getting a prospect to the majors to make any sort of contribution - factors that include talent, desire and avoiding injury on the players part as well as the ability of an organization to maximize the training of that prospect.

Anyone dumbing down the ultimate result of the draft process to "luck" and making analogies to casino dice games is really over-simplifying - at the end of the day, one might as well say that ANYTHING that is not a 100% certainty is a dice game. In this instance, anyone saying it's the same as a dice game is adding nothing to the conversation - except to waste others' time.

Of course there are other factors. But tell me that handing Cameron Coffey $1 mil in hope that he comes back from TJ surgery and performs at a high level isn't a gamble. Ask the Rays if when they took Josh Hamilton top overall if it wasn't a gamble. They did all of the research you can ask for, he was from a tremendous family with a great background and look what happened to him. The fact he isn't dead is a miracle.

Tell me that when the Cardinals selected a little known first baseman named Albert Pujols in the 13th round, it wasn't luck that that selected an average 1st base prospect that became possibly the greatest hitter of our generation.

[crawdad]

I can't believe you are actually bothering to argue semantics to this extent. Fact is, the MLB Amateur draft is much riskier then any other professional draft. Therefore, the metaphor of a "gamble" is applicable. The choice of the game "craps" as the term to describe the practice was surely selected for hyberbolic reasons in order to draw a greater response from someone such as yourself. The fact you are really even arguing over the metaphor is shocking. Clearly there is not going to be a tit for tat equivalence between rolling dice and drafting players, but the general theme of gambling a lot of money in a boom or bust scenario makes sense.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that by designating the draft as a crapshoot is reducing the skill involved to a level that will hurt one's understanding of this process. I'll give a short entry based in Rumsfeldian english.

Craps is not like the draft because in craps you have known knowns and one known unknown. The facts of those known knowns (probabilities) and the known unknown (outcome of the roll) are recognized by all. You know what your chances are if you bet in certain circumstances and you seal the deal by rolling unbiased dice.

That is not the draft. The draft is full of known unknowns, known knowns, unknown unknowns, and unknown knowns. Now this is confusing, so let me explain:

Example . . . power skill for a hitter

Known Unknowns . . . when we look at a prospect we know about things that we cannot know. For instance, what direction his power will develop.

Known knowns . . . we know his body type, we know how he has grown, we know his power display against his competition, we know his swing.

Unknown unknowns . . . does he have a genetic degenerating hip disorder, does he get tired of the game in 5 years.

Unknown knowns . . . information that other teams or individuals have and you don't.

In craps . . . you have just known knowns and a single known unknown. If you have inexperienced players, then others may have unknown knowns.

In the draft . . . your success is based on converting as much as possible to a known known and to be efficient enough so you have a competitive advantage to other teams in this regard.

[BringBackMagic]

I guess the point I am trying to make is that by designating the draft as a crapshoot is reducing the skill involved to a level that will hurt one's understanding of this process. I'll give a short entry based in Rumsfeldian english.

Craps is not like the draft because in craps you have known knowns and one known unknown. The facts of those known knowns (probabilities) and the known unknown (outcome of the roll) are recognized by all. You know what your chances are if you bet in certain circumstances and you seal the deal by rolling unbiased dice.

That is not the draft. The draft is full of known unknowns, known knowns, unknown unknowns, and unknown knowns. Now this is confusing, so let me explain:

Example . . . power skill for a hitter

Known Unknowns . . . when we look at a prospect we know about things that we cannot know. For instance, what direction his power will develop.

Known knowns . . . we know his body type, we know how he has grown, we know his power display against his competition, we know his swing.

Unknown unknowns . . . does he have a genetic degenerating hip disorder, does he get tired of the game in 5 years.

Unknown knowns . . . information that other teams or individuals have and you don't.

In craps . . . you have just known knowns and a single known unknown. If you have inexperienced players, then others may have unknown knowns.

In the draft . . . your success is based on converting as much as possible to a known known and to be efficient enough so you have a competitive advantage to other teams in this regard.

You are continuing to prove my point. I said I can't believe you are continuing to argue. If you read the first paragraph of my first post in this thread, it said that craps was obviously chosen as an over-the-top example or hyperbole. It wasn't to be taken as a serious point to point metaphor. As I said, there is no tit for tat comparison. The term crapshoot was never meant to be taken seriously. It's like saying "pull one out of the hat" or they may as well use a lottery system in assigning players. These aren't meant to be taken seriously but instead to use an extreme metaphor to describe a flawed system.

Your attempt to explain why the MLB Draft isn't exactly the same as playing a game of craps is successful, it's also not difficult. It's understood and doesn't need further explanation.

What you should be arguing is that the Orioles haven't gotten "luckier" the last few years. Instead, they have, under Jordan, become more proficient in scouting, selecting and signing high quality prospects. At the same time, you can still have Billy Rowell situations where quality talents just don't pan out.

[crawdad]

You are continuing to prove my point. I said I can't believe you are continuing to argue. If you read the first paragraph of my first post in this thread, it said that craps was obviously chosen as an over-the-top example or hyperbole. It wasn't to be taken as a serious point to point metaphor. As I said, there is no tit for tat comparison. The term crapshoot was never meant to be taken seriously. It's like saying "pull one out of the hat" or they may as well use a lottery system in assigning players. These aren't meant to be taken seriously but instead to use an extreme metaphor to describe a flawed system.

Your attempt to explain why the MLB Draft isn't exactly the same as playing a game of craps is successful, it's also not difficult. It's understood and doesn't need further explanation.

What you should be arguing is that the Orioles haven't gotten "luckier" the last few years. Instead, they have, under Jordan, become more proficient in scouting, selecting and signing high quality prospects. At the same time, you can still have Billy Rowell situations where quality talents just don't pan out.

Read around here. You will find that many people literally think the draft is like blind luck or essentially that. I am happy that you do not need such explanation.

[hoosiers]

Of course there are other factors. But tell me that handing Cameron Coffey $1 mil in hope that he comes back from TJ surgery and performs at a high level isn't a gamble. Ask the Rays if when they took Josh Hamilton top overall if it wasn't a gamble. They did all of the research you can ask for, he was from a tremendous family with a great background and look what happened to him. The fact he isn't dead is a miracle.

Tell me that when the Cardinals selected a little known first baseman named Albert Pujols in the 13th round, it wasn't luck that that selected an average 1st base prospect that became possibly the greatest hitter of our generation.

There is "risk" in every draft move. That you equate risk to gambling and its random outcomes is your problem.

[BringBackMagic]

There is "risk" in every draft move. That you equate risk to gambling and its random outcomes is your problem.

When did I use the word random anywhere? Gambling is not random. Gambling is playing the odds. If I put down a bet on the Steelers to win the Super Bowl last season the day before the big game, it was probably 3:1 odds or something like that. That's a gambling.

In regard to this year's draft, the Nationals felt so strongly that Strasburg was going to be a hit, they were willing to put down a record bet, $15 mil that he'll be a big time, MLB pitcher that will anchor their staff.

Last year, we put down a mil on a high risk-high reward bet that Xavier Avery will develop his raw skills and become a major league outfielder and maybe even a lead off hitter. This year, the FO gave Joe Jordan around $8.8 mil to go to the table and place bets on these players. Some are what we hope to be closer to sure things (Matt Hobgood, Tyler Townsend) others are longshots, but could pay off big (Mychal Givens, Michael Ohlman). On some of these, we will surely lose. The vast majority will lose, but that's what happens when the house has the advantage. What we hope for is that 3-4 of the 29 drafted players hit, and if they hit big, we could they could be major players in the team's future or great trade chips for a big deal that could push the club further.

Gambling isn't random. The draft isn't random. They are both taking educated guesses after intense scrutiny and careful decision making.

[Fairfax Bird]

Keith Law works for ESPN, therefore, in any top 10 list he would need to include either the Red Sox, Yankees, or both.

[blueblood]

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

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

Joe Jordan must be shooting himself now. We got scared away from Maztek's initialized price,if he knew initially that Matzek will sign for 3+ million, he should have drafted Maztek. You still got to believe Maztek is much better prospect than Hobgood. That is why Keith didn't think we are good enough for top5.

[mark_beckens]

Joe Jordan must be shooting himself now. We got scared away from Maztek's initialized price,if he knew initially that Matzek will sign for 3+ million, he should have drafted Maztek. You still got to believe Maztek is much better prospect than Hobgood. That is why Keith didn't think we are good enough for top5.

You can't assume that. Being drafted #5 and #11 comes with a much different price tag. If we had drafted him, he would have gotten more then. 3.9 Million.

[tvz1997]

You can't assume that. Being drafted #5 and #11 comes with a much different price tag. If we had drafted him, he would have gotten more then. 3.9 Million.

A nice point in an otherwise off-the-tracks thread. (Please don't belittle my railroad verbiage).

[RVAbird]

Joe Jordan must be shooting himself now. We got scared away from Maztek's initialized price,if he knew initially that Matzek will sign for 3+ million, he should have drafted Maztek. You still got to believe Maztek is much better prospect than Hobgood. That is why Keith didn't think we are good enough for top5.

You can't assume that. Being drafted #5 and #11 comes with a much different price tag. If we had drafted him, he would have gotten more then. 3.9 Million.

This. If Matzek were picked at 1:5 vs. 1:11 his price tag would have been closer to 5MM.

I can assure you Joe Jordan is not shooting himself right now. He knows the kids, knows their skills and make up, and he made the determination that the difference in talent was not enough to justify twice the price tag for Matzek, particularly when you can use that extra 2+ MM to sign over slot guys like Coffey and Ohlman and Webb in order to get a deeper inventory of high upside talent, rather than throwing 5 MM into the development of one 18 year old pitcher.

[crawdad]

This. If Matzek were picked at 1:5 vs. 1:11 his price tag would have been closer to 5MM.

I can assure you Joe Jordan is not shooting himself right now. He knows the kids, knows their skills and make up, and he made the determination that the difference in talent was not enough to justify twice the price tag for Matzek, particularly when you can use that extra 2+ MM to sign over slot guys like Coffey and Ohlman and Webb in order to get a deeper inventory of high upside talent, rather than throwing 5 MM into the development of one 18 year old pitcher.

Yeah, I think the argument is probably more on the lines of Hobgood and Coffey vs Wheeler or Green or White, etc. Matzek looks to be out of their range at the 5 pick. Matzek would have been a loss of Coffey, Webb, and Martin. I imagine spreading that money over four guys is a better shot than at one.

[mark_beckens]

Yeah, I think the argument is probably more on the lines of Hobgood and Coffey vs Wheeler or Green or White, etc. Matzek looks to be out of their range at the 5 pick. Matzek would have been a loss of Coffey, Webb, and Martin. I imagine spreading that money over four guys is a better shot than at one.

I think this is where some people just don't get what JJ did this year. Is drafting and signing Matzek, for say 5 million and having to draft lesser talent later cause you know you won't be able to afford to go over slot on high ceiling guys, better then drafting and signing Hobgood and having the ablitity to not only draft many high ceiling over slot players but sign them too. Personlly I'd rather us draft and sign 5 guys who rank between 6-8 on a scale of 10 instead of drafting a 9-10 and having to break the bank and having to draft lower ceiling easy sign guys.