Jump to content

Comparing Jordan's drafts to other AL East teams


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I think there is a misconception about the "later rounds". For the highly talented kids with strong college commits (like Pedro Alvarez) teams are aware that the likelihood of signing is slim. Still, teams make these selections because 1) they want to start building a relationship with the kid, and 2) they want to be the team there for the kid if he has a change of heart and decides he wants to start his baseball career.

If the point of an exercise is to determine the scouting aptitude of various departments, organizations should absolutely get credit for identifying players even if they don't end up signing them.

I agree, and that's why I included the unsigned players

but

part of the the scouting evaluation includes a fair analysis of the probability of signing the draftee if the money is "right"

and

that's where the business side of the organization enters the process -- matching potential value to the "right" price while operating within budget constraints (if there are any)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, and that's why I included the unsigned players

but

part of the the scouting evaluation includes a fair analysis of the probability of signing the draftee if the money is "right"

and

that's where the business side of the organization enters the process -- matching potential value to the "right" price while operating within budget constraints (if there are any)

I think this is true up to a point. But you (the broad "you") have to understand that the vast majority of players selected are being viewed as likely non-prospects and non-signs. Once you are into the twenties, you are usually weighing the benefit of trying to find someone that could perhaps be a prospect if things break the right way against taking a flier on someone who has a much better chance of being a prospect and a less likely chance to sign.

I think this year's draft for BOS was a pretty text book example of tiering your approach to hit different cross-sections which maximizing upside in a balanced risk portfolio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is true up to a point. But you (the broad "you") have to understand that the vast majority of players selected are being viewed as likely non-prospects and non-signs. Once you are into the twenties, you are usually weighing the benefit of trying to find someone that could perhaps be a prospect if things break the right way against taking a flier on someone who has a much better chance of being a prospect and a less likely chance to sign.

I think this year's draft for BOS was a pretty text book example of tiering your approach to hit different cross-sections which maximizing upside in a balanced risk portfolio.

Explain what you mean by different cross sections? Do you mean like projectable players, "now" players, raw, polished, college, JuCo, HS, are those examples of different cross sections?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a misconception about the "later rounds". For the highly talented kids with strong college commits (like Pedro Alvarez) teams are aware that the likelihood of signing is slim. Still, teams make these selections because 1) they want to start building a relationship with the kid, and 2) they want to be the team there for the kid if he has a change of heart and decides he wants to start his baseball career.

If the point of an exercise is to determine the scouting aptitude of various departments, organizations should absolutely get credit for identifying players even if they don't end up signing them.

First off to allstar -- just because I don't think unsigned players belong in the discussion doesn't mean i have trouble giving credit to our rivals. I find the suggestion insulting. I'm interested in a fair analysis.

As for the comment above, #2 is accurate and fairly obvious. #1 seems like a subset of #2 or....I just don't agree.

Why am i building a relationship with Alvarez aside from hoping I can convince him to sign. Are you suggesting that I may draft him out of college and think this relationship may be beneficial? Is there data to suggest that a team that drafts player out of HS is more likely to draft him out of college? When drafting out of college -- isn't it mostly about the money and not so much about the relationship? The player's options are dwindling at this point.

As for the broader point about whether to include unsigned players, I just don't agree. All we know is that the player in question didn't sign with a MLB team and went to college.

One possibility (which you seem to believe) is that the drafting team recognized superior talent more than the other teams but just didn't sign the player.

However, it is equally likely that another team saw the same talent but was confident he was unsignable and chose not to draft him (and they were right!).

To give credit for drafting a player and not sign him is essentially to suggest the other teams made a mistake in not doing so -- and that is totally illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off to allstar -- just because I don't think unsigned players belong in the discussion doesn't mean i have trouble giving credit to our rivals. I find the suggestion insulting. I'm interested in a fair analysis.

As for the comment above, #2 is accurate and fairly obvious. #1 seems like a subset of #2 or....I just don't agree.

Why am i building a relationship with Alvarez aside from hoping I can convince him to sign. Are you suggesting that I may draft him out of college and think this relationship may be beneficial? Is there data to suggest that a team that drafts player out of HS is more likely to draft him out of college? When drafting out of college -- isn't it mostly about the money and not so much about the relationship? The player's options are dwindling at this point.

As for the broader point about whether to include unsigned players, I just don't agree. All we know is that the player in question didn't sign with a MLB team and went to college.

One possibility (which you seem to believe) is that the drafting team recognized superior talent more than the other teams but just didn't sign the player.

However, it is equally likely that another team saw the same talent but was confident he was unsignable and chose not to draft him (and they were right!).

To give credit for drafting a player and not sign him is essentially to suggest the other teams made a mistake in not doing so -- and that is totally illogical.

You missed the part of my post that at a certain point in the draft every team is selecting some players they know are close to impossible to sign. If I'm looking at how teams roll the dice on players that supposedly have an airtight commitment to school, I'm more impressed by the orgs that are IDing the kids that mature into Top 100 players two to three years later. If you don't think there is anything to that, fine. I happen to disagree.

Yes, area scouts get to know players and to develop relationships with the players. It can help during negotiations -- it also sheds light into some of the off-field characteristics and the personality of the player. Having the summer to negotiate and interact with the player just gives you added time to get to know the player and for him to be comfortable with the idea of playing in your organization. It isn't uncommon for orgs to draft players multiple times (HS than JuCo or 4-yr school).

I think your bolded is wrong. A pat on someone's back doesn't have to come at the expense of someone else. If Connor Narron turns out to be a good ML third baseman, and Bryan Holaday turns into an All-Star catcher, I can be impressed by both the Orioles and the Tigers without suggesting the other 28 teams made mistakes by not signing them. Further, BAL wasn't wrong to sign Narron over Holaday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain what you mean by different cross sections? Do you mean like projectable players, "now" players, raw, polished, college, JuCo, HS, are those examples of different cross sections?

To me, looks like BOS focused college talents early (I hypothesize because college players have less leverage this year than recent years due to the strength of next year's class up top). They covered probability with ceiling and college kids early, then shifted to some tougher signs -- most notably HSers like Coyle, Cecchini, Perkins, etc. Then, shifted back to some slot signings, going after some college arms that might have a chance to start but could potentially be very strong pen arms -- Hernandez and Price. Getting into the teens and deeper, the "really tough" signs were some high ceiling kids, to me most notably Shoulders, Duke, Jaffe, Sing, Rowland.

I think BOS worked the draft class well to check-off college and HS kids, signable and tough signs, while trying to maximize projection without sacrificing probability too much until the teens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, looks like BOS focused college talents early (I hypothesize because college players have less leverage this year than recent years due to the strength of next year's class up top). They covered probability with ceiling and college kids early, then shifted to some tougher signs -- most notably HSers like Coyle, Cecchini, Perkins, etc. Then, shifted back to some slot signings, going after some college arms that might have a chance to start but could potentially be very strong pen arms -- Hernandez and Price. Getting into the teens and deeper, the "really tough" signs were some high ceiling kids, to me most notably Shoulders, Duke, Jaffe, Sing, Rowland.

I think BOS worked the draft class well to check-off college and HS kids, signable and tough signs, while trying to maximize projection without sacrificing probability too much until the teens.

Stotle, where did you rank Boston's top three picks overall if I can ask?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the part of my post that at a certain point in the draft every team is selecting some players they know are close to impossible to sign. If I'm looking at how teams roll the dice on players that supposedly have an airtight commitment to school, I'm more impressed by the orgs that are IDing the kids that mature into Top 100 players two to three years later. If you don't think there is anything to that, fine. I happen to disagree.

Yes, area scouts get to know players and to develop relationships with the players. It can help during negotiations -- it also sheds light into some of the off-field characteristics and the personality of the player. Having the summer to negotiate and interact with the player just gives you added time to get to know the player and for him to be comfortable with the idea of playing in your organization. It isn't uncommon for orgs to draft players multiple times (HS than JuCo or 4-yr school).

I think your bolded is wrong. A pat on someone's back doesn't have to come at the expense of someone else. If Connor Narron turns out to be a good ML third baseman, and Bryan Holaday turns into an All-Star catcher, I can be impressed by both the Orioles and the Tigers without suggesting the other 28 teams made mistakes by not signing them. Further, BAL wasn't wrong to sign Narron over Holaday.

We probably just aren't going to agree. Maybe we're viewing the opening post differently. I see it as comparing JJ's drafts to other teams and using this to evaluate how he's done. In my view, to an extent, if Boston drafted 10 guys who reached the majors in a draft and JJ only drafted 2 -- it is an indictment of how he's doing.

I'm not defending Jordan. I don't know him. Overall, I'd say he's had mixed results.

Back to the discussion, I assume in the later rounds, teams try and balance the reward of signing a highly skillled player who seems bound for high school vs. the probability of getting him signed. In some cases, they determine it makes sense to "go for it" even if the probability of getting him signed is low. In other cases they decide that while the player looks very strong and highly probable to be a top prospect, but the probability of getting him signed is too low to make the pick even in the late rounds.

Pedro Alvarez was not some unknown commodity. It's likely he was on every team's radar. For all we know, other teams may have thought more highly of him, but accurately recognized he wouldn't sign so didn't select him. Since we don't know, I think it mucks up the comparison to include unsigned picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We probably just aren't going to agree. Maybe we're viewing the opening post differently. I see it as comparing JJ's drafts to other teams and using this to evaluate how he's done. In my view, to an extent, if Boston drafted 10 guys who reached the majors in a draft and JJ only drafted 2 -- it is an indictment of how he's doing.

I'm not defending Jordan. I don't know him. Overall, I'd say he's had mixed results.

Back to the discussion, I assume in the later rounds, teams try and balance the reward of signing a highly skillled player who seems bound for high school vs. the probability of getting him signed. In some cases, they determine it makes sense to "go for it" even if the probability of getting him signed is low. In other cases they decide that while the player looks very strong and highly probable to be a top prospect, but the probability of getting him signed is too low to make the pick even in the late rounds.

Pedro Alvarez was not some unknown commodity. It's likely he was on every team's radar. For all we know, other teams may have thought more highly of him, but accurately recognized he wouldn't sign so didn't select him. Since we don't know, I think it mucks up the comparison to include unsigned picks.

I just don't agree with phrases like this, but think we view the draft and the art of crafting a draft class. We don't have to use words like "likely" or "for all we know". It is a fact that every organization was familiar with Pedro Alvarez. I agree that we have no idea where, based on talent, Alvarez fell on different boards.

It goes back to my statement that you can acknowledge talent ID from one organization without blasting another. I don't see how you can disagree with that. There were comparable "talents" to Pedro in his HS class that were likewise drafted in later rounds. The reason the average fan knows about BOS drafting Pedro is because he continued to progress and turned into an outstanding player.

The unique thing about Pedro is that he was an incredible player right off the bat as a freshman. He's the equivalent of an Austin Maddox or a Jayce Boyd. How does it not speak highly of an org that drafted and didn't sign a player like that as compared to an org that signed a different "tough sign" player who ended up struggling in college and not developing into a Top 100 guy? If every single organization is signing players that they know they are unlikely to sign, why can't we acknowledge when one organization is more consistently identifying the players that are successful in the long term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...