Keith Law Braves Views

[Enscheff]

How on earth can you say the most likely outcome for a guy in rookie ball is to be a major league starter?

Because he is trying to "prove" the system isn't terrible.

[nsacpi]

There isn't really anything to break down...the Braves have sucked at drafting position players, period.

The facts as outlined above simply don't support that with regards the college position players taken in the first ten rounds in the 2010-2013 drafts.

I think one of the things that leads some to conclude we have not done well when it comes to position players during those drafts is the fact we have not drafted a position player with our #1 pick in any of those drafts.

I think we've also done poorly with the high school position players taken in the 2010-2013 drafts. We didn't take many in the 2010-2011 drafts and none of them are going to make the majors (except for possibly Drury). We took more in 2012, but it doesn't look good for that group. We also took more in 2013. It is very early days for this group, but I think it shows a bit more promise than the 2012 group.

[nsacpi]

How on earth can you say the most likely outcome for a guy in rookie ball is to be a major league starter?

You can go back and look at the history of guys ranked in the top 5 in the Appy League and draw your own conclusions. But Caratini does not have to make it to support my main point. If one of Caratini/La Stella/Terdoslavich develop into regulars, it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that the yield from the college hitters we took in the 2010-2013 drafts will have been above average.

[50PoundHead]

I think that's a little harsh 50. No one expected the Twinkies to trade both Revere and Span and that was what changed the CF market. By most accounts there were 3 teams minimum looking for a CF. The Braves, Nats, and Phillies, and several teams in the mix. Wren did jump the gun to get BJ, but he didn't want to wind up in the same situation he was in with Lowe where he had to over pay.

Of course in the end both Revere and Span were traded jacking up the supply which would have likely led to us getting Bourn or Bossman for cheap. But you can't predict those things and I don't blame him for that.

For Lowe we basically wasted 15M. To get him over the Mets we needed to get him and if Wren didn't get someone he probably would have been canned.

Kawakami the dumb thing about him was getting him after we had already gotten Vazquez fully knowing we had guys like Medlen and Hanson as young guys and we also had Hudson at some point comign back from Tommy John. That was a bad offseason for Wren because he overreacted to a need. Which I hope he doesn't do this year by doing something like trade for Brandon Phillips.

Harsh or not, it's hard to call my depiction inaccurate. It wasn't just Span or Revere. There were a ton of bridge guys out there at a price well below what we paid and will continue to pay Upton. Wren let the market play him and if we indeed have budget constraints, he can't continue to do that.

[Metaphysicist]

I think to evaluate whether the results have been good or not, you need some sort of benchmark. Here is what I would offer in the way of benchmarks. About 60% of second rounders make it to the majors. About 40% of third rounders make it. About 20% of those taken in rounds 4-10 make it. Those are industry averages.

"Making the majors" is not the goal; being good in the majors is. I'm happy that Todd Cunningham got to the bigs, but absent a Prado-level overachievement, he's not going to be a difference maker. That level of success is (a) expected for low ceiling college guys, and (b) irrelevant.

So let's look at what the post-Clark drafts have yielded in terms of the college bats taken in the first ten rounds.

Let's start with the second rounders: Cunningham, Simmons, Ahmed, Caratini.

Simmons was a JuCo guy at the JuCo for unsigned international guys. It is shifting the goalposts to include him.

There is no point in even discussing the 2013 guys; waaaaay to early. And regardless, Caratini is also a JuCo guy who was 19 this season. I have no qualms with these two picks. I LOVE it when the Braves raid the JuCos.

The two of these who fit the "low ceiling college guys" I was talking about are Cunningham and Ahmed, both of whom are by your own admission quite unlikely to be anything more than backups.

Statistically speaking, an "average" outcome would be three of the four making the majors, one a starter, one a backup, one a scrub.

What "statistic" is this based on? Frankly, I think that's actually overly optimistic. Per BA, there is at best a 20% chance that a 2nd pick has a relevant MLB career (link).

Caratini was just ranked the #3 prospect in the Appalachian League. He is only 19 and several levels away from the majors. But I think the most likely outcome is for him to be a starting major league player.

Pssh... sure. Let me go ask Appy League #3 prospect Eric Campbell how likely that outcome is. I think he's working at Subway with his Appy League co-MVP and #5 prospect Max Ramirez. Way, way too early to be counting on anything here.

Oh wait, Ramirez got into 45 terrible MLB games. He's actually a success story; so hard to keep track of these things...

So if you look at the group of second rounds, the yield at the moment looks like it will be above average, both in terms of the number making it to the majors and the number making it as regulars. Of course, some projection is involved here because of the ages of the players.

Andrelton alone makes his whole draft a success, much less a couple years of 2nd rounders, even if the rest of them do nothing. That is not my point of contention. We've gotten our "one good player a year" out of these drafts; that's not the issue. The issue is we've been doing it by pulling super-non-traditional guys out of our ass in ways we are unlikely to repeat.

Next let's look at the third rounders: Leonard and Kubitza. I don't think either projects as a regular. My guess is Leonard will be a cup of coffee type and Kubitza will have a more substantial major league career as a backup. When you consider that less than half of third rounders make the majors, that's not bad.

Now let's look at the group taken in rounds 4-10: Gosselin, Terdoslavich, Rohm, DeSantiago, La Stella, Larsson, Robbins, Brown, Elander, Dodig, Reynolds, Wren. Of those eleven, two have made it to the majors (Gosselin and Terdoslavich). I would guess La Stella and Elander will also make it. So 4 out of 11. This is pretty good when you consider that the industry average is about 20% for those rounds. Of those four, my guess is Gosselin is a cup of coffee guys, Elander a back up. La Stella and Terdoslavich both have a shot of being regulars. Let's split the difference and say one of them becomes a regular, while the other is a backup. That scenario would have to be considered a pretty good yield for this group of eleven players.

Odds are none of these guys does anything. If even one of these guys becomes a real contributor, I'd say we got a high end outcome there. Your whole argument rests on counting the JuCo guys as college guys, and then assuming much better outcomes than is likely.

[Metaphysicist]

You can go back and look at the history of guys ranked in the top 5 in the Appy League and draw your own conclusions.

Ok. Let's look at some of the old Appy top 5's, and count up how many turned into regular starters:

My google fu can't locate anything before 2002, so here's what I've got:

2002:

1. Jeff Francoeur (Hurray!)
2. Wes Bankston
3. Matt Whitney
4. Dusty Gomon
5. Jason Pridie

Verdict: 1/5

2003:

2. Chris Young
3. Robert Valido
5. Daric Barton

Verdict 2/3

2004:

1. Mitch Einertson
2. Francisco Hernandez
4. Reid Brignac

Verdict: 0/3

2005:

1. Brandon Snyder
2. Colby Rasmus
3. Eric Campbell
5. Max Ramirez

Verdict: 1/4

2006:

1. Travis Snider
2. Bill Rowell
3. Kieron Pope

Verdict: 0/3. Snider's been around awhile, but he's never been a regular. Due to his chronic sucking he's never gotten to 300 ABs in a season.

2007:

2. Cody Johnson

Verdict: 0/1

I'll stop there, since the 2008 list still has some guys who are still young enough to have a shot.

Final Tally(RIP), 2002-2007: 4/19 (21%).

[nsacpi]

I'll stop there, since the 2008 list still has some guys who are still young enough to have a shot.

Final Tally(RIP), 2002-2007: 4/19 (21%).

OK. I'll concede the track record for the hitters in the Appy League top 5 is not as good as I thought it was.

And I'm happy to redirect the discussion to exclude JuCo players.

But let me ask. What is the standard? Given the number of college hitters we took in the period under discussion and the rounds they were taken in, what would you say is the benchmark. How do you arrive at the benchmark? How did we do relative to that benchmark?

[gilesfan]

I think the point is that taking low ceiling college bats was a bad idea and thus any argument discussing the success rate of low ceiling college bats reaching the majors is pointless.

[nsacpi]

I think the point is that taking low ceiling college bats was a bad idea and thus any argument discussing the success rate of low ceiling college bats reaching the majors is pointless.

Yes. But what is the basis. Is there a comparison to other types of picks (college pitchers, HS bats, HS pitchers) and the yields from those picks that supports that assertion. I'm just wondering how that conclusion is reached.

[Krgrecw]

HS players have more upside than college players but are also more likely to flame out. A good college player can probably perform decently in A ball right away while high school players will start in instructs or rookie ball. College players learn from the colleges coaches (even bad habits) and the pitchers can be overused while high school draftees learn form the teams instructors and the pitchers arms are more closely followed.
High school hitters are more toolsy while college players are more solid. Although that could be chalked up to race

[nsacpi]

As an example of the type of comparison that I think might be useful here is a list of players taken in rounds 4-10 by the Braves in the last seven drafts. I break them down by college bats, college arms, HS bats, HS arms. Which group do you think has produced the better yield? Apologies for not separating the college group between 4 year and JUCO programs.

College bats: Dixon, Fisher, Travis Jones, Schlehuber, Milligan, Mycal Jones, Hefflinger, Rose, Weaver, Gosselin, Terdoslavich, Rohm, DeSantiago, La Stella, Larsson, Robbins, Blake Brown, Elander, Dodig, Reynolds, Wren

College arms: Gearrin, Ladd, Palica, Clemens, Thompson, Oberholtzer, Farrell, Hoover, Berryhill, Filak, Sushak, Lewis, Graham, Lamm, Martin, Starn, Peterson, Schils, Janas

HS bats: Fleming, Black, Murphy, Manwaring, Hagenmiller

HS arms: Northcraft, Stiffler

Interesting how skewed toward college players the picks have been in those rounds isn't it. And also interesting to see a bit of a shift in the last draft toward HS players, at least for those rounds.

[nsacpi]

Moving on, here are the players taken in the earlier rounds, but excluding the first round. That would be the sandwich picks after the first round to the third round.

College bats: Hicks, Cunningham, Simmons, Leonard, Ahmed, Kubitza, Caratini

College arms: Kimbrel, Hale, Wood

HS bats: Gilmore, Freeman, Lipka, De La Rosa

HS arms: DeVall, Stovall, Spruill, Salazar

It is interesting that in those rounds the Braves have been more willing to draft HS talent. I like the yield we've gotten from the three college arms we've taken in those rounds.

[50PoundHead]

How on earth can you say the most likely outcome for a guy in rookie ball is to be a major league starter?

I pay attention at every stop, but I don't get excited (if excited is truly the word) until the prospect hits AA. And even then eventual success will depend on making adjustments. Some folks are hyping Caratini because of his walk rate. I applaud his patience, but it probably isn't too hard drawing walks in a league where half the pitchers can't find the strike zone on a good day. The question--and Caratini may answer this question with zeal--is how well will Caratini do when the pitchers make him swing the bat.

DeMacio has clearly switched strategies from Clark (at least Clark when he had a big budget) and seems to be zeroing in on mid-ceiling guys with average tools, but solid baseball skills. In other words, production over projection. You can do that, but if you do, you have to find your big guns somewhere. Thankfully, we have Heyward and Freeman and hopefully we can keep them long term. Justin Upton falls into the category as well, but I don't think he's as good as the other two. You still win with stars. We simply have to get more athletic top-to-bottom and I think that starts with pulling some highly-ranked kids out of Latin America. We have done very well with pitchers coming out of the Caribbean. Not so much with hitters.

Overall, we have had a difficult time developing big-time hitters consistently. We have had some success (Heyward, Freeman, McCann, Prado recently), but I don't know if the problem is the guys we draft or how we teach at the minor league level.

PS--For the record, I think Roy Clark is a bit overrated. He's good, but like pretty much everyone in baseball, it's easy to be good when you're sitting on a fat wallet.

[nsacpi]

PS--For the record, I think Roy Clark is a bit overrated. He's good, but like pretty much everyone in baseball, it's easy to be good when you're sitting on a fat wallet.

There were some busts in his last few years, players taken in relatively early rounds who did not make it. Gilmore (supplemental 1st round), Duvall (supplemental 1st round), Stovall (second round). Note they were all HS players.

Otoh, he did extremely well in his last three drafts with the college pitchers he drafted. Those included Minor, Hale, Kimbrel, Clemens, Hoover, Oberholtzer, Gearrin.

College arms have been the unsung success story of both the last three years of the Clark drafts and the DeMacio era. But we have drafted a lot of those, so the question remains has the yield been a good one. I think so, but you need to look carefully at what you are getting relative to the number and position of the picks.

[Tapate50]

Drafting college players is not exclusive of getting higher upside. The fact remains we are drafting for players with high floors, not high ceilings. Wood was the exception and looked what happened. Most evaluators feel we are going for easy signs when we pick. That isn't representative of outcomes, but when there is a census among scouts, we got a problem Houston.

[nsacpi]

Drafting college players is not exclusive of getting higher upside. The fact remains we are drafting for players with high floors, not high ceilings. Wood was the exception and looked what happened. Most evaluators feel we are going for easy signs when we pick. That isn't representative of outcomes, but when there is a census among scouts, we got a problem Houston.

I think our rep for drafting low ceiling college players comes from when we took Minor and Gilmartin in the first round in 2009 and 2011. The Minor pick, however, turned out pretty well. In the last two drafts, I think we've shifted back to picking high upside types. Look at our first four picks in those two drafts (Sims, Wood, de la Rosa, Black in 2012 and Hursh, Caratini, Salazar, Murphy in 2013). Mostly a toolsy high upside group, and 5 HS picks versus 3 college picks. I do detect a shift in philosophy in 2012-2013 relative to the first two DeMacio years which were very heavy in college players. Btw I would not knock the first two DeMacio drafts which have yielded Simmons, Gattis, Terdoslavich, La Stella, Graham, Martin, Cunningham, Kubitza, Harper, Drury. He did poorly with his first pick those two years (Lipka and Gilmartin), but made up for it later.

[Tapate50]

The last draft seemed to be an improvement.

I think some of the very real gripes you are going to hear is on the IFA market. We are going quantity (sometimes) and not quality.

[50PoundHead]

There were some busts in his last few years, players taken in relatively early rounds who did not make it. Gilmore (supplemental 1st round), Duvall (supplemental 1st round), Stovall (second round). Note they were all HS players.

Otoh, he did extremely well in his last three drafts with the college pitchers he drafted. Those included Minor, Hale, Kimbrel, Clemens, Hoover, Oberholtzer, Gearrin.

College arms have been the unsung success story of both the last three years of the Clark drafts and the DeMacio era. But we have drafted a lot of those, so the question remains has the yield been a good one. I think so, but you need to look carefully at what you are getting relative to the number and position of the picks.

But is that Clark or the Braves' ability to develop pitching? All the guys you mention outside of Gearrin (and perhaps Minor) were guys with plus fastballs.

I think Tapate50's point about high floor v. high ceiling is the one that is in play right now. But high floor players are generally more production over projection and I contend there are times a franchise has to roll the dice and take the uber-tools guy. Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. But you have to get your big guns somewhere.

And DeMacio has rolled the dice on Justin Black--who was all projection-- as nsacpi mentions and that hasn't worked out well to this point. But you have to do that every now and then.

For the record, I still like Shelby Miller long term more than Minor and I'm not that high on Kubitza.

[nsacpi]

The last draft seemed to be an improvement.

I think some of the very real gripes you are going to hear is on the IFA market. We are going quantity (sometimes) and not quality.

And yet arguably five of our current top 10 prospects are international signings (Peraza, Cabrera, Bethancourt, Salcedo, Victor Reyes).

[nsacpi]

But is that Clark or the Braves' ability to develop pitching? All the guys you mention outside of Gearrin (and perhaps Minor) were guys with plus fastballs.

I think Tapate50's point about high floor v. high ceiling is the one that is in play right now. But high floor players are generally more production over projection and I contend there are times a franchise has to roll the dice and take the uber-tools guy. Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. But you have to get your big guns somewhere.

I'm not sure about Oberholtzer having a plus fastball. But I think the point about drafting more high ceiling guys is a good one. We've seen a bit more of that in the last two drafts. A lot of them won't pan out (hello Justin Black, Blake Brown, Connor Lien and Fernelys Sanchez), but if one or two do per draft, it is worth it. I do think we should draft more high school players in the later rounds (after the tenth round). We've really shied away from that. But one of the few in that group was Brandon Drury. We need more picks like that.