We have had fewer top position prospects but as a group the yield has been very good. The yield on the first wave of pitching has been very poor. In general the yield on position prospects in any given ranking bucket tends to be better than pitching prospects in the same ranking bucket.Originally Posted by Hudson2
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
jpx7 (09-10-2017)
Good thing they grabbed so many pitchers!
JohnAdcox (09-11-2017)
There are a few things I would say about that:
1) You need both pitchers and hitters. Pitching prospects are more risky and have a lower yield. It is not clear whether this implies a team should invest more or less in pitchers.
2) Teams do have comparative advantages relative to other teams. The theory of international trade says specialize in your comparative advantage. The Braves strongly believe they have a comparative advantage in pitching. The data do not support this (including the return on the first wave of pitching prospects and the hitters in this rebuild). From a comparative advantage perspective, I think we are probably making a mistake in specializing so strongly in pitchers.
3) Partly due to the age at which they are signed, the yield on hitters is relatively better for international signings and relatively better for pitchers in the draft. I think the Braves have this part figured out.
4) The yield in different draft segments (first round, early after first round, middle, and late) varies quite a bit by type (HS pitcher, HS position, college pitcher, college hitter). The one area where the Braves have been somewhat wasteful is their tendency to take HS pitchers in the early rounds after the first (the supplemental, second and third rounds to be specific). They have taken a lot of HS pitchers in this part of the draft with very little to show for. Wentz might turn out to be an exception. But generally they have gotten better yields when they have gone away from HS pitchers in that part of the draft.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
jpx7 (09-10-2017)
nascapi, kind of dismissive of what Soroka has done up until now, aren't you?
Does Wilson count towards this? If so Wilson,Wentz, Soroka is a good prospect value yield, as in national recolonization, so far. But maybe I misunderstood the criteria.
he was a first round pick...within the top 30
Wilson was a 4th rounder...the four buckets i looked at were first round (top 30), early (#31 to end of third round), middle (rounds 4-10) and late
Oh, my mistake. So from the two drafts we can start to evaluate it would be Muller,Wentz, and Guardado, correct? Tarnok we can at least get a better idea of next year.
yes...i looked at this over many years...going back to the pre-wren drafts...we have never done well with HS pitchers in that part of the draft...Tom Glavine (2nd round 1984) being a notable exception
I'll list the ones we've taken since 2000 in that part of the draft (not all have been busts, but the yield has not been good when compared to other types of players we have taken such as HS position players in the same rounds): Bubba Nelson, Digby, Boyer, Charlie Morton, Atilano, Bacot, Stevens, Reyes, Harrison, Beau Jones, Lyman, Rasmus, Evarts, Locke, DeVall, Stovall, Spruill, Chad Rodgers, Salazar, Fulenchek, Guardado, Wentz, Muller, Tarnok.
We have taken significantly fewer HS hitters in that part of the draft, but they have included Freeman, McCann, Saltalamacchia, Kelly Johnson. We have also done better with college pitchers (Wood, Kimbrel being the most impressive) in far fewer picks. We also have taken fewer college hitters, but included in that group are Simmons and Ahmed.
In spite of a poor yield among HS pitchers taken in those rounds, we have persisted in favoring them over all the other "demographic groups" in that part of the draft. Time for a change I would say.
If you want to focus on just the 2015-2017 draft, in the portion I'm looking at (pick #31 to end of round 3), we have taken 4 HS pitchers (Guardado, Wentz, Muller, Tarnok), 3 HS hitters (Waters, Riley, Herbert), 2 college pitchers (Minter and Harrington) and 1 college hitter (Cumberland).
Last edited by nsacpi; 09-11-2017 at 09:18 AM.
While the Braves have had fewer position prospects (at least in the last couple of years) they have been all higher ranked than any of the pitching prospects. Swanson, Acuna, and Albies in particular have all been top 10 at one point by a mainstream source. I think Newk has been the highest pitching guy.
JohnAdcox (09-11-2017)
true...though Acuna and Albies were not always so highly ranked
As I feared, more sliders equals Swanson's production falling dramatically again:
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx...=single>1=15
This will definitely be something to watch the rest of the season.
Wow that is pretty startling how strong the correlation is for most of that timeline. Definitely something that Dansby needs to address. He looked like he was doing a better job at laying off ones he couldn't handle for a while, but this was just me eyeballing it.
Well he just got a hit off one, so,good sign at least.
That was a terrible slider that hung on the inner half.
I actually think his go ahead hit the other night was off a slider too. It seems like he isn't horrific against sliders on the inner-third, but once again, that is just me eyeballing it. I may look at his heatmaps tonight when I get some time
3 good sliders in a row and Swanson looked lost. Ughhh
Bradfords slider looks like a plus pitch. Swanson improving vs sliders doesn't mean is going to suddenly mash good ones.
He isn't going to become a good slider hitter in a few weeks, but his recent improvements are definitely encouraging. Hopefully the improvement continues.
Enscheff, a posi?
mfree80 (09-15-2017)
Lol he is right though. All three of those sliders would have been tough on anybody. The second one he probably could have layed off of. But they were nasty pitches. I'm glad Swanson has shown improvement, but its certainly something to monitor going forward for him
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote