- STARTS TODAY AT 7PM - 2016 June Amateur Draft Discussion

[striker42]

Drafting high in the first round is a good thing as long as a team doesn't make a habit of it. Some nice looking prospects. If a projectable premium bat is there, they should go that direction. They'll draft scads of pitchers as always, but it would be nice to get some top-tier hitting prospects in the system.

I think that's the direction they'll go. There are going to be at least two elite college position players in this draft and I can't see both going in the top 2. At least one of those teams is going to pick a pitcher. So we should easily be able to get a premium bat. There might even be 3 top college position player prospects.

However, if college position players are taken 1 and 2 and there's none other we like at 3, I have no problem grabbing Puk.

Unless we do something stupid and take someone way down the list, I'll probably be happy. Lots of options at 3.

 

[smootness]

I'd be good with Lewis too. The choice between him and Ray is a good problem to have. Lewis probably has more raw power and a better batting eye. However, Ray's power-speed combo would be hard to pass up. On the other hand, Ray is most valuable as a center fielder and that's a position the Braves don't have a huge need at sine we have two young guys in Mallex and Inciarte there.

If it was up to me I'd probably pick Ray because of what the speed brings to his game and the fact he's doing what he's doing against better competition. However, if the Braves had to pick between them I think they'd take Lewis at this point. The marketability of the local boy is huge and he also fits our need for a long term, power hitting corner outfielder better.

For Ray, I think it comes down to whether or not we think he's a true CF, and if we don't think he's a CF, how his bat will play in a corner. But if we think he's a corner OF, we might as well just take Lewis.

On Senzel, I read that his defense is good, but I guess people just think he's a great hitter even without much power. But Dustin Ackley was the last similar college bat taken high, so that doesn't sound promising.

I feel pretty confident the Braves will take a bat and likely a college one if they think there is a guy worth it there. I think they'll take pitching only if they think the talent is just too good to pass up or if they just don't end up loving any of the college bats.

 

[Oklahomabrave]

I just hope we take whoever the BPA available is. I haven't read much making it sound like any college hitter is worth the three spot except maybe Ray.

 

[smootness]

I just hope we take whoever the BPA available is. I haven't read much making it sound like any college hitter is worth the three spot except maybe Ray.

Well, Baseball America has a college hitter at #2. And Kyle Lewis has been climbing.

I'm fine with BPA, but the difference between 3 and 10 in most baseball drafts is essentially nothing. There is no, 'Oh, you took him at 3 and he was listed at #8. What a reach,' in baseball.

 

[nsacpi]

the difference between 3 and 10 in most baseball drafts is essentially nothing.

Not so. If you look at average value generated by pick there is significant gradation in those early picks.

 

[smootness]

Not so. If you look at average value generated by pick there is significant gradation in those early picks.

So how do we determine what those players' true rank was before the draft? Did all these teams take the BPA? If we take the 8th ranked player at 3, he is then a #3 pick. Is he more likely to succeed because he was the #3 pick, or less likely because he 'should have been' the #8 pick?

 

[rico43]

So how do we determine what those players' true rank was before the draft? Did all these teams take the BPA? If we take the 8th ranked player at 3, he is then a #3 pick. Is he more likely to succeed because he was the #3 pick, or less likely because he 'should have been' the #8 pick?

Is this a trick question? You know as well as I do there will be no consensus on who the "8th ranked" player is. One guru's board might have a player eighth, another board would have the same player 3rd, another would have him 11th. So what is he? He is whatever he is chosen.

 

[Enscheff]

Is this a trick question? You know as well as I do there will be no consensus on who the "8th ranked" player is. One guru's board might have a player eighth, another board would have the same player 3rd, another would have him 11th. So what is he? He is whatever he is chosen.

Not only that, but a player drafted at #3 might be ranked 10th and sign for $1M under slot, thus allowing the Braves to draft the 20th ranked player at #40 and give him $1M over slot. The Astros did this type of thing with Daz Cameron last year.

 

[nsacpi]

So how do we determine what those players' true rank was before the draft?

I'm talking about order taken which I believe has some correlation to true rank. If you take the average producton of say second picks over a ten year period you will find it quite a bit highr than fifth picks.

 

[auyushu]

If you take the average producton of say second picks over a ten year period you will find it quite a bit highr than fifth picks.

Not really. The 5th and 7th picks of the draft from 2001-2010 were about as valuable as the 2nd picks during that time frame, and were more valuable than the 3rd picks. It's really more of a crapshoot, there is no real correlation.

 

[nsacpi]

Not really. The 5th and 7th picks of the draft from 2001-2010 were about as valuable as the 2nd picks during that time frame, and were more valuable than the 3rd picks. It's really more of a crapshoot, there is no real correlation.

This is a fairly well researched topic. As the late great Pat Moynihan once said, we're all entitled to our opinion, but not to our own set of facts.

Here is one recent article covering the topic.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-net-value-of-draft-picks/

 

[smootness]

Is this a trick question? You know as well as I do there will be no consensus on who the "8th ranked" player is. One guru's board might have a player eighth, another board would have the same player 3rd, another would have him 11th. So what is he? He is whatever he is chosen.

This is exactly my point. Showing that higher picks tend to be more successful than lower picks tells us nothing about whether or not 'reaching' is a bad move because whoever we take at #3 will be the #3 pick. Those statistics don't take into account the 'true rank' of a player prior to the draft, they take into account only the player's actual draft slot, and no matter who we take, that player will definitely be the #3 pick.

And it makes sense that the numbers would show a bit of a correlation. The problem is that those numbers show averages. So obvious, clear-cut #1 picks like Bryce Harper get thrown in with years without an obvious #1 pick or generational talent, so Bryce Harper and Luke Hochevar get averaged together. The fact that there sometimes are guys at the top of a draft who are clearly more talented and more likely to make it than other guys skew the data. That doesn't mean that on an average year the #1 or #2 pick will probably be better than the #3 pick, or that the #3 pick will probably be better than the #5 pick. It simply means that over time, there will probably be a player in there taken a little higher than skews the data.

Plus most of this data groups picks together, like nsacpi's link, and my guess is that's because using data that compares each slot individually does not produce a large enough sample to be statistically significant. I could take a smaller sample and say that in 2014, #3 pick Rodon appears to be better than #1 Aiken or #2 Kolek and that #4 Schwarber appears to be the best of the bunch. In 2013, #2 Kris Bryant is far and away better than #1 Appel. In 2010, #3 Manny Machado is definitely better than #2 Jameson Taillon. In 2008, #3 Eric Hosmer is better than both #1 Tim Beckham and #2 Pedro Alvarez. #5 Buster Posey is better than all of them. But when you have years like 2009 with Strasburg, 2010 with Harper, or 2012 with both Correa and Buxton, their success will skew the data.

But in any given year, it's not really true that the #1 pick is clearly more likely to succeed than the #2 pick, or that #2 is more likely than #3, and so on. And even if it were true on a mostly yearly basis, you still have the issue of not having any way to determine where those players should have been drafted. Some people said Houston reached by taking Correa in 2012. So does he count toward #1 picks, or should he count toward later picks, since that's where he was projected to go? We will have the #3 pick, so if that correlation is actually significant, that should mean that no matter who we take at #3, he has a better chance to succeed simply because we took him at #3, no matter how good he is or where everyone thinks he should have been taken. So in that case, you still end up at not caring whether or not we 'reach' because the player has the same likelihood as anyone else we might take of succeeding because we would have taken any of them at #3.

And I apologize. No one should read this much about my thoughts on why 'reaching' a little doesn't matter in baseball.

 

[nsacpi]

I suspect that if you asked the guys running the Braves draft they would have a pretty clear ranking of the top 7. They are not always right. There is uncertainty and randomness. But not to the point that you can do equally well throwing darts at those top 7 as you would going by the opinion of the pros who do the drafting.

 

[smootness]

I suspect that if you asked the guys running the Braves draft they would have a pretty clear ranking of the top 7. They are not always right. There is uncertainty and randomness. But not to the point that you can do equally well throwing darts at those top 7 as you would going by the opinion of the pros who do the drafting.

Oh, I completely agree with this. But the Braves' ranking of the top 7 almost certainly does not line up with 'industry consensus' or whatever ranking you want to use to determine the top 7. So the Braves could 'reach' on someone according to most rankings but not according to their own, similar to what we saw with Austin Riley in last year's draft.

I tend to agree that you can't just throw darts at the top 7. There usually are 1 or 2 guys that most people agree are better than the rest. But sometimes you pretty much can throw darts, and this may be one of those years. Some people think the top 2-3 pitchers are the best in the draft, but there are plenty who think there are several candidates for even the #1 slot. There's really no way at this point to say that Jason Groome has a better chance to succeed than Riley Pint, or Corey Ray, or even Kyle Lewis.

So again, 'the pros who do the drafting' would include the Braves. So if the Braves 'reached' on, say, Kyle Lewis at 3, are they making a bad move because most think he's not worth it there? Or are they making a good move because they're one of the pros who do the drafting, and they rank him among the top 3 players? Who determines what BPA is, and how do you determine whether the #3 pick is really the #3 pick for the purposes of correlation statistics? This is my point. There's no real way to determine BPA, and the fact that a major league team thinks a guy is worth the #3 pick is probably better evidence that the player deserves that spot than some other ranking of players is that he doesn't.

 

[nsacpi]

Oh, I completely agree with this. But the Braves' ranking of the top 7 almost certainly does not line up with 'industry consensus' or whatever ranking you want to use to determine the top 7. So the Braves could 'reach' on someone according to most rankings but not according to their own, similar to what we saw with Austin Riley in last year's draft.

I'm not an insider on this, but as a somewhat informed outsider my impression is that there tends to be a fairly good consensus across teams regarding the top 10-15 players each year, including their ranking within the top group. They may be some disagreement at the margins with respect to this group, but not much. But beyond that top group draft boards diverge a lot. So with pick #44 the Braves could well get someone who is #20 on their draft board.

 

[smootness]

For the sake of returning to discussion of the players, I'll say that after looking at it a little more, my own rank of who I'd like at 3 would be:

1. Kyle Lewis
2. Corey Ray
3. Blake Rutherford/Jason Groome

I want a bat, and I'd like a college bat if Lewis and Ray continue to look like they have so far. Lewis' power is something that could be huge for us a couple years down the road, and his approach seems to have improved enough so far this year that I'd be willing to take him. I wouldn't mind Rutherford, and I usually like going with pure ceiling, but I do think it's better for us to take a college bat than a HS bat this year. And I wouldn't hate taking a pitcher if one is good enough, and my preferred choice is Groome.

I found a scouting report on Senzel from before this year that said: "Arguably the safest of this year’s potential first round college bats, Senzel has electric bat speed, a patient approach, and as good a hit tool as any player listed. His defensive gifts are almost on that same level and his power upside separates him from the rest of what looks like a pretty intriguing overall college group of second basemen." What I still don't really get is why he's suddenly risen up the draft board. He may have electric bat speed, but it hasn't really shown in his power so far, and if he's safe, you would expect him to already have realized much of his potential, but that doesn't seem to be the case with his power. His defense seems to be providing a good bit of his value, but I just don't see it. Ackley hit better than .400 every year of his college career and showed much more power. Senzel hit .315 and .325 his first two years, so it's not like he's proven himself to be some kind of elite hitter.

Right now, Lewis seems most attractive to me for what the Braves are looking for. And he seems to be improving rapidly.

 

[smootness]

I'm not an insider on this, but as a somewhat informed outsider my impression is that there tends to be a fairly good consensus across teams regarding the top 10-15 players each year. They may be some disagreement at the margins with respect to this group, but not much. But beyond that top group draft boards diverge a lot. So with pick #44 the Braves could well get someone who is #20 on their draft board.

But there will be variation within that top group as well. My only point is that I don't know how you determine what BPA is. Is it based on a consensus of draft rankings? Because the Braves taking a guy at 3 would be a clear indication that they believe he is the BPA. I don't think any team, in baseball, is going to avoid taking the BPA.

 

[nsacpi]

I understand the appeal of the college bats, but I'm hoping the Braves take Rutherford or Perez. Of course, things could change by draft time.

 

[nsacpi]

My only point is that I don't know how you determine what BPA is. Is it based on a consensus of draft rankings?

BPA is what some would refer to as a non-observable variable. I do think it is fairly strongly correlated (though to be sure not perfectly correlated) with the order in which players get picked.

 

[smootness]

I understand the appeal of the college bats, but I'm hoping the Braves take Rutherford or Perez. Of course, things could change by draft time.

The reason I like Lewis so much is because I think he has the ceiling of those guys while being more seasoned and more likely to hit the majors earlier. I wouldn't mind either Rutherford or Perez, but this is a case where if the talent is similar, I do think it makes sense for us to take the guy more likely to hit the majors quickly.

We have good pitching talent that will be ready soon and extremely good pitching talent that will be ready in a few years, and we have very good hitting talent (soon to be extremely good hitting talent with the international additions) that will be ready in a few years but we are lacking in hitting talent that will be ready fairly soon. That's the main reason I like Lewis over those guys.