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

[nsacpi]

Unlike what seems to be the consensus around here, I don't think we have a huge amount of pitching talent in the pipeline, especially when you consider the attrition. So while I prefer Rutherford or Perez for the first pick, I would go pitcher with the next two. And I would lean more toward college pitcher than high school pitcher with those picks.

 

[smootness]

Unlike what seems to be the consensus around here, I don't think we have a huge amount of pitching talent in the pipeline, especially when you consider the attrition. So while I prefer Rutherford or Perez for the first pick, I would go pitcher with the next two. And I would lean more toward college pitcher than high school pitcher with those picks.

That's interesting. I don't mind going pitching later if we take a hitter with the first pick, but I'm curious to hear your rationale as to why you disagree about the extent of our pitching talent.

I would consider the following guys to have really high ceilings:
Newcomb
Allard
Toussaint
Fried
Soroka
Sims
Sanchez

To go along with Wisler and Blair and a bunch of guys that have the potential to ultimately be good major league pitchers. I would be interested to see your version of a 'huge amount of pitching talent in the pipeline'. I would think that if the Braves don't qualify, then pretty much no farm system ever qualifies.

 

[nsacpi]

That's interesting. I don't mind going pitching later if we take a hitter with the first pick, but I'm curious to hear your rationale as to why you disagree about the extent of our pitching talent.

I would consider the following guys to have really high ceilings:
Newcomb
Allard
Toussaint
Fried
Soroka
Sims
Sanchez

To go along with Wisler and Blair and a bunch of guys that have the potential to ultimately be good major league pitchers. I would be interested to see your version of a 'huge amount of pitching talent in the pipeline'. I would think that if the Braves don't qualify, then pretty much no farm system ever qualifies.

Blair and Newcomb are rated pretty high by BA and others. But I don't see either as an elite prospect. Not in the same league as Hanson and Teheran as they were coming up. Blair doesn't have the ceiling and Newcomb has control issues to overcome. Folty and Sims could end up pretty good but both have more question marks than Blair and Newcomb. The rest of the guys in AA and AAA are journeymen/pen types imo. Toussaint has not impressed me.

I do like Allard and Soroka quite a bit. I think they could both be something special. But they are very far away, with all of the risks involved.

 

[smootness]

Blair and Newcomb are rated pretty high by BA and others. But I don't see either as an elite prospect. Not in the same league as Hanson and Teheran as they were coming up. Blair doesn't have the ceiling and Newcomb has control issues to overcome. Folty and Sims could end up pretty good but both have more question marks than Blair and Newcomb. The rest of the guys in AA and AAA are journeymen/pen types imo. Toussaint has not impressed me.

I do like Allard and Soroka quite a bit. I think they could both be something special. But they are very far away, with all of the risks involved.

I get all this, but it seems like your definition of a huge amount of pitching talent would be multiple top-10 pitching prospects...which has never happened. You basically just said our pitching prospects all have risks and uncertainties, which is the same as saying that we have pitching prospects.

I'm not saying you're wrong, we all have differing opinions. But if you're going to acknowledge the risk involved in these guys, then you also have to acknowledge the chance for guys like Newcomb and Toussaint to put it together and turn into ridiculous beasts. The uncertainty goes both ways. That's why it's so huge that we've grabbed as many high-ceiling arms as we have. They won't all make it, but we have a pretty good chance of having enough of them hit to put together a heck of a pitching staff, and I think that's what people mean when they say we have a huge amount of pitching talent. It's not that we'll end up with a huge amount of legitimate #1 and #2 major league pitchers. It's that we do, in fact, have a huge amount of pitching talent, so if just a few of them hit, we win.

I don't even consider Folty in the mix. But I think a guy like Fried, for example, is completely overlooked by a lot of our fans. He has as high a ceiling as anybody in our system.

 

[auyushu]

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/

What you linked has nothing to do with what I said or what you were saying (i.e. that say the third pick per say is going to definitely have more value than the 5th overall on average). I mean, obviously the 1-5 picks are going to have more value on average than picks 6-10 on average, that's self evident. It's what you have inside those ranges that we are talking about. And if you throw the 1st pick in there it massively skews the results, many years the #1 pick is a no brainer player that is going to produce a huge amount of WAR, like Adrian Gonzalez, Justin Upton, Joe Mauer, Strasburg, Price, Gerrit Cole, Harper, etc, etc. If you take those #1 picks out of the equation the data looks vastly different.

If you are going to try and act smug about data, at least try and produce facts that support the argument you are making.

 

[nsacpi]

What you linked has nothing to do with what I said or what you were saying (i.e. that say the third pick per say is going to definitely have more value than the 5th overall on average). I mean, obviously the 1-5 picks are going to have more value on average than picks 6-10 on average, that's self evident. It's what you have inside those ranges that we are talking about. And if you throw the 1st pick in there it massively skews the results, many years the #1 pick is a no brainer player that is going to produce a huge amount of WAR, like Adrian Gonzalez, Justin Upton, Joe Mauer, Strasburg, Price, Gerrit Cole, Harper, etc, etc. If you take those #1 picks out of the equation the data looks vastly different.

If you are going to try and act smug about data, at least try and produce facts that support the argument you are making.

If you look at the graph in the article u will see a dot representing each pick as well as a regression line showing the overall relationship.

 

[rico43]

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.

But also keep in mind that "the Braves" are actually several opinionated, well-informed individuals hashing out their own consensus. I would pay cash money to hear some of those pre-draft meetings go back and forth over a particular player. Most of these prospect boards are little more than one man's opinion.

 

[Hudson2]

Maitan, Guttierez and possibly Lazarito are all hitting talent fixing to be added to the system along with all the ones we've acquired over the offseason. I'd actually say we have better hitting prospects then pitching prospects, and if those 3 are added then it's not even close. If Puk has a very good season then I go pitching with the 3 pick and take hitting the next 2 after than.

 

[auyushu]

If you look at the graph in the article u will see a dot representing each pick as well as a regression line showing the overall relationship.

That graph is way off (the regression line at least), from 1991-2005 only 6 players drafted #3 even have a positive career WAR, and those 6 players only tally up to low 96ish WAR. Derek Jeter and Grienke alone (#6 picks) have 117 WAR.

 

[nsacpi]

That graph is way off (the regression line at least), from 1991-2005 only 6 players drafted #3 even have a positive career WAR, and those 6 players only tally up to low 96ish WAR. Derek Jeter and Grienke alone (#6 picks) have 117 WAR.

I think the dot for the #3 picks does reflect the poor productivity of that group.

 

[smootness]

Maitan, Guttierez and possibly Lazarito are all hitting talent fixing to be added to the system along with all the ones we've acquired over the offseason. I'd actually say we have better hitting prospects then pitching prospects, and if those 3 are added then it's not even close. If Puk has a very good season then I go pitching with the 3 pick and take hitting the next 2 after than.

I'm not sure how you think our hitting talent is superior to our pitching talent overall, but regardless, I've said this before about the Braves' thinking on taking a college bat:

We have pitching that has either already graduated or will soon that is very talented; and we have pitching talent that is a few years away that is very good. We also have hitting talent that is a few years away that is very good, especially when you factor in our international signings. But our current or very near future hitting talent is not quite as good. So a high-upside college bat that can be ready within a year or two is a great way to bridge that gap, then you can focus on young pitching in the next couple drafts to pair with guys like Maitan.

 

[auyushu]

I think the dot for the #3 picks does reflect the poor productivity of that group.

Which kinda proves the point Smootness and I were making, that after the first two picks it's pretty much a crapshoot from 3-10. 5th, 7th, and 9th picks during that time frame had more value than 3rd and 4th picks.And it has been the same from 2006-2010 as well pretty much. Most years there is a pretty good consensus for the top pick or two by the time the draft comes around, but after that it gets pretty iffy, with a number of different players being valued differently by different franchises based on scouting.

 

[nsacpi]

Which kinda proves the point Smootness and I were making, that after the first two picks it's pretty much a crapshoot from 3-10. 5th, 7th, and 9th picks during that time frame had more value than 3rd and 4th picks.And it has been the same from 2006-2010 as well pretty much. Most years there is a pretty good consensus for the top pick or two by the time the draft comes around, but after that it gets pretty iffy, with a number of different players being valued differently by different franchises based on scouting.

That's good. The data for third picks (and some others) do support your point. The overall data (including the regression curve which gives the best fit of the overall data) do not.

 

[praeceps93]

That's good. The data for third picks (and some others) do support your point. The overall data (including the regression curve which gives the best fit of the overall data) do not.

Really interesting discussion to be had there, drawing the line where statistics and reality diverge. I'm sure someone could do a T-test to see if there's any statistical significance to the data.

 

[nsacpi]

Really interesting discussion to be had there, drawing the line where statistics and reality diverge. I'm sure someone could do a T-test to see if there's any statistical significance to the data.

The R-squared is .52. It is a one-variable non-linear model. With linear models you can convert the R-squared to a t-stat, but I'm not sure the conversion applies to non-linear models. But the R-squared is high enough to suggest it is a significant at a pretty high confidence level.

I would also add that I'm pretty confident that the fitted curve is better predictor of the value of third picks going forward than the observed data for third picks. All Braves fans should hope so!

 

[auyushu]

The overall data (including the regression curve which gives the best fit of the overall data) do not.

The overall data for the curve includes up to pick 60, which has no bearing on the discussion at all. For picks 1-10, which is what we have been discussing, the curve isn't really accurate in the slightest. It would be bouncing up and down in a true graph, since the 3rd and 4th picks in the draft have been mostly worthless over the past 20 years, and the 5th, 7th, and a couple of the others in the 5-10 range have produced a great deal of value. It goes without saying that top 10 picks are going to have more value on the whole than picks 10-60, but that's not really what you were talking about earlier in this thread, or what I was talking about. There is just minimal difference when you are talking about the 3rd-10 players (or 15th for most drafts) in a particular year. Trying to claim the early picks have shown some sort superior value to the picks a few places behind them in the top 10 is simply not true. Outside of the first pick or two of course.

 

[auyushu]

I would also add that I'm pretty confident that the fitted curve is better predictor of the value of third picks going forward than the observed data for third picks. All Braves fans should hope so!

Why? The observed data covers about 20 years, most of that being very current. Why should some fitted curve be a better predictor than the actual data?

 

[nsacpi]

Why? The observed data covers about 20 years, most of that being very current. Why should some fitted curve be a better predictor than the actual data?

There is no reason to believe that the deviations from the curve for each draft pick reflects anything more than randomness. Look at the "upside surprises" in the data for picks 11, 20 and 47. Do those results convince you that those picks are going to be more valuable than their neighboring picks, let alone some of the higher picks (like the 3rd) that display "downside surprises."

 

[nsacpi]

The overall data for the curve includes up to pick 60, which has no bearing on the discussion at all. For picks 1-10, which is what we have been discussing, the curve isn't really accurate in the slightest.

Looking at the data for the first ten picks, I think any estimated curve would have a pretty steep downward slope.

 

[auyushu]

Looking at the data for the first ten picks, I think any estimated curve would have a pretty steep downward slope.

The 5th, 7th, 9th, and 10th picks in the draft are all higher than the 3rd, 4th, and 6th picks (and generally speaking much higher, on the scale of 1.5 WAR higher), with only the 8th pick being the outlier, and even the eighth pick is higher than the 3rd pick. The math from your link and graph doesn't support what you just said in the slightest.