Pollyellon banned me

[InternetApex]

New mantra: IT'S TIME TO START, THEO!

15 rhetorical questions from Andy in that one. He must be really fired up.

Al is right, in three years Theo should have rebuilt the farm system, changed the entire organization, coaching/scouting philosophy all while putting a contender on the field.

You say that like "putting a contender on the field" is some silly, irrelevant thing.

You say it like it wouldn't harm their draft position, which is pretty much the surest way to put players into the pipeline who can make the contention a sustainable thing.

It's one way. I don't know about the surest way.

Getting the Bryants and Almoras of the world is a lot easier when your drafting in the single digits.

Sure it's easier, but still not foolproof. Plus, these guys all proved to be really good at drafting high-level talent in Boston, usually while picking in the 20s. The Cardinals have drafted late for most of the last decade and still have the best farm system in baseball.

Obviously I get that drafting early boosts the odds of hitting on good players, but I think it's more incremental than people assume.

They changed the rules so you can't pay above slot, which was key to their draft success in Boston. Surely you've read about that, been seeing that. They also changed the rules on international signing cheddar so instead of outbidding teams for young talent they've built some giant palace of baseball learning in the D.R. to find and develop the kids before they hit the market. This takes longer too.

I'm aware of all that. But I'd hoped that the guys advertised as the best minds as baseball could come up with a market inefficiency better than "gotta lose now so we don't lose later."

Somebody send Eli a mini-fridge for his Dr. Pepper 10, stat.

[Quality Start Machine]

New mantra: IT'S TIME TO START, THEO!

15 rhetorical questions from Andy in that one. He must be really fired up.

Al is right, in three years Theo should have rebuilt the farm system, changed the entire organization, coaching/scouting philosophy all while putting a contender on the field.

You say that like "putting a contender on the field" is some silly, irrelevant thing.

You say it like it wouldn't harm their draft position, which is pretty much the surest way to put players into the pipeline who can make the contention a sustainable thing.

It's one way. I don't know about the surest way.

Getting the Bryants and Almoras of the world is a lot easier when your drafting in the single digits.

Sure it's easier, but still not foolproof. Plus, these guys all proved to be really good at drafting high-level talent in Boston, usually while picking in the 20s. The Cardinals have drafted late for most of the last decade and still have the best farm system in baseball.

Obviously I get that drafting early boosts the odds of hitting on good players, but I think it's more incremental than people assume.

They changed the rules so you can't pay above slot, which was key to their draft success in Boston. Surely you've read about that, been seeing that. They also changed the rules on international signing cheddar so instead of outbidding teams for young talent they've built some giant palace of baseball learning in the D.R. to find and develop the kids before they hit the market. This takes longer too.

I'm aware of all that. But I'd hoped that the guys advertised as the best minds as baseball could come up with a market inefficiency better than "gotta lose now so we don't lose later."

Since their strategy has clearly not been to patch together a team in the hopes of contention for the Seligcard, the best plan for the long-term is to completely flame out now rather than win a few more games and see Kris Bryant getting guys on a Rockies message board moist.

[Tony]

It's too bad there isn't catchy phrase like "suck for Luck" that the Cubs can use like the Colts did. That would make waiting through this shitty period a lot more fun.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

New mantra: IT'S TIME TO START, THEO!

15 rhetorical questions from Andy in that one. He must be really fired up.

Al is right, in three years Theo should have rebuilt the farm system, changed the entire organization, coaching/scouting philosophy all while putting a contender on the field.

You say that like "putting a contender on the field" is some silly, irrelevant thing.

You say it like it wouldn't harm their draft position, which is pretty much the surest way to put players into the pipeline who can make the contention a sustainable thing.

It's one way. I don't know about the surest way.

Getting the Bryants and Almoras of the world is a lot easier when your drafting in the single digits.

Sure it's easier, but still not foolproof.

Yes, Al... Sometimes "prospects" don't work out. And then they die.

But let's not act like the top of the draft is just as much of a crapshoot as the rest.

Here are some bWAR numbers I've gathered from this breakdown of the collective results of the top 33 draft picks 1990-2010:

Slot  TotWAR  AvgWAR
1      427.1    20.3
2      255.4    12.2
3      143.0     6.8
4      142.9     6.8
5      197.6     9.4
6      123.5     5.9
7      166.3     7.9
8      119.2     5.7
9      144.5     6.9
10     189.0     9.0
11      68.8     3.0
12     198.0     9.4
13     170.7     8.1
14     128.8     6.1
15     125.3     6.0
16     137.6     6.6
17     139.1     6.6
18      18.2     0.9
19      85.7     4.1
20      26.3    12.6
21      69.9     3.3
22     107.6     5.1
23      91.6     4.4
24      57.5     2.7
25      68.2     3.2
26      13.9     0.7
27       9.7     0.5
28      66.1     3.1
29      56.7     2.7
30      22.2     1.1
31      28.6     1.4
32      14.9     0.7
33      11.0     0.5

To cut through the noise a bit, here's the same data sliced into buckets of 3 and 5 slots, respectively (63 and 105 total picks per bucket, respectively):

Picks  TotWAR

1-3     825.5
4-6     464.0
7-9     430.0
10-12   455.8
13-15   424.8
16-18   294.9
19-21   181.9
22-24   256.7
25-27    91.8
28-30   145.0
31-33    54.5

1-5    1166.0
6-10    742.5
11-15   691.6
16-20   406.9
20-25   421.1
26-30   168.6

If you're interested in more of a binary success/failure rate, there's this from a couple years ago.





Where a "successful" player appears to one who meets any of these criteria:

1. Averages 1.5 WAR per year in the majors while under team control
2. Averages 2.0 WAR per year during their best 5-year stretch
3. Lasts 10+ years in the majors

And a "superior" player is one who either:

1. Averages 2.5 WAR per year in the majors while under team control
2. Averages 3.0 WAR per year during their best 5-year stretch

[Eli]

It's too bad there isn't catchy phrase like "suck for Luck" that the Cubs can use like the Colts did. That would make waiting through this shitty period a lot more fun.

I think RV's post upthread was good and thought-provoking. If baseball has really been changed so that outright tanking is now the easiest (or "best") way to rebuild franchises, that's bad for the game. Partially because tanking sucks and isn't fun for anyone. And partially because it's so much harder to turn around a baseball organization by tanking, since one guy doesn't have the impact of a Luck or LeBron like in the NFL or NBA. Plus, it's still harder to accurately project baseball players than basketball or football players. If a team commits to tanking for a few years and misses on one or two picks, they're kind of screwed.

Basically: thanks, Obama.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

By way of bringing this thread back around, the process of googling for the above also led me to this litany of anecdotes from one Alvin Yellon, in which the acclaimed internet scribe explains ahead of the 2011 draft that draft picks don't always work out, man, and LOL Pirates, amiright...

This year, the Pittsburgh Pirates have the No. 1 selection in Monday's MLB Draft, the event baseball has not-so-charmingly named the "First-Year Player Draft". It will be the sixth consecutive year that the Pirates have had the fourth choice or better and the second time in the last decade that they've chosen first overall.

So the Pirates should be really, really good now, right? Since they've gotten all these great players at or near the top of the draft?

That would be no, unless you're a big fan of Bryan Bullington.

[Eli]

*lots of laptop science*

DPD. Really good stuff, Tank. There's a pretty clear-cut drop even after the first pick, which makes sense because that's where you get the more obvious superstar talents like A-Rod, Mauer, Griffey, Chipper Jones, Price, etc. Looks like the average WAR is much more of a crapshoot between picks 3 and 17. (Side note: Fun, random upshot at pick #20 -- Torii Hunter, Mussina and Sabathia have to make up almost all of that.)

Based on that chart, it looks like if you can be bad enough to get a top-2 pick, it's more likely to pay off. But I think it sort of also deflates the idea that it's a huge disadvantage to pick, say, 12th instead of 5th.

Anyway. Thanks for putting that together.

[Tony]

It's too bad there isn't catchy phrase like "suck for Luck" that the Cubs can use like the Colts did. That would make waiting through this shitty period a lot more fun.

I think RV's post upthread was good and thought-provoking. If baseball has really been changed so that outright tanking is now the easiest (or "best") way to rebuild franchises, that's bad for the game. Partially because tanking sucks and isn't fun for anyone. And partially because it's so much harder to turn around a baseball organization by tanking, since one guy doesn't have the impact of a Luck or LeBron like in the NFL or NBA. Plus, it's still harder to accurately project baseball players than basketball or football players. If a team commits to tanking for a few years and misses on one or two picks, they're kind of screwed.

Basically: thanks, Obama.

We could have used "Not tryin' for Bryant" or "This season will be a bore, but we'll get Almor...a".

[InternetApex]

It's too bad there isn't catchy phrase like "suck for Luck" that the Cubs can use like the Colts did. That would make waiting through this shitty period a lot more fun.

I think RV's post upthread was good and thought-provoking. If baseball has really been changed so that outright tanking is now the easiest (or "best") way to rebuild franchises, that's bad for the game. Partially because tanking sucks and isn't fun for anyone. And partially because it's so much harder to turn around a baseball organization by tanking, since one guy doesn't have the impact of a Luck or LeBron like in the NFL or NBA. Plus, it's still harder to accurately project baseball players than basketball or football players. If a team commits to tanking for a few years and misses on one or two picks, they're kind of screwed.

Basically: thanks, Obama.

We could have used "Not tryin' for Bryant" or "This season will be a bore, but we'll get Almor...a".

Where's Ernie Banks when you need him?

[Quality Start Machine]

It's too bad there isn't catchy phrase like "suck for Luck" that the Cubs can use like the Colts did. That would make waiting through this shitty period a lot more fun.

I think RV's post upthread was good and thought-provoking. If baseball has really been changed so that outright tanking is now the easiest (or "best") way to rebuild franchises, that's bad for the game. Partially because tanking sucks and isn't fun for anyone. And partially because it's so much harder to turn around a baseball organization by tanking, since one guy doesn't have the impact of a Luck or LeBron like in the NFL or NBA. Plus, it's still harder to accurately project baseball players than basketball or football players. If a team commits to tanking for a few years and misses on one or two picks, they're kind of screwed.

Basically: thanks, Obama.

We could have used "Not tryin' for Bryant" or "This season will be a bore, but we'll get Almor...a".

"Back-to-back Koleks are better than sex"?

[CT III]

It's too bad there isn't catchy phrase like "suck for Luck" that the Cubs can use like the Colts did. That would make waiting through this shitty period a lot more fun.

I think RV's post upthread was good and thought-provoking. If baseball has really been changed so that outright tanking is now the easiest (or "best") way to rebuild franchises, that's bad for the game. Partially because tanking sucks and isn't fun for anyone. And partially because it's so much harder to turn around a baseball organization by tanking, since one guy doesn't have the impact of a Luck or LeBron like in the NFL or NBA. Plus, it's still harder to accurately project baseball players than basketball or football players. If a team commits to tanking for a few years and misses on one or two picks, they're kind of screwed.

Basically: thanks, Obama.

The important thing is that Pen's good friend Bud Selig's tenure as Commissioner has been a complete success.

[SKO]

Frankly I think baseball should have a salary cap if they're going to go so far as to slam down the opportunity for larger market teams of still somewhat limited means to overpay for prospects. Just even the whole damn playing field on every level. That way free agency would be something other than "well you can't build a team successfully in FA since the top three guys are going to the richest three teams and everyone else is bound to just be woefully overpaid."


Does any of what I'm saying make any sense? I'm not going to read it back. Fuck it.

[Quality Start Machine]

Frankly I think baseball should have a salary cap if they're going to go so far as to slam down the opportunity for larger market teams of still somewhat limited means to overpay for prospects. Just even the whole damn playing field on every level. That way free agency would be something other than "well you can't build a team successfully in FA since the top three guys are going to the richest three teams and everyone else is bound to just be woefully overpaid."


Does any of what I'm saying make any sense? I'm not going to read it back. Fuck it.

Nobody in the business of baseball wants a salary cap. Every team makes money, and the Players Association benefits from higher salaries. The only way you'd ever see anything remotely resembling a salary cap would be if somehow the network television revenue dried up. So, never.

[InternetApex]

Frankly I think baseball should have a salary cap if they're going to go so far as to slam down the opportunity for larger market teams of still somewhat limited means to overpay for prospects. Just even the whole damn playing field on every level. That way free agency would be something other than "well you can't build a team successfully in FA since the top three guys are going to the richest three teams and everyone else is bound to just be woefully overpaid."


Does any of what I'm saying make any sense? I'm not going to read it back. Fuck it.

Nobody in the business of baseball wants a salary cap. Every team makes money, and the Players Association benefits from higher salaries. The only way you'd ever see anything remotely resembling a salary cap would be if somehow the network television revenue dried up. So, never.

I don't know. I bet Jerry Reinsdorf would be totally cool with a salary cap.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Frankly I think baseball should have a salary cap if they're going to go so far as to slam down the opportunity for larger market teams of still somewhat limited means to overpay for prospects. Just even the whole damn playing field on every level. That way free agency would be something other than "well you can't build a team successfully in FA since the top three guys are going to the richest three teams and everyone else is bound to just be woefully overpaid."

Does any of what I'm saying make any sense? I'm not going to read it back. Fuck it.

Salary caps are socialistic, anti-competitive, anti-player, ownership risk-reducing, anti-fan propositions.

So, yeah. Let's have more of them.