Organizational Philosophy Discussion Thread

[KyleJRM]

This draft is about every player in your draft. Not just one pick. Every pick. Your best player out of this draft could be a 22nd rounder. We don't know yet. But every pick is important. The second overall pick is the most important, then the second round pick the second most important, and so on. But overall, you want as many valuable pieces in the draft as possible.

While that's technically true, it's like saying a $20 bill, a dollar bill, a quarter and a nickel all have value. The dollar may be the second-largest, but it is dwarfed by the $20.

And part of why Correa was taken first overall last year was because the Astros had a supplemental pick where they could take a larger bonus guy (which they did - McCullers). Correa saved them a lot of draft bonus money for later higher demand players that would fall, which they were aggressive with.

I hated that strategy. It's a bad strategy. I hated it then, even with the argument that this was a super-special once-in-a-generation draft with six equal guys at the top. I'll hate it even more in every other draft.

And you'll notice who was the only team at the top of the first round to do the opposite and overslot their first-round pick at the expense of the others? Theo Epstein's Cubs.

[Jeffy25]

While that POV is cute and naive all in one, clearly the best place in the draft to get an impact talent - ANY draft but in this case the MLB - is the tippy top of the draft.

I've shown you this before and we've done this before:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/bl...aft-using-war/



Here is the WAR/year based on draft position within the first round:
1-10-- 1.417 WAR/year
11-20-- 1.115 WAR/year
21-30-- .353 WAR/year



http://baseballanalysts.com/archives...raft_and_w.php

http://baseballanalysts.com/wardraft1.gif

http://baseballanalysts.com/wardraft9.gif

Conclusion

Obviously the second overall pick is more valuable than the second round pick. Clearly, I never disagreed with that, now or that last time we had this discussion. But that second round pick is important for this draft. Baseball is the only sport where you accumulate prospects because of how many fail. That second round pick is important, just like every pick is important. It's not as important as your first round pick, but it's more important than your third, fourth, and so on. It's an important pick because it could be a useful big leaguer one day that you have 6 years of prime control over.

Every pick is important. Obviously the second overall pick is the most important, and then so on. I have never argued it isn't, so I have no idea why you keep making this argument.

[KyleJRM]

You have two phases of the draft:

1) Your first-round pick

2) A mass of poo-flinging taking up about 35 names.

If you lose your 2nd round pick, you still get 34 other poo-flings. No big loss.

[KyleJRM]

This is cheating because the Cubs haven't exactly been a paragon of drafting and development virtue, but here's a fun one. Try to see if you can get them without looking it up:

Name all the Cubs 2nd-round picks in the last 30 years to have at least 1.0 career bWAR as of this typing.

[Jeffy25]

While that's technically true, it's like saying a $20 bill, a dollar bill, a quarter and a nickel all have value. The dollar may be the second-largest, but it is dwarfed by the $20.

It's really not.

We have plenty of late round draft picks that have panned out to be better than first round picks in baseball history.

Some notable second round picks in baseball history:
Kipnis, Giancarlo Stanton, Jordan Zimmerman, Freddie Freeman, Zach Cozart, Trevor Cahill, Jon Jay, Justin Masterson, Brett Anderson, Chris Tillman, Yunel Escobar, Chase Headley, Dustin Pedroia, Hunter Pence, Yovanni Gallardo, Kurt Suzuki, Andre Ethier, Scott Baker, Joey Votto, Jon Lester, Brian McCann, Jonahthan Broxton, Dan Haren, JJ Hardy, Joel Hanrahan, Carl Crawford, John Lackey, Brandon Phillips, Ryan Ludwick, Adam Dunn, Brandon Inge, Chase Utley, Randy Wolf, Jimmy Rollins, Carlos Beltran, Jarrod Washburn, Sean Casey, Troy Glaus, Scott Rolen, Jeff Suppan, Todd Helton, Jason Giambi, Arthur Rhodes, Albert Belle, Kevin Tapani, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Al Leiter, Barry Bonds, Barry Larkin, David Wells

You also have plenty of late round guys like Albert Pujols (13th), Jaime Garcia (22nd), Mike Piazza (62nd) that turn out to be the best players from a teams draft, and it's fairly common.

I hated that strategy. It's a bad strategy. I hated it then, even with the argument that this was a super-special once-in-a-generation draft with six equal guys at the top. I'll hate it even more in every other draft.

How is it a bad strategy?

It allows you to take guys that drop because of bonus demands. If you aren't anymore excited about a number of options at your pick, taking the smaller bonus demand guy here to take a better guy later that will fall. It's not a horrible strategy. It's maybe not the best one, but it's one that the Astros appeared to take last year. Cardinals this past year took a few guys earlier with lower demands that they liked fine with those picks, but paid larger bonuses later on guys that would fall because of their signing bonus demands. It gives you the chance to sign multiple first or second round talents in a draft.

And you'll notice who was the only team at the top of the first round to do the opposite and overslot their first-round pick at the expense of the others? Theo Epstein's Cubs.

And most of their later round picks were not over slot guys that fell. It's fine. It's just the strategy they took. They only went over slot on a handful of their 29 signings and went below slot on many as well. There could have been some nice picks later on in the draft that were passed on because the Cubs couldn't sign them because of the forced budget constraints.

Either way, it's a draft philosophy, that's a different argument.

[Mell413]

I have a feeling Jeffy has that list of 2nd round picks saved in case this argument comes up. It's like JB posting the stats about Jordan every time his name comes up

[Jeffy25]

You have two phases of the draft:

1) Your first-round pick

2) A mass of poo-flinging taking up about 35 names.

If you lose your 2nd round pick, you still get 34 other poo-flings. No big loss.

Do you know what draft pick the Cubs lost in 07 by signing Alfonso Soriano?

Jordan Zimmerman. I assume you guys would rather have him entering 2013 than Alfonso Soriano. And that 100 million back. He would probably be your ace or number two right now, and you would have him for another three years.

It's just another example of what put the Cubs in the position they are in today.

[SenorGato]

Obviously the second overall pick is more valuable than the second round pick. Clearly, I never disagreed with that, now or that last time we had this discussion.

Which has nothing to do with the point that you far less likely to find a highly successful player - or even a player really - in later rounds than you are at the tippy top of the draft.

Baseball is the only sport where you accumulate prospects because of how many fail.

Yet another reason why that second round pick is not as valuable as you like to imagine it is.

It's not as important as your first round pick, but it's more important than your third, fourth, and so on

I would gladly give up the third, fourth, and so on for a FA the caliber of a Bourn or Swisher or Upton or Greinke or Hamilton without blinking, just as I would the second.

Every pick is important.

I have argued with you enough to know that you think repeating yourself over and over makes your point more correct, but you really ignore how translating that pick into MLB talent is the goal - not collecting prospects. The Cubs have prospects. They will have prospects without that 2nd round pick. They will even use those 3rd, 4th, and so on picks to land even more prospects. There is no data to support what you are saying, as safe and general as you are going for here with your statement, so just leave it alone.

[Jeffy25]

I have a feeling Jeffy has that list of 2nd round picks saved in case this argument comes up. It's like JB posting the stats about Jordan every time his name comes up

I made it once, so I just went back to that old post and copied and pasted it from then

[Jeffy25]

Which has nothing to do with the point that you far less likely to find a highly successful player - or even a player really - in later rounds than you are at the tippy top of the draft.

Obviously, but that was never argued. So why are you arguing it?

Yet another reason why that second round pick is not as valuable as you like to imagine it is.

Obviously, but that was never argued. So why are you arguing it?

[SenorGato]

Do you know what draft pick the Cubs lost in 07 by signing Alfonso Soriano?

Jordan Zimmerman. I assume you guys would rather have him entering 2013 than Alfonso Soriano. And that 100 million back. He would probably be your ace or number two right now, and you would have him for another three years.

It's just another example of what put the Cubs in the position they are in today.

Hindsight analysis at it's finest. That pick could easily have been Samuel Runion, William Kline, Matthew Welker, and Josh Fields (the #1 Rule 5 guy). Who are those guys? The 4 other players who went at the top of the second round.

[KyleJRM]

It's really not.

We have plenty of late round draft picks that have panned out to be better than first round picks in baseball history.

We have literally over a thousand non-first-round picks every year. A few will turn out awesome, but the percentages are very much not in their favor. As I said, it's an exercise in poo-flinging.

How is it a bad strategy?

It allows you to take guys that drop because of bonus demands. If you aren't anymore excited about a number of options at your pick, taking the smaller bonus demand guy here to take a better guy later that will fall. It's not a horrible strategy. It's maybe not the best one, but it's one that the Astros appeared to take last year. Cardinals this past year took a few guys earlier with lower demands that they liked fine with those picks, but paid larger bonuses later on guys that would fall because of their signing bonus demands. It gives you the chance to sign multiple first or second round talents in a draft.

It's a bad strategy because historically, the difference between the best player in the draft and the second-best is *much* larger than, say, the 20th and 40th.

The draft is an extreme bell curve in terms of value, with the a sharp decline down through the first round and then a long, smooth tail into the late-first and beyond.

A "first-round talent" that is just a guy who could have gone in the late first-round is meaningless compared to making absolutely sure you get the best possible value you can out of the top slots.

[KyleJRM]

Do you know what draft pick the Cubs lost in 07 by signing Alfonso Soriano?

Jordan Zimmerman. I assume you guys would rather have him entering 2013 than Alfonso Soriano. And that 100 million back. He would probably be your ace or number two right now, and you would have him for another three years.

It's just another example of what put the Cubs in the position they are in today.

Out of the 30 picks in that 2007 second-round, how many do you think have put up 5 WAR or more in the majors? Zimmerman is one.

[SenorGato]

Obviously, but that was never argued. So why are you arguing it?

Obviously, but that was never argued. So why are you arguing it?

It is kind of a big deal in what is being said Jeffy. Please stop trolling and pretending you don't get what is being said, you are not pushing the conversation forward with such petty, weak tactics.

The second round pick is not defining the 2013 draft for the Cubs. The chances of landing a game changing talent is not high there, not high at all. The odds of landing a significant talent there in the draft is not nearly high enough to pass up signing on Bourn for the right years and money.

The most significant aspect of giving up that 2013 2nd round pick is the slot bonus that goes with it, but luckily the Cubs should gain about 3 million dollars in draft allotment to spend on the #2 overall pick than they did at #6 last year, when they happily overslotted for the player they wanted.

[Jeffy25]

Out of the 30 picks in that 2007 second-round, how many do you think have put up 5 WAR or more in the majors? Zimmerman is one.

Giancarlo Stanton. Freddie Freeman and Zach Cozart will after this season (remember, this was just 5 years ago).

And these were second round picks after the supplemental round.

That supplemental adds Tommy Hunter, Todd Frazier, Brett Cecil, Cory Luebke, Julio Borbon and 8 other big leaguers.