On the Bright Side: 2023 MLB Draft

[Cruzer1]

  On 6/20/2023 at 9:24 PM, Dave Christian said:

It's Maton, but I don't care who they draft since he won't make it to the bigs for about five years anyway.

Expand  

Wrong. The top college players in this draft should be ready to play in two or two and a half years tops.

[RandyMarsh]

I heard some people speculate that Skenes should be ready by the ASB next year but I heard that story before ie Casey Mize. 

[gehringer_2]

  On 6/21/2023 at 12:05 PM, RandyMarsh said:

I heard some people speculate that Skenes should be ready by the ASB next year but I heard that story before ie Casey Mize. 

Expand  

Verlander spent one full season in the minors, was in the majors at 23. That's probably the practical benchmark even for a 'generational' player. The Dodgers brought Urias to the majors at 19 but that decision was pretty much a disaster. 

[Shinzaki]

Top college bats should be Bob Horner...NCAA straight to the bigs

[Tenacious D]

  On 6/21/2023 at 1:14 PM, Shinzaki said:

Top college bats should be Bob Horner...NCAA straight to the bigs

Expand  

Agree.  Minors are only for the weak.

[Tiger337]

  On 6/21/2023 at 1:56 PM, Tenacious D said:

Agree.  Minors are only for the weak.

Expand  

It's just a way for the ruling class to control the wages of the serfs.  

[SoCalTiger]

  On 6/20/2023 at 7:09 PM, gehringer_2 said:

i might take the LH hitting catcher. Assuming none of these college bats are generational, then for me the differential roster value of an average bat LH catcher is a lot more than an average RH bat OF. I'd take Keel - assuming he does have MLB receiving skills.

Expand  

I don't doubt Scot Harris is thinking along these lines as well. Catching is the weakest position in baseball and a solid receiver who bats left-handed with maybe 15 homer potential is hard to find. How many are there now in the major leagues ? Smith, Rutschman, Raleigh any more ? Plus considering where we are in our "rebuild" a solid win at catcher might be the safe and smart plan plus maybe save some $$ for later picks. Good news is we will add solid piece with the 3 pick.

[Shinzaki]

So the positional value vs BPA debate is seeping into the MLB draft too?

[gehringer_2]

  On 6/21/2023 at 11:06 PM, Shinzaki said:

So the positional value vs BPA debate is seeping into the MLB draft too?

Expand  

or is it the opposite?: Maybe it's that in baseball, BPA 2-5 yrs out is so impossible to determine with any degree of probability that it's pointless to go down the rabbit hole of trying to make razor fine distinctions to rank many similar players in the absence of anything like MLB relevant competition? Sure there are mere handful of guys that break away from the pack in a given year - but always far less than the number 1st round picks and thus only relevant to a small minority of the 30 teams. IIRC, when people have broken down the MLB draft by total WAR by draft position things get pretty flat after only about the 10th pick or so. 

It would be interesting to see that same WAR vs draft position data reparameterized by team. It's often argued here that it's the teams doing drafting that is the better predictor of performance than draft position. Of course there are two possible explanations for that, which are not mutually exclusive: Some teams may do a better job with their internal BPA rankings than the conventional published wisdom (i.e. they are getting better players in lower rounds) or they simple do a better job at skill development - i.e they create their good players - at least to some degree.

And then the third thing that all the concentration on the US draft misses is that nearly half of the players are coming from the international system, and being good at working that system is a whole different set of competencies for ML teams.

[Longgone]

  On 6/21/2023 at 11:06 PM, Shinzaki said:

So the positional value vs BPA debate is seeping into the MLB draft too?

Expand  

Positional value is accounted for in the players grade. It would be a poor approach to draft based on need or position played, rather than overall grade. 

[RandyMarsh]

To me the MLB draft is the one draft where it makes the most sense to take BPA vs. need since it does usually take 3-4 years for these guys to come up here and make an impact and by then who knows what your team will look like and what needs you will have.

Atleast in a sport like basketball or football the rookies tend to play right away so it may make more sense if you feel some guys are pretty even to take the guy where you know you have a hole at and can bring in and play right away. 

Edited June 22, 2023 by RandyMarsh

[gehringer_2]

  On 6/22/2023 at 12:46 AM, RandyMarsh said:

To me the MLB draft is the one draft where it makes the most sense to take BPA vs. need....

Expand  

This part is also true. The complete contrast is to Basketball - where you expect your top pick to play immediately and fit into a team with an already fixed cast of players.

Edited June 22, 2023 by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

  On 6/22/2023 at 12:46 AM, RandyMarsh said:

sually take 3-4 years for these guys to come up here and make an impact and by then who knows what your team will look like and what needs you will have.

Expand  

The way the Tigers jerked Castellanos around in the minors was a classic case of being stupid in this regard. If you have a good fielder, I think it makes a lot of sense to build his flexibility by learning new positions, but if you have a guy that starts out with a distant relationship to his glove to begin with - put him somewhere and leave him there to concentrate at getting as good as he is able.

[Edman85]

Even in the NFL draft, aside from like QB, positional need doesn't matter. If you go back to drafts 5-10 years ago and consider them a win, do you think "Man, we really plugged that hole at linebacker" or do you think "Wow, that was a great player we got in the 5th round."

 

Ditto, MLB Draft, but even moreso.

[Tiger337]

Always draft the best player available.  I personally have a strong bias for drafting hitters over pitchers with early picks, but I really doubt any GM is worried about positional value.  

[gehringer_2]

  On 6/22/2023 at 1:59 AM, Tiger337 said:

Always draft the best player available.  I personally have a strong bias for drafting hitters over pitchers with early picks, but I really doubt any GM is worried about positional value.  

Expand  

Of the top 12 pitchers by 2023 WAR on fangraphs just now, 7 are 1st round picks and Valdez was an international.

Of the top 12 hitters by WAR, only 3 were 1st round picks (several internationals).

Taking pitchers may have terrible injury risk, but I think they may be more projectable than hitters - so it's a conundrum.

Edited June 22, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Jim Cowan]

Best player, certainly.  And defensive ability is an important part of that assessment of course, you don't want to draft a 22 year old DH.

[Shinzaki]

You can win without a C who can hit like Teel's ceiling..a lot if teams do. It's harder to win without a power hitting OF.  Take Langford if he's there.

[Tiger337]

  On 6/22/2023 at 3:49 AM, Shinzaki said:

You can win without a C who can hit like Teel's ceiling..a lot if teams do. It's harder to win without a power hitting OF.  Take Langford if he's there.

Expand  

You almost have to have a couple of power hitters to win now.  I don't think it matters what position.  

[Cruzer1]

Positional value is also very important in baseball. Though all of the years at the top of the draft, the Tigers have never taken a shortstop high in the draft.

[Shinzaki]

True...but power hitters are far more likely to play OF or 1b/3b than C.  Feel doesn't have the dinger whompin' profile that Langford has

[gehringer_2]

  On 6/22/2023 at 9:10 AM, Cruzer1 said:

Positional value is also very important in baseball. Though all of the years at the top of the draft, the Tigers have never taken a shortstop high in the draft.

Expand  

OTOH, they have spent  their money in Latin America on infielders so that also goes to the mix.

Edited June 22, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Cruzer1]

  On 6/22/2023 at 12:32 PM, gehringer_2 said:

OTOH, they have spent  their money in Latin America on infielders so that also goes to the mix.

Expand  

They never have spent big money (top money in a year) for a top international SS either.

[Shinzaki]

  On 6/22/2023 at 1:20 PM, Cruzer1 said:

They never have spent big money (top money in a year) for a top international SS either.

Expand  

They might not have the connections to establish a relationship with a top International SS.  They have signed a bunch of 2nd tier guys

[gehringer_2]

  On 6/22/2023 at 1:20 PM, Cruzer1 said:

They never have spent big money (top money in a year) for a top international SS either.

Expand  

Santana was the most the Tigers had ever spent. QED.