On the Bright Side: 2023 MLB Draft

[RandyMarsh]

18 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

With the exception of one person, the people in this thread have something on the degree of 0.01% of the information that the people who made these picks have. Really really harsh draft day opinions are a symptom of hanging out on the left side of the Dunning Kruger chart.

You can say that about literally every move a franchise makes so just cause were only fans are we never allowed to have an opinion on a move a team you follow makes?

And for the record that's all these are is opinions, I think most on here make it clear that we don't know more about the team than the Tigers do we're just offering up our views on a subject on a message board. 

[mtutiger]

9 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

You can say that about literally every move a franchise makes so just cause were only fans are we never allowed to have an opinion on a move a team you follow makes?

I dont know that he's saying that having opinions are bad or we aren't allowed to have them, but rather that people often offer them without the qualification that they don't have all the information.

That's less of a problem on this board, but across the rest of social media, just see a lot of opinions offered that appear to be more based on the conventional wisdom offered pre-draft interspersed with bollocks like "Scott Avila" (despite whatever misgivings people may have about the first three picks, it's not at all reminiscent of Avila as far as I can tell). Just lowest common denominator stuff

Edited July 10, 2023 by mtutiger

[LongLiveMaroth]

 

 

[LongLiveMaroth]

 

 

 

 

[LongLiveMaroth]

One thing is clear, this FO really does prioritize the hit tool. Now I am hoping we go prep at least one more time in day 2 and get some fresh arms in the system.

[oblong]

12 hours ago, casimir said:

They could be birthmarks.

"whatever you do man, don't look at his birthmark"

[CMRivdogs]

1 hour ago, Edman85 said:

With the exception of one person, the people in this thread have something on the degree of 0.01% of the information that the people who made these picks have. Really really harsh draft day opinions are a symptom of hanging out on the left side of the Dunning Kruger chart.

Which is why I've always loved this Danny Murtaugh quote

Quote

Any manager would want a guy like that playing for him. The only trouble is to get him to put down his cup of beer and come down out of the stands and do those things.

Spending half your life playing Strat or APBA (or OOTP) doesn't make you a big league GM

[oblong]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

I dont know that he's saying that having opinions are bad or we aren't allowed to have them, but rather that people often offer them without the qualification that they don't have all the information.

That's less of a problem on this board, but across the rest of social media, just see a lot of opinions offered that appear to be more based on the conventional wisdom offered pre-draft interspersed with bollocks like "Scott Avila" (despite whatever misgivings people may have about the first three picks, it's not at all reminiscent of Avila as far as I can tell). Just lowest common denominator stuff

to the vast majority, and nearly everyone who isn't working for a team, these are just names on a sheet of paper.

It's comical to read analysis given with such self appointed authority as if they know what the hell they are talking about. Not so much here, like you said, it's on twitter.

These orgs don't sit around and read the same bits of information available to us. 

If history is any indication of the players discussed yesterday, maybe one of the top 5 will be an All Star type player.  A few players in the middle rounds will be starters somewhere.  One near the end will be the surprise of the draft.

That's the MLB draft.  Lots of gnashing of teeth over nothing.

 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, LongLiveMaroth said:

 

 

So they would have taken Crews or maybe Skenes but not Langford.

[mtutiger]

9 minutes ago, oblong said:

If history is any indication of the players discussed yesterday, maybe one of the top 5 will be an All Star type player.  A few players in the middle rounds will be starters somewhere.  One near the end will be the surprise of the draft.

Speaking to the criticism that Clark could take longer to make it to the bigs over someone like Langford, this may be one of the biggest arguments in favor of taking him if, in fact, the Tigers had him ranked higher. The MLB Draft is fun to follow and is important, and you can't completely forget about how players fit into the longer term picture, but I'm not sure it's wise to pencil any of them into lineups 2-3 years down the road.... so if you have a player ranked higher that happens to be a high schooler, the fact that he's ranked higher should probably win out over any sort of shorter term considerations.

Somewhat related, but listening to the first half of Cody and Friends podcast this AM, he did bring up the fact that Clark could be entering the bigs as Riley enters into arbitration / knocking on the door of free agency.... theoretically possible, but one suspects that if Riley plays like we think he's gonna play, a long term contract is a definite possibility. Probably the same with Tork, Skubal and others as well. So I get the concern, but it's not like their aren't avenues to ameliorate those concerns either.

[casimir]

22 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Which is why I've always loved this Danny Murtaugh quote

Spending half your life playing Strat or APBA (or OOTP) doesn't make you a big league GM

Damn.  Now that I think about it, I've probably owned OOTP for almost half of my life.

[oblong]

3 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Speaking to the criticism that Clark could take longer to make it to the bigs over someone like Langford, this may be one of the biggest arguments in favor of taking him if, in fact, the Tigers had him ranked higher. The MLB Draft is fun to follow and is important, and you can't completely forget about how players fit into the longer term picture, but I'm not sure it's wise to pencil any of them into lineups 2-3 years down the road.... so if you have a player ranked higher that happens to be a high schooler, the fact that he's ranked higher should probably win out over any sort of shorter term considerations.

Somewhat related, but listening to the first half of Cody and Friends podcast this AM, he did bring up the fact that Clark could be entering the bigs as Riley enters into arbitration / knocking on the door of free agency.... theoretically possible, but one suspects that if Riley plays like we think he's gonna play, a long term contract is a definite possibility. Probably the same with Tork, Skubal and others as well. So I get the concern, but it's not like their aren't avenues to ameliorate those concerns either.

Right.  i don't think you draft based on current roster makeup.  Too much can change in a few years.  Just take the best player relative to your strategy.  

[RatkoVarda]

the timeline on HS position players - if they are really good - is not that different than college players. In fact, Greene beat JJ Bleday to the majors by a month.

[Edman85]

5 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Speaking to the criticism that Clark could take longer to make it to the bigs over someone like Langford, this may be one of the biggest arguments in favor of taking him if, in fact, the Tigers had him ranked higher. The MLB Draft is fun to follow and is important, and you can't completely forget about how players fit into the longer term picture, but I'm not sure it's wise to pencil any of them into lineups 2-3 years down the road.... so if you have a player ranked higher that happens to be a high schooler, the fact that he's ranked higher should probably win out over any sort of shorter term considerations.

Somewhat related, but listening to the first half of Cody and Friends podcast this AM, he did bring up the fact that Clark could be entering the bigs as Riley enters into arbitration / knocking on the door of free agency.... theoretically possible, but one suspects that if Riley plays like we think he's gonna play, a long term contract is a definite possibility. Probably the same with Tork, Skubal and others as well. So I get the concern, but it's not like their aren't avenues to ameliorate those concerns either.

All that matters is who will be the better player down the road. Timeline doesn't matter.

When we go back and look at old drafts, what do we look at? Were the players good? Maybe the Tigers cashed them in for a Hall of Famer (Miller/Maybin)? We've just got to take the long view on it, and a lot of this stuff about handedness/timeline/position/college vs. high school just doesn't matter.

[Shinzaki]

I'm warming up to the Clark pick...as well as the Anderson pick.  He can hit and he bats RH...adds balance to the org.  McGonigle could be a steal where we got him...he has a quick compact swing...he could move quickly in the system

[CMRivdogs]

24 minutes ago, casimir said:

Damn.  Now that I think about it, I've probably owned OOTP for almost half of my life.

I was in a couple of APBA draft leagues for about 20 years. At least the cards don't talk back. Most of the time

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, jz68 said:

Right, but why would he sign for the 4th slot money?   

Looks like Harris sold him on the long term vision.

[gehringer_2]

29 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

the timeline on HS position players - if they are really good - is not that different than college players. In fact, Greene beat JJ Bleday to the majors by a month.

Quote

If history is any indication of the players discussed yesterday, maybe one of the top 5 will be an All Star type player.  A few players in the middle rounds will be starters somewhere.  One near the end will be the surprise of the draft.

Right. Like the outcome any individual baseball game, the outcome of any single pick is strongly random, only weakly predictable

Harris said it best when he said that a lot of the very best bats never get to college - our own Riley being an example. Of course everyone matures physically at a different rate and sure even some all stars will not have shown (or just didn't have the chance to show) their batting ability at 18, but OTOH, in the history of baseball the fact stands out when you look at HOF hitters is how many of them were already showing their ability younger than other players and were able to get to the majors at young ages. If you take a bias against HS hitters you're playing with one hand tied behind your back. 

And again, it all goes back the the eyeballs and evaluation skills you are putting on these players. If you need that year or two of film and counting stats to be confident in your scouting, then absolutely stick with college players. Better that than misses. But if you assemble the skill in your org and are making the huge time and money investment needed to scout prep players deeply, there is enough reward there to make it profitable despite the increased risks. The same being true on the international side where you have to look at even younger players.

And we don't even know yet if Harris has that kind of team in place or is just whistling in the dark!

Edited July 10, 2023 by gehringer_2

[jz68]

One of the ESPN senior writers had this to say....

 

Schoenfield: I actually love that the Tigers instead went with Clark. By all accounts, Clark is a 1-1 type of talent in another draft -- one that wasn't as top-loaded as this one -- and I think the upside over Langford is clear: Clark has a more well-rounded game thanks to his blazing speed and defense in center field. That's going to create a lot of added value that Langford, who is likely limited to an outfield corner, probably won't possess. Langford has more raw power, but give me the complete player.

[LongLiveMaroth]

As we get ready for Day 2, one name to keep an eye on given the FO's love of hit tools and bat-to-ball skills if we can float another prep with the savings on the Max's (Clark and Anderson) would be Cooper Pratt.  

[RatkoVarda]

If McGonigle can stay at SS (and there seems to be a wide range of opinions on that) then what a great pick

Same for Anderson and 2B

[kdog]

Avila's process with some draft picks was sound. But the player development early in his tenure was non-existent. We have the seen the results of that.

He overhauled it and we are starting to see a few positive signs. Harris hired his guys and the process made some sense. The earlier post about analytic-based picks is encouraging.

You need multiple Riley Greenes to build a strong offense. And you need to explore all avenues to find them.

[Tiger337]

3 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

You can say that about literally every move a franchise makes so just cause were only fans are we never allowed to have an opinion on a move a team you follow makes?

And for the record that's all these are is opinions, I think most on here make it clear that we don't know more about the team than the Tigers do we're just offering up our views on a subject on a message board. 

I don't like the idea that we aren't supposed to criticize anything that teams do because they know more than us.  However, I think the gap in knowledge is much larger when it comes to amateur players.  All most of us have to go off of is second hand scouting reports and an few video clips.  Once players have been around for a while, I think the gap narrows somewhat.  

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, Cruzer1 said:

Max himself stated this during an interview at the draft.

yeah - there had to be a seriously unhappy agent hearing him say that out loud.

[oblong]

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't like the idea that we aren't supposed to criticize anything that teams do because they know more than us.  However, I think the gap in knowledge is much larger when it comes to amateur players.  All most of us have to go off of is second hand scouting reports and an few video clips.  Once players have been around for a while, I think the gap narrows somewhat.  

For me it's a matter of degree.  Criticism is fine and that's the nature of being a fan.  An irrational fanatic.  The ups and downs and bipolar nature of hating the team one minute and loving them the next.  For me the line is crossed when some act like they are indeed an educated contemporary of these front office people rather than must baseless speculating.  Putting on a headset and recording a podcast in a planet fitness may visually give off an aura of inside dope but that's just window dressing.  That person is no different than a guy at the barber shop who calls into 97.1 the ticket.

And with the MLB draft being such a crapshoot it offers the chance for broken clock syndrome.  A player either works out or they don't.  Most don't.