Last high pick for a while hopefully

[gryoung]

The 2016 baseball draft is in sight and the Sox have a fairly high pick (12?). Given their recent influx of youth to the big club and a fairly-loaded farm system, the hope is they don't have a pick this high for quite some time as they will be on a long winning seasons streak.

Are they in a position to draft the famous best-available regardless of position or do they target?

A college pitcher would be my choice if they can tag one who is close to the majors (1-2 years).

 

[chrisfont9]

OF and C are two clear non-needs if you feel like Benintendi is a pretty sure bet to take left and at least be good. SS is probably close to a non-need with Dubon potentially coming up for Xander if we can't extend him. Devers and Moncada potentially take a couple IF positions off the need list, though I guess we don't know where he'll eventually land position-wise. Travis and Chavis maybe don't count as real security yet but still, the IF prospect collection is deep. So yeah, pitching.

 

[Curll]

If anyone in any front office of a baseball team ever, for any reason outside of absolute jest, suggests drafting based on need in the first five rounds, they should be strapped eyeballs first to a rocket and shot into the sun.

 

[TheDeuce222]

I'm biased being a UVA guy, but I'm hoping for SP Connor Jones from Virginia. He's not gonna blow hitters away with a 99 MPH fastball, but he's been extraordinarily consistent and successful at UVA, and he has a nice repertoire of plus pitches (fastball, sinker, slider) that should allow him to progress very quickly. Ceiling is probably as a good #2 or 3 starter rather than an Ace, but would be psyched to see the Sox take him.

 

[DisgruntledSoxFan77]

Unless somehow someone slips with legit power and average contact skills, target best pitcher available.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

If anyone in any front office of a baseball team ever, for any reason outside of absolute jest, suggests drafting based on need in the first five rounds, they should be strapped eyeballs first to a rocket and shot into the sun.

This might be a good opportunity to explain one more time to all of us why this is the case. I recognize that it's universally accepted by people who know this stuff, but for many of us it's fairly counterintuitive, so a brief explanation would be useful.

 

[chrisfont9]

This might be a good opportunity to explain one more time to all of us why this is the case. I recognize that it's universally accepted by people who know this stuff, but for many of us it's fairly counterintuitive, so a brief explanation would be useful.

Yeah, I mean we all get the tenuous nature of baseball draft picks, but if you have three or four outstanding options early in round 1, and you have a system stacked at one position and not another, should you still be shot into the sun for thinking about this?

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Yeah, I mean we all get the tenuous nature of baseball draft picks, but if you have three or four outstanding options early in round 1, and you have a system stacked at one position and not another, should you still be shot into the sun for thinking about this?

Ahh .. Yeah. It's the combination of the length of the development time plus projecting a team's major league needs three or four years down the road. The latter of which would seem to be the trump (drumph ?) factor.

 

[SumnerH]

This might be a good opportunity to explain one more time to all of us why this is the case. I recognize that it's universally accepted by people who know this stuff, but for many of us it's fairly counterintuitive, so a brief explanation would be useful.

Short answer: Sam Horn.

Long answer:
a) Drafted players, even in high rounds, have a very high chance of not making the majors; anything you can do to maximize that chance increases the chance of getting any value at all out of them.
b) These players are likely years away from the majors if they do get there; considering we can't figure out what to do with the logjam of starting pitching every offseason and are scrambling to find enough arms to throw out there by mid-April, projecting which positions are going to be stacked in 3 years is a fool's errand.
c) Players move around. That SS you drafted may be in LF by the time he hits the majors
d) If you do wind up with tons of value in the high minors in one area, you can always use it in trades. It's not like it'll go to waste.

 

[Bergs]

This might be a good opportunity to explain one more time to all of us why this is the case. I recognize that it's universally accepted by people who know this stuff, but for many of us it's fairly counterintuitive, so a brief explanation would be useful.

The odds of ANY given draftee "making it" are pretty low. If you limit yourself to a single position over another, you are intentionally making a decision to NOT draft the guy you think is most likely to "make it." That is not a good idea. Draft the better player. Every time.

Not to mention, 2016's "position of need" may be a position of strength by the time the 2016 draft class is MLB-ready...and even if it is a legitimate need when that time comes, you have a (hopefully) better player to trade to help fill it.


Edit: Sumner is faster than me.

 

[Drek717]

OF and C are two clear non-needs if you feel like Benintendi is a pretty sure bet to take left and at least be good. SS is probably close to a non-need with Dubon potentially coming up for Xander if we can't extend him. Devers and Moncada potentially take a couple IF positions off the need list, though I guess we don't know where he'll eventually land position-wise. Travis and Chavis maybe don't count as real security yet but still, the IF prospect collection is deep. So yeah, pitching.

If Swihart is traded for pitching they would certainly have need for a high pedigree C in the farm system, not to mention a clear path for the guy to play there pretty much unblocked. Procyshen and Rei are the best minor league prospects and both look like organizational catchers at best right now unless they take a big step forward.

As such I'd be a big fan of Zack Collins. He was a top 100 prospect on his bat alone when he came out of high school and has done nothing in his three years at Miami to change that while improving behind the plate enough to look like he might actually stick at C. I've seen reports citing a current scouting grade of 40 on the 20-80 scale already. Basically comparable to Kyle Schwarber when he was drafted but with a bit less power and more potential to stick at catcher.

 

[chrisfont9]

OK. Well I can accept that current roster is a very low concern, and probably zero for most of the draft, but for example if you're the Mariners and haven't developed a hitter since A-Rod, you might lean a little in the direction of position players? Not that being like the Mariners proves you know what you're doing.

 

[SydneySox]

We're glad you can accept that.

You wouldn't 'lean' anywhere because you would take the best player for every one of the reasons listed by Sumner. Answering your question is literally just re-quoting his post.

a) Drafted players, even in high rounds, have a very high chance of not making the majors; anything you can do to maximize that chance increases the chance of getting any value at all out of them.
b) These players are likely years away from the majors if they do get there; considering we can't figure out what to do with the logjam of starting pitching every offseason and are scrambling to find enough arms to throw out there by mid-April, projecting which positions are going to be stacked in 3 years is a fool's errand.
c) Players move around. That SS you drafted may be in LF by the time he hits the majors
d) If you do wind up with tons of value in the high minors in one area, you can always use it in trades. It's not like it'll go to waste.

There are the reasons why you don't lean towards any position.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Best available player, as always.

And #12 isn't really a premium pick.

 

[SydneySox]

Oh yeah? Jemile Weeks says GFY

 

[Quintanariffic]

Anyone who follows the draft have a sense of the strengths weaknesses for this year? I had read that college arms were a major weakness, so I'd suspect we won't be going in that direction.

 

[snowmanny]

Just to add to the best player available argument, by my count there were 355 picks from 2001-2010 that were the 12th pick or later but still in the first round (counting all compensatory picks, etc). Of these players only 27 of them have accumulated at least 12 WAR. (The list includes Buchholz and Ellsbury; the Sox of course also hit on Lester and Pedroia with second round picks in years they didn't have first round picks). If you don't pick the best player available you are picking a dead end. And as to not needing a catcher, there was only one catcher picked at #12 or later in the first round during that time frame who has accumulated >12 WAR: Josh Donaldson.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I think the reason why this seems counterintuitive (to me, at least; can't speak for anyone else) is that it's hard to believe the differences in talent level between draft candidates are always, or even often, going to be as clear-cut as you are all making it sound. And the difficulty of projecting ultimate outcomes, if anything, seems to magnify that fuzziness rather than mitigating it. I don't think anybody would suggest that positional need should tempt you to pick Player X when Player Y seems obviously better; it's more that you might use positional need as the decisive factor when the difference between Player X and Player Y gets into coin-flip territory. But I gather you're saying that doesn't really happen?

 

[chrisfont9]

I think the reason why this seems counterintuitive (to me, at least; can't speak for anyone else) is that it's hard to believe the differences in talent level between draft candidates are always, or even often, going to be as clear-cut as you are all making it sound. And the difficulty of projecting ultimate outcomes, if anything, seems to magnify that fuzziness rather than mitigating it. I don't think anybody would suggest that positional need should tempt you to pick Player X when Player Y seems obviously better; it's more that you might use positional need as the decisive factor when the difference between Player X and Player Y gets into coin-flip territory. But I gather you're saying that doesn't really happen?

Me too, I was trying to suggest the same. If you have several great choices early in the first round, do you really have a strict best-available pecking order from which you cannot deviate? The consensus above seems to be yes.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Me too, I was trying to suggest the same. If you have several great choices early in the first round, do you really have a strict best-available pecking order from which you cannot deviate? The consensus above seems to be yes.

Sometimes, it's best to not take the player who is obviously the best-available player, but to settle a bit and pay a little less than slot. This way, a team can get a better player in the later rounds by paying over-slot value to their next pick.

Basically, this is the way to "break the draft" and on the same day add not only Trey Ball to the organization, but ALSO John Denney!

 

[moondog80]

Best available player, as always.

And #12 isn't really a premium pick.

Right. Of 51 players picked #12 overall, top 5 in career WAR are Nomar, Kirk GIbson, Jered Weaver, BIlly Wagner, and Delino Deshields. So about an 8% chance of getting an all-star caliber player, and really only about a 20% chance of a major league regular at all.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?overall_pick=12&draft_type=junreg&

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I think the reason why this seems counterintuitive (to me, at least; can't speak for anyone else) is that it's hard to believe the differences in talent level between draft candidates are always, or even often, going to be as clear-cut as you are all making it sound. And the difficulty of projecting ultimate outcomes, if anything, seems to magnify that fuzziness rather than mitigating it. I don't think anybody would suggest that positional need should tempt you to pick Player X when Player Y seems obviously better; it's more that you might use positional need as the decisive factor when the difference between Player X and Player Y gets into coin-flip territory. But I gather you're saying that doesn't really happen?

Major league needs are 100% irrelevant to players who are likely 3-5 years away from cracking that roster. One season is enough time for a roster to be completely upended, never mind two or more. You draft the player you deem to be the best at that time, every time. If players are close in your estimation, you don't let your major league roster dictate which to pick. You decide which one you like better and pick that player, whether that is because of ceiling, floor (or a combination of the two), tools, athleticism, signability, ect... It doesn't matter if the current major league roster is short on starting pitchers or left fielders. If someone you draft flies through the system a la Michael Conforto, great. But that's a bonus, not something you ever plan on.

Major league needs should never drive draft day decisions.

 

[Pilgrim]

Sometimes, it's best to not take the player who is obviously the best-available player, but to settle a bit and pay a little less than slot. This way, a team can get a better player in the later rounds by paying over-slot value to their next pick.

Basically, this is the way to "break the draft" and on the same day add not only Trey Ball to the organization, but ALSO John Denney!

Just from reading some of the pre-draft stuff that is out there, that might be the way to go this year. I'm not sure if my perception is right, but it seems like there isnt a big difference between the guys being mocked around #12 and the guys in the 20-30 range.

BA's top 100 has 8 college pitchers ranked in the 18-30 range, and it looks like there are still a bunch of nice players in the 40+ range. Maybe this is a good year to do an under slot deal at 12 and spread that money around?

 

[Rough Carrigan]

Unless somehow someone slips with legit power and average contact skills, target best pitcher available.

Wasn't there a notion out there that that Cubs had figured out that it was almost always better to use top draft picks on position players instead of pitchers because of the risk of injury and pitchers just not panning out being greater than for similarly skilled position players?

 

[SydneySox]

It's correlation though. They didn't say that, people have applied that notion to their recent picks.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Major league needs should never drive draft day decisions.

Agreed. I was thinking more in terms of top-to-bottom organizational weak spots.

 

[Marbleheader]

Right. Of 51 players picked #12 overall, top 5 in career WAR are Nomar, Kirk GIbson, Jered Weaver, BIlly Wagner, and Delino Deshields. So about an 8% chance of getting an all-star caliber player, and really only about a 20% chance of a major league regular at all.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?overall_pick=12&draft_type=junreg&

It's not just who was picked in that slot, it's also who was available at 12. If the Royals took Mike Trout at 12 instead of the Angels at 25, that doesn't make the pick more valuable.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Just from reading some of the pre-draft stuff that is out there, that might be the way to go this year. I'm not sure if my perception is right, but it seems like there isnt a big difference between the guys being mocked around #12 and the guys in the 20-30 range.

BA's top 100 has 8 college pitchers ranked in the 18-30 range, and it looks like there are still a bunch of nice players in the 40+ range. Maybe this is a good year to do an under slot deal at 12 and spread that money around?

It's not. It never is. You always take the best available player.

Unless you've got a top-3 pick, the way you say will always seems to be a good idea. But it's not. It's just seems that way because there are always so many good players in any draft and the rate of attrition is so high.

Build the best draft board in your organizational ability to do so, then take the top name left on it every time it's your turn.

 

[jk333]

I've attached two images that show what happens with selections at each overall pick. The first image shows how the draft seems like a crapshoot, especially after pick 2.

The second image shows that when taking all players that compile 20 WAR careers at each draft pick, how the chance of a 20 WAR player drops. The second image is smoothed with the pick before and after's data.

Therefore, teams should always choose the best player available because players selected later are more likely to fail.

 

[smastroyin]

I think you can BPA but you guys are overstating things because BPA at pick 12 is probably going to be at least 6 different guys depending on which team's board you are looking at and who was drafted ahead of time.

There are also two "draft for need" interpretations. Drafting for needs on the current MLB roster (40 man) is not a good idea due to the vagaries of development and the evolution of rosters year to year. As well, teams near the top of the draft usually have several needs, so prioritizing one over the other is foolhardy.

Drafting for organizational "need" is a little different. I don't think there is anything wrong with tilting a draft a bit in certain directions if you have an organization with no pitching, for instance. Of course, you need so many pitchers that you can always call a pitcher a "need" pick anyway.

 

[imlapa]

Those of you talking about "take the best player stupid" should be able to back this up with a list of the best players over the first rounds in the precise order they'll be taken. And every MLB team will obviously have the same list. Of course thats not the case, as you all value players differently. So maybe that indicates that no one should be getting too cocky with the idea that they know the "best player available" since every year, people whose job it is to research this disagree very clearly and often. So what is so weird about prioritising a position based on the current situation, under the proviso that Players A, B and C are all Close enough to "best" that 30 different MLB execs and teams will argue about which IS best. Sure, the situation in 3 years MIGHT and probably WILL be different but all things being equal, it seems silly to Think that you cant make decisions to the best of your ability at the time you make them, given how you predict things might pan out. In which case, surely there comes very many times when you can choose based on position. To me its incredibly unlikely that after the odd outlier, almost all these kids can be argued with any straight face to belong in a "rankings list" of who is "best"

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I think the reason why this seems counterintuitive (to me, at least; can't speak for anyone else) is that it's hard to believe the differences in talent level between draft candidates are always, or even often, going to be as clear-cut as you are all making it sound. And the difficulty of projecting ultimate outcomes, if anything, seems to magnify that fuzziness rather than mitigating it. I don't think anybody would suggest that positional need should tempt you to pick Player X when Player Y seems obviously better; it's more that you might use positional need as the decisive factor when the difference between Player X and Player Y gets into coin-flip territory. But I gather you're saying that doesn't really happen?

If it is really coin flip terrority, then positional need could be a factor. But I think by then it would be more like "organizational need" ("the system is loaded with pitching and we have no good hitting prospects" or "we're short on prospects with plus power potential" or "we're thin on prospects who can play big-league caliber defense at an up the middle position". I doubt it would ever be "we're trying to choose between a 3B and a corner outfielder and 3B is the bigger need".

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

imlapa, you might want to re-read the thread because no one us arguing that there is one clear BPA list.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Those of you talking about "take the best player stupid" should be able to back this up with a list of the best players over the first rounds in the precise order they'll be taken. And every MLB team will obviously have the same list. Of course thats not the case, as you all value players differently. So maybe that indicates that no one should be getting too cocky with the idea that they know the "best player available" since every year, people whose job it is to research this disagree very clearly and often. So what is so weird about prioritising a position based on the current situation, under the proviso that Players A, B and C are all Close enough to "best" that 30 different MLB execs and teams will argue about which IS best. Sure, the situation in 3 years MIGHT and probably WILL be different but all things being equal, it seems silly to Think that you cant make decisions to the best of your ability at the time you make them, given how you predict things might pan out. In which case, surely there comes very many times when you can choose based on position. To me its incredibly unlikely that after the odd outlier, almost all these kids can be argued with any straight face to belong in a "rankings list" of who is "best"

First, did you read Sumner's excellent post in this thread?

Second, did you know that every MLB organization builds an extensive network of scouts and cross-checkers to comb through the best high school and college players in the country, in order to build their draft board? If you're confident you've hired the right guys, and they tell you they've done their job as well as they could, shouldn't you trust them?

Each organization spends enormous time, money, and miles to build a individualized draft board. Each team's draft board is different because each team's organizational philosophy already permeates the scouting and cross-checking process. So then, on draft day, you take the top name available to you on your turn, regardless of need.

As the most recent example, Benintendi fell into the Sox' lap at #7 last year because other teams rated him differently. He's short, and thin, and so there were questions about his power projection because he's not built like a linebacker. And when he fell, the Sox gladly scooped him up.

They did so regardless how stacked with CF the organization was last June 8 -- Betts, Bradley, Castillo, Margot, Basabe and Henry Ramos were in the organization. At six players deep under the age of 28, the Sox had no need whatsoever for yet another CF. They had gaping holes starting to form on the MLB club, though, and were 4 games under .500 on draft day. CF was likely the single position with the most, best young players in the organization.

Yet here we are. And it was the right move.

 

[smastroyin]

On the Benintendi point - it really should also be noted that up the middle players often move down the defensive spectrum at higher levels. And actually whether you call him a CF or not, one thing is that he was bat forward, not fielding forward. If the Sox had drafted a college player defense first CF (say the CF equivalent of Deven Marrero or Adam Everett) then I think there would have been a somewhat legitimate complaint here about using a high pick the type of player you already have a bunch of depth with.

Also, we really don't know how other teams rated Benintendi other than 6 teams thought someone else was higher rated.

I don't think there is quite as much consensus on making a big draft board as you are implying Buzzkill. You wouldn't see a team just making a big list 1-700 and letting the top name left on the spreadsheet be the pick every time. You will hear all the time about scouts or cross checkers making a strong case for "their guy" when the draft turn came up.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there would be a draft board in numeric order through the later rounds. I was responding to the general theme here of picking early.

After #12, the Sox don't pick again until #51 and then #88. Hopefully, that means they'll get one top-10 pick off their board and two more off their top-50. Those you have to pick the best player available.

And I fully expect that there's some argument and jostling about remaining available players' specific placement on draft day, especially after that top-10 list is cleared. However, if the arguments are focused on filling a team need rather than debating the tools and skills and makeup and signing requirements of this player over that other one who's also still on the board, well...I wouldn't expect such a team to have a very effective farm system.

 

[snowmanny]

You should always pick the BPA in every sport, unless of course it's basketball and the best player is a 6'6" shooting guard and you already have Clyde Drexler. Or it's football and the by far the best player on your board is a quarterback and you already have three on your roster.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

You should always pick the BPA in every sport, unless of course it's basketball and the best player is a 6'6" shooting guard and you already have Clyde Drexler. Or it's football and the by far the best player on your board is a quarterback and you already have three on your roster.

Precisely. Better suits the team needs, to take that big man out of Kentucky.

 

[SydneySox]

Those of you talking about "take the best player stupid" should be able to back this up with a list of the best players over the first rounds in the precise order they'll be taken. And every MLB team will obviously have the same list. Of course thats not the case, as you all value players differently. So maybe that indicates that no one should be getting too cocky with the idea that they know the "best player available" since every year, people whose job it is to research this disagree very clearly and often. So what is so weird about prioritising a position based on the current situation, under the proviso that Players A, B and C are all Close enough to "best" that 30 different MLB execs and teams will argue about which IS best. Sure, the situation in 3 years MIGHT and probably WILL be different but all things being equal, it seems silly to Think that you cant make decisions to the best of your ability at the time you make them, given how you predict things might pan out. In which case, surely there comes very many times when you can choose based on position. To me its incredibly unlikely that after the odd outlier, almost all these kids can be argued with any straight face to belong in a "rankings list" of who is "best"

It's always great when someone unintentionally argues against themselves so thoroughly.

Yes. It is precisely because there is no such thing as a clear list that you take the best player. If you somehow knew, like a video game, the actual statistical currency of every single player then you would have no fear you would ever fail and you would draft based entirely on how you wanted to use the player you chose, ie for need.

Because no one has such a list, certainty is impossible and drafting is about maximising the possibility that you get any value at all, not maximum, but any value for your pick. Ergo, you draft the best player you feel has the best possible chance of succeeding. And, several years later, hopefully you've built enough of a stable of potentially valuable players across the widest possible spectrum that your Major League team can take that young second baseman and make him into a right fielder.

 

[imlapa]

Huh? If every team has a different idea of what the "best" player available is, that should tell you something about how useful a description of "best player available" actually is, which was the Point I tried to make. You're talking about taking the BPA like there is some Concrete consensus on what that is. Why is it so unreasonable to argue that maybe this imaginary "BPA Scale" you're bandying about isnt so clear cut, and maybe its impossible to say if Players A, B, C or D are better than each other, how the hell do you even compare between different positions with that level of accuray? So if you're a team with a problem area in pitching or infield or outfield, why is it so weird to say that maybe Players A, B, C and D arent that different, ergo theres no "best player available", ergo, maybe you take A,B,C or D depending on your organisational needs at that time.

 

[Brianish]

Nobody in this thread has suggested the existence of a single best player available scale. Every organization has its own BPA listing. These lists differ, because organizations have different scouts who see different games, because they have different development strategies, because they prioritize different factors, and because sometimes two smart people can reach different conclusions.

But they make these thirty individual lists because of all the things people have said in this thread.

Having put in these years of work, making its only pick for the next thirty turns, why would an organization look at its own conclusions and say "Ok, let's take this guy who is not as good according to our own processes, instead of this guy we think is better"?

 

[SydneySox]

Huh? If every team has a different idea of what the "best" player available is, that should tell you something about how useful a description of "best player available" actually is, which was the Point I tried to make. You're talking about taking the BPA like there is some Concrete consensus on what that is. Why is it so unreasonable to argue that maybe this imaginary "BPA Scale" you're bandying about isnt so clear cut, and maybe its impossible to say if Players A, B, C or D are better than each other, how the hell do you even compare between different positions with that level of accuray? So if you're a team with a problem area in pitching or infield or outfield, why is it so weird to say that maybe Players A, B, C and D arent that different, ergo theres no "best player available", ergo, maybe you take A,B,C or D depending on your organisational needs at that time.

While 'huh' sums up your approach on this one, you might want to start by looking at your own logic. In only the first sentence and the second sentence you completely contradict yourself on what it is you're arguing against. How, for instance, can you say:

'if every team has a different idea of what the "best" player available is', and then literally start your next sentence with 'You're talking about the BPA like there is some concrete consensus'.

Which of those two things is the case? They're the opposite of each other, so they literally cannot both be the case.

When you say 'so if you're a team with a problem area in pitching or infield or outfield, why is it so weird to say that maybe Players A, B, C and D arent that different, ergo theres no "best player available", ergo, maybe you take A,B,C or D depending on your organisational needs at that time.' it's probably another good time to take a step back and review your logic. I could spell it out, but do you see what you're actually saying here?

 

[finnVT]

I don't think he's making that controversial of a point, and it can be stated even more emphatically. It's quite possible there's going to be no consensus best player even among evaluators *within* the organization. If the multitude of scouts and cross-checkers can't come to a consensus between two (or several) players, what criteria do you use to select? Perhaps you vote, perhaps you allow the most senior evaluator decide, perhaps you base it on the financial requirements, or perhaps you pick the one that fills a gaping organizational need. Or more likely, some combination of all of the above.

Clearly you're not going to pick a player that fills an organizational need above a "redundant" player who has across-the-board better evaluations, but scouting is messy, and I don't think that saying organizational need could be one way of, essentially, breaking a tie, is a huge stretch. When we're talking about first round picks, I'd of course rather they work to try to find consensus, but I don't imagine that's always possible or clear.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

Back to the topic, here's some draft website's first round mock.

Here's some floppy-haired guy's mock.

And yet another one by some other random site.

None of these mocks is based on any inside info, but if you are interested in finding out some of the names who might be available when the Red Sox pick, you can sift through them and get some ideas.

 

[SydneySox]

Clearly you're not going to pick a player that fills an organizational need above a "redundant" player who has across-the-board better evaluations, but scouting is messy, and I don't think that saying organizational need could be one way of, essentially, breaking a tie, is a huge stretch. When we're talking about first round picks, I'd of course rather they work to try to find consensus, but I don't imagine that's always possible or clear.

Yes. Clearly.

Hence... ?

 

[imlapa]

exactly I don't know why people are getting so fired up about this. I'm just trying to offer the viewpoint that perhaps the "best player available" is not a very well defined term - in reality. Of course each organisation has to make its own charts and evaluations, and of course they make decisions based on that - duh. But the variation even within each organisation is surely there, and how on Earth are you even definining "best" between players of completely different positions, from different levels and backgrounds. Given the gigantic range of variables and subjectivity, my Point is why are some people looking down their nose at the idea that its so utterly ridiculous that including on top of all those totally finger up your ass variables an additional "organisational need" is so controversial, just sounds silly to me. If anything it would be weird if a teams "BPA" didnt factor this in, though probably its more significant to take players at premium positions. I dont really give a fuck to be honest, I was just trying to offer an alternative view to those further up the thread poo pooing the idea of picking for "need". If it helps you get it up a bit better tonight at home to win an internet forum showdown then sure, have at it.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

exactly I don't know why people are getting so fired up about this. I'm just trying to offer the viewpoint that perhaps the "best player available" is not a very well defined term - in reality. Of course each organisation has to make its own charts and evaluations, and of course they make decisions based on that - duh. But the variation even within each organisation is surely there, and how on Earth are you even definining "best" between players of completely different positions, from different levels and backgrounds. Given the gigantic range of variables and subjectivity, my Point is why are some people looking down their nose at the idea that its so utterly ridiculous that including on top of all those totally finger up your ass variables an additional "organisational need" is so controversial, just sounds silly to me. If anything it would be weird if a teams "BPA" didnt factor this in, though probably its more significant to take players at premium positions. I dont really give a fuck to be honest, I was just trying to offer an alternative view to those further up the thread poo pooing the idea of picking for "need". If it helps you get it up a bit better tonight at home to win an internet forum showdown then sure, have at it.

You keep including the rebuttal to your position in your posts. To the degree that position plays into the decision of who to draft at all, it is more about taking players more likely to offer defensive value than not, ie... up the middle players. Even the most highly regarded prospects often change positions at some point, so picking someone who plays 2nd base because you are thin at 2nd would be dumb. Look at Yoan Moncada. He was by far the most highly touted player on the international market when he signed as a second baseman. How many people here do you think are confident he'll be a second baseman at the major league level? Andrew Benintendi was drafted having played center field in college. Does it look likely he'll be a center fielder in the majors?

Teams will certainly draft a better defender over a mediocre one, or might choose a rangey center fielder over a slugging first baseman, but that determination is more about their particular skills than which positions they are playing when drafted. There's a reason teams say "best player available" when asked what they are targeting leading up to the draft.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

The horrific attrition rate for even an early draftee to succeed in MLB cannot be overstated.

It's been ten years since the 2006 draft class: Clayton Kershaw (LHP), Evan Longoria (3B), and Max Scherzer (RHP) all went in the top 12 picks. But so did Kasey Kiker (LHP), Billy Rowell (3B), and Greg Reynolds (RHP). Chris Davis was drafted 148th overall, just before Jeff Samardzija but just after Hector Ambriz.

Of the 44 players taken in the 1st round of 2006:
- 11 (25%) never reached MLB at all;
- 16 (36%) earned a career 1.0 WAR or less at the MLB level;
- 9 (20%) earned a career 1.1 - 5.0 WAR at the MLB level;
- 4 (9%) earned a career 5.1 - 20.0 WAR at the MLB level;
- 4 (9%) became MLB stars (Kershaw, Longoria, Scherzer, and Lincecum).

2006 was considered by baseball insiders as "the worst draft class in history" according to Keith Law. But the top 4 have thus far earned 1 ROY, 1 MVP, 5 CY, and 15 All-Star selections. Because you never know what a player will do after getting drafted.

By taking whomever you think is the best player on their board during your turn, you draft the person with the best chance just to make it to MLB, much less stick there as a long-term contributor. And the chance of getting all-star quality talent is so low that unless your team picks 1-1, you're inviting retribution from the baseball gods for your hubris just by thinking it. And that's probably true when you're getting the top overall pick, too.

Whether a player can reach MLB at all is the paramount concern even in the first round; the other stuff -- like organizational need -- takes a back seat.

 

[DavidTai]

The only real thing I can add to the 'best player available' debate is this:

When organizations talk about 'best player available' debate, and why there's different consensuses, I think internally, it's usually a huge debate about 'high ceiling' vs 'high floor' and about how much weight to put on each.

So that's how you get a whole of 'HOW IS TREY BALL THE BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE?" but I think Ball won out because he had a higher ceiling than the guys picked after him, who had higher floors.

I think the Sox's weighting of high ceiling vs high floor has worked out pretty well in their favor overall, for the most part, so I don't see much reason to deviate from it.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Teams will certainly draft a better defender over a mediocre one, or might choose a rangey center fielder over a slugging first baseman, but that determination is more about their particular skills than which positions they are playing when drafted. There's a reason teams say "best player available" when asked what they are targeting leading up to the draft.

To me, the two bolded points are a much better example of "including the rebuttal to your position" than anything imlapa said. It's like you're saying "teams should pick the best available player, but they should define 'best available player' in a way that suits their organizational priorities." Which seems like kind of a slipknot.

The horrific attrition rate for even an early draftee to succeed in MLB cannot be overstated.

This post seems to boil down to "because teams' evaluations of draft candidates' potential often turn out to be wildly off base, they should by all means stick religiously to those evaluations." What am I missing? Where is the causal link between a high attrition rate and the need to stick to a strict BPA approach? Is there evidence that players who bust are more likely to be players who were chosen on grounds other than BPA? If so, you don't present it. And if not, what's the basis for your argument?