Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Harold's Leg Lift

2021 MLB Draft Thread

Recommended Posts

2019 standing after 60 games

 

1. Bal (+1)

2. Kc (-2)

3. Tor (-2)

4. Det (-3)

5. Mia (-1)

6. Sea (0)

7.SF (-6)

8. Washington (+14)

9.  Reds (+3)

10. Mets (+9)

2020 end of season 

1. Det

2. Bal

3. Mia

4. Kc 

5. TOR

6.sea

7. Pittsburgh 

8.SD

9. Col

10. LAL

 

 

My suggestion would have been to use pythagorean record standing.

 

End of may 2019 (little less than 60 games)

1. Mia (+3)

2. Det (-1)

3. Bal (-1)

4. SFG (-8)

5. Pitt (+2)

6.tor (-1)

7.sea (+1)

8. KC (-4)

9.CHW (+1)

10. Washington (+12)

Every method is not really fair but what are you going to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is whether that improves the result. Yeah it is more sample size but the goal has to be to replicate the same result that would have happened over a full 162 this year. Would adding results of a different team improve the sample?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the year they have to take a high upside/high impact HS position player.  The organization is in desperate need of up the middle athleticism and hopefully there will be a guy or two to choose from at 22.  If a big time prep arm falls to them that would be ok too but I would love to see them pop a high ceiling super projectable toolsy SS or CF.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

This is the year they have to take a high upside/high impact HS position player.  The organization is in desperate need of up the middle athleticism and hopefully there will be a guy or two to choose from at 22.  If a big time prep arm falls to them that would be ok too but I would love to see them pop a high ceiling super projectable toolsy SS or CF.  

Thats where my mind is as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Harry Chappas said:

Sox draft #22

 

is this certain? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Kalapse said:

 

Right so they just went off of 2020 records? I get that's where we slot by record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, bmags said:

Right so they just went off of 2020 records? I get that's where we slot by record.

Yeah, they're just using 2020 records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be  a good spot to grab a falling HS pitcher.or maybe a top HS hitting prospect who had some performance struggles causing him to fall.

College hitters in that range are usually not very attractive because often there is a big drop after the first 4-5 college hitters and you only get a polished limited upside guy there.

If you are lucky though a good college pitcher falls due to injury concerns  like singer or faedo did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OF Levi Usher (Louisville) is one college bat I would be interested in if he were available.  He has tons of upside and is still pretty raw for a college player.  He broke his leg playing football and missed his Sr HS season then went to a JC for a year.  He transferred to Louisville and obviously had a shortened spring.  If he comes out next spring and puts together consistent AB's he may not be therewhen they pick but if he is the power/speed combo is very intruiging.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of how many teams actually tried to win baseball games this year, because of the expanded playoffs, the draft order is actually sensible.  It's sad though to see teams like the Marlins punished by it.  Pittsburgh is rewarded for tanking and then MIA, SF, etc. who actually tried get punished.

IMO the draft should go 1-30 with the #1 pick going to the WS winner, #2 to runner up, and down to worst record at #30.  Then reverse it so #31 goes to the team with the worst record and #60 goes to the WS winner, and maybe keep it that way for both the 2nd and 3rd round, then alternate for the rest of the draft between best and worst teams.  And all draft picks must be tradeable.

Also an idea I have personally had for a long time but have never seen shared would be to see 2 expansion teams, who always play road games in all other teams' stadiums, that are made up of unsigned vets, AAAA players, foreign players who sign as UDFA, etc.  Like the guys who end up left over at the end of the offseason and often have to retire, get a spot on these teams.  They only play road games, against everyone equally, and then every season at midseason there is a draft, and the other teams can draft players straight off of this team and use them in season and can pick up a piece or 2 for nothing. 

I would love to see such arrangements because then all teams would try to win as much as possible, and would give important ABs and IP to vets who are performing well, and teams would make deals more for spot-patch improvements to try to win.  Imagine if adding some vets over the season to try to improve from an 85 win team that will miss the playoffs to an 86 or 87 win teams that will miss the playoffs could improve your draft position and chance at both a prospect in one draft and a currently productive vet in a different midseason draft.  I think that would be great.

Really, teams should be allowed to get better even if they win.  And teams should always try to win.  As a fan who just wants to win championships, I always want to either contend as a big fish or rebuild/retool.  But it would be nicer if the system was designed to make teams better that just win.

Edited by YourWhatHurts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YourWhatHurts said:

Because of how many teams actually tried to win baseball games this year, because of the expanded playoffs, the draft order is actually sensible.  It's sad though to see teams like the Marlins punished by it.  Pittsburgh is rewarded for tanking and then MIA, SF, etc. who actually tried get punished.

IMO the draft should go 1-30 with the #1 pick going to the WS winner, #2 to runner up, and down to worst record at #30.  Then reverse it so #31 goes to the team with the worst record and #60 goes to the WS winner, and maybe keep it that way for both the 2nd and 3rd round, then alternate for the rest of the draft between best and worst teams.  And all draft picks must be tradeable.

Also an idea I have personally had for a long time but have never seen shared would be to see 2 expansion teams, who always play road games in all other teams' stadiums, that are made up of unsigned vets, AAAA players, foreign players who sign as UDFA, etc.  Like the guys who end up left over at the end of the offseason and often have to retire, get a spot on these teams.  They only play road games, against everyone equally, and then every season at midseason there is a draft, and the other teams can draft players straight off of this team and use them in season and can pick up a piece or 2 for nothing. 

I would love to see such arrangements because then all teams would try to win as much as possible, and would give important ABs and IP to vets who are performing well, and teams would make deals more for spot-patch improvements to try to win.  Imagine if adding some vets over the season to try to improve from an 85 win team that will miss the playoffs to an 86 or 87 win teams that will miss the playoffs could improve your draft position and chance at both a prospect in one draft and a currently productive vet in a different midseason draft.  I think that would be great.

Really, teams should be allowed to get better even if they win.  And teams should always try to win.  As a fan who just wants to win championships, I always want to either contend as a big fish or rebuild/retool.  But it would be nicer if the system was designed to make teams better that just win.

Teams that only play on the road have existed in Indy ball before, and are usually extremely terrible. I don't see the MLBPA going for something like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, YourWhatHurts said:

Because of how many teams actually tried to win baseball games this year, because of the expanded playoffs, the draft order is actually sensible.  It's sad though to see teams like the Marlins punished by it.  Pittsburgh is rewarded for tanking and then MIA, SF, etc. who actually tried get punished.

IMO the draft should go 1-30 with the #1 pick going to the WS winner, #2 to runner up, and down to worst record at #30.  Then reverse it so #31 goes to the team with the worst record and #60 goes to the WS winner, and maybe keep it that way for both the 2nd and 3rd round, then alternate for the rest of the draft between best and worst teams.  And all draft picks must be tradeable.

Also an idea I have personally had for a long time but have never seen shared would be to see 2 expansion teams, who always play road games in all other teams' stadiums, that are made up of unsigned vets, AAAA players, foreign players who sign as UDFA, etc.  Like the guys who end up left over at the end of the offseason and often have to retire, get a spot on these teams.  They only play road games, against everyone equally, and then every season at midseason there is a draft, and the other teams can draft players straight off of this team and use them in season and can pick up a piece or 2 for nothing. 

I would love to see such arrangements because then all teams would try to win as much as possible, and would give important ABs and IP to vets who are performing well, and teams would make deals more for spot-patch improvements to try to win.  Imagine if adding some vets over the season to try to improve from an 85 win team that will miss the playoffs to an 86 or 87 win teams that will miss the playoffs could improve your draft position and chance at both a prospect in one draft and a currently productive vet in a different midseason draft.  I think that would be great.

Really, teams should be allowed to get better even if they win.  And teams should always try to win.  As a fan who just wants to win championships, I always want to either contend as a big fish or rebuild/retool.  But it would be nicer if the system was designed to make teams better that just win.

I don't know what you hope to accomplish with this system.

It would obliterate small market teams.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×