When you have young players that you are developing like Anderson, Tilson, Rodon, Saladino and Sanchez there are no such things as meaningless games. You can't root for a team to lose but expect these players to do well and develop into what we need them to. Winning and good play go hand in hand.

 

Sure you can. As long as our bullpen, minus Robertson and Fulmer, implode and ruin every 5-1 lead we give them, it's entirely possible that the starter pitched well, and those 5 runs were scored through the help of Anderson, Tilson, and Saladino. This is baseball, individuals can have good games and the team can still lose rather easily.

Sure you can. As long as our bullpen, minus Robertson and Fulmer, implode and ruin every 5-1 lead we give them, it's entirely possible that the starter pitched well, and those 5 runs were scored through the help of Anderson, Tilson, and Saladino. This is baseball, individuals can have good games and the team can still lose rather easily.

 

You must have a miserable existence as a sports fan. Openly rooting for your team to lose is just flat out disgusting.

. Openly rooting for your team to lose is just flat out disgusting.

This is super silly.

Sure you can. As long as our bullpen, minus Robertson and Fulmer, implode and ruin every 5-1 lead we give them, it's entirely possible that the starter pitched well, and those 5 runs were scored through the help of Anderson, Tilson, and Saladino. This is baseball, individuals can have good games and the team can still lose rather easily.

 

So how often do the right players suck at the right times?

So how often do the right players suck at the right times?

 

How often are all the players you like good at the same time?

You must have a miserable existence as a sports fan. Openly rooting for your team to lose is just flat out disgusting.

 

If the team goes under .500 the rest of the way, I could argue I had more happy days with them losing, than you had happy days with them winning.

 

Who is the miserable one then?

Baseball is a stats games, so what I'm really driving at here is....show me the empirical data of the impact of the draft on something like WAR, long term. Or World Series titles?

 

Pre free agency, the draft meant a whole lot more. It's how all teams assuredly got better. These days? It's a complete dice roll. With all the overseas players creeping in from Cuba, Japan, DR, other places, and with the huge impact of FA signings on teams, the draft and particularly the first round of the draft seems to have diminished impact on the chances of a team to get really good.

 

It already had arguably a lesser impact anyway. At best you were getting a player 1-2 years away from ML ready, and at best he was one player in a lineup of nine. Sure, there have been those difference makers like Thomas, Bonds, Griffey. The list goes on. And certainly a player like Chris Sale - it's impossible to argue that his value isn't through the roof compared to most.

 

However, I think there's little evidence to suggest that having a marginally higher pick in the draft is how certain teams have built winners recently. Do you disagree?

Oh hey, evidence.

 

And more!

 

So yes, the data supports the model. If you want better players, get better draft position. Is it a guarantee? Nope, still lots of variables, but it gives you the best chance.

Oh hey, evidence.

 

And more!

 

So yes, the data supports the model. If you want better players, get better draft position. Is it a guarantee? Nope, still lots of variables, but it gives you the best chance.

 

Yeah if the "rooting to lose is stupid" crowd wants a recent example, look at last year. The sox were reportedly prepared to take Benitendi before the Red Sox took him, 1 slot earlier. Having more choices is never a bad thing, even if you generally suck at making them count.

Looking at some WAR leaders I noticed BBRef lists how they were acquired.

 

Top 40 WAR leaders

27 acquired as amateurs by the org they are playing for

7 traded for

6 via free agency

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/...e-batting.shtml

 

 

With tonight's loss, we remain in line for the 11th pick, winning the tie-breaker with KC.

 

2.5 GB of the Brewers for 10th.

13 GB of the Braves for the 1st pick.

When you have young players that you are developing like Anderson, Tilson, Rodon, Saladino and Sanchez there are no such things as meaningless games. You can't root for a team to lose but expect these players to do well and develop into what we need them to. Winning and good play go hand in hand.

 

 

Shouldn't Lawrie be included in this if Saladino is?

Oh hey, evidence.

The 6-year WAR difference between 3-7 and 8-15 is 0.16. That might as well be 0. That tells me that a 3 pick and a 15 pick are functionally identical. I know that's not completely true, but that's the way the writer chose to group the information. And that's the range we're talking about with the Sox this year.

 

Here's average bWAR by pick for drafts from 1991-2010. Unfortunately it's career WAR and not 6-year WAR, but I don't think that dilutes the point too much.

 

Pick / Avg WAR

01 22.3

02 13.9

03 10.4

04 06.8

05 15.8

06 11.8

07 13.2

08 10.9

09 09.7

10 10.1

11 09.6

12 12.8

13 13.8

14 09.3

15 11.2

16 10.6

17 11.8

18 02.2

19 05.5

20 13.3

21 04.9

22 07.6

23 08.5

24 02.9

25 06.6

26 01.4

27 02.0

28 05.3

29 09.5

30 02.0

 

There's a downward slope to be sure, but once you get past the top spots, it doesn't matter that much until about 20th. Teams have done just as well picking 17th as they have picking 16th as they have picking 10th. I'm sure the differences by pick are even less pronounced in later rounds.

 

I would rather have a higher pick because the extra money is good, but I'm not actively rooting for it. I can't sit there while I watch a game and think, "I hope Tim Anderson drives in Eaton and Saladino on a dinger but then Tommy Kahnle blows the lead." That's too much work. Good players pop up everywhere in the draft and that's what I choose to focus on.

 

As far as getting top-10 protection, even that has less meaning for me this year. Is there anyone in their right mind who wants the Sox to sign a guy with a qualifying offer in 2017?

Yeah, at this point the main point would be bigger bonus pool, OTOH the sox have not shown a desire to get a lower pool pick at their first to use later, so I'm not sure it even matters with this team anymore.

As far as getting top-10 protection, even that has less meaning for me this year. Is there anyone in their right mind who wants the Sox to sign a guy with a qualifying offer in 2017?

 

Yeah, this. There is nothing out there for free agents this coming offseason. I can see the Sox taking a shot at Reddick but he's not eligible for a QO.

 

Is there anyone in their right mind who wants the Sox to sign a guy with a qualifying offer in 2017?

 

Unfortunately the guys running the team, though I am not sure they are of right mind. There is no other way to "go for it" in 2017.

 

On that chart of yours, each slot lower takes away .38 WAR on average. So the difference in 10 slots is 3.8WAR. not earth shattering, but not something to ignore either.

On that chart of yours, each slot lower takes away .38 WAR on average. So the difference in 10 slots is 3.8WAR. not earth shattering, but not something to ignore either.

That's a cool bit of analysis, thank you. I don't think I can dispute that ten spots in the first round makes a difference.

 

It's worth noting that the teams having the first, 11th, and 21st picks in X year are in vastly different competitive positions.

Thanks to all for your additions to the discussion. This has been fascinating.

thanks guys for bringing some legit analysis to the thread

I suppose I should acknowledge that it's absolutely no surprise that statistics would bear out that there is SOME marginal improvement throughout the draft based on higher picks, but is that implicit marginal impact significant enough to want the team to lose?

 

The other real question is whether anyone in this thread thinks that the front office will evaluate talent in the draft effectively enough for it to make a difference.

Edited August 4, 20169 yr by Greg Hibbard

I suppose I should acknowledge that it's absolutely no surprise that statistics would bear out that there is SOME marginal improvement throughout the draft based on higher picks, but is that implicit marginal impact significant enough to want the team to lose?

 

The other real question is whether anyone in this thread thinks that the front office will evaluate talent in the draft effectively enough for it to make a difference.

 

 

Yes.

 

And yes.

With the Sox win tonight...they drop to the 12th overall pick.

 

1 GB of the Royals for 11th

2 GB of the Phillies for 10th

13 GB of the Braves for 1st

Shouldn't Lawrie be included in this if Saladino is?

 

Of those players other than Lawrie only Sanchez could possibly be a free agent in '21. I like Lawrie, but he's probably going to be a free agent in '18. The other guys are all '22 or later so I don't think they're comparable.

JR: This is fine!.....wait a minute...

 

https://thenib.com/this-is-not-fine

 

 

With the Sox loss tonight, they remain with the 12th pick.

 

1 GB of the Royals for 11th

1.5 GB of the Phillies for 10th (If they hold on to win)

13 GB of the Braves for the 1st pick

 

With the Sox loss tonight, they remain with the 12th pick.

 

1 GB of the Royals for 11th

1.5 GB of the Phillies for 10th (If they hold on to win)

13 GB of the Braves for the 1st pick

Don't even worry about the Royals. They will storm past us following NINE more head to head meetings. Phils have a better team than we do, also. I think we could get the third or fourth pick before all is said and done. Our team is that bad.