Jump to content

It's that time of year again...2016 edition


Recommended Posts

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Aug 3, 2016 -> 01:27 PM)
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Aug 3, 2016 -> 01:56 PM)
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Aug 3, 2016 -> 01:56 PM)
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Aug 3, 2016 -> 02:24 PM)
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Aug 3, 2016 -> 12:41 PM)
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 3, 2016 -> 04:41 PM)
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Aug 3, 2016 -> 01:27 PM)
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 3, 2016 -> 04:41 PM)

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.

 

WAR_by_Draft_Pick.png

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (shysocks @ Aug 4, 2016 -> 09:59 AM)
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (shysocks @ Aug 4, 2016 -> 09:59 AM)
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Aug 4, 2016 -> 10:10 AM)
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Greg Hibbard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Aug 4, 2016 -> 10:55 AM)
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Aug 4, 2016 -> 06:42 AM)
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Aug 6, 2016 -> 04:29 AM)
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...