He accumulated more than 10x the amount of career WAR that the #9 pick did.

 

That argument is really silly though. You don't forgo any strategy in the draft simply because a high round pick didn't pan out.

No but you're missing my point. it isn't in relation to draft strategy. It's in relation to trying to lose to get a high draft pick. Unless you have one of the top couple of picks it's normally a crapshoot as has been discussed. so why root for it and torture yourself when it takes alot of luck to get the really good players, the "losing to get a high pick" really isn't an effective draft strategy.

Edited August 25, 201411 yr by ptatc

Gordon Beckham was a lot better than most #8 picks wind up being.

Exactly, so is trying to lose a bunch of games at the end of a season worth a shot a Beckham, who is better than most #8 picks?

I'd say right now Putnam, Petricka, and Guerra are all locks. Webb probably sticks around for at least a month or 2. The rest are such a mystery. If the Sox think they can compete, I'm all about trying to sign/trade for a closer, a good LH reliever, and a straight up loogy.

 

Even 3 new additions is a tall order in one year, but I hope it happens.

Going with the theory that you don't want players important to the sox future to play poorly when the they lose, they better not blow the late leads when he pitches then.

Exactly, so is trying to lose a bunch of games at the end of a season worth a shot a Beckham, who is better than most #8 picks?

 

The reality is pretty simple. The guys who are in Chicago now, and in September, have a WAY higher chance of being contributing members of the White Sox than the guy we draft in 2015. Maybe, eventually, that player contributes. The guys who are here now? They will contribute.

No but you're missing my point. it isn't in relation to draft strategy. It's in relation to trying to lose to get a high draft pick. Unless you have one of the top couple of picks it's normally a crapshoot as has been discussed. so why root for it and torture yourself when it takes alot of luck to get the really good players, the "losing to get a high pick" really isn't an effective draft strategy.

 

The higher the pick, the more options you have to chose from, that's just a fact. It's like saying your odds of winning a raffle don't change if you have only 1 ticket or 2. No, it does change. You are always better off with 2, even if the chances of you winning are low.

 

Even if you believe the draft is a crapshoot, it's less of a crapshoot if you have a higher pick, even if it's marginal in your opinion.

The higher the pick, the more options you have to chose from, that's just a fact. It's like saying your odds of winning a raffle don't change if you have only 1 ticket or 2. No, it does change. You are always better off with 2, even if the chances of you winning are low.

 

Even if you believe the draft is a crapshoot, it's less of a crapshoot if you have a higher pick, even if it's marginal in your opinion.

The lottery example really doesn't work because you don't get more chances. Your number of chances don't go up. You still only have one ticket or one chance. As I said unless you have one of the top two or three the chances of that player being really good is a crapshoot. As people were saying Beckham has out performed most of the players picked around him or at his spot. That isn't saying much for a top ten pick. Losing games to go from the 12th pick to the 7 pick really doesn't seem like an improved chance for a really good player. The only real benefit and it's an important one is having a picked protected if you sign a big FA.

The lottery example really doesn't work because you don't get more chances. Your number of chances don't go up. You still only have one ticket or one chance. As I said unless you have one of the top two or three the chances of that player being really good is a crapshoot. As people were saying Beckham has out performed most of the players picked around him or at his spot. That isn't saying much for a top ten pick. Losing games to go from the 12th pick to the 7 pick really doesn't seem like an improved chance for a really good player. The only real benefit and it's an important one is having a picked protected if you sign a big FA.

 

Just but all the tickets in a raffle are the same. All have the same chances of winning. Not every draft pick has the same odds of not only making the bigs, but producing. Pick #1 has a better chance than pick #30. And I would also believe that pick #7 has a better chance than pick #12.

 

I wonder if anyone has done a study yet to see not only % of draft picks to reach the big leagues, 1 through 30, but also average career WAR by draft pick, 1 through 30. I'd be interested in taking an hour or two out of my night and doing this for like a 10 year span or something.

The lottery example really doesn't work because you don't get more chances. Your number of chances don't go up. You still only have one ticket or one chance. As I said unless you have one of the top two or three the chances of that player being really good is a crapshoot. As people were saying Beckham has out performed most of the players picked around him or at his spot. That isn't saying much for a top ten pick. Losing games to go from the 12th pick to the 7 pick really doesn't seem like an improved chance for a really good player. The only real benefit and it's an important one is having a picked protected if you sign a big FA.

Everyone understands the opinion that it's a crapshoot; I mean, I dare you to find any baseball fan on earth who would tell you otherwise. I guess I don't understand what your point is.

 

If you want to catch a big fish, you would rather be in a spot where more big fish are. That's why I understand why people root for the losses because it's based on decent logic, now whether one agrees with it or not, really doesn't matter because it's one of a FEW DIFFERENT valid points of view. Free will.

Just but all the tickets in a raffle are the same. All have the same chances of winning. Not every draft pick has the same odds of not only making the bigs, but producing. Pick #1 has a better chance than pick #30. And I would also believe that pick #7 has a better chance than pick #12.

 

I wonder if anyone has done a study yet to see not only % of draft picks to reach the big leagues, 1 through 30, but also average career WAR by draft pick, 1 through 30. I'd be interested in taking an hour or two out of my night and doing this for like a 10 year span or something.

You just need to google.

 

Alternate presentation

 

Yet another.

 

For more, I recommend Google.

hey greg, I enjoy reading your post, but this time you are wrong. be cool.

peace

OK. It just drives me crazy is all.

 

I'd say right now Putnam, Petricka, and Guerra are all locks. Webb probably sticks around for at least a month or 2. The rest are such a mystery. If the Sox think they can compete, I'm all about trying to sign/trade for a closer, a good LH reliever, and a straight up loogy.

 

Even 3 new additions is a tall order in one year, but I hope it happens.

I'd let those 3 guys go and go for an all new crew. If I had to keep one, it'd be Putnam I guess.

 

Exactly, so is trying to lose a bunch of games at the end of a season worth a shot a Beckham, who is better than most #8 picks?

With all due respect, Beckham is a great argument against advanced stats. You can't tell me he was valuable to the White Sox in any way during his tenure. You can't tell me we couldn't have had a different second baseman every one of those years with the same impact on the team. Some minimum salary free agent each year. I mean, cmon. If Beckham is considered valuable in any way, that advanced stat is just WRONG. Seriously.

There has to be some value to the eye test and the common stat. Beckham was a lousy No. 8 draft pick. If he's better than most, than teams have drafted poorly at No. 8 that is FOR SURE. Enough is enough. How can anybody say Beckham was valuable in any way?

He was a decent to good fielder who couldn't hit a lick. Why do we need WAR to tell us some fib??

Edited August 26, 201411 yr by greg775

Everyone understands the opinion that it's a crapshoot; I mean, I dare you to find any baseball fan on earth who would tell you otherwise. I guess I don't understand what your point is.

 

If you want to catch a big fish, you would rather be in a spot where more big fish are. That's why I understand why people root for the losses because it's based on decent logic, now whether one agrees with it or not, really doesn't matter because it's one of a FEW DIFFERENT valid points of view. Free will.

 

People are telling me that it's better to have the 5th pick instead of the 12. It seems logical but in history it doesn't seem to matter.

 

Of course everyone can view it differently that's half the fun of the discussion. There is no right or wrong just truth from a different point of view (Yoda).

 

My original point was in response to a post about X number of games back of the 5th pick in next years draft. There really doesn't seem to be much of a better chance of a good player in the 12th spot compared to the 5th spot. Unless you have of the the top two or three is just seems pointless to aggravate yourself with losses. That's all. Rooting for poor play just isn't a fun way to watch a baseball game when it doesn't seem to matter unless the team hits near 100 loses.

 

This isn't life or death it's baseball. Enjoy it. If enjoying it for you is to root for poor play. More power to you. i'm just saying that in the end it really doesn't matter unless you have one of the top two or three picks.

You just need to google.

 

Alternate presentation

 

Yet another.

 

For more, I recommend Google.

 

Snark aside, thank you.

OK. It just drives me crazy is all.

 

 

I'd let those 3 guys go and go for an all new crew. If I had to keep one, it'd be Putnam I guess.

 

 

With all due respect, Beckham is a great argument against advanced stats. You can't tell me he was valuable to the White Sox in any way during his tenure. You can't tell me we couldn't have had a different second baseman every one of those years with the same impact on the team. Some minimum salary free agent each year. I mean, cmon. If Beckham is considered valuable in any way, that advanced stat is just WRONG. Seriously.

There has to be some value to the eye test and the common stat. Beckham was a lousy No. 8 draft pick. If he's better than most, than teams have drafted poorly at No. 8 that is FOR SURE. Enough is enough. How can anybody say Beckham was valuable in any way?

He was a decent to good fielder who couldn't hit a lick. Why do we need WAR to tell us some fib??

Where did anybody use advanced stats to justify Gordon Beckham being good?

People tend to put all of their focus on the first round, which is understandable, but misses a big point. If the Sox draft 6th instead of 9th, that's an advantage in every round. This year that netted us a hell of a prospect in the second round who probably wouldn't have been available just a few picks later.

 

The better draft position is a recurring advantage throughout the draft, and Hahn should/will use it wisely.

Where did anybody use advanced stats to justify Gordon Beckham being good?

 

Yeah, I have no idea what Greg is talking about, other than me saying he has been worth 10x more WAR than Aaron Crow. He only has a career 4.8 WAR in 6 full seasons, and 2.5 of that came in his great rookie year. That means in his 5 seasons after his rookie year, he put up a 2.3 WAR overall. That's absolutely terrible. Advanced stats hate Gordon Beckham, just like Greg does....

OK. It just drives me crazy is all.

 

 

I'd let those 3 guys go and go for an all new crew. If I had to keep one, it'd be Putnam I guess.

 

 

With all due respect, Beckham is a great argument against advanced stats. You can't tell me he was valuable to the White Sox in any way during his tenure. You can't tell me we couldn't have had a different second baseman every one of those years with the same impact on the team. Some minimum salary free agent each year. I mean, cmon. If Beckham is considered valuable in any way, that advanced stat is just WRONG. Seriously.

There has to be some value to the eye test and the common stat. Beckham was a lousy No. 8 draft pick. If he's better than most, than teams have drafted poorly at No. 8 that is FOR SURE. Enough is enough. How can anybody say Beckham was valuable in any way?

He was a decent to good fielder who couldn't hit a lick. Why do we need WAR to tell us some fib??

 

That's exactly what WAR tells us. His defense gave him some value every year and other than his rookie year, his hitting was negative value.

OK. It just drives me crazy is all.

 

 

I'd let those 3 guys go and go for an all new crew. If I had to keep one, it'd be Putnam I guess.

 

 

With all due respect, Beckham is a great argument against advanced stats. You can't tell me he was valuable to the White Sox in any way during his tenure. You can't tell me we couldn't have had a different second baseman every one of those years with the same impact on the team. Some minimum salary free agent each year. I mean, cmon. If Beckham is considered valuable in any way, that advanced stat is just WRONG. Seriously.

There has to be some value to the eye test and the common stat. Beckham was a lousy No. 8 draft pick. If he's better than most, than teams have drafted poorly at No. 8 that is FOR SURE. Enough is enough. How can anybody say Beckham was valuable in any way?

He was a decent to good fielder who couldn't hit a lick. Why do we need WAR to tell us some fib??

 

Fine them, pick games played in MLB as your metric for a #8 pick and the distribution will be similar -- for an 8th pick, Gordon was better than most.

 

It's hard for me to believe you can be this dense. It's not necessarily about WAR, although as a measure of total value it's better than games placed WAR is mostly a counting stat and MLB players that are below replacement (hint: it's a sign the stat is pretty accurate) don't tend to last too long in MLB so games played will work fine.

 

You should really learn more about MLB, no offense. Trying to argue Gordon Beckham wasn't a good draft pick isn't going to get you anywhere, go through every #8 pick in history and Beckham is going to lineup on the "better than most" side.

 

here, educate yourself:

 

basically, it's not a normal distribution, that's the takeway. It's a "fat tail" and value is clumped in picks 1-3 and in general in the top 15. Would you put the over/under on Rodon's career fWAR at 15? According to the graph that would be a wild over estimate. That said, Carlos could skew the results

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/6/25...are-draft-picks

Edited August 26, 201411 yr by chitownsportsfan

People are telling me that it's better to have the 5th pick instead of the 12. It seems logical but in history it doesn't seem to matter.

 

Of course everyone can view it differently that's half the fun of the discussion. There is no right or wrong just truth from a different point of view (Yoda).

 

My original point was in response to a post about X number of games back of the 5th pick in next years draft. There really doesn't seem to be much of a better chance of a good player in the 12th spot compared to the 5th spot. Unless you have of the the top two or three is just seems pointless to aggravate yourself with losses. That's all. Rooting for poor play just isn't a fun way to watch a baseball game when it doesn't seem to matter unless the team hits near 100 loses.

 

This isn't life or death it's baseball. Enjoy it. If enjoying it for you is to root for poor play. More power to you. i'm just saying that in the end it really doesn't matter unless you have one of the top two or three picks.

 

The odds of a current major leaguer contributing are so much incredibly higher than any draft pick, it isn't even funny. We benefit WAY more by the guys that are here learning the lessons they need, than we do with getting five picks higher.

 

 

The odds of a current major leaguer contributing are so much incredibly higher than any draft pick, it isn't even funny. We benefit WAY more by the guys that are here learning the lessons they need, than we do with getting five picks higher.

 

Right, and, just as important, they can see WTF THEY HAVE. There really wasn't much more for Sanchez to prove in AAA, ditto Marcus. I want them to freaking bench Viciedo once Sierra is back as well, now is the time to do some scouting of your own talent and throw some guys into the fire. Yea it's a small sample size, but Sanchez and Marcus should both be getting quite a few AB in Sep, ditto Moises.

Semien will be better than Baez IMO

Semien will be better than Baez IMO

 

I admire your optimism but Semien wasn't even ranked in the White Sox top 20 prospects that MLB.com put out last month. Tim Anderson is the guy to keep an eye on.

Fine them, pick games played in MLB as your metric for a #8 pick and the distribution will be similar -- for an 8th pick, Gordon was better than most.

 

It's hard for me to believe you can be this dense. It's not necessarily about WAR, although as a measure of total value it's better than games placed WAR is mostly a counting stat and MLB players that are below replacement (hint: it's a sign the stat is pretty accurate) don't tend to last too long in MLB so games played will work fine.

 

You should really learn more about MLB, no offense. Trying to argue Gordon Beckham wasn't a good draft pick isn't going to get you anywhere, go through every #8 pick in history and Beckham is going to lineup on the "better than most" side.

 

here, educate yourself:

 

basically, it's not a normal distribution, that's the takeway. It's a "fat tail" and value is clumped in picks 1-3 and in general in the top 15. Would you put the over/under on Rodon's career fWAR at 15? According to the graph that would be a wild over estimate. That said, Carlos could skew the results

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/6/25...are-draft-picks

 

I want to ask you. Throw out all these metrics. You watched him play for these many ways. Do you personally feel ... do your eyes tell you Gordon Beckham was IN ANY WAY a valuable member of the White Sox? Like I said if he is a good No. 8 pick throughout history, then baseball GMs are worst than I thought. But please answer my personal question, this time using no metrics at all.

Your opinion of Gordon Beckham from what you saw .... and others that cite stats that say he's good please comment as well.

I want to ask you. Throw out all these metrics. You watched him play for these many ways. Do you personally feel ... do your eyes tell you Gordon Beckham was IN ANY WAY a valuable member of the White Sox? Like I said if he is a good No. 8 pick throughout history, then baseball GMs are worst than I thought. But please answer my personal question, this time using no metrics at all.

Your opinion of Gordon Beckham from what you saw .... and others that cite stats that say he's good please comment as well.

 

Just by virtue of not only making the major leagues, but lasting 6 years, Gordon Beckham was a good #8 pick. That being said, when compared to actual major leaguers, which is what WAR does, he was terrible. You know it, I know it, and advanced metrics confirm all this. But any draft pick that even reaches the major leagues is considered somewhat of a success no matter what.

Semien will be better than Baez IMO

 

Yeah, I wouldn't count on that. Baez's ceiling is way higher than Semien's. The only way Semien has a better/longer major league career is due to each of their plate disciplines. Semien has a ton, and Baez has virtually none. I would say Semien has the higher floor, Baez has the higher ceiling.

Yeah, I wouldn't count on that. Baez's ceiling is way higher than Semien's. The only way Semien has a better/longer major league career is due to each of their plate disciplines. Semien has a ton, and Baez has virtually none. I would say Semien has the higher floor, Baez has the higher ceiling.

 

Does either one have a 16000sq ft house in AZ ?