Here's a list of players who I think are worth watching as "sleepers" this season. Sleeper's are players nobody is paying attention to who have a chance to make in impact with their team to the point of contributing to a typical fantasy team. I don't generally recommend drafting "sleepers" as they are almost by definition high risk but since they are unlikely to get drafted, you can put them on a watch list and if the need arises and they are performing well, they make nice mid-season pickups. A few of these might even be draftable if you want to try to punt a position to the end of the draft in order to get better players at other positions earlier. Another thing to remember about sleepers is that as soon as they start getting mentioned, they stop being sleepers because people read about them and start expecting things from them, which means they are no longer sleeping, if that makes sense. I'm assigning sleeper status to these players based on Average Draft Position(ADP) from Mock Draft Central and from various pre-season fantasy ratings. Here's the team:
C Ryan Doumit, Twins. ADP= 237.23. #16 ranked catcher. 2011: .303/.353/.477, 8 HR in 236 PA. Career: .271/.334/.442. Rotochamp projection: .274/.337/.436, 13 HR in 427 PA.
The Hardball Times analysts ranked him even lower at 20 and 21 until I pointed out some things to them in the comments. Doumit is a beast at the plate. He's not a great defensive catcher, but he can play some 1B and LF and, of course, in the AL he can DH. He's coming off an ankle fracture suffered in a home plate collision shortly after Buster Posey's injury. I am under the impression that Doumit's injury was not as serious, so he should be fully recovered. The Twins clearly have big plans for him setting up a C/DH and possibly 1B tag team with Joe Mauer that will enable both players to get more PA's than a typical dedicated catcher. IMO, Doumit is borderline draftable in a 10 team league and definitely in a 12 team league. I thought about Nick Hundley here but it's hard to get too excited about any hitter who plays half his games in Petco Park.
1B Bryan LaHair, Cubs. ADP Not even listed! 2011(AAA): .331/.405/.664, 38 HR. 2011(Cubs): .288/. 377/.508. RotoChamp projection: .262/.335/.395, 12 HR in 436 PA.
Some AAAA players are really major leaguers who just haven't gotten a fair chance. Anthony Rizzo may be the Cubs 1B of the future, but even Jed Hoyer thinks he's not ready yet. LaHair is the likely the opening day starter. It's his big opportunity. He needs to grab it by the throat. 1B is very thin this year. You might not want to draft him, but he should be on your watch list. He may have OF eligibility too.
2B Kelly Johnson, Blue Jays. ADP= .234.66. #19 ranked 2B. 2011(2 teams): .222/.304/.413, 21 HR, 16 SB. Career: .260/.343/.441. Rotochamp projection: .243/.326/.433, 19 HR, 13 SB.
A lot of people look at Johnson's BA from last year and dismiss him out of hand. It's true, you don't want an average killer in your lineup, but look at the HR and SB's. Johnson had similar K and BB rates as in past year which means his BABIP was .277 against a career of .311. He's a good bet to rebound his BA in 2012. 2B is a fairly deep position, but that makes it a nice position to punt on draft day and Johnson would make a decent pick at the end of the draft in a 10 team league and definitely in a 12 team league.
3B Lonnie Chisenhall, Indians. ADP= 253.33. #22 ranked 3B. 2011: .255/.284/.415, 7 HR in 223 PA. Rotochamp projection: .251/.283/.398, 15 HR in 545 PA.
Lost in all the hoopla around Brett Lawrie and overshadowed by teammate Jason Kipnis over at 2B, Lonnie Chisenhall is being virtually ignored. He's a longtime highly rated prospect who showed much better plate discipline in the minors. There's a pretty steep dropoff at 3B after the top 6 or 7 and not every team is going to get one of those guys. I think Chisenhall has a decent chance of bettering his projections. Even if you don't draft him, he's worth following on a watch list.
SS Alcides Escobar, Royals. ADP= 237.25. #20 ranked SS. 2011: .254/.290/.343, 26 SB. Career: .252/.294/.339. RotoChamp Projection: .269/.312/.357, 19 SB.
Escobar may be a post-hype sleeper. At worst he'll give you some SB's. Rotochamp's estimate of his SB's is probably too low. Bill James gives him 27. Escobar was a better hitter in the minors and is at a point in his career where he could take a step forward so a higher BA and 30+ SB's is not out of the question. If you aren't lucky enough to have Tulo on your team, you can make a case for waiting until the end of the draft to take your SS. Escobar is someone to think about if you are considering using a higher pick on Dee Gordon or Elvis Andrus. At least, he's worth putting on a watch list.
OF JD Martinez, Astros. ADP= 242.99. #87 ranked OF. 2011(AA): .338/.414/.546, 13 HR in 370 PA. 2011(Astros): .274/.319/.423, 6 HR in 226 PA. Rotochamp Projection: .293/.341/.444, 14 HR.
I thought Martinez looked like a ballplayer when the Astros took it to the Giants in what might have been the backbreaking series of the season. Looking at his minor league record, he never hit less than .302 at any level putting up BA's of .403, .326, .362, .302 and .338 over 3 seasons at 4 different level with double digit HR's in each season. Bill James has him at 16 HR and I think he can approach 20 if he just puts up the RotoChamp's slash line. I think he's capable of a lot more. Definitely should be on a watch list at minimum.
OF Josh Reddick, A's. ADP= 268.84. #92 ranked OF. 2011: .280/.327/.457, 7 HR in 278 PA. RotoChamp Projection: .271/.321/.447, 14 HR in 548 PA.
Reddick came over from Boston in the Andrew Bailey trade. I made up this list before the Cespedes signing when it looked like Reddick would get the majority of PT in RF for Oakland. Now the A's OF situation is suddenly a bit crowded. Reddick definitely has some Iso Power potential and he's at the right age with just the right number of MLB AB's to think he might be ripe for a breakout. Probably more of a watcher than a draft candidate, but definitely watch him. If he gets the PT, he could put up some numbers. Bill James has him at 19 HR's.
OF Brent Lillibridge, White Sox. ADP= 295.72. #99 ranked OF. 2011: .258/.340/.505, 13 HR, 10 SB in 216 PA. Rotochamp Projection: .240/.318/.455, 11 HR, 11 SB in 223 PA.
Lillibridge was once a highly rated prospect with the Braves. He's never really broken through at the MLB level, but put up some very interesting numbers for the White Sox last year. He's still probably slated to be a utility guy but the White Sox have enough serious question marks on the team that there's a good chance Lillibridge will be starting somewhere for them before the season is done. If you project last year's numbers and this year's projection to a full season's worth of PA's, you have a 30/30 guy! Definitely have this guy on a watch list and if he gets a starting gig, he is eminently rosterable.
SP Hector Noesi, Mariners. ADP not available. 2011: 2-2, 4.47, 56.1 IP, 22 BB, 45 K's. RotoChamp projection: 8-6, 4.73, 120 IP, 47 BB, 96 K's.
Noesi was a little noticed player in the Pineda/Montero trade, but he may have some serious fantasy potential with the move to Seattle. He put up these numbers in one of the most hitter friendly ballparks in the toughest division to pitch in in baseball. All he has to do is pitch as well and his ERA will likely drop into the mid 3's. He should get a chance to be a fulltime starter for Seattle which gives him the opportunity to rack up a lot of K's with a decent WHIP. He had startlingly low BB/9 rates in the minors: High A: 1.1, AA: 1.6, AAA: 2.7. I like to use my bench as an extended starting rotation and most of the guys in my league do the same so pitching gets a bit scarce even in a 10 team league. Noesi is on my list of possible late round draft picks for a bench starter. I guarantee he will at least be on my watch list.
SP Henderson Alvarez, Blue Jays. ADP not available. 2011: 1-3, 3.53, 63.2 IP, 8 BB, 40 K's. RotoChamp Projection: 10-7, 3.42, 150 IP, 19 BB, 66 K's.
If you want to read an extremely interesting and educational article, look up The Next Michael Pineda(Part 2 of 2) on Fangraphs. The basic thesis is that a combination of high velocity and low BB/9 is a very good combination with a high predictor of future success. Alvarez' power sinker gets up into the mid 90's and his walk rates are astonishingly low. As a contact GB pitcher he won't give you a lot of K's, but you don't need that many if you extend your rotation to 9 or 10 pitchers by using your bench. He will do wonders for you WHIP. He's slated to be in Toronto's rotation to start the season. He's a definitely rosterable in a league like mine that goes deep into starting pitchers.
So, there it is. My All Sleeper Team! Who do you have pegged as a sleeper in 2012?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice writeup but there are no Giants on there. With our offensive numbers last year everyone should be a sleeper because they can't get too much worse. I agree with you on Martinez. He has impressed me with the little time I have seen him. Not that he is exactly a sleeper but I predict Bumgarner to have a great year. He second half numbers were incredible especially his K/BB. It felt so bad for him watching the Twins game. I am pleasantly surprised that he bounced right back in the second half. If Hector Sanchez was given a chance as the backup, he could be a sleeper. He raked in the Venezuela league and did pretty well in the minors last year showing some power potential. This would be a great asset since the Giants are going to take it easy with Buster.
ReplyDeleteI thought about HSanchez for sleeper and I agree. All it would take is Buster not being able to go at catcher and HSanch would suddenly be a starting catcher in the major leagues. I think he would do well at it too.
DeleteMaybe I should do a Deep Sleeper team.
BTW, I also seriously considered Brandon Crawford at SS. I decided against it because even if he hit .250-.260, while he would be seriously valuable as a real player, he doesn't have any standout number that would help you much in fantasy.
I also think Nate could be a deep sleeper. If he could stay healthy a full season I could see him getting hot and staying hot for awhile and putting up some decent fantasy numbers.
Pagan is getting drafted high enough that I don't think he qualifies as a sleeper, but I think he's capable of a season worthy of him being a #2 fantasy OF, especially if you are looking for steals.
I think that Crawford, if he can play all season, can put up 10-15 homers at SS, would that be pretty good at SS? If so, then that would be an area he help at. But yeah, not really at any of the other 4 categories.
DeleteCrawford definitely could be a sleeper. I mean, he doesn't have much competition now at the position, so if he can get off to a hot start, he should get a lot of at-bats. However, a slow start, and well...he could enter Bowker territory (not his projection, but just how he will be handled)
DeleteThere are 2 articles on Fangraphs about building through the draft that were recently posted. Boston narrowly has Los Gigantes beat for Number 1 overall. More an overview than an analysis, it still is nice to see a list with the Giants so far up. While its definitely monday morning qb'ing, and not fair at all, I can't help but say Boston would be a lot lower and we'd be monumentally higher if we had participated in the early rounds of the 2004-5 drafts and possibly pealed off Pedroia, Ellsbury or Buckholtz. Obviously its a crapshoot, I'm not saying we would have taken those players, but you have to be in it to win it. It may have been a strategy, even a sophisticated one, to punt draft picks. But looking over those drafts I would say its a very short sighted one. You have to develop talent alongside the big club at all times. That is the number one thing I am nervous about for the Giants going forward. After Bow Tie's noisy commitment to the overall farm system if they go back to pinching pennies it will be a pretty big blunder. The CBA limits the top end, but there are always ways to cut costs. They had better come correct on that front.
ReplyDeleteI agree on the punting of draft picks. Even if you limit it only to rounds 20 or lower, I don't think you can say the Giants as an organization would be better off with a couple of Michael Tucker type players than Brown and Panik. While it may be true in MLB as a whole that late first rounders are crapshoots, the Giants have elevated their scouting game to the point where they have a high probability of getting good players with those picks. Even before 2004, Matt Cain was a late first rounder and he's been worth at least 3-4 years of bad picks to get that one good one.
DeleteOf course at the time, the rationale was that they only had a 2-3 year window to win one for Barry even had he not had that unfortunate surgical complication. Still, Michael Tucker?
In an idealized world, yes, no team should punt a pick. I lay the blame for that on the unyielding ownership who wouldn't pony up $1M so that Sabean could pick up Tucker AND still keep the pick. That is why I was calling for the ownership to sell to someone who would make baseball decisions, not financial ones. That's why I liked what Neukom had to say, and was sad to see him go. So I"m back to hoping a billionaire comes in an buys the Giants and run it like the Angels.
DeleteAs a former scout, Sabean, I suspect strongly, would rather keep the pick as well, scouts love picks. As you say, it is the life's blood of a baseball organization.
But I put this decision up there as being similar to the Beltran/Wheeler trade decision: do you want to try to win now or try to develop something for the future?
The Giants needed a starting outfielder. Can't remember if they already had Hammonds, but the original thought was that Hammonds and Tucker would basically platoon. We had no alternative in the farm system. My brain is straining to remember, but I think Linden and Torcato would have been the leading guys for RF. A legitimate contender don't have Linden or Torcato even in the conversation for starting RF. Tucker at least was always a guy you could rely on for getting on base plus a bit of power.
Given that need, you essentially traded your first round pick (prospect X/Wheeler) for a more known quality (Tucker/Beltran) in order to be better competitive that season.
You can't value that pick on the "what if he's Matt Cain" thinking. That's like buying a lottery ticket thinking "what if I got all the numbers?" If the Giants punted 5+ first round picks (and they were getting too close there), then yeah, you could say that, but the odds of any of those picks turning out is extremely low, lower than people are normally used to dealing with.
When the risk is that low, it becomes a business decision where you trade off the little hope you have of finding a good player in order to get a player who can help you now.
I know part of it was that it was Michael Tucker, not a glamorous name, but he was a good performer for us that season, he helped us win.
As I said then, as long as the Giants don't do that all the time, it is a calculated risk that will most likely pay off more times than not.
Shankbone, you do the selective picking that everyone does, pointing out Pedroia, Ellsbury, and Bucholtz. That's selective picking to the extreme.
DeletePedroia was the best pick in the 2nd round. Gallardo, Pense, and Suzuki were very good picks too. The other 26 picks that round in 2004 have WAR under 3.5: http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?query_type=year_round&year_ID=2004&draft_round=2&draft_type=junreg
16 of them have never played a minute in baseball, 6 have negative WAR, and 2 have WAR under 1.0, leaving 2 who have WAR in the 3's. The vast majority of the picks did nothing worth mentioning in baseball, 24 out of 30. Michael Tucker, for example, produced 1.4 WAR for us that season, producing more in that one season than 24 ever did in a pro career.
Ellsbury was the 4th best pick by WAR in 2005 in that first round. Despite being the 23rd pick, his WAR beats the total of the 10 picks ahead of them, totaled. So picks 13-22 were less in total. This was a talent heavy draft for the first 11 picks or so, but it was pretty barren afterward. If you look at the picks after him, there was Garza two picks afterward, but if you exclude him, Ellsbury's WAR beats the total of the next 17 picks (24-41, excluding Garza at 25).
Buchholtz was 42nd. His WAR is larger than the sum of picks 24-41 except for Garza at 25 and Rasmus at 28. His WAR is larger than the sum of the 23 picks after him. In that 2nd round, 23 of the 32 picks (2 supplemental) never reached the majors, 4 got a cup of coffee or two. 27 out of 32 doing nothing of much, one clearly above Yunel Escobar, and 2 around 5-6 WAR, OK players but no big deals.
Now, if you can consistently pick the one guy who was the best pick in that round, then, of course you don't want to punt any picks.
In 2006, #27, #28, #40, #44: Jason Place, Daniel Bard, Kris Johnson, Caleb Clay. Bard is looking like he'll be a good reliever, maybe closer (many had the Giants picking Bard with the 10th pick, who has the body Sabean and Tidrow likes, instead they got Lincecum), but I would argue that they lucked out to some extent (or to my thinking, showed the randomness of the draft) because they thought Place was better, selecting him before Bard and thus giving him more money (at least in theory, not sure what the actual bonuses were). Just like the A's when they got Street but only after picking two other busts and allowing other teams a chance to pick up Street before them.
In 2007, #55, #62, Nick Hagadone and Ryan Dent, passing up Cory Luebke, picked right after Dent, and Jordan Zimmerman, early the next round, or how about the real steal of the second round, Michael Stanton.
Teams can have lucky streaks in drafting and while I hope that Barr can continue his good streak, unless he can keep this up for a few more seasons, all we can really say is that he just had a really good lucky streak going.
These are the leaves that my draft study exposed from the forest, that the vast majority of picks don't really work out, even in terms of making the majors, let alone having a long career, let alone being a good player, which are the real ones we follow the draft and minors for, even in the first round.
DeleteThe whole Michael Tucker conundrum and logic is explained by the lack of success of finding good players via the draft, even in the first round.
Or rather, I have been using success to describe it, but really, the way I should be putting it is that the population of good baseball players among the amateurs are few and far between, even the top picks have generally not turned out to be good players, and it just gets way worse after that.
So pointing out the good ones is like pointing at a ticket that you lost with and saying, "See, if I would have played those numbers last week, I would have won the jackpot." It doesn't work that way in baseball.
The population of good players is very limited, the top 5-10 are readily identified and go pretty quickly in the draft, but after that the population of future good players really dwindle down to that proverbial needle in the haystack.
So the punting of any one first round draft pick will essentially have the same risk factor as for one of us deciding not to play our lottery numbers one week. Unless, that is, you are really, really good at picking such players/numbers, and someone like that will become very evident very quickly.
I like your draft study a ton. I said it upfront I was being unfair, a big time cherry pick. I'm doing some draft history research, this is very preliminary, but I've found casting around there are organizations who have no idea how to draft. Chief among them before the current cast of top rated prospects was KC. Baltimore and Pittsburgh are other hapless organizations for long periods of time. Without the pitching the Giants would have been included in that. The same teams seem to come up, again and again. I don't have enough data and I haven't tested it much yet, but its something to think about as well. That of course was the cynical side of it - Brian Sabean sucks so much at drafting he just doesn't want to bother anymore. Don't agree with that personally, but for some teams, that is true, and that might skew the odds in favor of a team holding onto their pick.
DeleteThe other obvious point, you don't give up your lottery ticket deliberately. I've said this a few times, but if money can't be found to sign a third tier OF and make your 1st round pick as well, you might be in the wrong business.
Tied up in Michael Tucker is of course Sweet Warrior Prince Vladdy the Impaler. It is sometimes hard to stomach looking at Tucker for a year and losing the pick versus Vlad having 5 great years at a very reasonable price. This really is the key to the lunatic fringe.
Vlad 2004: 156 games, 337/391/989 OPS+157, MVP of the American League
Tucker 04: 114 games started: 256/353/765 OPS+ 97. Apparently he hit 13 HRs, I really don't remember that many.
Tucker looks like a great moneyball player with that OBP. To me he is mediocrity defined. Here is where we differ some. You look at the almost league average OPS+ and say, see, he wasn't so bad. For me, in that era of ball, after having Hill, Burks and Sanders manning that spot, he was horribly bad. I am shocked he had as good stats as that, but it just looks like an empty suit to me. And he definitely came off that way live. Don't forget, its the Steve Finley grand slam year. Came up 3 games short.
So OK, you don't have the 12MM for Vlad. Were there other options? How about waiting it out with Hammonds, Sabean is famous for the mid-season trade. I'm forgetting who else there was, I'll have to look it up.
There are ways to tweak your odds. The Giants decided to go after pitching and more pitching. You can also tweak your odds by loading up on compensation and supplemental picks. This hasn't worked for the Giants, even though the MadBum draft in an instant success. You are looking for 1 productive major league player and possibly a bench/pen fringe player as a bonus. Each draft. Crazy odds. I'm not arguing any of that.
You make the analogy of not playing your lottery number. I would say its more like buying the ticket, and then lighting it on fire.
Got some comments on the wheeler/beltran side but can't lay em down right now.
OGC,
DeleteI absolutely do not dispute your research at all. I would still take the draft pick over Michael Tucker even if it meant I had to get somebody to fill the position on a minor league deal or just run Todd Linden out there.
Giants late first round picks starting around 1999/2000 or so included Ainsworth, Williams, Matt Cain, David Aardsma, and more recently Gary Brown and Joe Panik. Ainsworth got injured before he really contributed and Aardsma was mishandled, but I'd take Jerome Williams' contribution to the team over a Michael Tucker equivalent. Definitely take Matt Cain. Too soon to tell with Brown and Panik, but I wouldn't trade either one of them for Michael Tucker under any circumstances.
As much ridicule as Sabes has taken about hating young players, the draft and player development, he and Tidrow did a good job finding pitching and now John Barr has taken it to another level. I just think the Giants have a track record in the draft that is better than the average team out there so the percentages you found in your very valid research don't necessarily apply to the Giants.
I guess this is one thing you and I will have to disagree on. I would not have punted the pick to sign Michael Tucker.
OGC - I wanted to have a Michael Tucker debate at some point but was thinking of a different angle to approach it. This will have to do, spring training is almost here! On the Wheeler/Beltran - the one big difference I would say is the mid-season heat of the battle aspect, it is a different animal than careful planning in the off-season. GMs always have to weigh all-in versus rebuild and all points in between. I'm good with going all in on Beltran. Your point about the delay on the draft pick maturing versus the immediacy of a proven ballplayer is a good one though. I guess what it boils down to for me is the specific player involved. And the fact Sabean felt it worked well once, why not go again in 2005 and we missed out on an even better draft class.
DeleteThe MLB draft is the mother of all drafts. Its very hard to summarize or analyze. You have to break it into bite size pieces. I've decided to go position by position for a ten year stretch of 1996-2006, which does cover the punt-draft years. And what I've found dovetails with your study well. For example, in that 10 year period 20 College LHPs were drafted with the first 25 picks, 8 have been successful. You bump it to the entire first/supplemental and its 37 pitchers, with only one more successful pick. Drafting is tough business that gets harder the farther out you get.
Small sample, but fuel for the fire on your "team on a roll drafting" - Zito and Mulder were the 2 best pitchers by far in that time period, drafted in the first round 98 and 99.
On Tucker alternatives, I admit to being so obsessed about Vlad I draw a blank. Couldn't find a easy sort list, but looking through transactions in winter 2003, I found the following names: Marcus Thames, Shannon Stewart, Tucker, Reggie Sanders, Rondell White, David Delucci, Ben Greive... The other big FA bat was Sheffield. Vlad didn't sign with the Angels until late, Jan 14th 2004. The Giants also traded for Dustan Mohr, who never really got a fair shake in my opinion but that was after signing Tucker. I will admit the non-premium options were all a little stale.
For the hell of it, because I have a bad habit of interpreting things historically and sometimes taking things out of context, here was the chronological order of that fateful offseason: (All dates are transaction from B/R - most likely announced 48 hours earlier)
Nov 5 Sign Brian Dallimore
Nov 14 Trade for AJ - Nathan, Liriano, Bonser
Nov 21 Sign Brian Cooper
Nov 25 Sign Tyler Walker
Dec 2 Sign Dustin Hermanson
Dec 3 Resign Jeffrey Hammonds
Dec 7 Resign JT Snow and Sign TUCKER
Dec 15 Traded for Mohr - gave up JT Thomas as PTBNL
Jan 12 Signed Brett Tomko
March 31 Signed Deivi Cruz
Deivi Cruz was his Juan Uribe prototype. Sabean eventually uttered the famous line, and the lunatic fringe sprung forth fully formed. Its all about Tucker and Vlad, and the AJ trade had nothing to do with it. A lot of people praised that one.
Anyways, its crazy that was only 8 years ago, and now the team is totally different.
I will respond fully when I have a keyboard, but I want to note that I started my writing "career" by writing three articles about how the Giants might get Vlad. I also wrote an article calling BS that the Giants could not afford Vlad, with the Maddux Money, my name for the rainy day fund back then, the could have gotten basically the same set of players AND Vlad, had they just ponied up a few million that season. That was when I started writing articles thanking Magowan for saving the Giants but that the Giants needed a billionaire, like Larry Ellison, to buy the team and take it to the next level.
DeleteIf I remember right, Hammond got injured, again, and Tucker saved us by playing mostly full time.
As I noted, ideally you never punt a pick, I lay that at ownership, a bunch of penny pinching whiny bunch if there ever was, from the reports that I have read. In business you sometimes take risks for the greater good. It is a calculated risk, like hoe businesses actually have an account for bad debts, you expect to get ripped off by deadbeats and thieves, it is a part of doing business that allows your business to sell a lot more, for the overall good. That is what punting does. The odds is great that thelayer you punted will not amount to anything. Sometimes it is the price of being competitive.
I'll just say this about Michael Tucker:
DeleteI don't think I've ever seen a hitter more helpless against one particular pitch than Tucker was against the changeup. Pitchers with below average changeups could get him out pretty much any time they wanted. One of the more comical moments I've seen as a Giants fan, and sad at the same time was when he had his brushup with Eric Gagne and he yelled "throw me a fastball! See how far it goes." Gagne just stood there and smirked at him. Of course, Michael Tucker, the point is that good hitters FORCE the pitcher to throw them their pitch!
Now, I don't know what was going on with the Giants scouting department at that time, but it seems to me that if you believe in a certain player so much that you are willing to punt a draft pick to sign him, then you ought to know if he has a hole in his swing big enough to drive a truck through, or for Eric Gagne to walk through. I know I had seen Tucker play on TV a few times and like his athleticism, but the first time I saw him whiff on a changeup and heard Kruk comment that he'd always had trouble with the pitch, I knew it was going to be one long frustrating season of watching him strike out against changeups, and it was.
Of course, the funniest part of the Tucker/Gagne dustup was that they both got thrown out of the game. It was kind of like in hockey where one team sends their untalented goon to pick a fight with the other team's best player knowing that if the penalties are equal, the team with the goon wins.
Michael Tucker, the antithesis of a goon! Gagne killed us. Moving down to the Southland as the Dodgers got good for a sec in what I call the Sabean dark years wasn't a swell experience. Northern Californians disdain for LA is not reciprocated. Hard core Dodger fans will of course be pretty nasty, but for the most part Southland denizens don't really join in the rivalry. We can make all sorts of jokes about that, I'll let Pato have the first crack.
DeleteOGC - I really like this type of discussion. It is not an argument somebody has to win. I appreciate where you are coming from. You are applying lessons learned from the business world and taking a different tact. It is immediate enough we can all remember most the details correctly, and some players are still active. But its far enough away also there isn't any reason to get very fired up. Belt/Huff, Crawford, Zito will be the hot topics this coming year, and I'm sure some others will pop up as well. Those conversations can get pretty passionate, its hard to get bent out of shape about Michael Tucker anymore, especially after... The Giants Won The World Series.
Still feels good.
Decided to check a bit more on that timeline. Vlad signed Jan 11th. Tomko the 12th. Sabean uttered Lunatic Fringe either at that press conference or a day later. 2 weeks after that in an MLB chat he uttered the Vlad poo-poo platter comment. What is forgotten is he brings up Sheffield as well in that comment. Fans trying to compare that quote with this off-season are really missing the boat in my opinion. Found a Glenn Dickey opinion piece from the Jan 17 where he is joining in on the Fringe. No criticism about AJ, he calls him an upgrade. At the end he notes Sabean is trading off pitchers, something he didn't do before.
Its often thrown around that Zito/Rowand were panic PR signings, and if they weren't signed the Giants would have been even worse for 06-08 and would have rebuilt quicker/been easier to swallow. If they did a true scorched earth rebuild though Sabean would have had to ship off Cain like the Pads did with Latos this offseason. There are always double edged swords and unforseen dangers of going back into the what if machine.
I'll end with the ownership. Very hard to separate Sabean from the money guys. In 2007 he was renewed, and in the midst of a grim season on the field, it was a surprise. My half-baked theory is Timmy saved him - everybody knew they had a hit. The addition of the early pick coming in 2007 plus the supplemental picks and the prep the staff demonstrated impressed Peter the Pink, Sabean got an extension. OGC's point about the ownership pinching pennies should definitely be factored in. I just don't like the baseball decision on Tucker, I see it as a failure to field a competitive team. Coupled with the cheapness of punting and not going after a bona fide hero in Vlad (other factors as well including Alou, I know) and to me its the perfect storm. Then the history judges of the AJ trade blowing up piles on later.
DeleteLooking back over the drafts - by the way this is Sabeans 20th year drafting coming up, think about that for a second - the Giants weren't as bad as everybody thinks though. The 1993 draft was the Bill Mueller (and Chris Singleton) Draft. I can't nail down whether Sabean ran that draft or came in on the back end of it with 100% certainty, but they definitely had a bad rep with hitters. To OGC's point though, with later picks in the draft you're not getting the blue chip guys. So a way to cull the herd is to concentrate on something you might evaluate better than others: pitching.
There were some legit criticisms though, the farm system wasn't producing much, and Sabeans FA signings got weaker and weaker instead of making a bold move. His trading touch dried up, and then he got burned big time. There just got to be a lot of mediocrity on the field, and it showed in the standings.
However. This is AMERICA. We believe in second chances, second acts and comebacks. The comeback is one of our greatest traditions that we celebrate. This is where I separate from Lunatic Fringe careerists. Can't a guy have a chance to recover from mistakes? Does he have to have every old beef thrown in his face? The next three years will really determine Sabean's legacy (not fair as well) - if he wins it all again he's going to the hall of fame. If the Giants fall short critics will seize upon 2010 as luck. He's a man, he screwed up, like all of us do. If I had five year old mistakes thrown in my face I would go crazy. Let it breath. Take the good with the bad. Nobody's perfect. He's been pretty damn good for a long time.
Can spring training start already? Oh yeah, my plans to attend cratered. I am majorly bummed. Might be the reason I'm throwing down more stuff than usual.
Yes, we ARE long-winded, aren't we, Shankbone? ;^)
DeleteThough the way I view it, we are being detail oriented, we can't help it that there is a lot of detail for any topic, details that most others don't get into, but that are still there nonetheless.
I'm going to have to work backwards on this, and finish up later.
No, very easy to separate Sabean from the money guys. If the money guys would have ponied up the money, he would have waited a day to sign Tucker. $1M was all he needed and they wouldn't budge.
Well, Timmy certainly helped a lot, but Cain, Sanchez, Bumgarner, Wilson, Romo, Posey, Sandoval, Belt, that's still pretty good too.
Again, Tucker was all Sabean could afford, he could have gotten a lot better if they would have released the $7M that the money guys "saved" for Maddux (for nothing since he signed with Cubs, but by then it was too late to sign anyone else).
And what is uncompetitive about a 91 win team?
Remember, Sabean ran the drafts and signings for the Yankees and picked up Jeter, Posada, Williams, Snow. He knew he was lucky that Jeter fell to him, but he pounced on him when opportunity met desire.
I agree that the strategy to sign middle tier free agents didn't work. That was driven by ownership limiting funds, Bonds' escalating salary, the big mortgage, the push to win with Bonds, and Sabean's strategy from the get go that you don't carry two big contracts, resulting in the Matt Williams trade and the start of his acrimonious relationship with the fanbase when he cried in public, "I'm not an idiot". A savvy charismatic leader he is not.
I wouldn't say that his trading touch dried up, exactly, I think people just got wary of dealing with him and being shown up. Especially after Sabean made an example of Littlefield. That is why a lot of the deals he has done are more deals where the other side wanted to get rid of an expensive contract, I believe.
And the way I see it, the mediocrity on the field is not his fault, per se, unless you want to call building a competitive team to be his "fault". A team has a lifecycle of rebuilding and competitiveness that goes in cycles, and it is a self reinforcing cycle because when you are competitive, you get the lousy first round draft picks that ensures your mediocrity, whereas when you are losing/rebuilding, you get the better draft picks that help you get back to competitiveness.
I agree about how Giants fans generally have a bad relationship with Sabean, where he is not allowed second chances. It is just a bad marriage, except that they can't divorce the Giants, so instead they get whiny and bitchy.
I think, however, that it is fair that the next three years will be the mark of his legacy as GM. It like that saying, and I'm paraphrasing, a GM is hired to be fired. But I don't think winning it all is necessary for his legacy, as long as the Giants make the playoffs most years and fight the good fight while in there, that plus his good Bonds years (people forget that before he became GM, the Giants were LOSING with Bonds and looking horrible and he changed it in ONE OFF-SEASON) should get him in the Giants HOF, the way I see it.
Like I said, it's like a broken relationship, dredging up 5-10 year old mistakes constantly, but unable to divorce, so they get it all out online.
OK, your Tucker rant. :^)
DeleteYeah, love to discuss, and while we both have points we want to make, no death match battle to the finish, just clarifications and maybe understanding.
Yes, it does feel good, and it will forever.
About the rebuilding years, scorched earth does not mean discarding all young players. You still need something to pull in the customers (and how better than a young stud prospect), and if you think he could be a long-term keeper, then you definitely keep him around to be the grizzled vet to remind the young'uns of the bad ol' days and why you need to keep pushing.
And Cain at that point was still pretty much an unknown, and frankly, unheralded prospect, the LA pitching prospects during that period were rated higher than the Giants and the funny thing is that if you look back at the prospect talk back then, the Dodgers were the ones who looked like they would have a rotation like the Giants have today, and Logan White was getting all the credit for that, whereas the Giants didn't look like they had much of anything.
When I named it Phoenix Rebuilding Method, so I get your scorched earth reference, I did not mean you get rid of everything, and I probably didn't cover that either, so probably my bad. It means more that you sell off your older good players to get the seedlings that will sprout later. Cain at that point was not a vet, he was one of the sprouts, though a plenty heavy and ready to sprout sprout. Kind of like how Beane sold off Haren, though different circumstance because he had to sell off Haren because his farm system was barren.
Honestly, I did not get the Latos trade. He has been a pretty good pitcher for them, and a popular player, only two years of experience. They did get a great package of prospects in return, though, so perhaps that was it, plus the old saying about pitchers are fragile and they picked up Volquez (a reclamation project), Alonso (according to Fangraphs, average player), Grandal (hot catcher prospect). Never heard of Boxburger, but looks like he will fit right in with their bullpen some day.
OK, I can see the move because they picked up a lot of potentially useful pieces at a number of positions, particularly C and 1B, which enabled them to trade Rizzo for a wild reliever and a hot CF prospect, but still far down. And they still have Kyle Blanks around too.
Still, to my point, which I have to note, you need great pitching to win in the playoffs. Volquez not really doing it, and you have to applaud the Rangers for robbing Cincy with that trade, getting Hamilton out of it. But Volquez has had only one healthy year ever as a major leaguer. But if you are as barren as the Padres are in the farm system before, I guess like the A's you have to trade your most valuable piece, when you can get help at so many different positions. Still, I'm not aware of them having many hotshot pitching prospects, so I have to wonder 1) do they know something negative about Latos that nobody else knows, and 2) do they think he might not last to the next competitive period?
About worse period, really, could Zito and Rowand been that much worse than whoever they could have picked up for much less in that period? Zito was as bad as any team's rotating band of 5th starters, and Rowand while OK his first season, was anything but after that, partly due to injuries, but ultimately, his baseball card numbers were really bad, I can't imagine many cheapo CF we couldn't have gotten to deliver similarly bad numbers.
Jumping up to your draft chat, Shankbone, yeah, there are plenty of teams who fumbled away their bounty of high top draft picks: KC, Pitts, Balt.
DeleteI think it is unfair to count the Giants without the pitching, their focus has been on pitching (vast majority of first round picks in pre-Barr Sabean-era were for pitchers; more pitchers than position drafted every year). And that, I believe, is the right way to draft and to run a team.
Again, Sabean cut his teeth as a scout, and what scout doesn't love draft picks?
About the choice made to punt and get Tucker, yes, I totally agree, that is why I immediately wrote an article asking for a change in ownership, Sabean should not be put in the position to do that over a few measly millions, the ownership should have ponied up some money instead of closing the purse strings. If not, they should not be in this business. It should have been a no-brainer to use the Maddux money early to sign other players (like Vlad, though I read rumors that the Giants were afraid of his back problem, which was very severe just the year before, which probably scared off some teams, including the Giants).
I think the question answers itself: if he had his druthers, perfect world, would Sabean want Vlad on his team? Yes, of course. But the payroll constraints that ownership put on him prevented him from trying to think out of the box about how to sign Vlad, as Sabean had been talking about finding a successor to Bonds, and who better as successor, but the ownership could not wrap their heads about the big picture and chose to not release the money.
Yes, he looks bad compared to those players, but as 91 wins perhaps attest, we didn't need that type of player, we just needed a very mediocre complementary player, which at $1.5M was very economical. Sure, I would rather have Burks, but that wasn't an option on the free agent market. We needed OK/so-so in the $1.5M range and he fit the bill.
Our ship would have been sunk if we relied on Hammonds, he got injured and disappeared, it would not have been a mid-season trade it would have been an April/May trade, if I remember right, which means we would have seen Torcato or Linden out there instead until the trade deadline, and we would have had to pay an arm and a leg to get anything, probably, because all the other teams knew we needed a RF badly.
About compensation picks, my draft results show why such a strategy doesn't really work unless your guy really is good at picking good players in the draft. The odds suggest that you will find 1 good player every 15-20 supplemental first round draft picks. Yeah, the odds are that low, that bad. So even if you somehow work our mid-season trades and pick up, say, 5-6 picks EVERY season, it would take three years of such picks to find a good player.
DeleteWhen you are picking that far back, it is like trying to watching grass grow, progress in terms of good players will seem glacially slow. Even if you follow the Giants method of focusing first picks on pitchers and loading up mostly on pitching throughout the draft. The draft, unless you can somehow show skill in it, is much like throwing jell-o on the wall and hoping something sticks.
That is why I recommend trading off talent for prospects that will hopefully develop into the good players you need in your next competitive era, but to your point about Latos, keeping talent that could still help out later, if you think he's good enough to last that long.
The basic idea is that you want to lose and lose big, and you can do that and still keep your young stud players while trading away your grizzled and not so grizzled vets. To me, it is all very open to how they evaluate the young players in terms of how good they are, how long you think they will be, and so forth, lots of factors, not an automatic "For Sale" sign on these young players. As long as the team is losing a lot, the plan works.
Heck, you could guarantee it, hire Jose Canseco back as a starting pitcher, it would be putrid enough to counter any good your young guy does. :^)
DrB, I just reread my comments. I don't think I said anywhere that you were doubting my study, I was just trying to make my points. Sorry if I somehow said that I was doubting, but I wasn't trying to say it, nor do I think I did.
Delete"As much ridicule as Sabes has taken about hating young players, the draft and player development, he and Tidrow did a good job finding pitching and now John Barr has taken it to another level. I just think the Giants have a track record in the draft that is better than the average team out there so the percentages you found in your very valid research don't necessarily apply to the Giants."
Great statement capturing the Giants player development. Right now, yeah, with Barr in there, I would want to keep the picks for sure.
Prior to Barr, well, that's where I shoot myself in the foot all the time. I'm the messenger trying to explain the business decision made. I'm not saying that punting a pick to sign Tucker is the best move to make. What I've been trying to say, if I could spit it out, is that given the circumstances, it was a legitimate business decision, as legit as keeping the pick and taking your chances. It is all a matter of tolerance for business risks.
For me, it is more complex than that as to what the best move to make was. I would have not forced Sabean into that position in the first place. My first priority would have been figuring out how to get Sabean the money to sign Vlad. So Tucker and punting would not even be in any of my conversations.
Heck, I wouldn't have forced Sabean to have to trade Russ Ortiz the year before just to save money. You shouldn't be in the sports ownership business if you are unable to put in an extra 5-10% on your investment at key times in your franchise history to tide the team over until the cash flow stabilizes.
Sabean should not have been having to make decisions like that which hurts our BASEBALL franchise, for as much as it is a business, I think it has transcended that level of mundaneness in our society, it is as much about baseball as it is about being a business, that is, if you are to be a good sports owner. Unfortunately, there are a not of sports owners who do not get that.
And lastly, to try to show what I'm trying to get at, my point is not that Ainsworth and Williams weren't nice to have, the point is that both ended up a failure as a pick, that is what my draft study is about, not whether a player might have been nice. It is not like love where it is better to have love and lost than to have never have loved. A failure is a failure, in terms of evaluating how well your drafts went.
DeleteSabean started out as scouting director in 1993. I've been willing to cut him slack when I discuss his history, because I feel that he probably didn't have the scouts he wanted or trusted in place for a long while across the whole system. But history is history so here is what he's done:
1993: Steve Soderstrom
1994: Dante Power
1995: joe Fontenot
1996: Matt White
1997: Jason Grilli
1998: Tony Torcato, Nate Bump, Arturo McDowell
1999: Kurt Ainsworth
2000: Boof Bonson
2001: Brad Hennessey, Noah Lowry
2002: Matt Cain
2003: David Aardsma
2007: Madison Bumgarner, Tim Alderson, Wendell Fairley
2008: Buster Posey
2009: Zack Wheeler
2010: Gary Brown
2011: Joe Panik
Looking it at tiers (1-5, 6-20, 21-30), here is his success rate:
1-5: 1 for 2 (Posey and Grilli), which is about as expected
6-20: 3 for 6 (I'm counting Wheeler as a hit, but if not 2 for 6 is about right)
21-30: 3 for 13 (I'm counting Panik, Brown and Cain as hits; not counting Lowry)
Again, we are talking 21-30 in our talk about Tucker. If Brown and Panik do develop as hoped, that's a great success rate, like we were drafting 10 spots ahead. Makes me excited to see who we draft this season, I think we are 19th. But prior to Brown, the Giants were 1 for 11, which is roughly right around average (20-25% is the range for 6-20, so 1-2 successes out of 6 picks is about right, but not excessively unlikely to have 3 for 6.
Oh, and if you count the little above for 6-20 vs. the little below for 21-30 (pre-Barr), I would call that a push, nobody is ever average, you will be better in some, worse in others, and it should come out in the wash.
DeleteIf I go by averages, and calc the expected overall number of good players picked, for the 19 picks pre-Barr, the Giants were expected to find 3.43 good players on average, so the 5 they found is slightly above, and if Wheeler ends up not being a good player, that's only 4 and right on target for the expected 3.43 good players.
Shankbone, I went through the 2005 draft. I discussed how while it was great for the teams drafting 1-12, it wasn't so good for anyone after 12 (that was my Red Sox analysis). We can't miss something that wasn't available to us, as our pick was 22nd.
DeleteFrom pick 13-131, the pick just before the Giants selected Copeland, there were 119 picks and maybe 11 players who I would call good so far. And only 4 are above 10 WAR, and one (Buchholz) close at 8.9, so there is plenty of time for the rest or even any of these to flame out before my 18.0 WAR mark. That's actually pretty good for that range of picks (expected number to be good is probably around 2-4), and still the success rate is horrible.
I liked Dustin Mohr too, I wanted to see more of him that season and thought he might take off with Colorado after us, but maybe the Giants knew what they got. Maybe Felipe managed to use him where he was more likely to succeed and got the most out of him.
Yes, turnover is crazy after 8 years, but that's the baseball team life-cycle, a generation is really short, maybe 4-7 years, then you got the next batch of babies coming in while some of the vets move on. That's why - and I know we all here know this - this period is so critical for the future, we need to keep the good young players around for a bit longer and sign them to long term deals.
Plus there was the added factor that 8 years ago was a very veteran team ready to retire within the next 3 years, let alone 8 years, that REALLY helped with the change. :^)
OK this is why you don't poke the bear with a stick.
DeleteI think I have a different standard for success than you. I'm not looking for a home run with the pick, a useful piece is quite enough. A good example is Brian Wilson, still pitching and holding onto a measly 6.4 WAR. 2004-5 are recent enough players still have a chance to develop. The Giants famously have Wilson/Sanchez/Romo in the 20s in consecutive years 03-05 even while punting.
Sabean brought Tidrow over from the Yankees as soon as he could be released from his contract, which was in 1994. Tidrow was the head scout for the American League his first two years, then special assistant to the GM in 96, director of player personal in 97 along with Sabean's GM bump. These 2 have effectively been running the draft until Barr came in 4 years ago.
They have had busts and late round successes, just like everybody else. Its not as bad as people say because of the pitchers. They were not able to be successful with hitting prospects to great frustration. Sabean was also able to trade off 1st round picks at the beginning of his GM tenure for very useful ballplayers. Which opens up another can of worms that should stay shut right now.
As I have repeatedly said, you have to be in it to win it. Purposely punting those draft picks, no matter who is ultimately responsible, is a losing strategy. As a one time thing, for the right player, I consider it acceptable. As a repeated offense as it was, it was a bad mistake that has cost the franchise rebuilding time.
There's a lot of other subjects going on, I think it got too cluttered. I gotta step away from the keyboard.
OGC,
DeleteI understand the business decision perfectly. I STILL wouldn't do it. I guess my intrigue with prospects and the draft is so strong I always think there might be the next, well, Matt Cain waiting under the Christmas Tree. It is, after all, Christmas in June and who wants to ruin Christmas. Seriously though, I'd take 1 Matt Cain over 25 Michael Tuckers any day.
I just believe that by punting the pick, the Giants cheated themselves out of an opportunity to draft that year's Matt Cain, whoever he was. I also believe that if they were going to dump the pick no matter what, Michael Tucker was not the right guy. I believe he was not scouted carefully enough and there was a failure by the Giants to realize just how crippling his inability to hit the changeup was. Combine that with declining athletic skills and it was really a pretty bad decision.
Yeah, Sabes has made mistakes. I've always said that. I was ready for him to be fired after the draft pick punt fiasco too. Like Shankbone, though, I believe he has redeemed himself by drafting and developing one of the best cores of young homegrown players in baseball and now has the Giants as well positioned for the future as any team in baseball.
BTW, it was nice to see confirmed on Fangraphs that the Giants have done exceptionally well at drafting since 2002. Just think how much better it that record might be if they had first round picks in 2004 and 2005!
OK, that would explain differences. My draft study focused mainly on finding the good players who would lead your team to their next peak. I admit I did not do much with the useful players like Wilson, and honestly, don't have the stats chops to try to work through a Good/Useful/Nothing type of three-headed analysis. If someone has a suggestion, I'm all ears.
DeleteThough I would note that his 6.4 WAR is just so far in his career, I'm talking more players who have finished their careers when I'm talking 18.0 WAR. That's why when I discussed the 2005 draft, I talked about the range of potentially good players. Wilson would reach the good status with continued good performances as closer for us.
Thanks for the history on Tidrow. I was not aware he was with the Giants that long, I was wondering how he ended up with the player personnel job.
Your point about late draft finds that the Giants had is something I've always wanted to analyze but 1) don't have access to the data, and 2) even if I had the data, I probably would need a high-end statistical package to do the analysis properly, and it would probably take me forever if I did it by hand, which is what I did for my other draft analysis and been trying to do with my update (which I'm still working on...).
The way I see it, the difficulties with hitters related to the Giants was more related to their focus on pitching with their higher picks, particularly their first round picks. The odds of finding a player with those lousier picks is just sooo low, that it is hard to discern whether the Giants were just bad or just unlucky with those latter picks at position players.
OGC:
DeleteIf you look at your list of 1st round picks from 1993 to 2011, the conclusion one would draw on whether one should punt draft picks based on the success rate pre-2002 and post 2002 would be polar opposites. Just sayin...
Well, just noting that you cannot count the Lincecum, Bumgarner, Posey, and Wheeler picks because you could not punt those picks.
DeleteTaking that into consideration, we have Cain, Aardsma, Alderson, Fairley, Brown and Panik. While I like that list right now, there are still question marks on both Browna and Panik, so really that is one (Cain) out of four that worked out, which is within the randomness that a low success rate could result.
And that is one of my key points, the success rate is so low that unless someone is successful basically every year, it will take many years to statistically significantly say that a the guy running the draft is good or bad. At the 11% success rate I found for picks when a team is a contender (picks 21-30), randomness at that rate still results in a GM with a average success rate one third of the time with no good players selected. Or said better, an average picker would still end up with zero good players selected in 10 years of draft one third of the time, just due to randomness.
So you cannot really tell whether pre-2001 was any better or worse than 2002 and beyond, because in a large percentage of times, an average picker could end up with either sequence, I believe.
Given the lack of available talent, as I showed for 2005, the Giants most likely would not have added much, if any (and could have ended up losing some if they picked the negative WAR), had they the picks in 2005 and most probably for 2004, there is rarely a preponderance of talent at those picks.
DeleteAnd back to anonymous, I think (and I think DrB and others have noted) that the better inflection point would be John Barr, as with Barr the picks have been Posey, Wheeler, Brown, and Panik. Heck, I probably liked a number of Barr's later picks more than some of first round picks pre-Barr, Susac, Osich, Oropesa, Crawford, Kieschnick, Parker.
I really like the change in strategy, going for top hitters in their leagues like Brown and Panik, prior first round talents who fell due to a bad junior year or an injury that year, like Susac, Osich, Crawford, Parker, Bochy, and picking up some nice high schoolers like Charles Jones, Crick, Blackburn.
Still too soon to really say definitively, as there is things that could still go wrong with Brown or Panik, but overall I feel very good about this picks and clearly DrB has made that clear as well (Shankbone and others too). I expect them to develop, but you never know, top prospects flop all the time.
OGC - lets revisit this some other time. I disagree strongly with the notion you can sit out drafts because of the statistical chances of success. Not having a pick til the 132nd player is on the clock is a terrible way to do business. While I can understand the business side of the Tucker decision, as a baseball move it made no sense to me, and as DrB pointed out was a big time failure of advanced scouting. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, but I do enjoy discussing it with you, even if we are at loggerheads.
DeleteI'll side with Shankbone on this one. I know what the statistics show. On the other hand, teams that either a. punt draft picks or b. make bad draft decisions year in and year out almost invariably end up as very bad teams or spending a whole lot of money to sign FA's.
DeleteGiants draft picks prior to 2002 may not have turned out all that great, but at least they had the players who Sabes used as trade bait to get some pretty darn good players.
Intentionally punting draft picks is not a good business model. If you have that little faith in your ability to draft a good player, you need to get yourself a new scouting director.
There was an article on Fangraphs this week looking at what teams have gotten the most and least WAR value out of the draft since 2002. With few exceptions, the teams at the top of that list(Giants were #2), are good teams and teams at the bottom of the list(Seattle and Houston) are some of the worst. The draft is not a crapshoot and teams who do it better have a huge advantage. It may not seem like much when looking at one individual draft, but if out of 50 players drafted, one team is able to, on average, get one more good player out of each draft than the competition, that is a huge, huge advantage because it means you have one extra cost-controlled player coming onto the roster every year.
BTW, MLBTR had a blurb on what teams have $$$$ commitment into the future. The Giants are one of 9 teams with $0 committed for 2015 and beyond. Of course that could change if they get Cainer extended by opening day. I think we are all hoping for that.
Deep sleepers: the other Lawrie. Jed Lawrie might stay healthy, you never know. Guy has a lot of talent.
ReplyDeleteIf Lillibridge was only a fantasy defensive guy he'd be gold, that guy makes some nice fielding plays and covers ground.
The Royals are a very good place to go for sleepers - Alex Gordon might get too much hype this year, but he was solid value last year. I like Escobar a lot. I'd say if he falls a good amount, Johnny Sanchez could be a pretty good sleeper, if you want to chase K's and don't mind the hit to your WHIP.
4th OF, Fukudome moving to Cellular Field might help his numbers. They're going to be pretty bad this year, but he should get a park adjusted bump.
The Mets are taking a page from Sabean and inviting Scott Kazmir to throw.
Ah, sleepers!
ReplyDeleteSweet memories of my keeper league, may it rest in peace. I had picked up Lillibridge in a trade and was going to pick Lonnie Chisenhall in the draft until the guy before me took him. I was so mad.
Lorenzo Cain could be worth a late round pick. Salvador Perez, Mike Karp, and Matt Joyce are all guys I am targeting late as well. For pitchers I like Vance Worley, Jarrod Parker, Aroldis Chapman may start, Julio Teheran, and Alexei Ogando.
ReplyDeleteGreat article over at SFGiants site by Chris Haft on ex-Giants scout George Genovese. What fascinates me is his track record.
ReplyDeleteIn 30 years Genovese signed 40 players who proceeded to the Major Leagues. The list includes; Gary Matthews, Jack Clack, Bobby Bonds, Garry Maddox, George Foster, Jim Barr, Chile Davis, Rob Deer, Eric King, Dave Kingman, Matt Nokes, Randy Mofitt, Matt Williams. Studs. Not a sleeper among them!
The point is one scout did this. One scout! So OGC a little challenge to you. How does your draft analysis account for this. 30 years and 40 MLB players signed, many WAR studs. By one scout. What are the odds? Including that he had to bang heads with the Giants Brass just to get his picks selected and signed.
I think this points out the quality difference that a good or great baseball people can make above the average. I love his old school quote, "When I would talk to a boy, I could tell whether he really, really wanted to be a ballplayer," Genovese said. I think the odds just might be in the Giants favor with the scouting and development team they have in place today. It would be great to see them continue a 30-year run of picks like Genovese's.
Now what the Giants management did with all that talent is another story.
Great point. Loved that article. Lots of Giants history.
DeleteMonterray Shark, Great Article.. I've read in the past about what a great scout George Geneovese was. The players posted would be a great list by itself. Especially painful they got rid of the 1st 5 players on your list. The Giants have done a great job with scouting and player development over the past 5 years. A big reason is that they hired a good baseball man, who was inducted into the Scouts Hall of Fame, to be their scouting director John Barr.. He was responsible for signing players like Mike Mussina, Ben McDonald, Russell Martin, I remember reading that one reason he took the scouting director job with the Giants was having the opportunity to draft Buster Posey.. That says alot about what a great scout John Barr is..
DeleteLG
Honestly, to me, it's related and yet different.
DeleteWhat I feel my study shows is that talent in baseball is very hard to recognize, and even harder to develop. Even the top picks fail at a rate that is astonishing to me, over 50% of even the first pick overall fail to become a good player (though many do end up useful players). My study also shows that there are not a lot of draftees that become good players, but I did not really go into whether there was anyone who was particularly gifted in selecting prospects in a draft long term. In any case, the data is not there for me to dig down that deeply, there is no resource that I can easily analyze which scout signed whom.
Honestly, I believe that there are scouts who are that good. From what I read, Carl Hubbell was that good for the Giants in his years working for us in the front office. And in baseball, because the distribution of good players is so sparse, it is probably hard to ID a good scout because the average success rate is probably so low that it would take a lifetime of achievement, like Genovese, to see that.
To be clear, I'm not like most statheads. I believe in the human spirit, I think that there are clutch hitters just like I believe that there are pitchers who can control the way batters hit their pitches (though that is more easily proven statistically than clutch hitting, which finally was recognized in Tango et al's The Book).
I straddle the line between cold/hard facts and touchy-feely. That is the ying and yang of my life, actually I should use that symbol, because that represents a lot in my life, extremes, contradictions (I feel like I have the soul of an artist, in fact, a co-worker noted that most people who get car sick like me are usually artistically bent and I love music in particular, but math was my love in school and I work as a number crunching analyst in real life, and I love doing that and I love business, and all the strategy that goes into that).
I actually had the idea many years back to analyze scout signings via the Giants media book that I buy every year, which lists the scouts who signed the prospect. I asked someone on-line whether that would make sense (probably Steve Shelby, not sure who else I would respect who I would feel comfortable asking that), and the reply, and my memory is fuzzy here, was roughly that the scout signing the guy is part of the decision making process, where the input of a lot of people goes into the selection of that prospects, and thus it is hard to say that the scout gets all the credit for any particular signing.
DeleteBut Genovese is a great example, because it can't be all luck that he's scouted and found all these good players over the years.
Now, I would also note that draft position is a huge factor in any analysis, so I have to take Matt Williams off the list as a possible outlier, if I were to do the analysis. But I don't think all the others are first rounders, let alone top picks like Matty.
I would also note that there are also a lot of players on your list that are Giants fan favorites but general baseball fans would go "who?". We would need a more objective measure of what constitutes a good player (for my updated draft study, I am probably going with 18.0 WAR, partly because I find that level to keep out most players who in my mind are nice but not good players, partly because Dave Kingman (who, BTW, I loved when he first came up, he was my first phenom crush) is just short of that, and I just could not rate him as a good player, he had the makings of a power/speed/average guy, and he degenerated into a power or nothing hitter. If my memory is right, he's at 17.9 or something like that.
Also, Baseball-Reference defined average as 2.0 WAR in their tables (and most methodology use that mark, just wanted to confirm that for the reader not as familiar), so 6 years (I think a good player should be good at least as many years as a player needs to put in before he can become a free agent) at 2.5 WAR (or above average) is 18 WAR, so that worked out fine for me as the dividing line, though there are plenty of players putting in 9 years at 2.0 WAR, as I value longevity too. But you got to draw the line in the sand somewhere.
Furthermore, DrB and Shankbone can correct me, but looking at the names, it looks like Genovese's territory was Southern California or more accurately the Southwest, since I know Matty grew up in Las Vegas, NV, and it is my understanding that SoCal is considered a hot bed for prospects, that there are a lot more good players coming out of that region than other regions. So it could be that he's as successful as anybody else in IDing a good player, but because he's in the pond with more good fish in it, he will catch more than a scout, say, who gets Idaho/Montana/Dakotas as his territory.
So there are a lot of factors in considering whether Genovese is good or not. Sometimes when you work long enough (have not read the article) and got a good situation (Socal), you will have a long list of successes. And, not all the names listed were studs, while I liked Jim Barr a lot and he set that flukey record for most consecutive batters retired, he was not a stud, he was a nice pitcher to have, but not a stud. Nokes too, and I would argue also that Matthews, Maddox, Davis, Deer, King, Kingman, Moffitt would not be considered studs by most knowledgeable fans of their eras. Nice players to be sure, perhaps good, but not studs.
Ah, just read the article. Gets to my point about human evaluation. He could talk with a boy and know whether he really wanted to be a ballplayer or not. I think Pete Rose is the best example of a player who made the most of his limited abilities, and he really wanted it.
DeleteI think that applies to almost any profession, there will be those who are consumed to be in that profession, and thus put in the hours necessary to develop and advance. It would not be a chore to him/her, it would be fun not drudgery. Of course, there will be those who have Tiger Moms who force them to essentially slave and learn a skill, and those who have so much talent that they don't have to work too hard, but I truly believe that if someone has even a modicum of skill in any area but matches it up with that strong determination to be in that field, they can do it, they can succeed.
I've said this before at some point, I wish that the Giants could somehow get all their scouts to learn to be like this, to be able to read any boy they are thinking of drafting, to see where his heart is. I think that is where baseball has been failing to locate, but which has a strong affect on whether a player makes it or not.
I think the point about Genovese is that even though the overall success rate of certain draft positions is low throughout baseball, as your study showed, it might not be true if your team is better at scouting than the average team.
DeleteWhat fascinates me is the human/organizational variable which Genovese, one scout, demonstrated over his 30 years. 40 MLB players in 30 years, with at least 10 WAR studs mixed in, is far above OGC's study where an average is 1 good player for every 15-20 supp picks. Not doubting your study and facts OGC. I am just stunned how much difference the human/organizational variable can make.
ReplyDeleteIt would seen to point out that who you hire in the scouting/drafting/player development arena is the single most critical investment point for MLB player and team building success. Yes billionaire $$$ can make a difference, but it can also make you stupid.
The Giants seem to have achieved a well above average scouting/drafting/player development group right now. Very impressive and it sure beats watching the barren pick years.
Right? I totally agree, why teams don't spend more on the scouting and development side, I don't know, other than they are being cheap.
DeleteFor example, the KC baseball academy worked out pretty well for the Royals, as that produced George Brett, if I remember right, but with Wal-Mart's founder's children running the show in KC, you can't help but think that they are cutting corners somewhere. You can do that in a retail store setting, but you can't do that in a professional sports team setting.