OnlyBucs

I thought it would be interesting to query the group about the nature of the MLB draft given the discussion in the other thread.



Is the MLB draft a crap shoot? I voted for the 25% figure. Here's how I see it.



1. As Aaron noted in the other thread, MLB teams employ scouts in North America. If they viewed the draft as largely a crap shoot, they'd deploy those scouts to the unemployment line or to international waters. To use a question so often thrown back at people who have been critical of NH: do you think you're smarter than an MLB GM? All 30 of them invest in the draft. My conclusion is that there is something there - a process, a method of evaluation - something that allows some teams and GMs to have more success than others.

2. That being said, a single individual draft can certainly be a crap shoot due to the nature of catastrophic injuries. Or perhaps even - likely not fully known until years later - there just isn't that much talent in the draft (giving a huge potential advantage to those drafting early in the first round).

3. That being said, I believe that over time any issues with injuries (assuming all teams have their players best interest in mind and in general use the same training and wellness techniques) and amount of talent available in a given draft even out.

4. So, over time, the draft is absolutely not a crap shoot IMHO. The MLB draft is likely more of a crap shoot than the NBA draft or NFL draft, with the good news being for MLB teams that a huge miss early in the first round doesn't usually get remembered or hinder the immediate future of the club the way it does in the NBA or NFL.



Also want to throw a link out here that has been posted at Bucs Dugout a couple of times. This is about as complete of analysis of the draft that I've ever seen. It concludes that NH has not done a particularly good job.



https://mlbdraftanalyzer.wordpress.com/

It's not a crapshoot as in "I have no idea how these guys will do." But unlike the NBA and NFL where the top picks go right into the league, even the top MLB picks usually require at least 3 years of additional minor league development. So teams are drafting guys they know cannot contribute at that time but feel with additional seasoning they will be productive. During those minor league years, some players will develop into what the projections were on draft day and some won't. I don't think crapshoot is the right term. But MLB drafting requires not only great scouting but also a crystal ball.

Obviously not an inexact science due to the level of development. Especially compared to other sports. But by no stretch is it a complete crapshoot. Yes, scouts and GM’s are projecting. But there’s skill in doing that. And it appears some are better than others. More importantly, as the sample size grow in numbers of drafts, the proficient GM’s will separate themselves from the average to poor GM’s.

4262716C6D030 wrote: Obviously not an inexact science due to the level of development. Especially compared to other sports. But by no stretch is it a complete crapshoot.  Yes, scouts and GM’s are projecting. But there’s skill in doing that. And it appears some are better than others. More importantly, as the sample size grow in numbers of drafts, the proficient GM’s will separate themselves from the average to poor GM’s.


I put zero as I think a crap shoot is totally random. Drafting relies on scouting and information to reduce the odds which is lot better than blowing on the dice.

I'd love to hear the reasoning behind the zero vote.

505552545C564F525B484E433A0 wrote: I'd love to hear the reasoning behind the zero vote.
it is right above your post.

143233243222510 wrote: Obviously not an inexact science due to the level of development. Especially compared to other sports. But by no stretch is it a complete crapshoot.  Yes, scouts and GM’s are projecting. But there’s skill in doing that. And it appears some are better than others. More importantly, as the sample size grow in numbers of drafts, the proficient GM’s will separate themselves from the average to poor GM’s.


I put zero as I think a crap shoot is totally random.   Drafting relies on scouting and information to reduce the odds which is lot better than blowing on the dice.
If it were Zero then the year's best players would always go top of the class, say top 10 if you're of the opinion that some of the teams are absolute dolts

0E3C30302416353C31343B3C5D0 wrote: Obviously not an inexact science due to the level of development. Especially compared to other sports. But by no stretch is it a complete crapshoot.  Yes, scouts and GM’s are projecting. But there’s skill in doing that. And it appears some are better than others. More importantly, as the sample size grow in numbers of drafts, the proficient GM’s will separate themselves from the average to poor GM’s.


I put zero as I think a crap shoot is totally random.   Drafting relies on scouting and information to reduce the odds which is lot better than blowing on the dice.
If it were Zero then the year's best players would always go top of the class, say top 10 if you're of the opinion that some of the teams are absolute dolts




For the most part the best players do go in the first round, that is why those picked in first round generally have more success than those picked in round 3 or 4.



https://d1baseball.com/analysis/mlb-dra ... 1996-2011/



https://www.fangraphs.com/community/suc ... s-by-slot/



A few things jump out from the chart above. Of the 55 players selected in the top five between 2000 and 2010, 48 reached the major leagues. That seems like a really good rate. Teams were able to more or less successfully identify the best five players available in a given draft. Of course, there’s probably some bias here as teams are more likely to promote players they took at the very top of the draft to save face, even if they might not be perfectly qualified.



The pattern pretty much holds for the rest of the first round too. There’s more uncertainty as you get later and later in the draft but scouts seem to hit more than they miss. That’s a pretty low bar though. You would hope that scouts would be a bit better than 32/55 (58%) on picks 26-30, considering that there are hundreds and hundreds of players chosen.

270100170111620 wrote: I'd love to hear the reasoning behind the zero vote.
it is right above your post.


LOL. I am SO observant. ::)

I think this is hard to answer as a whole. There are 40 rounds (right?) in the draft. After the first few rounds, I feel it is a crap shoot. But I don't think teams can miss in the first round and they should be able to get some pieces in the top ten rounds.



Then there is the fact that some players don't sign. Teams lose that pick that year if a kid goes to college or back for a senior year of college.



Scouting High School kids is a hard task too. The competition level isn't always high. The really good kids on bad teams get pitched around or just dominate on the mound. Are they really that good or are they just facing mediocre talent? There has never been anyone selected from my High School. Only 22 players from the state of PA were drafted in 2017 (one being from a Pittsburgh based High School - #1053 overall).