Right, this is the difference: Option 1: Jason Groome Ronnie Dawson Jake Rogers Brett Adcock Abraham Toro Option 2: Delvin Perez Dakota Hudson Anfernee Grier Alec Hanson Ronnie Dawson It's too early to evaluate that example, but it gives an idea of the different strategies. Fwiw I believe more in Luhnow and Co.'s ability to find value in the 20-60 (hits on Reed, Fisher, Davis; misses on Fontana, Thurman) range than in the top half (hits on Correa, McCullers, Bregman; misses on Appel, Aiken).
Spoiler 15. Mackenzie Gore, LHP, Whiteville HS, Whiteville, North Carolina Previous mocks had the Astros taking A&M RHP Corbin Martin (1st mock) and UH lefty Seth Romero (2nd)
I don't recognize the three guys on your option 2 between perez and dawson but i get the point. Perez is sort of cheating because he was a top 10-15 guy who fell because of mar1juana, PEDs or something. Under your plan how do you propose to get 20-60 range guys when the second and third picks are in the fifties? Try and cut pre-drafts with all those guys? Seems like it'd be tougher to make sure 4 guys dropped below their expected pick range than to get 1 guy to. There's a difference between you and me on what a 'hit' is. I appreciate that Reed, Fisher, and Davis are still prospects/have value and are not flat out busts, but I wouldn't call any of those picks 'hits' yet. None have proven anything at the MLB level. Those three guys from the top half are all MLB players who expected to provide average or better production THIS season; that's a hit.
There's been a few studies on draft pick value. A quick look at one on BtBS. 8-15 pick averages about 5.2 WAR. 30-60 pick averages about 1.4 WAR. Basically, four 30-60 picks would produce about the same WAR. 6 of those guys would be worth 8.4 WAR. However, moving up for the 10th pick woukd still leave Astros with picks, money for 5 60-90 guys. Those guys are worth about 0.9 WAR or 4.5 WAR combined. So 8-15 guy + 5 60-90 guys is worth about 1.3 WAR more than 6 30-60 guys without taking money into account. I thought it would be much worse than that to go for depth in the MLB draft versus moving up in the Top 15.
Signing a top 10 player who slips would probably not leave enough money to sign 5 more guys all in the top 90. It would be more like the 60-150 range. Also, not sure how btbs calculate expected war but if it's a true average that seems like an awful way to project since outliers would distort the numbers. A calculation using a median (or a more complex formula) would be more accurate.
The difference between the 10 and 15 slot value is $0.8m, not really even a big deal deal to worry about. We signed Whitley to an overslot deal last year without much trouble. $0.8 mil spread out over the five guys you want isn't gonna get you significantly better players. Besides, depending on the draft and team preferences the argument can be made that the 20-60 range players (on some arbitrary list) aren't necessarily better or more valued by the Astros than guys who would fall in the 90-150 range on the BA big board. Haven't read the BTBS article but that's probably a historical return on WAR by picks, not a future-looking predictive WAR by pick. But the stats are stats. Anyone interpreting them knows that an average pick WAR of 1.2 is probably 1 guy who had a 5 WAR career and several that had a zero WAR career. I prefer top talents because they are significantly less likely to be zero WAR busts. Whereas if you got 5 guys with average pick WARs of 1.2, you couldn't be surprised if they all busted.
It looks at average. Average is better as the whole goal is to get the outliers. The non-outliers typically suck or don't make the majors. In overly simplistic terms, 5 WAR basically means in draft that a team has about a 1 in 3 chance of finding an outlier. 1.5 WAR is basically 1 in 10 chance. Median values are going to be zero WAR and useless. I should have compared the 10th pick and 4 60-90 versus 5 30-60 as I thought Astros had one more pick in that range for some reason. That would favor moving up more. Xcrunner, It does have the problem that it assumes future drafts more or less follows historical values. Regarding this year, wouldn't expect a drastic change in the skill of scouting and it is likely as reasonable an objective analysis without spending several thousands of dollars in research. Predicting expected WAR is a tricky game. Something simple like this would say
Wouldn't mind seeing Houston stick close to home in the early rounds. Several instate guys on that list that I like: RHP Shane Baz LHP Seth Romero C Evan Skoug C Connor Wong OF Mason House RHP Glen Otto
He's been a massive disappointment for the Frogs this year, he may be around in the 2nd/3rd. No glove, all bat. I really like Romero, if he can keep his act together.
I know Houston owners have a thing about character-issue guys but Romero would be a big upside get at their pick.
Romero is good but he's a big knucklehead. If you're from UH you'll know what I'm talking about. More than meets the eye. I'm actually intrigued by the big Oregon lefty.
One thing that we often forget is that these MLB (and other pro sports as well) draftees are 18-22 years old. Their mature-ness is only about 90% baked
Shane Baz is flying up boards right now. When the draft lists were initially coming out he was considered to be a back-end top 50 prospect but now he's considered to be safely in the top 15-20 prospects and among the top 10 high school draft prospects. He attends the same small high school I graduated from in Tomball just a few years ago so it would be really cool to see the Astros draft him!
