2014 Draft Discussion

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

And this is why drafting a college bat over one of the pitchers this year just because of TINSTAAPP is idiotic.

 

Why? Because of some pundit rankings?

 

Because the reality is that the college bats, in comparison to most years, suck.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And this is why drafting a college bat over one of the pitchers this year just because of TINSTAAPP is idiotic.

 

Why? Because of some pundit rankings?

 

Because the reality is that the college bats, in comparison to most years, suck.

 

And the reality is that no matter how exciting the pitchers look right now, taking them adds 25% to your bust rate.

[Guest]

Top 5 draftees, 2005-2009

 

16 hitters

Successful: Upton, Gordon, Zimmerman, Braun, Longoria, Wieters, Posey

Failed: Clement, Vitters, Beckham, Tate, Sanchez

Okay/TBA: Alvarez, Hosmer, Ackley, Moustakas

 

9 pitchers

Successful: Price, Strasburg

Failed: Reynolds, Lincoln, Moskos, Hobgood

Okay/TBA: Hochevar, Morrow, Matusz

 

Even being generous to the pitchers and strict on the hitters for those definitions, there's still a pretty clear difference. Price is the only pitcher to crack 10 bWAR drafted in those 5 years, all 7 of the successful hitters have at least 13 bWAR(4 have more than 22 bWAR).

[Guest]

The argument isn't whether to draft a great college bat or a great college pitcher. That's pretty obvious. The choice is to draft an "A" college pitcher or a "B+" bat.

 

That evens those odds out considerably.

 

Even as much a believer of TINSTAAP as I am, I'd still take Rodon over Turner if given the choice.

[Guest]

The earliest that there could actually be a serious conversation about there being no "A" bats(HS or college), is at least 2 months away. The most important season of evaluation for all these prospects is 2 weeks old, if it's even started yet.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

TT is right, of course. It's just hard not to get into it when you have the 4th pick.

[Guest]

The earliest that there could actually be a serious conversation about there being no "A" bats(HS or college), is at least 2 months away. The most important season of evaluation for all these prospects is 2 weeks old, if it's even started yet.

That's understood, but I don't see why you're not willing to even entertain the hypothetical that a draft can set up where it makes more sense to take the pitcher.

[Guest]

The only time I'd strongly lean toward the pitcher that early is a Prior or Strasburg.

[Guest]

The earliest that there could actually be a serious conversation about there being no "A" bats(HS or college), is at least 2 months away. The most important season of evaluation for all these prospects is 2 weeks old, if it's even started yet.

That's understood, but I don't see why you're not willing to even entertain the hypothetical that a draft can set up where it makes more sense to take the pitcher.

 

Because it's an extreme improbability. There are multiple all-star caliber hitters taken in the first round nearly every year. 2006 is the closest I can find to one that doesn't have that, and the pitchers drafted 1,2, and 4 that year didn't crack the top 10 of 1st rounders from that draft.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

Do you take into account at all the Cubs extreme need for a high-level pitching prospect?

[Guest]

Spitballing...how many of the drafted better pitchers in the league were early first round picks? I wonder how that compares to what the ratio is for position players.

[Guest]

Do you take into account at all the Cubs extreme need for a high-level pitching prospect?

 

I don't think "need" matters and I don't think they need to lean one way or the other just because their stable of hitting prospects is more impressive than their pitchers (which are pretty solid).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Do you take into account at all the Cubs extreme need for a high-level pitching prospect?

 

Not until we have 8 elite young position players in the lineup. And probably not even then.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The earliest that there could actually be a serious conversation about there being no "A" bats(HS or college), is at least 2 months away. The most important season of evaluation for all these prospects is 2 weeks old, if it's even started yet.

That's understood, but I don't see why you're not willing to even entertain the hypothetical that a draft can set up where it makes more sense to take the pitcher.

 

I'm not going to say it can't happen, but I will say it'd be pretty rare. Not just "a bit of a down year for college bats and a good year for pitchers."

[Guest]

Do you take into account at all the Cubs extreme need for a high-level pitching prospect?

 

Not for a top 5 pick. I'm not going to be irritated if they pull a 2012 and take a hitter high and then 7 pitchers in the top 10 picks.

[Guest]

Top 5 draftees, 2005-2009

 

16 hitters

Successful: Upton, Gordon, Zimmerman, Braun, Longoria, Wieters, Posey

Failed: Clement, Vitters, Beckham, Tate, Sanchez

Okay/TBA: Alvarez, Hosmer, Ackley, Moustakas

 

9 pitchers

Successful: Price, Strasburg

Failed: Reynolds, Lincoln, Moskos, Hobgood

Okay/TBA: Hochevar, Morrow, Matusz

 

Even being generous to the pitchers and strict on the hitters for those definitions, there's still a pretty clear difference. Price is the only pitcher to crack 10 bWAR drafted in those 5 years, all 7 of the successful hitters have at least 13 bWAR(4 have more than 22 bWAR).

 

To be fair, Tony Sanchez, Brad Lincoln and Daniel Moskos were signability picks who shouldn't have been top 5 picks.

[A New Era]

And this is why drafting a college bat over one of the pitchers this year just because of TINSTAAPP is idiotic.

 

Thankfully there are HS bats who look like they'd be worthy of being selected at 1.4 so college bat vs pitchers is a false choice.

 

Jackson? Oh sorry, I thought you said "bat". Nevermind. Yeah you are probably right. I only focused on college bat because of how good of a pick Bryant was. But you are right though. If our FO doesn't feel Turner or other College Bats or pitchers have that elite upside then going with good scouting on a great HS bat is something I would feel comfortable with, with this front office for sure.

[craig]

The argument isn't whether to draft a great college bat or a great college pitcher. That's pretty obvious. The choice is to draft an "A" college pitcher or a "B+" bat…..

Even as much a believer of TINSTAAP as I am, I'd still take Rodon over Turner if given the choice.

 

1. For those of us fringe posters, TINSTAAP is acronym for what? :) (The idea is obvious from context, I just don't know what the acronym is actually abbreviating! So I'm curious.)

 

2. Has Turner gotten an extra-base hit yet? Any other than ground-ball-down-the-third-base-line types?

 

3. Turner seems very unlike the list of successful players in earlier post ("successful: Upton, Gordon, Zimmerman, Braun, Longoria, Wieters, Posey"), in that they all have serious power. If Turner is a very different player, without one of their most central success factors, I'm not sure how predictive their success ratio is for how he'll turn out.

 

he may be very successful, in a very different way. But their is obviously individuality here. This isn't a typical draft for college hitters.

[jersey cubs fan]

The argument isn't whether to draft a great college bat or a great college pitcher. That's pretty obvious. The choice is to draft an "A" college pitcher or a "B+" bat…..

Even as much a believer of TINSTAAP as I am, I'd still take Rodon over Turner if given the choice.

 

1. For those of us fringe posters, TINSTAAP is acronym for what? :) (The idea is obvious from context, I just don't know what the acronym is actually abbreviating! So I'm curious.)

 

2. Has Turner gotten an extra-base hit yet? Any other than ground-ball-down-the-third-base-line types?

 

3. Turner seems very unlike the list of successful players in earlier post ("successful: Upton, Gordon, Zimmerman, Braun, Longoria, Wieters, Posey"), in that they all have serious power. If Turner is a very different player, without one of their most central success factors, I'm not sure how predictive their success ratio is for how he'll turn out.

 

he may be very successful, in a very different way. But their is obviously individuality here. This isn't a typical draft for college hitters.

 

There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

[imb]

And this is why drafting a college bat over one of the pitchers this year just because of TINSTAAPP is idiotic.

 

Why? Because of some pundit rankings?

 

Because the reality is that the college bats, in comparison to most years, suck.

 

And the reality is that no matter how exciting the pitchers look right now, taking them adds 25% to your bust rate.

 

who gives a [expletive] when the upside is drafting a "batter" who might bust anyway and whose upside is guy with no bat that might not even be a shortstop

[imb]

hell yeah college tim beckham sweet

[Guest]

And this is why drafting a college bat over one of the pitchers this year just because of TINSTAAPP is idiotic.

 

Why? Because of some pundit rankings?

 

Because the reality is that the college bats, in comparison to most years, suck.

 

And the reality is that no matter how exciting the pitchers look right now, taking them adds 25% to your bust rate.

 

who gives a [expletive] when the upside is drafting a "batter" who might bust anyway and whose upside is guy with no bat that might not even be a shortstop

 

Who is that a description of?

[imb]

turner

[Guest]

turner

 

I don't think his upside is a guy with no bat that might not be a SS.

 

In fact, "might not be a SS" isn't even downside from everything I've seen.

[imb]

you mean you havent heard that he might not be a shortstop or you mean that him not being a shortstop isn't a downside? he better be a [expletive] good ss or cf in the field, because his bat is empty