2018 Draft Order

[Frayed Knot]

Yes it’s far too early, but discussions of 'all this winning is terrible' are making a comeback so this bears a fresh look.

A couple of things first:
- tanking is really hard in baseball. Really bad teams win 30-some pct of their games which makes it quite unlike the NBA where teams can go years without winning 30% even once.
- how exactly would one go about tanking, especially when you’ve got a team full of guys trying desperately to get jobs next year? Was Taijeron supposed to intentionally whiff last night during his
first, and possibly last, chance in the majors so as to make sure the Mets would lose and possibly gain a slightly/maybe better draft pick? Was Terry supposed to bench deGrom back in August
while subjecting another not ready for prime time pitcher up from Single A as if HE has a stake in next year’s draft pick? Reyes? Cabrera? Aoki? Nimmo/Smith/Rosario?
- and of course you’re competing with all the other teams who are likely to win and lose their share of games down the stretch at random levels as well


BatMags has brought up, at least twice now, that folks are touting next year’s draft as some sort of super group, a claim which I flat out don’t buy. Not saying that he didn’t read that somewhere but
I don’t buy the accuracy of that kind of prediction particularly not five months prior to the college/HS seasons even starting. Think things aren’t going to change between now and then, or that the
true value of that draft is going to be known even five years from now?

And then there’s the idea that there are not only a couple of Darryl Strawberrys available next June (and you can never have too many temperamental alcoholics on your squad) but that you can
proactively identifying which ones those are.
Towards that end I did a bit of research here.
I took eleven years of drafts (2000 - 2010) and picked out the 4th thru 7th picks in those years.
Why those years and why those picks? Because the years are recent enough without being too recent and the Mets are at the moment teetering on the verge of the 5th/6th pick so could conceivably
rise to 4th with a bad final week or drop to around 7th by running the table.

So which picks out of those years fared the best based on cumulative WAR?
By far it was the 7th picks, followed by the 5ths, then the 6ths, and worst of them all, and it wasn’t even close, were the 4th picks

7th picks: Cum WAR = 185.6
led by Kershaw, Tulowitski, Markakis, Fielder, Harvey

5th picks: Cum WAR = 172.6
led by Teixeira, Braun, Posey, Wieters, Pomeranz

6th picks: Cum WAR = 92.7
led by Greinke, Baldelli, Ricky Romero, Andrew Miller, Zack Wheeler

4th picks: Cum WAR = 65.4
Ryan Zimmerman, Gavin Floyd, Jeff Niemann, Tim Stauffer, Brian Matusz



9 of the 44 picks never spent a day in the majors: one 4th pick, three 5th picks, three 6th picks, two 7th picks

Edited September 27, 2017 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

I never said anything about tanking. I'd just rather the Mets lose than win, which I think is indisputably the smarter play, if not the most ethical if the Mets really are considering tanking. I'd rather the Mets draft 4th or 5th instead of 7th or 8th. And what I'm hoping for wouldn't get me on the subway anyways being that I have no control whatsoever over what's gonna happen no matter how many times I roll my forearms Bo-style or whatever other superstitions I drag out in support of the cause. It's not as if the Mets are gonna lose the rest of the way till season's end all because they read my posts.

[Centerfield]

Yes it’s far too early, but discussions of 'all this winning is terrible' are making a comeback so this bears a fresh look. A couple of things first: - tanking is really hard in baseball. Really bad teams win 30-some pct of their games which makes it quite unlike the NBA where teams can go years without reaching that level even once. - how exactly would one go about tanking, especially when you’ve got a team full of guys trying desperately to get jobs next year? Was Taijeron supposed to intentionally whiff last night during his first, and possibly last, chance in the majors so as to make sure the Mets would lose and possibly gain a slightly/maybe better draft pick? Was Terry supposed to bench deGrom back in August while subjecting another not ready for prime time pitcher up from Single A as if HE has a stake in next year’s draft pick? Reyes? Cabrera? Aoki? Nimmo/Smith/Rosario? - and of course you’re competing with all the other teams who are likely to win and lose their share of games down the stretch at random levels as well BatMags has brought up, at least twice now, that folks are touting next year’s draft as some sort of super group, a claim which I flat out don’t buy. Not saying that he didn’t read that somewhere but I don’t buy the accuracy of that kind of prediction particularly not five months prior to the college/HS seasons even starting. Think things aren’t going to change between now and then or that the true value of that draft is going to be known even five years from now? And then there’s the idea that there are not only a couple of Darryl Strawberrys available next June (and you can never have too many temperamental alcoholics on your squad) there’s still the minor problem of identifying which ones those are. Towards that end I did a bit of research here. I took eleven years of drafts (2000 - 2010) and picked out the 4th thru 7th picks in those years. Why those years and why those picks? Because the years are recent enough without being too recent and the Mets are at the moment teetering on the verge of the 5th/6th pick so could conceivably rise to 4th with a bad final week or ‘drop’ to around 7th by running the table. So which picks out of those years based on cumulative WAR? By far it was the 7th picks, followed by the 5ths, then the 6ths, and worst of them all, and it wasn’t even close, were the 4th picks 7th picks: Cum WAR = 185.6 led by Kershaw, Tulowitski, Markakis, Fielder, Harvey 5th picks: Cum WAR = 172.6 led by Teixeira, Braun, Posey, Wieters, Pomeranz 6th picks: Cum WAR = 92.7 led by Greinke, Baldelli, Ricky Romero, Andrew Miller, Zack Wheeler 4th picks: Cum WAR = 65.4 Ryan Zimmerman, Gavin Floyd, Jeff Niemann, Tim Stauffer, Brian Matusz 9 of the 44 picks never spent a day in the majors: one 4th pick, three 5th picks, three 6th picks, two 7th picks

Nice work. Do you have numbers on picks 1, 2, and 3?

I think it bears out what most have been saying. It's better to pick higher (duh) but at the end it may not show any tangible results.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: Do you have numbers on picks 1, 2, and 3?

I didn't, although that stuff is easily findable ... maybe I'll do it later if the game gets dull tonight.
And I suspect those players will be demonstrably better since in those cases where there IS a consensus stud or two (I don't believe there are ever years with four or five) out there -- Harper, ARod,
Griffey, Strasburg -- the #1 or #2 picks that year are generally undisputed and are most certain to eventually pan out.

It's like the link you posted when this topic came up a month or two ago where some guy was making the case for striving for the better draft picks even in baseball. He was citing those rare superstar players
as a way of saying that getting really high picks is better than getting only sort of high - a strategy which works in baseball as well as football or basketball, and, not surprisingly, Grateful Dead concerts.
But it's still not a guarantee as not every year has a Griffey come out and not every Griffey shows his Griffeyness so early: see Trout, Mike - drafted 25th overall on the Angels second pick of the round


Also, in order to secure the #1 pick this season for the next Carlos Correa (assuming one even exists) the 10-15 record the Mets have in September would have had to devolve into 4-21 -- this in a month
where we faced or will face the Reds (x4) the Braves (x7) and the Phillies (x6) -- and that would be just enough to drop us into a tie with the current DFL Giants, and then we'd have to out-suck them over
this final week as well.
That would be almost impossible to do on purpose, maybe even tougher to watch/endure, and you STILL couldn't be sure that all the other sucky teams weren't going to out suck YOU down the stretch and
steal the pick away anyway.

[Edgy MD]

Don't advocate for your team to tank! Advocate for the elimination of the draft and all rewarding-the-loser devices that incentivize tanking!

[Frayed Knot]

OK, here we go: Top seven draft picks across an eleven year span (2000-2010)
Some of the guys picked in these years are still active and therefore could still alter the outcomes somewhat.


1st picks
Cumulative WAR = 224.4 (best of the seven groups)
Players with career negative WAR = 1 (Bryan Bullington - 2002 Pirates - RHP, Ball St U)
Players who failed to reach majors = 0
Players with 10.0 career WAR or greater = 6 (in order from highest to lowest): Mauer, Adrian Gonzalez, Price, J. Upton, Harper, Strasburg
Not so much success for Tim Beckham (4.7 Car WAR) although still just 27 y/o and suddenly seems to be finding himself in his second org. Or for Luke Hochevar (3.1), Delmon Young (2.5),
Matt Bush (2.4 - although at least he finally made it to the show), or Bullington (-1.1)

2nd picks
CUM WAR = 160.0 (4th best of the seven)
Negative WAR = 2
Failed to reach majors = 0
10.0+ WAR = 6: Verlander, A. Gordon, Prior, M. Upton, R. Weeks, Moustakas

3rd picks
CUM WAR = 86.4 (6th)
Negative WAR = 4
Failed to reach majors = 3
10.0 WAR or > = 3: Longoria, Machado, Hosmer
NYM pick = Philip Humber (2004)

4th picks
CUM WAR = 65.4 (7th)
Negative WAR = 1
Failed to reach majors = 1
10.0 WAR or > = 2: Zimmerman, Gavin Floyd

5th picks
CUM WAR = 172.6 (3rd)
Negative WAR = 1
Failed to reach majors = 3
10.0 WAR or > = 5: Teixeira, Braun, Posey, Wieters, Pomeranz

6th picks
CUM WAR = 92.7 (5th)
Negative WAR = 1
Failed to reach majors = 3
10.0 WAR or > = 2: Greinke, Rocco Baldelli

7th picks
CUM WAR = 185.6 (2nd best)
Negative WAR = 1
Failed to reach majors = 2
10.0 WAR or > = 5: Kershaw, Tulowitski, Markakis, Fielder, Harvey
NYM pick = Harvey (2010)


Not that every similarly sized sample would wind up the same way but that's part of the point also.
Would I rather have higher picks than lower ones? Sure, but not at the cost of advocating tanking as a team strategy, nor is there anything here that makes me want to root for failure
down the stretch so as to move up the chain by a slot or three.
And I guess the other lesson is Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be fourth picks.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Guest

[nymr83]

Edgy MD wrote: Don't advocate for your team to tank! Advocate for the elimination of the draft and all rewarding-the-loser devices that incentivize tanking!

I really don't like the draft, especially in baseball. why can't the teams and the union agree to take the same damn spending limits in place now and just use that as an "amateur signing pool" instead? who loses out there?

[Frayed Knot]

The draft slot has been narrowed down to 6th - 8th
There’s no chance of moving up any higher than 6th since, even with Friday night’s 91st loss of the season, there's no way to “catch” SFG (97), DET (97), PHI (95), or CHW (94) and while they
could tie Cincy (93) if we lose out and they win out, I believe the tie-breaker for two teams with the same record is still to revert back to the previous year’s record where the WC Mets finished
well ahead of the Reds, so that’s five teams locked in.
The Mets still could get ‘caught from ahead’ by either SDP (90 losses) or ATL (89) since the same tie-breaker would apply so that could drop them to 7th or 8th.

However it turns out, this will be the 9th time since 1992 that the Mets will have a Top-10 draft pick. Make of the previous bunch what you will.

1992 - 9th - Preston Wilson — SS (at the time anyway) out of HS in SC
1993 - 8th - Kirk Presley — RHP out of HS in Tupelo MS (and, yes, he was supposedly a 3rd cousin to ‘The King’) Pitched parts of five minor league seasons, never rose above low A-Ball
1994 - 1st - Paul Wilson - RHP, Fla St Univ
1997 - 7th - Geoff Goetz — LHP out of HS in Tampa, FL. Dealt less than 1 year after being draft with Preston Wilson to Marlins in the Piazza deal.
Totaled seven minor league plus a couple of Indy Lg seasons, topped out in AA.
2004 - 3rd - Philip Humber — RHP, Rice Univ
2005 - 9th - Mike Pelfrey — RHP, Wichita State Univ
2010 - 7th - Matt Harvey — RHP, UNC
2014 - 10th - Michael Conforto - OF, Oregon St

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

FWIW there was chatter out there recently to the effect of if they could do the 2014 draft all over again knowing what they know now there's an awful good shot that Conforto would be picked 1st. Maybe I saw that here, I forget.

[Frayed Knot]

Don't think it was said here, but I do think there's a decent chance that's true. For sure he'd go higher than 10th.
If you re-do any draft even just one year later there'd be numerous changes in the order. Revisit things three to five years after the fact and there'd be wildly different results.
Now we just have to hope that his shoulder's not permanently crippled.

1 - Astros - Brady Aiken -- LHP / HS. Didn't sign, re-drafted 17th overall the following year
2 - Marlins - Tyler Kolek -- RHP / HS. Missed all of 2016 and most of 2017
3 - White Sox - Carlos Rodon -- LHP / NC St. ML starter
4 - Cubs - Kyle Schwarber -- C/OF / Indiana Univ.
5 - Twins - Nick Gordon -- SS / HS. Brother of Dee, played AA in 2017 but switched off SS to 2B
6 - Mariners - Alex Jackson -- OF / HS. Traded to Braves org, played in A+ & AA in 2017
7 - Phillies - Aaron Nola -- LHP / LSU. ML starter
8 - Rockies - Kyle Freeland -- LHP / U of Evansville. ML starter
9 - Blue Jays - Jeff Hoffman -- RHP / E Car Univ. ML Starter
10 - Mets - Conforto
___________________
13 - Padres - Trae Turner. Starting ML SS but not with his original team
15 - Angels - Season Newcomb. Starting LHP, but not with original team
21 - Indians - Bradley Zimmer. Part-time ML OF, is probably the guy who lost playing time to Jay Bruce after the trade

[bmfc1]

http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/powerrankings/majors/
#6 but a win today and losses by ATL and SD could mess that up.

[Frayed Knot]

I'm pretty sure this will be next year's top ten:

1 - TIGERS
2 - GIANTS
3 - PHILS
4 - WHITE SOX
5 - REDS
6 - METS
7 - PADRES
8 - BRAVES
9 - A's
10 - PIRATES


The Tigers appear to have lost their way into the top slot on the final day while the Giants were busy winning their way out of it.
So maybe Brian Sabean will be the guy who winds up slitting his throat over this, but I tend to doubt it.


oe: I had the Pirates and A's flipped - correct now

Edited October 1, 2017 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

It's a real good thing what the Mets did winning an extra two or three games down the stretch instead of getting to draft 4th next Summer. A real good thing.

[fimg=666:2xv38nfu]https://thefirstward.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/mumy-twilight-zone.jpg[/fimg:2xv38nfu]

[Frayed Knot]

Mets would have needed three extra losses to slip into the 5th slot instead of 6th (go 9-20 in Sept/Oct instead of that torrid 12-17 pace they did set) or four extra (8-21) to nab 4th

[Benjamin Grimm]

The guy who the Mets would have drafted with the 4th pick might still be available to them when they pick 6th.

The guy who gets drafted 6th might turn out to be better than the guy who is drafted 4th.

The guy who gets drafted 4th might be somebody who voted for Jill Stein.

[Vic Sage]

And the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong... but that's the way to bet.
Higher draft choices are better than lower draft choices. It's neither controversial nor complicated.

[Edgy MD]

Sure it is.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Sure it is.

I'd rather draft 4th than 7th*. That's all I was saying and the only thing I could see that's complicated or controversial about that thinking is that you think it's complicated or controversial.

*Especially when there are supposed to be about four no-brainer impact studs in the draft.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Vic Sage wrote: And the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong... but that's the way to bet. Higher draft choices are better than lower draft choices. It's neither controversial nor complicated.

Well, sure, but I also don't think the difference is worth continually lamenting that the Mets went 12-17 over the last month of the season instead of 9-20.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Vic Sage wrote: And the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong... but that's the way to bet. Higher draft choices are better than lower draft choices. It's neither controversial nor complicated. Well, sure, but I also don't think the difference is worth continually lamenting that the Mets went 12-17 over the last month of the season instead of 9-20.

I'd ordinarily agree with you. I usually have zero interest in the MLB draft. I don't give a shit about it and don't follow it. The draftees are too far away from reaching the MLB, if they ever will, and so the value of an MLB pick, I think, is notably less than a comparable pick in other sports. But it's different when the Mets have a chance to draft a special player, which many commentators believe would be available to the first four or five, maybe six teams picking. This draft is supposed to be top heavy loaded.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Sure it is. I'd rather draft 4th than 7th*. That's all I was saying and the only thing I could see that's complicated or controversial about that thinking is that you think it's complicated or controversial.

No, that's not true.

That may be all you're saying now, but the greater context is tanking to improve your draft position, which is certainly and unambiguously complicated and controversial.

Beyond that, nobody has argued as resoundingly as yourself that the draft is a crapshoot. So this root-for-the-Mets-to-lose-and-improve-their-draft-position is a latter-day about-face.

[batmagadanleadoff]

But see .my next post.

[Vic Sage]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Vic Sage wrote: And the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong... but that's the way to bet. Higher draft choices are better than lower draft choices. It's neither controversial nor complicated. Well, sure, but I also don't think the difference is worth continually lamenting that the Mets went 12-17 over the last month of the season instead of 9-20.

oh, i agree. It's silly to "tank" in baseball, where no one draft pick is as likely to impact a franchise as it is in basketball or even football. But once a season is lost and your team is playing for next year, it's more important to give young players playing time, and a chance to develop, and an opportunity to see what you have, than it is to scrape the barrel for every win. In other words, I'd have rather seen more Cecchini and less Reyes coming into September, regardless of their relative performances in that period. We know what Reyes is, at least as in infielder. We don't quite yet know what Cecchini is and whether he figures into the team's future plans. Ditto with Aoki. giving him ABs over anybody else (including seeing if Reyes is good enough in the OF as to make him more desirable as a general utility guy) just to get a marginally better chance to win a game in September is countered by the upside of marginally better draft position and a chance to see what we have for next year.

I don't think its a dire situation, either way. And i don't want players and coaches ever to go through the motions. But i think part of Sandy's thinking in stripping the roster of most of its available veterans was to force Terry into actually playing the kids, which he wasn't going to do unless forced.

[Frayed Knot]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ... But it's different when the Mets have a chance to draft a special player, which many commentators believe would be available to the first four or five, maybe six teams picking. This draft is supposed to be top heavy loaded.

This is at least the third or fourth time you've made reference to this now, what/who are your sources for this?
Now I don't claim any particular expertise in amateur baseball or the draft, but with what little I do know I'd find it stunning if there's anything resembling a consensus among supposed experts that:
1) there are several sure-first studs at the top of the draft that separate the best of this coming year's crop from those the top of any other given year
that such potential team-changing players represent a large gulf in talent between what's available those teams with the first few picks and what's left over for the next few selections
III) that these things are known 8-9 months in advance of the draft and 4-5 months before the HS and college seasons from where these guys will come even begin

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Vic Sage wrote: And the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong... but that's the way to bet. Higher draft choices are better than lower draft choices. It's neither controversial nor complicated. Well, sure, but I also don't think the difference is worth continually lamenting that the Mets went 12-17 over the last month of the season instead of 9-20.

If you're talking about me, I'm not continually lamenting more than youse guys are continually lamenting that it's not worth lamenting over the later rather than earlier Mets draft slot. Youse have me beat with your counter-position laments by a wide margin.

So I don't think it's worth continually lamenting that it's all the same if the Mets pick later instead of earlier, no matter what the value of the pick.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: ... But it's different when the Mets have a chance to draft a special player, which many commentators believe would be available to the first four or five, maybe six teams picking. This draft is supposed to be top heavy loaded. This is at least the third or fourth time you've made reference to this now, what/who are your sources for this?

That bit about the "third or fourth time" is really superfluous, isn't it? Anyways, here ya go:


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/sliding-mets-lose-win-draft-article-1.3482723

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Vic Sage wrote: And the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong... but that's the way to bet. Higher draft choices are better than lower draft choices. It's neither controversial nor complicated. Well, sure, but I also don't think the difference is worth continually lamenting that the Mets went 12-17 over the last month of the season instead of 9-20. If you're talking about me, I'm not continually lamenting more than youse guys are continually lamenting that it's not worth lamenting over the later rather than earlier Mets draft slot. Youse have me beat with your counter-position laments by a wide margin. So I don't think it's worth continually lamenting that it's all the same if the Mets pick later instead of earlier, no matter what the value of the pick.

bump from last post previous page to new thread page

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

FWiW on October 2, Baseball America did a "Mock Draft" of the newly ranked clubs and have the Mets going with South Florida lefty Shane McClanahan. That Seth Beer guy John Harper thinks the Mets should lose on purpose to get isn't even in their projected top 30.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/mlb-mock-draft-2018/#Du2ez65vicrbdX7E.97

[Frayed Knot]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: That bit about the "third or fourth time" is really superfluous, isn't it?

I don't think so. You mentioned multiple times that only reason you were even interested in draft position for the coming year was the supposed make-up of this particular draft, a claim which made
me curious as to the source of your information.

Anyways, here ya go:

Digging around a bit last night, that Jim Callis piece that your linked Harper piece cites was the one example I came up with also where deep draft and 2018 were mentioned.
But Harper seems to be interpretting Callis is a way to fit a predetermined conclusion. Saying there are (right now anyway) a top two isn't the same as saying there's a huge fall-off after them.
Hell, every list has a top two and the one thing we can probably count on is that they'll change over the next eight months.

And by citing 2011 as a comparable draft he cites a year where there decidedly were not a couple outstanding and obvious picks followed by a marked fall-off, and one where the order was not all that
predictive of who the future franchise-type players were going to be.
Not that I wouldn't want Gerritt Cole, Trevor Bauer, or Dylan Bundy (picks 1, 3 & 4), but the picks from second five -- Anthony Rendon, Francisco Lindor, Javier Baez (#s 6, 8 , 9) -- currently look
better than the first five.

And not mentioned by Harper (or Callis for that matter) is that the #2 & 5 picks from that year have yet to see a day in the majors and one of them (#2) almost certainly never will.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, I'm in agreement. John Harper is no expert. Jim Callis doesn't appear to be actually saying what Harper thinks he's saying, or that any of it adds up to anything approaching consensus. Harper is just trying to troll the Mets by mocking past drafts, and encourage them to try to win by losing, like the losers they are.