Drafting Philosophy Thread

[logan82]

I disagree. We picked up 3-4 high upside guys just last year. I do agree you should pick for upside not high floor.

[LouisEly]

Let's not confuse "high upside" with "high school". They are not mutually inclusive.

 

For all the praise the Cubs have been getting for building a farm system, their first seven picks in 2013 were all four-year college players (Kris Bryant, you could say, is doing alright). Their first three picks in 2014 were four-year college players.

 

For all the criticism the Brewers have gotten from their 2009 and 2011 drafts, the Cubs first two picks from 2010 are both out of baseball (as well as their fourth round pick). Their first two picks from 2009 have a career OPS+ of 71 and 80. Other than Javier Baez in 2011, their 2009-2011 drafts read much more of a "who?" than a "Who's who". Nelson, Thornburg, Davis, Gennett, Fiers, Rogers (and still potentially Rivera, Hall, Cravy, Jungmann, Lopez, and Strong) are a lot more than what the Cubs got from 2009-2011.

[TheCrew07]

You left out the most relevant portion of the discussion, the draft position.

 

You can get impact college talent in the first 10 rounds, but it's tough to get All-Star type college players after the first 10 spots, of course there are exceptions in the middle of the first round like Weaver, however I will never go to either extreme to prove a point or build a philosophy.

 

The reason there is so much talk about drafting HS kids with high upside is based almost entirely on where Brewers are drafting and the type of talent which is available in that position. Last year I wanted Holmes (HS) or Newcomb (4yr), I would have been fine with either choice. My issue is picking players with limited ceilings in the first round; the Brewers have been drafting far too many guys who profile like 3s and not enough pitchers with legitimate top of the rotation upside. I want 2-3 each of hitters and pitchers with significant upside, 4-6 players per draft who we can dream on from a talent perspective, but I also want to go after Taylor Williams, Tyler Wagner, and Khris Davis types as well. I don't see why it has to be one or the other, but to get talent you usually have to draft it early unless your scouts are good at mining relatively unknown talent.

 

The Brewers really haven't had much success with HS talent past the 2nd round, Scooter Gennett has been the notable exception to this point. Also, since the Brewers don't have of the scouting and development precision of a team like the Giants for example, I'd like them to cast a wider net and try mitigate what they lack in scouting exactness by bringing in a greater quantity of high upside players. Obviously that plan can backfire too as it is still reliant on the same scouts to identify talent, but the Rays have made good use of that concept over the years.

 

If we were like the Giants and had Cain (HS 2002), Lincecum (4yr 2006), Bumgarner (HS 2007), Wheeler (HS 2009), Crick (HS 2011), and Beede (4yr 2014) in the first round I might feel differently. They've only missed on 2 pitchers they've taken in the first round since Cain in 2002; Whitaker (HS 2003), and Stratton (4yr 2012). It might be premature to call Stratton a bust and Crick may ultimately end up in the BP, but that's still a pretty awesome job in the 1st round. While I didn't like Beede for the Brewers on draft day, there is no better organization when it comes to reigning in spotty control than the Giants, he's in the perfect organization for him and it wouldn't surprise me if he emerged as a top of the rotation guy down the road as well.

[reillymcshane]

You left out the most relevant portion of the discussion, the draft position.

 

You can get impact college talent in the first 10 rounds, but it's tough to get All-Star type college players after the first 10 spots, of course there are exceptions in the middle of the first round like Weaver, however I will never go to either extreme to prove a point or build a philosophy.

 

The reason there is so much talk about drafting HS kids with high upside is based almost entirely on where Brewers are drafting and the type of talent which is available in that position. Last year I wanted Holmes (HS) or Newcomb (4yr), I would have been fine with either choice. My issue is picking players with limited ceilings in the first round; the Brewers have been drafting far too many guys who profile like 3s and not enough pitchers with legitimate top of the rotation upside. I want 2-3 each of hitters and pitchers with significant upside, 4-6 players per draft who we can dream on from a talent perspective, but I also want to go after Taylor Williams, Tyler Wagner, and Khris Davis types as well. I don't see why it has to be one or the other, but to get talent you usually have to draft it early unless your scouts are good at mining relatively unknown talent.

 

The Brewers really haven't had much success with HS talent past the 2nd round, Scooter Gennett has been the notable exception to this point. Also, since the Brewers don't have of the scouting and development precision of a team like the Giants for example, I'd like them to cast a wider net and try mitigate what they lack in scouting exactness by bringing in a greater quantity of high upside players. Obviously that plan can backfire too as it is still reliant on the same scouts to identify talent, but the Rays have made good use of that concept over the years.

 

If we were like the Giants and had Cain (HS 2002), Lincecum (4yr 2006), Bumgarner (HS 2007), Wheeler (HS 2009), Crick (HS 2011), and Beede (4yr 2014) in the first round I might feel differently. They've only missed on 2 pitchers they've taken in the first round since Cain in 2002; Whitaker (HS 2003), and Stratton (4yr 2012). It might be premature to call Stratton a bust and Crick may ultimately end up in the BP, but that's still a pretty awesome job in the 1st round. While I didn't like Beede for the Brewers on draft day, there is no better organization when it comes to reigning in spotty control than the Giants, he's in the perfect organization for him and it wouldn't surprise me if he emerged as a top of the rotation guy down the road as well.

Well said. Interesting stuff. Thank you.

[Jenkins5]

You create a draft board of every player you have seen play. Then you sit down with all your scouts and cross checkers and create a list from 1 to however many u think ud like to draft. The order simply goes on who you feel has the most talent to become a star. Position doesn't matter, age doesn't matter, ability to move quick, and etc. That's what Javk Z did so well and where Seid struggled. A lot of Z's guys like Braun, Prince, Rogers, LaPorta, and such were considered reaches a little bit. All his guys, college or high school had extreme ceilings in some aspects of their game. Weeks, Braun, Lawrie were electric all around bats. LaPorta just had pure power. Prince had unbelievable power potential. Rogers had a high ceiling with huge arm that his bad mechanics killed. Jeffress had boom type electric stuff. Mike Jones was well on his way to possibly being an Ace when he was carving through AA hitters at 20 until his arm as well fell off. Add Gallardo and Odorizzis upside.

 

Overall, he just took guys who he felt offered boom or bust potential with at least 1 major tool that stood above the rest. Seid seemed to often play it safer. Looked too much at floor and how advanced they were. He stick pulled our system of older, high floor, limited potential prospects to much.

[LouisEly]

Jack Z. had several things that Seid didn't - five top-10 picks. Take Weeks, Fielder, Rogers, Braun, and LaPorta out of the analysis because Seid never had picks that high. The guys with extreme ceilings in some aspect of their game are gone by the time you get to where Seid was typically drafting. The highest he ever had was #12 (Jungmann, Medieros). Seid did very well with 2nd round picks - I'd put Nelson up with Gallardo, Taylor is one of their top prospects, Lopez is coming around, and Williams and Harrison have high upsides. How Coulter isn't a top 100 prospect after what he did at Wisconsin last year at age 20 I can't figure out.

 

Unfortunately the most talented draft Seid had to work with was 2009 when a lot of people were in new positions because the Brewers scouting staff had been raided by other teams. But if Teixeira has one less hit in 2008, Seid ends up with Trout.

[FVBrewerFan]

This is over-simplifying things, I'll admit, but here's a question I've always had. It seems like almost all front of the rotation starters in MLB have one/both of these things going for them. 1) Have a nasty pitch other than a 4-seam FB and 2) Deceptive delivery- tough to pick up the ball as a hitter.

 

My questions is do our scouts look for this when evaluating pitchers? All I ever see is a rating for each pitch, which doesn't seem to fully capture those two items. There's always a lot of talk about FB speed, control, secondary pitches, etc. Wouldn't you lean towards guys that have a nasty slider, curve, change, etc. even if they don't control it very well? Just seems like control is something that can come along, but difficult to development something nasty. Same with delivery that's hard to pick up the ball, it's an "either you have it or you don't" type of thing.

 

Maybe what I'm asking is this. All else being equal, what is the main thing you look for in a pitcher? The stuff that gets hitters out in HS and college (or even in the minors) won't necessarily get hitters out in MLB. We have seen this over and over with guys that have big FB, but it's straight and they don't have much else to go with it.

 

Same is true with hitters. A lot of guys can hit FB, congratulations. How do you identify guys that can hit all the nasty stuff MLB pitchers can throw? Do you look for a short swing, proper swing plane, or what? It just seems with all the math and science involved these days, it still takes a trained eye to identify true potential?

[TheCrew07]

My questions is do our scouts look for this when evaluating pitchers? All I ever see is a rating for each pitch, which doesn't seem to fully capture those two items. There's always a lot of talk about FB speed, control, secondary pitches, etc. Wouldn't you lean towards guys that have a nasty slider, curve, change, etc. even if they don't control it very well? Just seems like control is something that can come along, but difficult to development something nasty. Same with delivery that's hard to pick up the ball, it's an "either you have it or you don't" type of thing.

 

Maybe what I'm asking is this. All else being equal, what is the main thing you look for in a pitcher? The stuff that gets hitters out in HS and college (or even in the minors) won't necessarily get hitters out in MLB. We have seen this over and over with guys that have big FB, but it's straight and they don't have much else to go with it.

 

That's a pretty in-depth question so I'll answer it as succinctly as I can.

 

I'm not sure what the Brewers look for, in the past it appeared just FB velocity, then it was a body type and a well rounded arsenal, now it appears to be more stuff. The Brewers and I do not see eye to eye when it comes to evaluating pitching, I've liked some of the picks in the past like Arnett, but the more I've learned from working with and teaching in regards to throwing mechanics the farther apart the Brewers and I get so I wouldn't be on board with many of those picks now. I would still be down with picks like Odorizzi and Rogers, I like multi-sport athletes with natural talent who are somewhat malleable. I'm not down with specialization at any level below college for many reasons but most importantly in terms of this discussion the young man has thrown too many pitches, has too much mileage on his arm, and now just wants to do what he's always done, which is why the Brewers let them fail before actually coaching certain aspects of pitching.

 

As to what I look for? All else being equal I want stuff, I want a pitcher to have out pitches, the kind of pitch MLB hitters will regularly swing through. MLB average pitches are more of the "get me over" variety... you can catch a hitter looking for something else and get a strike, but if he's looking for it chances are he's going to make contact. A plus, or plus plus, or wipe out pitch is going to be something like the Ben Sheets hammer curve, or a Randy Johnson slider... a pitch that hitters are rarely going to make contact with. I'm not into allowing hitters to hit foul balls and get another shot, I want them back in the dugout in 4 or fewer pitches.

 

The truth is that all things are rarely equal so my single most important criteria is control, I think a pitcher can learn command. A good study in filth without control from a minor league perspective would be Martin Viramontes, from a MLB standpoint Edwin Jackson. I prefer a clean and simple delivery which allows the pitcher and the ball the easiest path to home plate. Without going into great detail many pitchers, including MLB, have horribly complicated deliveries, which means they are taking the hardest possible path to hitting spots. It's 100 little things like a RHP stepping across their body towards 3rd base, or having way too much trunk rotation so they fall hard towards 1st when they finish, or a lower arm angle, or not firing their hip and elbow at the same time... it's a complicated mesh of geometric planes and physics but the best and most concise way I can put this is that the less body parts you have working together in the same plane, the more your body has to compensate for the extra rotational motion and make adjustments. On top of that most pitchers have a completely different pitching motion and timing out of the stretch, but spend most of their time in the wind-up, so it's no wonder pitching effectiveness goes down with runners on base. It's a less practiced motion with different timing, why should we expect the same proficiency? I often wonder why the wind-up is even a thing...

 

So because most pitchers are set in their ways and basically fight themselves, I want the best athletes possible, because the better athlete you are the easier it is for you to learn a motion and make those 100s of finite adjustments necessary to throw a strike with each pitch with a complicated delivery. For example the T-Rats have a plethora of Latin pitchers this year, all of them have the same basic motion out of the wind-up, and all of them struggle to be consistent even pitch to pitch. The idea in baseball isn't simplicity, it's repetition, so with that in mind I want athletes who can hopefully learn to throw strikes in the 10-15,000 repetitions before they reach MLB. Many of these guys have enough talent they could be something, but because of how they throw the ball they will never throw enough strikes to be successful.

 

The truth is that FB velocity is also important for obvious reasons, but I'm not personally chasing 1st tier velocity in draft picks (95+), I'm happy with 2nd tier guys who work 92-95, I'm not chasing 1s, I'm chasing 2s. An ace would be great but I think you get there by hoping the pitcher will add velocity as he matures.

 

As to the "hides the ball well" delivery, well that's kind of loaded question and depends how it's all put together when he's throwing a ball. Most of those guys load the ball low behind their shoulder (load point being that spot just before the ball is whipped forward) so many will naturally drag their arm, which leads to shoulder and elbow issues down the road. If he's in sync with the hips and arms and leads with his elbow chances are he's going to be alright. That's more of a case by case thing... so I wouldn't want to draft another Inman for example, and these days there's so much video out there is pretty easy for me to eliminate the guys with all that funk which I think is going to cause problems.

[FVBrewerFan]

Thanks Crew, great insight as always

[Crash2303]

Grasping at straws- but I keep thinking of a way to sign these early round late round picks, and I'm sure if Montgomery and crew have drafted them, they're thinking of any way possible too.

 

However, is this at all possible within the rules? to sign them for whatever we can now (I'm guessing 100K to stay under pool penalty) and then have a handshake agreement that next year or somewhere down the line they would renegotiate their contract or give them some sort of extra bonus, or buy them a Ferrari or something?

 

seeing how much college teams get away with, it's surprising to me that more pro teams don't try [under the table stuff] things like that...not saying they should, but just curious if they can...

[narwhalattack]

Grasping at straws- but I keep thinking of a way to sign these early round late round picks, and I'm sure if Montgomery and crew have drafted them, they're thinking of any way possible too.

 

However, is this at all possible within the rules? to sign them for whatever we can now (I'm guessing 100K to stay under pool penalty) and then have a handshake agreement that next year or somewhere down the line they would renegotiate their contract or give them some sort of extra bonus, or buy them a Ferrari or something?

 

seeing how much college teams get away with, it's surprising to me that more pro teams don't try [under the table stuff] things like that...not saying they should, but just curious if they can...

 

I know that for Medeiros the Brewers also guaranteed to pay for his college education. So perhaps that could work on some of the guys?

[logan82]

I think that college education is included in the contract for many HS guys.