Comments on: A Look Back: The 2003 MLB Draft

By: VolsnCards5

VolsnCards5 — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:01:59 +0000

I’ve started the process of calculating total WAR for drafts. Br’s draft section is not updated to 2010 WAR numbers. I’m pasting out those who did not sign as well.

Agreed on one player dramatically changing how a draft looks. Still want to compare us to other orgs.

By: cariocacardinal

cariocacardinal — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:41:00 +0000

Actually, the root of my question came from thinking about how Barton’s WAR will come from another team (and we didn’t get much WAR out of Mulder) and how Ryan’s might (if it exists). But that got me thinking about what the norm should be in the first place.

By: cariocacardinal

cariocacardinal — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:38:04 +0000

Well, median’s are designed to somewhat negate the affect outliers have on the averages so maybe you should go that way.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:06:26 +0000

I’m afraid I couldn’t disagree more strongly with the common perception of the Pujols drafting as “lucky.”

The Cardinals saw something in Pujols that no one else did. That’s the definition of skill.

The Twins, on the other hand, happened to have the #1 pick when Joe Mauer was available. Therefore, they were lucky to get him.

When the 49ers drafted Joe Mantana in the third round, were they “stupidly risky” for allowing every other team to have multiple shots at him? Of course not. Just as with Pujols, Montana was drafted by a team that was simply smarter than everyone else.

By: cardzfanbub

cardzfanbub — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:45:52 +0000

Perhaps the key is not to look at the draft in its entirety, as probably every year there is a lightning in a bottle type of player, but rather to look at only the first _ (4 or 5?) rounds and then look at players outside of those rounds whose bonus falls in the top ___ (100?) of all bonuses for that draft. If a player doesn’t meet either of these criteria, the pick was probably just a shot in the dark, and any WAR’s accomplished by that player are likely just dumb luck.

P.S. I have no idea if those limitations are too high or not high enough.

By: Hungry Jack

Hungry Jack — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:18:32 +0000

I’m no guru, but I am not as sold on Barton as some. In terms of max upside, he strikes me as the second coming of Lyle Overbay (with better plate discipline). Overbay was a decent player, but his lack of power and a position crimped his value.

By: Gruntosaurus

Gruntosaurus — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:11:49 +0000

IMO, it is still to the team’s credit that they draft guys like Michaels who sign later with someone else; it says they are at least recognizing, and TRYING to acquire, talent. That isn’t a “mistake” as much as it is a recognition that recognizing the talent isn’t the only thing involved in the development process.

By: Gruntosaurus

Gruntosaurus — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:08:59 +0000

Thanks. Very consistent with my reply to CC in #5 above (appropriately enough).

As noted there, I don’t think the 1999 draft WAR says anything about how clever the team was in drafting and developing talent that year, merely that we were unbelievably fortunate — which we all knew already. That is one reason why I prefer to look at the number of guys drafted each year who reach the Show at all. A baseball player skilled enough to reach the majors at even a bare replacement level is better at baseball than most of us will ever be at ANYTHING, a fact we often forget when we look at the Chris Narvesons and John Galls of the world. Recognizing and drafting that talent level is a non-trivial accomplishment, and one that the Cardinals generally outperform other teams in doing — I did look at raw numbers of draftees reaching the bigs, and the Cardinals have been in the upper tier of MLB in that department for quite some time. If some of those guys then turn into superstars, all the better, but there appears to be a significant component of plain dumb luck in that.

By: Lou Schuler

Lou Schuler — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:59:04 +0000

One problem w. using B-R for WAR is that it misattributes a lot of production. You really have to look carefully at each player on each list, which would be a monumental time suck.

For example, it says the Cards have gotten 263.8 total WAR from all active players originally drafted by the org. But it gives the Cards credit for 8.1 WAR for Jason Michaels, who was drafted 4 times before he signed with Philly. The Cards were the 3rd org to draft but fail to sign him.

Mistakes aside, what jumps out at me is the fact that the Cards’ biggest producers from the draft produced almost all their WAR for other orgs, following trades: Drew, Polanco, Haren, Kennedy, Crisp, Jack Wilson …

Of course, some of those trades brought a lot more back in return: Wainwright, Rolen, and Edmonds, for starters. But then you have Wilson for Jason Christiansen, Crisp for Chuck Finley, and Haren for … well, let’s not go there.

By: Gruntosaurus

Gruntosaurus — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:48:27 +0000

I’ve done a bit of looking at this, and while I’m not yet organized enough to put up the results here (VC5 may beat me to it), it has made me somewhat skittish about providing the exact number you are asking for. The problem (#5) is that individual drafts (#5) are strongly biased (#5) by the selection or non-selection (#5) of one individual player (#5) who generates once-a-generation value (#5). Let’s face it: while one may argue that the 1999 draft was unbelievably, unprecedentedly brilliant for landing Pujols in the 13th round, one could also argue that it was unbelievably, stupidly risky for letting other teams have almost 400 shots at him first. In this regard the 95 WAR generated by the Cardinals’ 1999 draft is largely a matter of pure, dumb luck, since almost 80 of those wins were generated by one extraordinary 13th-round choice. (Incidentally, most of the rest come from Coco Crisp.) The Giants’ 1982 and Pirates’ 1985 drafts are even more strongly biased by having included Barry Bonds, looking like massive wins from a WAR perspective even though almost nobody else in those two drafts contributed major-league value at all.

If there’s interest, I’ll try to get the results organized to put up later today, but I suspect there is a better way of doing what you’re looking for than just looking at aggregate WAR.