BA Eats Crow on Astros 2008 Draft
by AstroAndy on Jun 13, 2009 1:42 AM CDT
25 comments
Let's see what Baseball America said about Jason Castro, Jordan Lyles, and the Astros' draft in general last year (and yes, I do keep a file where I collect these things):
Kevin Goldstein (12:10:37 PM PT): 10. Astros -- Jason Castro, C, Stanford.
Are you f-ing kidding me? Words can not describe how dumb this is. They just can't. I'm utterly speechless. At least I get to rip Houston's drafts once again. I'm rambling to myslef here it total disbelief.
JOHN MANUEL'S QUICK TAKE (June 5, 2008)
The Astros reached for their first two picks—C Jason Castro was a consensus first-rounder but not a top 10 talent, and RHP Jordan Lyles, while South Carolina's top prep player, was not a consensus supplemental pick.
Jim Callis: Lyles is an example of the adage that it takes just one team to make a guy a sandwich pick. We thought he was going in rounds 6-10 also, and I think we were closer to the consensus than the Astros were. – From Baseball America, June 6, 2008
Callis had a whole other column a month later dedicated to dogging the Astros about Lyles (and a bit about Castro), and to a lesser extent, the Yankees about Jeremy Bleich. He starts by questioning the picks, then details the failures of the 5 picks since 2002 that weren't in their top 200 but were taken in the first or first supplemental round, before concluding with a pre-emptive "told ya so". Here are some of the salient quotes:
We don't get as many first-hand looks at players as the teams do, but we do spend hours upon hours talking to scouting directors, crosscheckers, area scouts and coaches, plus we have additional history (showcases, college performance, summer leagues) to go on. Our Top 200 reflects a consensus of opinion within the industry, and swimming against that tide has been dangerous....
Since we started going 200 deep with our pre-draft rankings in 2002, seven players have become first- or sandwich-rounders after failing to make our list, including Lyles and Stanford lefthander Jeremy Bleich (No. 44, Yankees) this year. The previous five have yet to distinguish themselves....
But if the pitchers don't [work out well], consensus will have been proven more correct than an individual team's conviction yet again.
Not exactly incendiary, but the whole point of the article was to defend BA not putting these guys in their top 200 and to stake out a claim that their analysis is better than that of the scouting crew of the individual teams.
All of this is a prelude to BA's latest Prospect Hot Sheet, where they go over the draft picks from 2008 who are working out well. No Astros picks make the top 15. But we do get 3 mentions in the footnotes:
Jordan Lyles wasn't a consensus supplemental first-round pick last year, but the Astros picked after a strong pre-draft workout. It's paid off up to now. Only 18, Lyles is 2-6, 3.26 at low Class A Lexington with 81 strikeouts and only 12 walks in 66 IP .
That 2008 Astros draft is looking pretty solid right now as well. Not only is Lyles excelling in the South Atlantic League, but first-rounder Jason Castro, 22, has made it to Double-A thanks to his .309/.399/.517 line at high Class A Lancaster.
And a special comment about our recently-named California League All-Star.
Jon Gaston, of, Astros. Since this is a special Hot Sheet, we're mixing up our categories a little to acknowledge a pair of prospects who have proven to be great values considering where they were picked. Gaston, the Astros' seventh-round pick, is among the minor league leaders in multiple categories, as he's hitting .291/.391/.653 with 16 2Bs, 8 3Bs, 15 HRs. Yes, Gaston is hitting in high Class A Lancaster, but it's worth noting that he's hit more home runs on the road than at home.
------------------------
So what's the point of this post? Yes, I'm an Astros diehard, and I like to rub it in a little bit when a major baseball media outlet is wrong about the home team. Despite the fact that BA is sometimes pretty pessimistic about the Astros, they still do a good job with a lot of their work, and I actually consider them the only baseball site that's worth paying for (well, fangraphs is worth it too, but they don't charge).
But this post was more for the people who still have a few doubts about the Astros 2009 draft. There are a few guys that some outlets have been calling overdrafts. But Bobby Heck and his scouting crew have been very good at identifying undervalued talent, and given his sucess last year, we should give him a little credit up front and wait a while to judge the draft. Jiovanni Mier has the defensive tools to play in the majors, and Bobby Heck assures us he'll grow into some power. Tanner Bushue has the same sort of build and skillset as Jordan Lyles. Telvin Nash is a relatively overlooked player who is highly athletic and already has exceptional power. And everything I've heard about Jonathan Meyer points to him being one of those guys who will make it to the major leagues by sheer force of willpower.
Let's get these guys into the system and see how they develop.
0 recs |
25 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Since we started going 200 deep with our pre-draft rankings in 2002, seven players have become first- or sandwich-rounders after failing to make our list, including Lyles and Stanford lefthander Jeremy Bleich (No. 44, Yankees) this year. The previous five have yet to distinguish themselves….
But if the pitchers don’t [work out well], consensus will have been proven more correct than an individual team’s conviction yet again.
So, out of a sample size of 7 players over seven years, they have yet to find a player who has done well (whatever their definition of that is). Whoop-de-fucking-doo.
This is more of a statement of “we do a pretty good job of picking the clubs’ top-200 players” than “we do a better job of picking who will succeed than any individual club.”
The fact is that the success rate for draft picks – even picks towards the top of the draft – isn’t good. Even if we expand “success” to mean “major league appearance,” it’s not like there are that many true “sure things.” So it’s not really surprising – nor at all meaningful – that any seven picks didn’t work out over seven years. If you chose seven 1st round picks from 2002 to 2008 at random, I really wouldn’t be surprised if none of them were “successes.”
Your friendly neighborhood Dreamshake mod.
by Only_A_Lad on Jun 13, 2009 1:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and here's Kevin Goldstein's reaction to this season's draft:
Stinneford1 (Ft. Worth): Thoughts on the Astros draft? Bobby Heck’s 1st draft was widely panned, but now looks pretty good. What is the consensus on Draft #2?
Kevin Goldstein: Heck’s first draft was panned just for Castro over Smoak, the rest of it was pretty darn solid — which is the phrase I’d use to describe this year’s draft as well. They definitely focused on adding higher-ceiling guys to the system.
Your friendly neighborhood Dreamshake mod.
by Only_A_Lad on Jun 13, 2009 2:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
A surprising opinion
Gunpuddy (Nashville, TN): When a team (say the Orioles) overdrafts and then says “we saw something others didn’t,” how often do they really mean it, and how often are they just being cheap?
Kevin Goldstein: I understand the pessimism, but really and truly, seeing something better than other teams did is more often the case.
Your friendly neighborhood Dreamshake mod.
by Only_A_Lad on Jun 13, 2009 2:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm...he sure glosses over the Jordan Lyles pick, doesn't he
Good finds, though, by the way
by AstroAndy on Jun 13, 2009 8:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our scouts should get their credits to find those not-well-known talents, but..
McLane should take all those blames from BA, BP …
Take Lyles case for example, I don’t think they draft him 38th overall is mainly because they didn’t want the risk to lose him to other team, but that stupid money slot is. I didn’t say that Lyles is not deserved 38th overall, but we could steal him in latter round, and pay him what he wants. We have chance to have both Lyles and the other big name.
If you find a Future-BarryBonds in a tent on an oasis somewhere Mojave Desert, will you draft him 1st overall because he want 3M bonus? I would give him 3M, draft him 1400th and use my first round chance to the other guy.
They keep saying they should accumulate both depth and quality, but they are doing the other way. Why not open wallet when your scouting team are doing their job. I have confidence with what Heck bring in, but I still feel disappointed when they draft (waste) their secret finding in high order because of money slot and THEY DIDN’T ADMIT,
by HubertL on Jun 13, 2009 7:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Heck and company
took Lyles 38th overall instead of later because the Braves were pretty high on him too, and they didn’t want him to slip through their grasp. He’s a guy they would have been kicking themselves over had they let him get away, so it’s good that they took him when they did.
by AstroAndy on Jun 13, 2009 8:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, I liked that quote from Heck you posted earlier this year.
Heck says his test as to whether to draft someone earlier than they might actually go….(something like) how upset would I be if another team drafted that player in the next round?
That makes some sense to me.
by clack on Jun 13, 2009 8:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As for money
they did go over slot last year…about $650,000 (if you include the college scholarship plan) over for Ross Seaton and about $300,000 for Brad Dydalewicz.
You can say “just fork over the money they demand” but if you keep doing that, the players will just keep demanding more (see Boras, Scott and Steven Strasburg’s rumored $50mil signing bonus demand) You pay them what you think they’re worth, not what they demand to be paid. There’s going to be plenty of Chris Burke-style busts in any draft, and I’d rather not be paying $6 million to watch them not live up to their potential.
by AstroAndy on Jun 13, 2009 8:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's unfair to ask McLane spent money unlimited....
but I’m sure everyone here is happy when we “steal” Seaton and Dydalewicz.
I don’t really mean to give whatever prospects want but pay (not draft) them what we think they worth. I just hope they could keep their secret find; land more talent and ignore that stupid slot.
For example, Bushue could be 2nd round talent and we could pay him 2nd round money but not necessary to draft him at 2nd. Sure, we must take the risk losing him, but if we could find one well-know prospect is as good as him (which is very possible to find), we should push Bushue to third, then so on…… they even could let him go deeper, if he is out of most people’s radar.
I was not happy last off-season, but I’m fine after McLane revealed his payroll budget is around 100-110M. They just need tell the truth. I still think they overdraft is mainly because of slot and low budget.
by HubertL on Jun 13, 2009 10:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That's the thing though
there is no such thing as a “secret find.” Sure, the A’s really had “secret finds” early in the decade, but that was because they were looking at players (and their public information) in a different way, and using strategies that had been discovered by Branch Rickey in the 1930s, revived by Earl Weaver in the 1970s, and finally published and elaborated upon by Bill James and others for the last forty years, rather than having any secret info.
If you like a player more than anybody else on the board, then just take him. That’s true in fantasy baseball, and it’s true in real life.
Your friendly neighborhood Dreamshake mod.
by Only_A_Lad on Jun 13, 2009 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know something other people don’t know that’s secret… The draft pool is pretty large, and team scouts won’t be able to know all the detail to everyone. Our scouts must know something isn’t well-know and they absolutly missed something to some great prospects under other teams’ radar.
Yes, it does like real fantasy baseball.
This is like I have confidence that Wandy will break out this season, and most of FB players who are fans of the other team won’t really know who Wandy is. When Both Wandy and Oswalt are on the board , I will take Oswalt first, even I think Wandy will do better than him, and than I might have both Wandy and Oswalt because no one knows Wandy.
The only problem is how do you know there is no Astro fan in your league…… lol
I need to take the risk of losing Wandy, but I will gamble on this, because even I lose it, I still have Oswalt no matter what.
There is nothing guaranteed, I might be wrong on Wandy’s breakout, and even everyone think Oswalt is great, he could be flatted.
by HubertL on Jun 13, 2009 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You try to game the system, you’re as likely to get burned as to walk away with a steal. It’s one thing to do it in your fantasy league. But working for a professional baseball team in the scouting department is like being in the ultimate keeper league. If you have a bad draft, you can’t just sign up on a different website or join a different league. You lose your job. And I don’t know anybody who’d be willing to stake their job on the outcome of a fantasy baseball game and would then go in with the strategy you describe.
It’s nice to entertain the thought of secret picks, but there’s no way on earth that the Astros could have known about who sat at positions #70-99 on the draft boards of 29 other teams. And if you’ve got your heart set on one guy, like Bushue or Nash, it only takes one other team to break your heart. You do good scouting, you put a value on guys, you make up your board, and on draft day, you follow your board. Simple. Don’t worry about what the other teams are going to do. Just follow your board.
by AstroAndy on Jun 13, 2009 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My bad to use the negative word like "steal" and "gamble" ......
I’m not a gamer or high risk high reward advocate.
Back to my previous post “if we could find one well-know prospect is as good as him (which is very possible to find), we should push Bushue to third, then so on ………….”
The Key is we could find someone as good as him.. such as I have Oswalt than I could play risk on Wandy; I’m not asking them to take Hampton and risk losing Wandy. If they can’t find someone is equal value, then DON’T gamble.
I do believe McLane’s low budget limited Heck to do better. If there are great chance to have your two favorites, and it is guaranteed you will have at least one of them, the only reason you pass the chance is because you don’t have enough money.
by HubertL on Jun 14, 2009 9:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I mentioned in an earlier post
I’m no draft expert, no great student or predictor of talent, and not much of a believer in the teams’ abilities to guess all that well, either.
BUT I REALLY LIKE THIS ASTROS DRAFT!
"Your most precious possessions on offense are your twenty-seven outs"
-Earl Weaver
by bwhite2323 on Jun 13, 2009 11:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
All it takes is one team to see the same thing you do and you don’t get your guy. If Bobby Heck used your philosophy and another team took Lyle early in the 2nd round then suddenly we’re out one of our best prospects and everyone would bash him for it. Take the guys YOU want, not the guys everyone else wants.
by roswalt44 on Jun 13, 2009 12:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Actually I believe last year during BA’s live mock draft after Kevin made that first comment above he retracted a bit, sighting that he realized the Astros needed catching depth. However Justin Smoak was the clear better choice, and one the Astros should have made. It’s great that Jason Castro made his double AA debut this last week, Justin Smoak has been at double AA for a good bit now and seems to be doing very well.
by timmy_ on Jun 13, 2009 10:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Let’s be clear. Justin Smoak is a better power hitter than Jason Castro. But that doesn’t mean he was the better choice. On hitting alone, you also need to consider contact rates and patience. You’ve also got defense to consider. You also have to consider mental makeup, work ethic, character issues, teachability, and adaptability, because buying the best TV doesn’t mean squat if the plug doesn’t fit in the electrical outlet in your own home. It’s as important that a player can fit in your system and thrive as it is that the guy is a good player.
Then you’ve got to consider positional scarcity. Quick…can you name a first baseman with plus-power? Sure you can. Smoak wasn’t even the first such player taken in the 2008 draft (see Hosmer and Alonso). Can you name a plus-power lefthanded catcher with above-average defense? It’s a lot harder, isn’t it? That’s because they’re far more rare, and thus more valuable. It’s relatively easy to convert a power-hitting left-fielder into a 1B mid-career. I can’t think of any guys who managed to succeed in converting to catcher from any other position mid-career. Value comes from lots of sources in talent evaluation.
And finally, you have to consider whether the extra $1.5-$2 million it would have cost to sign Smoak might not be better off going towards padding the signing bonuses of some later round picks that fell due to signability (Seaton, Dydalewicz). Basically putting your eggs in multiple baskets (a prudent thing to do when you’ve got a depleted farm system).
In conclusion, Smoak is a more powerful hitter, and probably a more attractive fantasy baseball pick. I concede that readily. But baseball is a complex and multi-faceted game and Jason Castro has a lot of value outside of home-run production and so the choice is probably not as clear as you think.
by AstroAndy on Jun 13, 2009 11:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to answer my own questions about left-handed power-hitting catchers
Here are the only two I could think of:
Yogi Berra (and mostly because I was prompted by that darn Aflac commercial)
Joe Mauer (who is having a fantastic season)
by AstroAndy on Jun 14, 2009 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem I have with the whole pick is that Bobby Heck has said he will “draft the best player available”. Statistically if you compare Jason Castro and Justin Smoak side by side Justin Smoak comes out the better offensive player and was consistently good through out his college career, Jason Castro had one really good year. I really don’t have a problem with the pick of Jason Castro especially since he seems to be moving up through the system. Maybe it did free up some money to help pay other picks, however if the Astros are truly dedicated to improving the farm system money should not be an issue, to a certain extent. The problem I have is with the Astros statements before the draft saying they’re going to draft the best player available and then not do it, and select what appears to be what the organization needs or is the best fit.
I’ve read a an article where the Astros have said that they felt Jiovanni Mier was the best player in the draft. Really over Strasburg and Ackley? I understand they’re probably saying that for morale purposes and he maybe the best pick at that point in the draft, or maybe the best fit because of signability, but let’s be honest Mier was not the best player in the draft.
I’m being petty about what the Astros are saying I know, but I have a real problem with people saying one thing and then going and doing another. A better statement for me would of been “We are going to draft the player that is the best fit for our organization”, but I guess they had been saying that for several years before recently.
by timmy_ on Jun 17, 2009 7:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this is kind of a subjective issue.
And in that vein, I can’t say that you are wrong or that Heck is wrong.
Part of the disconnect may be that Heck views “up the middle” players as inherently “better.” And that is a supportable position. The Win Value method says that a catcher is automatically 25 runs better than a 1st baseman just by virtue of the position. A shortstop is 21 runs better than a 1st baseman. I also had to question the remark about Mier with Strasburg in the draft, but maybe the Astros’ view is that pitchers aren’t as valuable as position players for draft purposees.
I think it is pretty clear that the Astros place greater value on scouting than statistics for evaluating players. So that automatically creates a subjective matter. Their scouts may actually believe these are the best players. We can’t say Heck is not telling the truth unless we know what his scouting reports say.
by clack on Jun 17, 2009 10:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even with Win Value method
Ackley a GG caliber CF would have as much or more value because of his proximity to the majors and much better offensive abilities.
The team in a way gets a bad wrap for that quote. The better answer would have been we considered Meir the best player available at this point in our draft and a top 10 player on our board. There is nothing wrong with that.
I like Heck’s drafts, but everyone including Heck is refusing to acknowledge the Astros have a draft budget and that budget is not much higher than the anticipated slot value of all of their picks. Heck is doing well with the restraints the team has in place. He just needs to remember to use signabilty and bonus demands as one of the criteria the team uses to determine their board. It is not BPA, it is Best Player Value instead.
JD’s like, "you want some fucking pitching? Here’s all the pitching you can stand. Now choke on it, bitches!"- RCCook
by laxtonto on Jun 17, 2009 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m inclined to not hold Heck’s feet to the fire on the Mier quote. On Sunday, I’m giving my dad a fishing hat that says World’s Greatest Fisherman, and I don’t really expect to be held to that opinion myself, nor do I expect that of the other dad’s out there who receive a similar gift are going to challenge my dad to prove it. A bit of that kind of puffery is to be expected in the heat of the moment and with negotiations left to accomplish, and being hardcore literal about it isn’t that useful.
I think Heck and Co. actually are very aware of the fact that they’re working within a draft budget. This is from 2008:
Heck and Wade spent last week meeting with regional scouts and shuffling names around their draft board. Considering the problems the Astros had signing their top two picks last year, signability looms large. “Our guys have to be in there and know what the expectations are of the player, the family, the adviser,” Wade said.and this is from this year:
"We try not to let a player walk by that we have the same value on him that he has on himself," Heck said. “The word signability only means that player’s number needs to match yours. If their number is significantly more than you have them valued at then you have move on to the next players. We’re not into overpaying for players but we’ll pay the going rate.”This philosophy to me seems totally reasonable. If a kid thinks he’s worth a million bucks more than the team does, then that guy is not really “available” in some sense of the word. I doubt that the team would have taken Strasburg if they had the first pick, and given his bonus demands, I wouldn’t blame them. Opportunity cost is a big deal.
by AstroAndy on Jun 17, 2009 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your dad also doesn’t have to go out and compete in the Bass Master’s competition to prove it either, Mier does. And why would you give Mier’s agent a quote to use in negotiations, in the first place? Especially if they’re working with a budget .
I was hoping the Nationals would pull a Houston Texans and find their Mario Williams.
by timmy_ on Jun 18, 2009 8:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
On the quote thing
If you watched the MLB Network coverage of the draft, you’d notice that the commentators would often say about a draftee “This guy is a baseball player.” And they’d put emphasis on the term “baseball player”. If we take that literally, it makes no sense. Every single draftee was a baseball player. They all played the same game. What they mean is that there’s something extra about the guy. He lives and breathes the game. He fits into a classic ballplayer mold. To use a term that I don’t personally like, he’s a baseball rat. So if we look at Heck’s quotes in context:
We thought he was the best baseball player, a middle of the field player.—given to Jose de Jesus Ortizand
We thought he was the best baseball player in this Draft, — given to Brian McTaggartit could easily have been that same sort of statement.
I’m also failing to see what real-world consequences Bobby Heck’s statement has and why you guys find it such a big deal. They’re relatively meaningless throwaway lines from an interview with the Chronicle. If you’re questioning whether Mier was the best pick of the available players at the 21st slot, that’s cool. Before the draft, I too questioned whether a guy who was only known for his defense should be a first-round pick. But busting Heck’s chops for quote seems rather pointless.
by AstroAndy on Jun 18, 2009 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, that's what I was saying about the quote.
He was using some weird definition of “baseball player” (he’s a good all-around player, as opposed to being just a pull-hitter or a guy with no defense).
Your friendly neighborhood Dreamshake mod.
by Only_A_Lad on Jun 18, 2009 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
THE CRAWFISH BOXES GETS SOCIAL
Current Series
3 game series vs Giants @ Minute Maid Park
|
San Francisco Giants
Monday, Apr 5, 2010, 6:05 PM CDT |
||
| Tue 04/06 | 7:05 PM CDT | |
| Wed 04/07 | 1:05 PM CDT | |
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
