Hey Neukom! My Business Plan: Draft Philosophy and Strategy

This is the latest in the series that I've been publishing (but it's been a looong while since I added one), here is a link to the Table of Contents, which I just put together recently and will updated as necessary when I add to this series or update any of the chapters.

The MLB Amateur Draft Is Worse Than Most Think

As I have posted before, the draft is a crapshoot (I wrote this under a previous handle). When you are winning, you have lousy draft position, the most you can hope for is around a 10-15% chance with your first round pick in the last third of the round of locating and selecting a amateur who will have the necessities to become a good to great player. Even when you are losing hand over fist, the first pick overall is not even a coin flip on whether he would be a good player or not, though close. Thus, you need a strategy that maximizes your draft picks for finding players for your 25-man roster, no matter where you pick in the first round.

Draft Picks, Like Any Rare Resource, Must be Maximized

With a scarce and rare resource, like a draft pick, you need to maximize it by focusing them on something and you need a strategy that will do that. Focusing on pitching, like the Giants have since almost when Sabean took over (and basically after Dick Tidrow became his VP of Player Personnel) is probably the best way to do it. With the success rate falling exponentially, even when you select the 50 total overall picks most teams select, you are not going to find a good player after the first round very consistently at those odds. It is even worse than a crapshoot, it is finding the proverbial needle in the haystack.

Given such a poor success rate with the first round pick when you are winning, you can only hope to find one good player with your first round pick every decade that you are winning consecutively. That is not a very good replacement rate.

The fact is that the historical performance is even worse after the first round. Just making the majors is a pretty low success rate, somewhere in the 10-15% range. Even at a 1% success rate for finding a good player after the first round, at 50 picks per year, that is a good player every 2 years, only 5 in a decade. Plus the one a winning team would pick on average, that is 6 good players in a decade.

However, there are 13 starting positions on a team plus a closer, and not all good players last for a whole decade. With maybe 6 good players drafted in a decade, that means that less than half of a starting team can be replaced in a decade, assuming you started out with good players at each position. Thus, no team is going to fill in all their starting positions with good players via the draft alone when winning. There is not enough talent in the prospect pool each year to fill up all the spots with good players. Thus, each pick needs to be maximized.

In addition, a consequence of this dearth of talent is that any strategy for building a winning team has to assume that you will be using free agency to fill in the gaps in your roster. And as long as you sign good players to free agent contracts, the picks you give up is a small price to pay for a good player because the odds of getting a good player is much greater when you sign one than when you pick one, even a pick in the last half of the first round.

Pitching, Pitching, Pitching

As shown in the plan so far in the other chapters, pitching is key to building a more successful team in the playoffs. So it would make sense that one might then focus on pitching in the draft. This way, you control the supply of the critical skills necessary for building a team that maximizes their possibilities of success in the playoffs. However, there is another good reason: roster makeup and flexibility.

Pitching Provides More Options

Let's say you are drafting and have a choice between two guys you think will be equally great, but one is a 1B and one is a starting pitcher. However, what you see is not what you get: sometimes (actually, almost all the time) the prospect fails. Getting a starting pitcher gives you options.

Many a failed pitcher can go to the bullpen. Not only can he go to the bullpen, he can be your long man, middle-innings, set-up, or sometimes even closer. So even when a pitching prospect fails to become a starter, he could fill in up to four other spots on the MLB roster.

Now lets say that both were a success, you now have a great player. If you have the 1B, and another great player is playing 1B, you now have a dilemma (see Giants McCovey/Cepeda and Rangers Teixiera/Gonzalez/Hafner) that does not always resolve itself nicely. If you have a starting pitcher, however, depending on how good he is, he can fill one of up to five spots in the rotation.

A pitcher could fill one of up to 12 positions on the MLB roster, a position player can fill maybe 2 positions relatively evenly, and at best 3, maybe 4, and that usually means you take a hit on defense if he is playing out of position.

Thus, focusing the draft on starting pitching gives you much more flexibility in filling spots in your 25-man roster, helping you fill up more spots and in a faster timeframe. Any pitcher should theoretically fill at minimum the last two spots in the rotation (or more if better) and somewhere in the bullpen outside of the closer and two set-up men, another 4 spots (or more if better). The majority of position players can fill at best 3 spots in the field (the three OF spots or 2B/3B/SS) and most really only can play 2 spots generally at the most. That will help fill your MLB roster with home-grown prospects faster and to a great extent than if you focused on position players or evenly between the two.

Focus, Not Exclusively

Now this is very obvious, but I am not advocating that a team should draft only starting pitchers, that would be suicide. You should never draft based on filling a spot in your lineup, you must always respect the talent that is available to you with any draft pick. Thus, if there is a hitter available who is clearly the best player, then you should pick him, even if you are focusing on pitching.

However, there will be cases where the prospect is just one of many who appear to be equally talented, or closely so. And in those cases, you should go for the starting pitching. Given equally talented prospects, the flexibility in filling the pitching staff is an advantage that tips the scales towards selecting the pitcher.

And by the time you get to anywhere around the 3-5 round (I would guess-timate), when the odds of finding a good player falls to roughly 1% or less, the odds of finding a good player is so low that there should be some competitive advantage gained by a team that focuses on one particular skill particularly well, such as pitching.

Pitching Is the Key

Focusing on pitching works in so many ways. As Baseball Prospectus and The Hardball Times showed, success in the playoffs can be positively influenced by good pitching and fielding whereas offense plays no significant part. But pitching also works in building up a team in a faster and more efficient manner.

Another thing I would posit is that this strategy is even more effective for NL teams to follow. AL teams have a position that NL teams don't worry about: DH. A good hitter who cannot field any position acceptably is useless and thus of little value to an NL team, but he would have value, potentially good value, for an AL team. Thus, over time, AL teams will have a subtle preference for hitters who might not be good fielders, and when they are selecting this player, that will sometimes leave a more valuable pitcher (from the NL team viewpoint) still on the board for the NL team to select. That would give NL teams an overall talent boost in terms of available pitching talent when it is their turn to select and a AL team ahead of it selects a hitter that is of lesser value to the NL team over a pitcher that would have been otherwise selected and of greater value to the NL team.

Overall, finding good players is such a crapshoot that you cannot effectively plan for building a team. When you find one, you can only shout "Eureka!" If a team focuses on position players or split it evenly between position and pitching, there will be the times when you find out that you developed multiple players who can only play one or two positions. That forces you to play someone out of position, which weakens one of the key qualities of a successful team in the playoffs - fielding - or forces you to trade for what you need, and as the history of baseball shows, trading is not a science, a lot of mistakes are often made.

By focusing on pitching generally in your overall draft, you can mainly improve your team over time. No matter how good your future ace looks like (for example, Matt Cain), if you find another future ace (for example, Tim Lincecum), you can easily slot him into the rotation and move everyone else down. And if your awesome starter can't handle starting, then you throw him into the bullpen, where maybe he can be a closer (for example, Brian Wilson). And as you build the pitching staff over time (Jonathan Sanchez and Madison Bumgarner), you could reach the point where you have so many good pitchers that you can start trading off starters to boost up your lineup and/or your farm system greatly without missing a beat in the pitching staff.

The Giants are reaching such a point in their rebuilding cycle, as Jonathan Sanchez is looking more and more like a potential ace in the making, and with another good season under his wing in 2010, and with Bumgarner basically ready to take Sanchez's place, he could be traded, like Dan Haren was, for a bushelful of good and nearly ready prospects who would restock our farm system for the next 3-4 years plus supply one or two prospects about ready to start in the majors. And with Wheeler hopefully coming down the pike in 2-4 years, that could open up another trade possibility within the rotation, and we have another delightful dilemma coming up in the future.