Fangraphs: Tigers sixth in MLB in building through the Draft since 2002

[TheCouga]

Building Through the Draft: Worst of the Worst | FanGraphs Baseball

We've generated 78.7 total WAR from our draft since 2002. The top team is Boston, with 100.3. The worst is Seattle, with 8.9, and the second worst is the White Sox with 11.9.

We're higher than both the Athletics and the Braves, and just behind the heralded Rays.

"Dumbrowski" gets a lot of flak from supposed piss-poor drafts, but with Verlander, Boesch, Avila and Porcello still set to add a large chunk of WAR this season, that number is just going to increase. Not to mention what Turner or Smyly might add. Also, Dirks and Marte could contribute.

Also of note, this doesn't include the talent we've acquired by trading our prospect busts while their value was still high, such as Miller/Maybin, and possibly Furbush/F. Martinez/Wells.

[TheCouga]

I'd also like to add that it's been rare that our system ever gets ranked very high, but it still manages to churn out a bunch of talent. Because if you're truly good at drafting, you're going to find the seeds in the rough, not the people that all the prospect rankers are hyping.

[tiger337]

Jim Breen likes the Tigers.

[TheCouga]

Jim Breen likes the Tigers.

At least he uses logic to like the Tigers.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I wouldn't call Maybin a bust yet, but excellent points here.

[Yoda]

This is pretty cool. I wonder where they'd rank if you include trades. Adding Cabrera, Fister, Scherzer, etc. would have to make us pretty high.

[Yoda]

I wonder what Trok thinks of this..

[DaYooperASBDT]

We need to have a TRok chat sometime. Or at least another Dombrowski chat.

[Shelton]

Seeing as we don't get credit for granderson, Joyce, maybin I don't see why shouldn't get credit for Cabrera, fister, scherzer, coke, Edwin for a year, etc.

Of course, you'd have to draw the line at value during cost controlled years.

At least that is how I would do it.

[TheCouga]

Seeing as we don't get credit for granderson, Joyce, maybin I don't see why shouldn't get credit for Cabrera, fister, scherzer, coke, Edwin for a year, etc.

Of course, you'd have to draw the line at value during cost controlled years.

At least that is how I would do it.

I'm actually not sure how traded players are calculated. We traded Granderson after 4 years of service time. I guess we get credit for those 4 years, and not the ones he's spent with the Yankees.

There's probably more precise ways of measuring this, but I think it gives us a picture that is accurate enough the way it is.

[TheCouga]

I wouldn't call Maybin a bust yet, but excellent points here.

Yeah, he's not really a bust, and could have a big year this year. But we would have had to wait around all these years for him to come around. He might end up being better than Jackson still.

[Oblong]

Interesting to see the Royals so high.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Interesting to see the Royals so high.

I haven't looked, but that might be a case of quantity over quality. They do have a nice young group of players now, though, and more on the horizon.

[TheCouga]

Interesting to see the Royals so high.

Greinke alone is about 33% of their total. His 2009 season by itself produced 9 WAR.

I'm not really sure who else they get credit for, though. Butler has been good, but much of his value is diminished by WAR's positional adjustment. The only other way I can see them getting up to 65 is if they're counting Soria, who they got in the Rule 5 draft. He's produced 13.5 so far to go with Greinke's 23.

[Shelton]

If the royals get greinke credit, then I guess we got granderson credit.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Butler, Grienke, Alex Gordon (blossomed in 2011), Luke Hochevar (much improved), also Hosmer had a very nice rookie season.

J.P Howell (2004) went on to have a couple of solid relief seasons for Tampa Bay.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

yeah, you get credit for while they are on your team but not after they are traded.

royals do seem a bit high still tho, grienke, gordon, butler, and a bunch of crap don't seem to add up to 65. but maybe.

edit: couga posted the same thing. soria should not be counted, as i understand it.

[IdahoBert]

This is really good news. I am a person that has pissed and moaned about our development but when you apply advanced statistics you see we are pretty good. Interesting.

[The Truman Show]

Greinke, Gordon, and Butler all add up to about 45. Throw in Mike Aviles and a few relievers, and you're at 65.

Verlander, Granderson, and Avila add up to 60. I'm not really sure that makes the Tigers a good drafting team, considering how little they've gotten for just about every other pick. Zumaya is about 3, Boesch about 3, Porcello about 6, so that's 72 WAR of the 78 total in 6 players. They've also got virtually nothing from international signings in that time period, except Jurrjens I guess.

Look, you can argue all you want, but I'm not giving the Tigers amateur scouting crew any credit for Alex Avila. I'm just not doing it. If you can't find and scout your boss' son, especially when that son is playing major college baseball, you don't even deserve to have jobs. With that in mind, I don't think the Tigers being so high up really says much about their amateur scouting. I'll give them a pass on IFAs because of how little they emphasized that until recently and how long it takes to develop that pipeline, but from a pure number of bodies perspective, it's mediocre (certainly not as bad as the White Sox, Pirates, or Mariners).

I think the list says two things. The first is that all of the organizations that value building from within or prospect hoarding are generally at the top, regardless of their actual on field success. In the bottom 10 are teams with 6 of the last 10 World Series wins, because the Yankees, Phillies, and Cardinals don't really care about growing prospects a whole lot. At the top of the list, the Red Sox, Royals, As, and Dodgers like to hoard prospects, or at least did a lot of it in the past 10 years (the Dodgers loved to under Evans/DePodesta, not so much under Colletti). It also says that, if your internal scouting and development isn't very good, drafting won't be worth much. The Tigers have made up for mediocre amateur scouting with fantastic awareness on who to keep, who to dump, and how to get the most out of their gems.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

I think about any analysis would show that the Tigers are in the top half of teams with their overall drafting, at minimum. I googled a couple of analysis' done in 2009ish, and they had the Tigers 10-15; since then of course Verlander and Granderson have only gotten better, and of course you can throw Avila into the mix. They should absolutely get massive credit for Verlander and Granderson; 1 guy at 20 wins is a lot more valuable than 10 at 2 wins.

[John_Brian_K]

I was going to go through the team win % and add a table next to the table used to see if there is a direct corelation between team win % from 2002-2011...It takes up some time though so I just did the top team, the Tigers and the worst team.

Boston:
Team Win %: .575%

Tigers:
Team Win %: .469%

Seattle:
Team Win %: .468%

[alwaysthrowheat]

I was going to go through the team win % and add a table next to the table used to see if there is a direct corelation between team win % from 2002-2011...It takes up some time though so I just did the top team, the Tigers and the worst team.

Boston:
Team Win %: .575%

Tigers:
Team Win %: .469%

Seattle:
Team Win %: .468%

Almost all of the Tigers WAR has been since 06. Their win % has been much higher since then, too.

[Antrat]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to do that if you went from 2005-2011?
Since it usually takes a few years before drafted players get on the MLB roster?

[The Truman Show]

I think about any analysis would show that the Tigers are in the top half of teams with their overall drafting, at minimum. I googled a couple of analysis' done in 2009ish, and they had the Tigers 10-15; since then of course Verlander and Granderson have only gotten better, and of course you can throw Avila into the mix. They should absolutely get massive credit for Verlander and Granderson; 1 guy at 20 wins is a lot more valuable than 10 at 2 wins.

No doubt. When Dombrowski hits on a prospect, he knocks it off the DAC building.

[Edman85]

I've been playing around with numbers like this for a while, and am curious where the Tigers rank once you factor in trades. Maybin and Miller look a lot better once you factor in that they netted Miguel Cabrera.

[John_Brian_K]

IMO it is not so much what a trade may net the team. That just feeds into the hype machinie (ie. Player A and B are overhyped throughout the league and a GM strikes while it is hot and grabs up a player like Cabby only to have the hot prospects fall on thier face)

I like to look at the numbers from all players that were drafted and what they have done in terms of straight up numbers.

Because DD was able to fleece the Marlins has no impact IMO on how well a draft class he had the year he traded those players to get him.

It is a symtom of his ability (and his scouts of course, BUT the scouts are employed by DD he is there boss so they should be doing a good job or they should lose their job) to evaluate talent and draft that talent. Whether they do it here or with another team is a deabte you can use to analyze his ability to trade...not his ability to draft.

[The Truman Show]

Right. Andrew Miller is still a bad draft pick, but if you recognize that before anyone else does, it won't hurt the organization.

It is amazing how much WAR and success they've gotten when, really, you're talking about 3, maybe 4 draft picks that were really good picks in an 8 year period. If I remember correctly, there's been a fair degree of turnover among the draft brain trust, so if they start getting more than 1 good find every 2 years, look out.

[Shelton]

Andrew miller being a bad player doesn't mean he was a bad draft pick.

In my mind, it was a good draft pick because he progressed nicely in the minors and retained his value as a prospect.

I consider bad draft picks to be of the cale iorg type or possibly fields. The types that carry high expectations and flame out early and lose their value within the first couple years, preventing the team from getting anything out of them.

I could go either way with Ryan perry. I'd probably lean toward it being a good pick that they held on to for too long.

[John_Brian_K]

Andrew miller being a bad player doesn't mean he was a bad draft pick.

In my mind, it was a good draft pick because he progressed nicely in the minors and retained his value as a prospect.

I consider bad draft picks to be of the cale iorg type or possibly fields. The types that carry high expectations and flame out early and lose their value within the first couple years, preventing the team from getting anything out of them.

I could go either way with Ryan perry. I'd probably lean toward it being a good pick that they held on to for too long.

Production. It is that simple IMO. If a player you picked ends up having a good career it is a good pick. If he doesn't? It was a bad pick.

You cannot flame a GM for making a bad pick, but then gloss over the good picks by saying things like 'Well he got lucky.'

I am not saying you, Shelton, do that...I am just saying in general if you are going to slam picks because a player flames you HAVE to give credit when a player does well.

I still say picking Miller was a bad pick. I probably would have drfated him too, but it still would have been a bad pick IMO based on his career.

Some people (IIRC) did not like him as a player...those people were right. Everyone else was wrong.

[The Truman Show]

Is anyone suggesting that any of their draft picks were lucky?

[John_Brian_K]

Is anyone suggesting that any of their draft picks were lucky?

We are not talking draft picks in depth here, but if you are asking in general then I say yes I have heard people say things like 'He is a horrible GM <insert name of GM here> and just got lucky with that one.'

I am not referencing DD here specifically I was making a general comment. If you feel like debating let's go. I have time.

[The Truman Show]

Just wondering. The statement just seemed out of place in the thread is all, I didn't want to start a debate.

[Vonlenska]

We are not talking draft picks in depth here, but if you are asking in general then I say yes I have heard people say things like 'He is a horrible GM <insert name of GM here> and just got lucky with that one.'

I am not referencing DD here specifically I was making a general comment. If you feel like debating let's go. I have time.

[John_Brian_K]

Just wondering. The statement just seemed out of place in the thread is all, I didn't want to start a debate.

Ok

My point was that when they hit the GM should get credit. People have agendas. I get that. They 'like' a guy or 'hate' the guy and use examples of bad drafts for the reason to hate them or good drafts to like them. I guess the whole thing just means look objectively. Or try to at least. Irrational hatred is weird to me. FTR: I have never been a fan of DD and like have always like JL. I have a freind who is the EXACT opposite and we talk baseball all the time...so imagine how those conversations go.

[Buddha]

So nice to see that people will never forget Dave Cameron and his fmous "the mariners are the sixth best organization in baseball" post.

If he wasn't such a jerk, it wouldn't be so damn funny.

[DaYooperASBDT]

There's certainly an element of luck in the later rounds. Mike Piazza was bottom of the barrel, maybe only the Dodgers knew about him due to the family connections.