I do subscribe to the HQ newsletter since it is free. There are some interesting thoughts in there--which is really how HQ best serves me in a general way: it gives me ideas.
Anyway, this morning Ron's "Master Notes" had an interesting idea in it. It focused on how small the difference is between the caliber of players you can get in different rounds (particularly after round three or four). It helped to verify what I already knew--a little reach is okay because you're not really reaching into a different group of players. The average guy in this round is essentially the same as the average guy next round and if you think you can get the MVP of both rounds you should just take him now. That wasn't really the point of the "Master Notes" (which was just about how imprecise drafting is) but like I said HQ is best for giving me ideas.
But this little nugget I couldn't let pass:
"By ADP #300 (Round 20), everyone has essentially the same value regardless of round. At that point, it is just a matter of choosing players who fill roster holes and might have conditional upside."
Let me preface this by saying that I have no idea what "conditional upside" is and I almost left is off, but then decided to use the whole quote for fear I would become Michael Savage (or The Daily Show, if you prefer). My guess is that he's saying
the players could help you only under certain circumstances, like you need a closer and there is a good closer-in-waiting flapping in the breeze.
Now, that exception aside, he is literally saying that everyone has the same value. Maybe it is just a poor choice of words, but I think we all know this is profoundly incorrect. Cliff Lee did not have the same value as everyone else in 2008 just as Jose Bautista did not have the same value as everyone else in 2009.
Maybe they all project the same though? I don't think that is true either. As I said, I'm not so much into the HQ projections but there is little doubt in my mind that they favor some late round guys over others.
Those points don't even cover what really bothers me about the quote, though. To me the absolute worst thing you can do in a draft is to not even consider later rounds and just "fill holes." As I mentioned in a different thread and in past articles I've done, the guys you take in the later rounds are the guys who can completely negate the value of you first few rounds. Albert Pujols is going to give you 220 points of value above what you need to win the main event, but your second catcher will be 220 points below.
From that perspective the end game is every bit as important as the first few rounds for which we debate the players endlessly.
Approaching a draft I think about how I can pile on value up through round six or seven. Those are the rounds where players typically give back more than what you need from them. After that, it is a matter of stopping the bleeding. The vast majority of guys detract from that value you've already created. You have to pick the guys who detract the least.
When planning for the end of the draft, it is best to pick positions where you see some handy players waiting to be picked up. Another option is to, yes, pick bad players but you do it within a plan. For example, you see that the late catchers are horrible, but the tenth round catchers weren't a whole lot better. At the same time, you have decent 10th round first basemen and they are much worse than 20th round guys. In that case you plan for a catcher.
There are many ways to skin a cat, but my point is you should have a carcass waiting to be skinned. If you just wait and hope to catch a cat later, you might be chasing him all season.
[ February 04, 2011, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]