2019 Minor Leagues/Prospect Discussion Thread

[Tanner]

Over that same span, they have acquired Darrell Ceciliani, Reese McGuire, Harold Ramirez, Tim Lopes, Tesocar Hernandez, Tom Pannone, and Samad Taylor in trades, and signed Lourdes Guirrel. That's not factoring the money they have put into the international market even when they were capped due to the Vlad signing. They have added way more to the farm system than they have subtracted, and that happened when the team was trying to win. If they ever decide to take a step back, then chances are their efforts to add young talent will increase even further.

They have added, but those are ultimately pretty marginal additions, with a couple possible exceptions. You have a guy likely to be DFA'd, a backup catcher with the chance to be a starter if everything clicks, a guy increasingly unlikely to be a major league bat, a fringe utility prospect, a good bat with massive strikeout woes, a potential back-end starter with fringy stuff, a low minors MI sleeper, and a bat-first MI prospect whose bat has been worryingly light.

I'm glad to have all of them, to be sure. But that's not rebuilding the farm...it's adding a bit of trimming around the edges. We need more and better prospects to really fill our coffers out.

Well you are not going to get world beaters for cash, Drew Hutchison, Pat Venditte, Francisco Liriano, and Joe Smith, but the point was simply to illustrate how much they have added in comparison to what they have given away and that they have focused on improving the minor league system even during their first two years of trying to stretch this competitive window for as long as they could. They also drafted Bichette, Zeuch, Pearson, Warmoth, and so on, and spent money on Pardinho and many other international talents. This process will take many years to bear fruit, but it's a process that is happening. It's not like the system is only Vlad and Bo, while the front office is trying to fake a contender instead of focusing on building a younger talent base. There has been a conscious effort on the player development side. Since the big league team is older and the system is/was barren in the upper minors, we haven't seen much traction there yet, but it will come.

Way too early to predict the primes of two current A+ ball hitters being wasted.

[Schad]

[
Well you are not going to get world beaters for cash, Drew Hutchison, Pat Venditte, Francisco Liriano, and Joe Smith,

Which is precisely the point. I trust them to get value, but if we want to get actual world-beaters, we are going to have to give up actual value, too. As it happens, we're loaded with vets, some of whom are actually valuable, and some of whom are either going to walk shortly or get obscenely overpaid.

but the point was simply to illustrate how much they have added in comparison to what they have given away and that they have focused on improving the minor league system even during their first two years of trying to stretch this competitive window for as long as they could. They also drafted Bichette, Zeuch, Pearson, Warmoth, and so on, and spent money on Pardinho and many other international talents. This process will take many years to bear fruit, but it's a process that is happening. It's not like the system is only Vlad and Bo, while the front office is trying to fake a contender instead of focusing on building a younger talent base. There has been a conscious effort on the player development side. Since the big league team is older and the system is/was barren in the upper minors, we haven't seen much traction there yet, but it will come.

Way too early to predict the primes of two current A+ ball hitters being wasted.

No, the system isn't only Vlad and Bo. But without Vlad and Bo, we'd have a very poor system. As it stands, we're neither set up to win in the immediate future, nor can we point to a likelihood that we'll be winning in a few years. All we have is the speculative hope that our management will pull something out of their hats (or elsewhere) that'll allow us to turn an old, mediocre and expensive team into a contender without giving up anything of note, and then somehow bridge that into a younger contending team by continuing to accumulate top-tier (and MLB ready within 3-4 years) talent. We're trying to climb Everest in a Hawaiian shirt and Crocs.

Further, "they used their draft picks and also their international bonuses" is something that applies to every team in the league. We don't really get any extra points for doing what every other team does. Bichette has obviously been a coup, but it's a bit early to mark down Zeuch, Pearson and Warmoth as wins (this is particularly true with Zeuch, as while I like him, he has been outshone by several of the pitchers drafted shortly after him in the first round).

[Tanner]

Which is precisely the point. I trust them to get value, but if we want to get actual world-beaters, we are going to have to give up actual value, too. As it happens, we're loaded with vets, some of whom are actually valuable, and some of whom are either going to walk shortly or get obscenely overpaid.

Two of the Yankees best position players this year were acquired for a back up catcher and a reliever (Hicks and Didi). Neither of those two were projected to be 3 win players. The Jays got players with big league potential. Whether they can be molded into something better remains to be seen, but you don't need to trade Donaldson to get good young talent in return. It is up to the Jays scouting and player development to identify some diamonds.

No, the system isn't only Vlad and Bo. But without Vlad and Bo, we'd have a very poor system.

Take the best prospects off every team and it would be the same scenario.

As it stands, we're neither set up to win in the immediate future, nor can we point to a likelihood that we'll be winning in a few years. All we have is the speculative hope that our management will pull something out of their hats (or elsewhere) that'll allow us to turn an old, mediocre and expensive team into a contender without giving up anything of note, and then somehow bridge that into a younger contending team by continuing to accumulate top-tier (and MLB ready within 3-4 years) talent. We're trying to climb Everest in a Hawaiian shirt and Crocs.

How can anyone really say what the future will look like? Vlad and Bo were acquired within a year of each other. At this time last year, or this time two years ago, did you expect the Jays to have arguably the #1 prospect in baseball and another who will likely rocket up prospect lists this winter? Things change. Players develop (or regress). Draft picks get added. As long as the team is not trading prospects for big league help, the system will organically improve, and more players will start to filter up to fit the time line for the team's next competitive window. Just because the team is going for it in 2018, it doesn't mean they will have two top prospects and a barren wasteland behind them for years to come. Right now it's a top heavy system with depth. It might look differently a year from now, never mind when Bo and Vlad actually reach the Majors/get to their arby years.

Further, "they used their draft picks and also their international bonuses" is something that applies to every team in the league. We don't really get any extra points for doing what every other team does. Bichette has obviously been a coup, but it's a bit early to mark down Zeuch, Pearson and Warmoth as wins (this is particularly true with Zeuch, as while I like him, he has been outshone by several of the pitchers drafted shortly after him in the first round).

They don't get extra points, but it goes against the argument that they are not adding to the system. That's the point. Drafts will happen. Players will be acquired in trades. Things will naturally evolve. If the front office does their jobs well, then there's no reason to be pessimistic about how this team will look 5-7 years from now. When you hoard prospects as much as Shapiro has, it's going to lead to some hits.

[Schad]

Two of the Yankees best position players this year were acquired for a back up catcher and a reliever (Hicks and Didi). Neither of those two were projected to be 3 win players. The Jays got players with big league potential. Whether they can be molded into something better remains to be seen, but you don't need to trade Donaldson to get good young talent in return. It is up to the Jays scouting and player development to identify some diamonds.

Shane Greene wasn't a reliever when they traded him for Gregorius. He was a young starter coming off a surprising (half a) rookie campaign where he posted peripherals that suggested that he was a mid-rotation arm in the making. Didn't turn out that way, but it was a smart roll of the dice by the Yankees where they traded what appeared to be a major league ready starter for a guy who, while a good prospect previous, had been pretty poor as a major leaguer to date. He did have acknowledged 3 fWAR potential (he'd been a top 100 prospect only a year before), though.

I'm perfectly fine with that sort of trade -- and in fact, I wanted us to trade for Gregorius when he was a D-Back -- but it wasn't a trade of a reliever for a diamond in the rough. And yeah, "let's trade nothing and get very good players" is not actually something we can realistically expect to build a team by doing.

Take the best prospects off every team and it would be the same scenario.

Most teams will not have the sheer number of holes we'll be facing as our supposed core either ages out or walks. By the time any player we draft in the future makes the big leagues, not only will Donaldson and Happ be gone (assuming, again, that we don't do something insane with Donaldson), but so too will at least a couple of Stroman, Osuna and Sanchez.

How can anyone really say what the future will look like? Vlad and Bo were acquired within a year of each other. At this time last year, or this time two years ago, did you expect the Jays to have arguably the #1 prospect in baseball and another who will likely rocket up prospect lists this winter? Things change. Players develop (or regress). Draft picks get added. As long as the team is not trading prospects for big league help, the system will organically improve, and more players will start to filter up to fit the time line for the team's next competitive window. Just because the team is going for it in 2018, it doesn't mean they will have two top prospects and a barren wasteland behind them for years to come. Right now it's a top heavy system with depth. It might look differently a year from now, never mind when Bo and Vlad actually reach the Majors/get to their arby years.

Right now it's a top-heavy system with a lot of fringe types. The assumption that the farm system will necessarily improve organically is also entirely false; as you have pointed out previous, prospects fail. And many of the guys we're talking about as good depth will, by this time next year, be thought of as pretty close to non-prospects. That's just baseball. Some will hopefully improve as well and begin to filter up, but you need a lot of tickets if you're going to win the lottery.

They don't get extra points, but it goes against the argument that they are not adding to the system. That's the point. Drafts will happen. Players will be acquired in trades. Things will naturally evolve. If the front office does their jobs well, then there's no reason to be pessimistic about how this team will look 5-7 years from now. When you hoard prospects as much as Shapiro has, it's going to lead to some hits.

This does not make logical sense. Every team is continually adding prospects. That does not mean that every team's farm system is improving; it's a continual cycle of renewal and decay, to get a bit purple, where the addition of new hopes is often offset by the decline of past hopes. We certainly saw that this year, as a great many of our better-regarded second-tier guys -- SRF, Greene, Tellez, Harris, and Maese, who were half of our BA top 10 -- fade rather badly.

Even still, we aren't really 'hoarding prospects'. We have added a few, and we haven't traded others, and that's good! But hoarding prospects looks like AA's first years, though to be sure the method by which he did so is no longer available. He stacked up an absurd number of 1st and 2nd rounders, added a bunch of top prospects via trade...and in so doing accumulated enough talent to set on fire in the pursuit of a handful of trades.

[Tanner]

Shane Greene wasn't a reliever when they traded him for Gregorius. He was a young starter coming off a surprising (half a) rookie campaign where he posted peripherals that suggested that he was a mid-rotation arm in the making. Didn't turn out that way, but it was a smart roll of the dice by the Yankees where they traded what appeared to be a major league ready starter for a guy who, while a good prospect previous, had been pretty poor as a major leaguer to date. He did have acknowledged 3 fWAR potential (he'd been a top 100 prospect only a year before), though.

It was a good trade by the Yankees. Greene was not a prospect on anyone's radar and had a good 15 game sample in the bigs, while Didi was at worst going to be a good defensive SS who could hit well enough to start (turns out he could hit a lot more than that). That was my point. Gregorius developed from a solid but flawed prospect into something a lot better than that, and in the grand scheme of things didn't take that much to acquire. In other words, there are ways of identifying talent and not having to detonate your big league roster to acquire it.

McGuire and Ramirez were also top 100 prospects the year before they were acquired. One has taken a step forward since the trade (in a small injury shortened sample) and the other fell off. If McGuire turns out to be a starting C with a 3 WAR a few years from now, I wouldn't say it was a real possibility at the time he was acquired. Upside if his bat improved, sure, but not something I'd bank on. The Yankees deserve credit for helping Didi develop offensively. If the Jays player development is as good as they are trying to make it, then we'll see if they get similar results.

I'm perfectly fine with that sort of trade -- and in fact, I wanted us to trade for Gregorius when he was a D-Back -- but it wasn't a trade of a reliever for a diamond in the rough. And yeah, "let's trade nothing and get very good players" is not actually something we can realistically expect to build a team by doing.

"Let's trade all the best vets on the team and get very good players" is not something that will necessarily build a good team, either. I never said the team should trade nothing and get something. I said you don't have to trade JD to get good young talent. There are ways to identify them before they breakout, or turn into something, and get them for far less. It takes good management to do that consistently. The Yankees have it. I think the Jays do as well, but haven't been able to put it into action due to the circumstances of their roster.

Most teams will not have the sheer number of holes we'll be facing as our supposed core either ages out or walks. By the time any player we draft in the future makes the big leagues, not only will Donaldson and Happ be gone (assuming, again, that we don't do something insane with Donaldson), but so too will at least a couple of Stroman, Osuna and Sanchez.

You said if you took the two best prospects on the team out of the system, it would look bad. That's that case for every team. Some teams have better depth than others. I'm not sure what the team's aging core has to do with that. As prospects become big league ready, they will start to get big league spots, and the age of the roster will fall back down organically. You can't replace big leaguers with players that aren't ready.

This does not make logical sense. Every team is continually adding prospects. That does not mean that every team's farm system is improving; it's a continual cycle of renewal and decay, to get a bit purple, where the addition of new hopes is often offset by the decline of past hopes. We certainly saw that this year, as a great many of our better-regarded second-tier guys -- SRF, Greene, Tellez, Harris, and Maese, who were half of our BA top 10 -- fade rather badly.

What was the team's farm system rank after 2015? What is it likely to be today? According to you, the Jays have acquired nothing of consequence in terms of young prospects over the last two years, and they haven't traded anyone either, so besides drafting and international signings like every other team does, what have they done to make the system go from bottom 5-10 to potentially top 10 in two years?

Prospects develop and fail. A prospect being young doesn't mean the trajectory will always be upwards. That wasn't my point. The point is if you keep adding talent to the system, by any means available to you, without trading any of it away, then the system will organically improve. It will organically add depth and increase the number of lottery tickets to help compensate for any prospect failure.

A farm system full of Guerrero's, even if the team rebuilt, is never going to happen. How many teams are going to trip over themselves to trade anyone at or near Guerrero's level for any vet the Jays have? How many of those players can you even draft or sign? It's hard. There will always be a pecking order with prospects.

Look at the two teams that are both one win away from meeting in the World Series. Look at their top 10 in WAR this season. How many of those players were acquired in the way you want the Jays to operate? Other than Kershaw being a top 10 pick, it was a late picks (first round or much later), trades that no one really paid attention to the time, international signings, etc. Not every team purposely tanked like the Astros did, or sold off all their players like the White Sox did (we'll see how that turns out for them in the next few years).

Trades happen, prospects you don't expect anything from pan out, prospects you expect things from fail, etc, etc, etc. I don't understand how anyone can definitively say what the system will look like, or even what the big league team will look like, in future years given the amount of uncertainty in regards to player development. If you want to argue that the team will fall off after 2018, then that's one thing. I'd tend to agree with that depending on what moves they make between now and then. However, to say they'll be awful for years and then subsequently waste the prime of two guys currently in A+ is entirely different. You or I wouldn't be able to accurately predict the 2019 lineup right now, much less the 2023 roster.

[flatjacket1]

I should have phrased it differently. What I meant is that he's currently at his peak base-stealing ability, and it's already not good. His speed may not degrade until he's 25 but it also won't really get any better. This is not really a problem since stolen bases are an over-valued skill and his hitting will make or break him as a star. He really doesn't look like he'll grow to be a mobile fielder/runner, though. His dad's defense/baserunning didn't fall off a cliff until his late 20's, so hopefully he can last that long.

Oh yeah I'd agree he's never going to steal bases. I should have phrased my original post on this better. My point was more that you can't steal them at any level of baseball without some speed. The fact that he has a handful means he can run okay (more meant in relation to baserunning than stealing bases). Id agree that stealing bases is likely at its peak, not because of skill but because the guys throwing you out in A ball look different from the higher levels (still somewhat competent though. Usually have strength but no consistency). Tried to reference the SB numbers as a positive sign than a tangible skill.

Yeah every player develops totally different, but I still see him as a corner OF. One of the main reasons is his mobility in the field paired with his wildness when throwing across the diamond. He's had some awful games at third this year, and although he is young I can't see anybody arguing that he will improve that significantly to be even average. I see him either in a corner OF or 1B (considering his glove seems to be worlds ahead of his arm). Either way his bat looks incredible so really it doesn't matter where he plays. I still think he has a good chance to set some Jay's records with the bat.

[Schad]

It was a good trade by the Yankees. Greene was not a prospect on anyone's radar and had a good 15 game sample in the bigs, while Didi was at worst going to be a good defensive SS who could hit well enough to start (turns out he could hit a lot more than that). That was my point. Gregorius developed from a solid but flawed prospect into something a lot better than that, and in the grand scheme of things didn't take that much to acquire. In other words, there are ways of identifying talent and not having to detonate your big league roster to acquire it.

That he didn't take too much to acquire is something seen only through hindsight. Again, good trade, but the Yankees gave up what was considered to be a potentially good asset in Greene, a pop-up prospect who'd posted more than a strikeout per inning in his brief rookie campaign.

McGuire and Ramirez were also top 100 prospects the year before they were acquired. One has taken a step forward since the trade (in a small injury shortened sample) and the other fell off. If McGuire turns out to be a starting C with a 3 WAR a few years from now, I wouldn't say it was a real possibility at the time he was acquired. Upside if his bat improved, sure, but not something I'd bank on. The Yankees deserve credit for helping Didi develop offensively. If the Jays player development is as good as they are trying to make it, then we'll see if they get similar results.

Every team talks about their superior player development. I'm not sure I'd assign ours deus ex machina status quite yet.

"Let's trade all the best vets on the team and get very good players" is not something that will necessarily build a good team, either. I never said the team should trade nothing and get something. I said you don't have to trade JD to get good young talent. There are ways to identify them before they breakout, or turn into something, and get them for far less. It takes good management to do that consistently. The Yankees have it. I think the Jays do as well, but haven't been able to put it into action due to the circumstances of their roster.

Occasionally. It's by far the highest degree of difficulty of any means to build a team.

You said if you took the two best prospects on the team out of the system, it would look bad. That's that case for every team. Some teams have better depth than others. I'm not sure what the team's aging core has to do with that. As prospects become big league ready, they will start to get big league spots, and the age of the roster will fall back down organically. You can't replace big leaguers with players that aren't ready.

We are going to have a lot of holes, with a lot of money committed. We thus need a better farm system than most teams if we are going to have any sort of success over the next couple years.

What was the team's farm system rank after 2015? What is it likely to be today? According to you, the Jays have acquired nothing of consequence in terms of young prospects over the last two years, and they haven't traded anyone either, so besides drafting and international signings like every other team does, what have they done to make the system go from bottom 5-10 to potentially top 10 in two years?

We have done nothing of consequence in terms of transforming the system into one capable of building a team organically, no. The top of our farm system is absolutely very good, thanks in large part to two holdovers and the Bichette pick. But our depth now is still very mediocre...that's better than the scorched earth we had following AA's departure, but better does not mean actually good. Simply not setting prospects on fire was always going to improve it somewhat.

A farm system full of Guerrero's, even if the team rebuilt, is never going to happen. How many teams are going to trip over themselves to trade anyone at or near Guerrero's level for any vet the Jays have? How many of those players can you even draft or sign? It's hard. There will always be a pecking order with prospects.

And right now, our pecking order goes "exceptional, exceptional, very good...fringy".

Look at the two teams that are both one win away from meeting in the World Series. Look at their top 10 in WAR this season. How many of those players were acquired in the way you want the Jays to operate? Other than Kershaw being a top 10 pick, it was a late picks (first round or much later), trades that no one really paid attention to the time, international signings, etc. Not every team purposely tanked like the Astros did, or sold off all their players like the White Sox did (we'll see how that turns out for them in the next few years).

Wait, we're reclassifying mid-first round picks like Seager as "late picks"?

Also, the Yankees and Dodgers have a defined advantage: they can spend their mistakes away. The Dodgers are paying $50m (far more including luxury tax) to players who aren't on their roster, and they have frequently used their spending to get players and prospects that they otherwise could not, and to retain talent in circumstances where others could not. We do not have that ability. Using them as a model would be silly.

Trades happen, prospects you don't expect anything from pan out, prospects you expect things from fail, etc, etc, etc. I don't understand how anyone can definitively say what the system will look like, or even what the big league team will look like, in future years given the amount of uncertainty in regards to player development. If you want to argue that the team will fall off after 2018, then that's one thing. I'd tend to agree with that depending on what moves they make between now and then. However, to say they'll be awful for years and then subsequently waste the prime of two guys currently in A+ is entirely different. You or I wouldn't be able to accurately predict the 2019 lineup right now, much less the 2023 roster.

I'm not **** saying anything definitively and I have made that point several times! Rather, we're looking at the balance of probabilities: you want to follow a model that requires us to be better at talent evaluation and development than anyone, and which even then may not be sufficient. That's insanely difficult to pull off.

[Tanner]

That he didn't take too much to acquire is something seen only through hindsight. Again, good trade, but the Yankees gave up what was considered to be a potentially good asset in Greene, a pop-up prospect who'd posted more than a strikeout per inning in his brief rookie campaign.

Not a perfect example since the roles were different, but if the Jays traded Biagini after 2016, that's what I'd compare it to. Someone who wasn't really a prospect, showed up out of no where to post good numbers in a relatively small sample, and then got moved. I don't recall ever seeing Greene mentioned as a top prospect. Didi was on the bottom end of a top 100 prospect. He turned out to be a lot better than that.

Every team talks about their superior player development. I'm not sure I'd assign ours deus ex machina status quite yet.

Well, they signed Smoak to a deal many people found inexplicable at the time. One year later, we saw what happened. They traded for Jay Bruce the year prior to that coming off two straight poor seasons, and turns out they would have gotten surplus value had that deal gone through. Not saying everything they touch will work out, clearly Morales hasn't, but I think the front office is more than capable. We haven't really seen the player development side because they haven't had big league ready prospects to promote. That will change this season.

We are going to have a lot of holes, with a lot of money committed. We thus need a better farm system than most teams if we are going to have any sort of success over the next couple years.

Again, without seeing how the off season plays out, that's pretty hard to say with any sort of confidence.

We have done nothing of consequence in terms of transforming the system into one capable of building a team organically, no. The top of our farm system is absolutely very good, thanks in large part to two holdovers and the Bichette pick. But our depth now is still very mediocre...that's better than the scorched earth we had following AA's departure, but better does not mean actually good. Simply not setting prospects on fire was always going to improve it somewhat.

The Jays should have a farm system ranking close to or at top 10 this winter. Yes, a big part of that is because of three players (Vlad, Bo, Alford), but that leads into my point exactly. Where were Vlad, Bo, and Alford ranked a year ago? Two years ago (in Alford's case)? Players progress. They also regress. As Alford rose, players like Tellez stalled. Still, the farm system ranking will improve. The key is to draft well, and the cream will rise to the top. A lot of the Jays prospects now are still in lowA, or just drafted. Players will move forward, some will take a step back, and more will be added. That's how you build depth in the system.

And right now, our pecking order goes "exceptional, exceptional, very good...fringy".

What will it be a year from now? You could have the same exact prospects a year from now and the rankings could be entirely different, especially with so many players in the lower minors. I'm not sure why you are so focused on the rankings as of today to determine the long-term future of the team. By 2019-20, when Bo/Vlad should be everyday big leaguers if everything pans out, the team will look entirely different.

Wait, we're reclassifying mid-first round picks like Seager as "late picks"?

Also, the Yankees and Dodgers have a defined advantage: they can spend their mistakes away. The Dodgers are paying $50m (far more including luxury tax) to players who aren't on their roster, and they have frequently used their spending to get players and prospects that they otherwise could not, and to retain talent in circumstances where others could not. We do not have that ability. Using them as a model would be silly.

Well, if you're tanking like you want the Jays to and you end up with the 18th pick, then that's a pretty bad job of it. My point was top 10 picks, something practically everyone on this board was salivating over during the last month of this season. Only Kershaw fits that. But if you want to include a pick that the Dodgers got for finishing with 82 wins, then that kind of adds to my point of not needing to scorch earth.

None of the moves the Dodgers have done looking at their top 10 in WAR this season, aside from Kershaw, was a result of being terrible or trading away vets to get younger. They got lucky with some signings panning out (Turner) and some small trades. They drafted and developed well. Friedman has run the team a lot better than the previous regime did so even with the advantage financially it doesn't really change the actual point. Smart front offices will find ways to find/develop good players.

I've mentioned the Yankees before. They bypassed a rebuild entirely and got star level prospects. Haven't finished below .500 in over 20 years. They are about to go under the luxury tax next year too, so can't even claim it's financial anymore. They are just smartly run.

Maybe the Jays won't be that smart, but I like the front office so far. If Morales is the worst move they have made, then I'll take it. Three of the four AL playoff teams had Beltran, Hanley, and Holliday as their primary DH's this year. That's not the worst mistake to make. I think they have already begun the process of fixing the farm system and adding more young talent. They know what they are doing.

I'm not **** saying anything definitively and I have made that point several times! Rather, we're looking at the balance of probabilities: you want to follow a model that requires us to be better at talent evaluation and development than anyone, and which even then may not be sufficient. That's insanely difficult to pull off.

So why bother rebuilding? They'd have to draft and develop better than everyone in that scenario as well. Look at AA's first few years on the job. He traded the best player on the team for 3 prospects. He hoarded picks and gamed the system as much as he could to add more. Despite that, the team was getting progressively worse on the big league side despite falling into two of the best power hitters of this decade, and by the time he decided to trade prospects for big league help, the team was still no where near ready to have a roster of homegrown young talent. That was after three drafts and many, many trades.

Then you have the Yankees, who never rebuilt, made the playoffs in 2015 with only one starting position player under the age of 30, and two years later look like a potential young dynasty.

Baseball is weird and unpredictable. The NBA mindset is foolish. Apples and oranges. I am the only one not making any real definitive claims. I'm not saying what they are doing will work, nor am I against a rebuild. The argument is about probability, and in baseball, what you are suggesting has a higher probability isn't necessarily true.

[Schad]

Not a perfect example since the roles were different, but if the Jays traded Biagini after 2016, that's what I'd compare it to. Someone who wasn't really a prospect, showed up out of no where to post good numbers in a relatively small sample, and then got moved. I don't recall ever seeing Greene mentioned as a top prospect. Didi was on the bottom end of a top 100 prospect. He turned out to be a lot better than that.

He isn't comparable to Biagini, no. He was a hard-thrower with the peripherals of a good mid-rotation starter, with 14 GS under his belt. Detroit gambled that he'd keep that up, which he didn't...his K rate plummeted immediately.

Well, they signed Smoak to a deal many people found inexplicable at the time. One year later, we saw what happened. They traded for Jay Bruce the year prior to that coming off two straight poor seasons, and turns out they would have gotten surplus value had that deal gone through. Not saying everything they touch will work out, clearly Morales hasn't, but I think the front office is more than capable. We haven't really seen the player development side because they haven't had big league ready prospects to promote. That will change this season.

They are pretty capable. They are not likely miracle workers.

Again, without seeing how the off season plays out, that's pretty hard to say with any sort of confidence.

We were 25th or worse in production at the following positions: C, 2B, SS, RF, DH, and our position players were the 29th-best in baseball. We have a lot of holes to fill, even if some already have players penciled in.

The Jays should have a farm system ranking close to or at top 10 this winter. Yes, a big part of that is because of three players (Vlad, Bo, Alford), but that leads into my point exactly. Where were Vlad, Bo, and Alford ranked a year ago? Two years ago (in Alford's case)? Players progress. They also regress. As Alford rose, players like Tellez stalled. Still, the farm system ranking will improve. The key is to draft well, and the cream will rise to the top. A lot of the Jays prospects now are still in lowA, or just drafted. Players will move forward, some will take a step back, and more will be added. That's how you build depth in the system.

It's also how you sometimes see depth evaporate. The problem is that most players taken in the draft from now on will not reach the bigs until 2022 or later, and most taken in IFA will be even further still from the bigs; if what passes for upper-minors depth stalls out, we're then looking at a long-term gap before we get much by way of reinforcements.

What will it be a year from now? You could have the same exact prospects a year from now and the rankings could be entirely different, especially with so many players in the lower minors. I'm not sure why you are so focused on the rankings as of today to determine the long-term future of the team. By 2019-20, when Bo/Vlad should be everyday big leaguers if everything pans out, the team will look entirely different.

Yes, indeed, things will change. And I'm looking at the rankings now because that is the only information available to us. Projecting our hope that things will be substantively better is not a better practice.

Well, if you're tanking like you want the Jays to and you end up with the 18th pick, then that's a pretty bad job of it. My point was top 10 picks, something practically everyone on this board was salivating over during the last month of this season. Only Kershaw fits that. But if you want to include a pick that the Dodgers got for finishing with 82 wins, then that kind of adds to my point of not needing to scorch earth.

I don't want the Jays to tank. I have been rather clear on this. You can trade off veterans with problematic contractual situations while adding to the current team. That presumably would be our path if we rebuilt, because our target date would be 2020...close enough that outright tanking would not be the ideal.

Rather, among other things, moving veterans off the roster would free up money and give us a better chance to extend some of our younger players, Stroman in particular.

None of the moves the Dodgers have done looking at their top 10 in WAR this season, aside from Kershaw, was a result of being terrible or trading away vets to get younger. They got lucky with some signings panning out (Turner) and some small trades. They drafted and developed well. Friedman has run the team a lot better than the previous regime did so even with the advantage financially it doesn't really change the actual point. Smart front offices will find ways to find/develop good players.

I've mentioned the Yankees before. They bypassed a rebuild entirely and got star level prospects. Haven't finished below .500 in over 20 years. They are about to go under the luxury tax next year too, so can't even claim it's financial anymore. They are just smartly run.

Take a look at when the Yankees made those good decisions in the draft and IFA. Judge was taken in 2013. Sanchez was signed in 2009. Severino was signed in 2011. With few exceptions there is a long lag time for those players to become productive major leaguers. I am 100% in favour of using those routes to their fullest effect, but they will not pay off until most of our current roster is retired or broken down. Thus it is unreasonable to think that good drafting and good work in IFA will be the answer with the group as currently constituted.

Maybe the Jays won't be that smart, but I like the front office so far. If Morales is the worst move they have made, then I'll take it. Three of the four AL playoff teams had Beltran, Hanley, and Holliday as their primary DH's this year. That's not the worst mistake to make. I think they have already begun the process of fixing the farm system and adding more young talent. They know what they are doing.

I think they know what they are doing, too. But what they are doing will not pay dividends in 2018, when we are looking to compete. You are actually making a very strong argument to trade the current crop of vets to align our talent base with the Shapiro/Atkins kids who will hopefully filter up through the system from 2019 on.

So why bother rebuilding? They'd have to draft and develop better than everyone in that scenario as well. Look at AA's first few years on the job. He traded the best player on the team for 3 prospects. He hoarded picks and gamed the system as much as he could to add more. Despite that, the team was getting progressively worse on the big league side despite falling into two of the best power hitters of this decade, and by the time he decided to trade prospects for big league help, the team was still no where near ready to have a roster of homegrown young talent. That was after three drafts and many, many trades.

Because prospect development takes a long time, which again is part of the point I'm making. AA's team got progressively worse because there was a long lag time between the drafting of those prospects and the time at which they would become productive major leaguers. We currently feature a long lag time for all but a couple of our prospects, and we face a situation where important parts of our roster will be gone long before those players don a Jays uniform.

Then you have the Yankees, who never rebuilt, made the playoffs in 2015 with only one starting position player under the age of 30, and two years later look like a potential young dynasty.

Baseball is weird and unpredictable. The NBA mindset is foolish. Apples and oranges. I am the only one not making any real definitive claims. I'm not saying what they are doing will work, nor am I against a rebuild. The argument is about probability, and in baseball, what you are suggesting has a higher probability isn't necessarily true.

Beg to differ. "Let's take one of the worst teams in baseball, with no upper minors depth and little money to spend, and turn it overnight into a contender in the toughest division in baseball without trading from our prospect base." is about as low probability as she gets.

[flatjacket1]

We were 25th or worse in production at the following positions: C, 2B, SS, RF, DH, and our position players were the 29th-best in baseball. We have a lot of holes to fill, even if some already have players penciled in.

I feel like this is a pretty unfair assessment.

Of the 6154 PA that our position players logged, our 9 guys penciled in only received:

DH: 608
C: 365
1B: 637
2B: 197
SS: 260
3B: 496
LF: 348
CF: 632
RF: 686

TOT: 4,229

Which means our starters only played 68% of our value. I know the whole "Oh Tulo sucked anyways" argument is going strong, but playing 260 PA over a 8 month season while having injuries keeping you from getting in rhythm is a thing.

I don't necessarily agree with a lot of Tanners posts regarding the state of the team but in my opinion you are incredibly biased against fielding a competitive team. The numbers you are using are not created to be used as absolute measures and you specifically ignore key statistical expectations like variance and flat out changed variables (injuries). You can't just ignore injuries and rVAR's when you present a numerical argument as to why we need miracle workers to be competitive.

[Schad]

Which means our starters only played 68% of our value. I know the whole "Oh Tulo sucked anyways" argument is going strong, but playing 260 PA over a 8 month season while having injuries keeping you from getting in rhythm is a thing.

Tulo has averaged 405 PAs over his past six seasons. His high-water mark saw him miss just 19% of our games. The fact that he's going to miss somewhere between 20-50% of each season pretty well has to be baked in, and the fact that we are likely to have bad production from our backups is unsurprising given that we aren't going to have the resources to have quality backup options.

I don't necessarily agree with a lot of Tanners posts regarding the state of the team but in my opinion you are incredibly biased against fielding a competitive team. The numbers you are using are not created to be used as absolute measures and you specifically ignore key statistical expectations like variance and flat out changed variables (injuries). You can't just ignore injuries and rVAR's when you present a numerical argument as to why we need miracle workers to be competitive.

I don't need to ignore them. We missed the playoffs by nine games and finished seventeen out of the playoffs, while outplaying our expected win-loss by a further four games. We had just three regulars who exceeded 2 fWAR/650 on more than 300 PAs, which is the bare minimum standard to be considered an average starter. The two teams we're chasing in the AL East stand to be just as good or better (the Yankees had eight players who fit the above criteria). Our road to being competitive in 2018 is incredibly narrow, and reversion to the mean and a couple savvy moves isn't going to change that.

Again, we need to come up with about 150 runs gained/saved to be a fringe playoff team. That's a huge, huge gain when we still have most of the same aged core, and only have the money to acquire an average starter and an average outfielder.

[Tanner]

He isn't comparable to Biagini, no. He was a hard-thrower with the peripherals of a good mid-rotation starter, with 14 GS under his belt. Detroit gambled that he'd keep that up, which he didn't...his K rate plummeted immediately.

A middling prospect who had an unexpected good 70+ inning sample his mid-20's with velocity in the mid-90's. Again, not a perfect example due to the roles being different, but the Tigers clearly misjudged it either way.

We were 25th or worse in production at the following positions: C, 2B, SS, RF, DH, and our position players were the 29th-best in baseball. We have a lot of holes to fill, even if some already have players penciled in.

Well we have discussed how projections work before so I won't rehash that, but again, we have to see how the off-season plays out. No one is saying the front office can turn the 2018 team into a threat to the Yankees, Astros, or Indians. Just a team that could contend for a WC spot. It's doable with a good off season.

It's also how you sometimes see depth evaporate. The problem is that most players taken in the draft from now on will not reach the bigs until 2022 or later, and most taken in IFA will be even further still from the bigs; if what passes for upper-minors depth stalls out, we're then looking at a long-term gap before we get much by way of reinforcements.

Sure, but that will never change. You sign or trade for big leaguers to fill spots until the prospects are ready. It doesn't have to be all homegrown guys.

Yes, indeed, things will change. And I'm looking at the rankings now because that is the only information available to us. Projecting our hope that things will be substantively better is not a better practice.

Wouldn't projecting it to get worse or remain in the same spot be equally pointless?

When an existing prospect becomes better, the system will improve. For example, if Warmoth turns into a stud next season, then the system will rank higher because someone not currently graded highly will move into a higher grade level. However, if Warmoth flops, then the system will likely not see much of a dip because he's in low A and players that low generally don't grade well due to how low they are in the minors (not necessarily how far away they are). For the system to see any noticeable drop off, it will have to come with the top guys regressing.

That's the exact reason why the system will grade a lot better now than two years ago. It doesn't mean it will be a great farm system that produces tons of impact talent, but when you draft/sign and don't trade anyone, it's going to add depth, and some of that depth will pan out (either expectedly or unexpectedly).

I don't want the Jays to tank. I have been rather clear on this. You can trade off veterans with problematic contractual situations while adding to the current team. That presumably would be our path if we rebuilt, because our target date would be 2020...close enough that outright tanking would not be the ideal.

Rather, among other things, moving veterans off the roster would free up money and give us a better chance to extend some of our younger players, Stroman in particular.

And I have said before, I don't mind trading JD. My main contention is whether we need to. I really don't think it will make much of a difference at this point unless some team is dying to have him for a year in his 30's and is willing to give up a **** ton. Getting Drabek/Taylor/d'Arnaud part 2 isn't going to lead to the next wave any faster. Now, if they trade JD for players closer to the bigs, then that's a different story. I have mentioned before trade him to the Cards for Reyes and one of their OF's, and have Gyorko as a throw-in. I'm down for that. But A/AA players? That's a hell of a lot more risky.

Take a look at when the Yankees made those good decisions in the draft and IFA. Judge was taken in 2013. Sanchez was signed in 2009. Severino was signed in 2011. With few exceptions there is a long lag time for those players to become productive major leaguers. I am 100% in favour of using those routes to their fullest effect, but they will not pay off until most of our current roster is retired or broken down. Thus it is unreasonable to think that good drafting and good work in IFA will be the answer with the group as currently constituted.

I think that's where the disagreement is. I'm not trying to fit Bo and Vlad into our current roster. What we see in 2018 and what we see in 2020 will likely be remarkably different. My point has always been that if the Jays decide not to rebuild, which seems to be the case for now, then transitioning into the next core can done in a similar way to that of the Yankees (use trades or signings to fill holes, wait for the prospects). Will it be as successful? Maybe not, but if Rogers wants a perennial .500 team, and Shapiro wants to rebuild, then there is a compromise somewhere in there (basically what we have seen the last two years).

Keep Martin in 2018. If one of the catching prospects proves that 2017 was legit (Jansen or McGuire), then maybe you move Martin in 2019 while eating some cash up (like the Yankees did with McCann). If not, then keep Martin around until the end of his deal. Same thing with Tulo. It doesn't appear they have a SS prospect knowing on the door, but if that happens in 2019 or 2020, then you make the switch. And so on.

My point is you can rebuild and try to field a palatable roster at the same time. You don't need to sacrifice one for the other.

I think they know what they are doing, too. But what they are doing will not pay dividends in 2018, when we are looking to compete. You are actually making a very strong argument to trade the current crop of vets to align our talent base with the Shapiro/Atkins kids who will hopefully filter up through the system from 2019 on.

If the 2018 team stinks up the joint, then next July, something like that might happen.

Because prospect development takes a long time, which again is part of the point I'm making. AA's team got progressively worse because there was a long lag time between the drafting of those prospects and the time at which they would become productive major leaguers. We currently feature a long lag time for all but a couple of our prospects, and we face a situation where important parts of our roster will be gone long before those players don a Jays uniform.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but my point is, moves happen that change the complexion of certain positions. IOW, maybe we won't have lags in certain spots if we have this discussion two years from now. Trades happen, some unexpected prospect no one is looking at right now will turn into something, someone will not pan out, etc.

You're projecting YEARS into the future and my point is that is a pretty pointless exercise.

[Schad]

A middling prospect who had an unexpected good 70+ inning sample his mid-20's with velocity in the mid-90's. Again, not a perfect example due to the roles being different, but the Tigers clearly misjudged it either way.

Absolutely; it was a case of two teams making upside bets (and the Diamondbacks just being silly, because Dave Stewart), one of which paid off.

Well we have discussed how projections work before so I won't rehash that, but again, we have to see how the off-season plays out. No one is saying the front office can turn the 2018 team into a threat to the Yankees, Astros, or Indians. Just a team that could contend for a WC spot. It's doable with a good off season.

But look at what you're saying. With a good offseason, we have the chance to compete for a coin flip playoff. Add those "mights" and "maybes" up and it quickly becomes apparent that our odds of actually playing in a playoff series are pretty low. And we're betting an awful lot on that.

Sure, but that will never change. You sign or trade for big leaguers to fill spots until the prospects are ready. It doesn't have to be all homegrown guys.

No, it will never be all homegrown guys. But the $/WAR cost of free agents is so extreme that you need more homegrown guys than you once did. $170m doesn't go very far unless you have a large number of highly productive, underpaid kiddies.

Wouldn't projecting it to get worse or remain in the same spot be equally pointless?

When an existing prospect becomes better, the system will improve. For example, if Warmoth turns into a stud next season, then the system will rank higher because someone not currently graded highly will move into a higher grade level. However, if Warmoth flops, then the system will likely not see much of a dip because he's in low A and players that low generally don't grade well due to how low they are in the minors (not necessarily how far away they are). For the system to see any noticeable drop off, it will have to come with the top guys regressing.

That's the exact reason why the system will grade a lot better now than two years ago. It doesn't mean it will be a great farm system that produces tons of impact talent, but when you draft/sign and don't trade anyone, it's going to add depth, and some of that depth will pan out (either expectedly or unexpectedly).

I'm not projecting that it'll get worse, but cautioning against the idea that depth will come automatically. Warmoth could be a grade A player; the K:BB woes he had in short-season could also prove to be a continual issue, and Pearson could be anything from a stud starter to a guy whose right arm flies off and ends up in the Kuiper Belt. One cannot assume that draft picks will lead to quality depth unless you have a lot of draft picks, because it's a numbers game.

And I have said before, I don't mind trading JD. My main contention is whether we need to. I really don't think it will make much of a difference at this point unless some team is dying to have him for a year in his 30's and is willing to give up a **** ton. Getting Drabek/Taylor/d'Arnaud part 2 isn't going to lead to the next wave any faster. Now, if they trade JD for players closer to the bigs, then that's a different story. I have mentioned before trade him to the Cards for Reyes and one of their OF's, and have Gyorko as a throw-in. I'm down for that. But A/AA players? That's a hell of a lot more risky.

There we're in agreement, though I'm not a huge fan of Reyes. I'd happily take AA pitchers, though; that's often the point where the wheat separates from the chaff.

I think that's where the disagreement is. I'm not trying to fit Bo and Vlad into our current roster. What we see in 2018 and what we see in 2020 will likely be remarkably different. My point has always been that if the Jays decide not to rebuild, which seems to be the case for now, then transitioning into the next core can done in a similar way to that of the Yankees (use trades or signings to fill holes, wait for the prospects). Will it be as successful? Maybe not, but if Rogers wants a perennial .500 team, and Shapiro wants to rebuild, then there is a compromise somewhere in there (basically what we have seen the last two years).

Keep Martin in 2018. If one of the catching prospects proves that 2017 was legit (Jansen or McGuire), then maybe you move Martin in 2019 while eating some cash up (like the Yankees did with McCann). If not, then keep Martin around until the end of his deal. Same thing with Tulo. It doesn't appear they have a SS prospect knowing on the door, but if that happens in 2019 or 2020, then you make the switch. And so on.

My point is you can rebuild and try to field a palatable roster at the same time. You don't need to sacrifice one for the other.

Our plans really aren't dissimilar, then. I haven't advocated holding a fire sale where we trade everything at the same time, but rather moving the impending free agents and making opportunistic trades otherwise...if someone wants to trade serious value for Martin (or Smoak, or Osuna, or whatever) now, you move Martin for serious value. If they don't, we can afford to be a little patient.

If the 2018 team stinks up the joint, then next July, something like that might happen.

The problems arise if we don't stink up the joint and we aren't world-beaters. I think we can build a team relatively close to .500, and if we do, we aren't moving vets off the roster. Then, our best-case is two first rounders for Donaldson/Happ, and while I'm always happy to add to our draft pool, those assets won't mature for a very long time.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but my point is, moves happen that change the complexion of certain positions. IOW, maybe we won't have lags in certain spots if we have this discussion two years from now. Trades happen, some unexpected prospect no one is looking at right now will turn into something, someone will not pan out, etc.

You're projecting YEARS into the future and my point is that is a pretty pointless exercise.

Anything that happens on a baseball forum is necessarily a pointless exercise. Attempting to get a grasp on how we build a team that can compete long term is no more or less pointless than any other discussion, heh.

[flatjacket1]

I don't need to ignore them. We missed the playoffs by nine games and finished seventeen out of the playoffs, while outplaying our expected win-loss by a further four games. We had just three regulars who exceeded 2 fWAR/650 on more than 300 PAs, which is the bare minimum standard to be considered an average starter. The two teams we're chasing in the AL East stand to be just as good or better (the Yankees had eight players who fit the above criteria). Our road to being competitive in 2018 is incredibly narrow, and reversion to the mean and a couple savvy moves isn't going to change that.

Again, we need to come up with about 150 runs gained/saved to be a fringe playoff team. That's a huge, huge gain when we still have most of the same aged core, and only have the money to acquire an average starter and an average outfielder.

You can't arbitrary choose to remove wins based variance and not say that some of the down years are results of them.

And pacing out partial injury seasons doesn't exactly make everything alright either.

You do see that you are at this point trying to make us look terrible?

[Skin Blues]

You can't look at Pythag record to describe W/L potential for next season without looking at the components of the Pythag W/L. We hugely under-performed this year on both offense and defense. It's hard to find team projections from April, but Clay Davenport's projection was 757 runs scored and we ended up with 693, and 721 runs allowed and we ended up with 784. 127 runs lost versus the true talent of the team. That true talent may drop off a bit, but simple regression will help us get back toward playoff contention more than any player additions will. And of course the nature of variance is that we're just as likely to beat our projected Runs for/against by 100+ runs as we are to repeat last year's underachievement.

[Schad]

You can't look at Pythag record to describe W/L potential for next season without looking at the components of the Pythag W/L. We hugely under-performed this year on both offense and defense. It's hard to find team projections from April, but Clay Davenport's projection was 757 runs scored and we ended up with 693, and 721 runs allowed and we ended up with 784. 127 runs lost versus the true talent of the team. That true talent may drop off a bit, but simple regression will help us get back toward playoff contention more than any player additions will. And of course the nature of variance is that we're just as likely to beat our projected Runs for/against by 100+ runs as we are to repeat last year's underachievement.

We've had this discussion before, yes. The problem is that you cannot simply chalk things up to variance...some of it might be, but this notion that projections are more accurate after the fact than the actual results is a bit comical. Davenport (who I have a lot of respect for) had Bautista pegged for a .259/.393/.462 line; he missed that by a mere 181 points of OPS. After watching the season, which of the following scenarios seems more likely to you:

i) Bautista is done, as evidenced by the massive spike in his K rate.
ii) Bautista was unlucky, and will be an above-average hitter again next year.

It's ii), right? Because all of the numbers from last year lead in that direction, and indeed his 2018 projections will reflect that. Bautista isn't a factor in our 2018 plans, but he was a factor in the rosier 2017 projections. Theoretical Bautista produced quite a few of those runs that we'd now need to make up.

A suggestion: if we're going to treat projections as destiny, let's wait until the 2018 projections are out. Because I have a feeling that ours will be considerably less rosy than they were coming off a playoff season, and before several of our veterans entered massive declines. Certainly, we saw this during the season, when "we're actually a really good team because Fangraphs' model of models shows us winning 53% from here on out" gave way when Fangraphs' model began to show us winning less than 50% the remainder of the way.

[Skin Blues]

The problem is that you cannot simply chalk things up to variance

Yeah, you really can. We didn't know beforehand Bautista would suck this bad, we didn't know beforehand Smoak would be that good. And neither of them are really as good or as bad as they showed this year, in all likelihood. Their true talent also changed, which is itself a part of that variance. We can't perfectly predict how true talent for each player will deviate from the projected path, but we know it will, either up or down. And the nature of a mean projected value is that there is a 50% chance it is better, or worse, for every player.

some of it might be [variance], but this notion that projections are more accurate after the fact than the actual results is a bit comical.

You are losing focus on what we are interested in, which is 2018 W/L record, not 2017 W/L record. Neither one is ideal for projecting 2018 W/L, but 2017 pythag is going to be much worse at that. It is useful to see, though, that the team severely underperformed 2017 projections. When that happens, you don't just assume that's the new baseline. You use regression to end up at some point in between. 2018 projections will of course be an even better predictor of W/L.

Bautista isn't a factor in our 2018 plans, but he was a factor in the rosier 2017 projections. Theoretical Bautista produced quite a few of those runs that we'd now need to make up.

He's one small part of the bad luck, and is completely offset by how good Smoak was. It was a lot more than just Bautista that went awry last year, and a lot of that (injuries, poor performance) will regress.

A suggestion: if we're going to treat projections as destiny, let's wait until the 2018 projections are out.

I don't know what you mean by destiny, but yes, I will most certainly put a lot more weight on the 2018 projections than I will on the 2017 pythag record which is essentially meaningless when trying to predict 2018 W/L record. You can already look at 2018 projections if you want (Steamer/ZiPS adjust ROS projections every day, so we can see what they were after game 162), but obviously there are transactions to be made, and playing time to be assigned. And they will, I am 100% sure, show a much rosier future than our 2017 pythag record would suggest, since it will be heavily regressed back toward the true talent of our players. Which brings us to the point I made in my original post that you took exception to: That regression alone will bring us from a pythag of 72 wins up to at least 80. So, there's 8 wins based solely off of regression.

[Schad]

The problem is that you cannot simply chalk things up to variance

Yeah, you really can. We didn't know beforehand Bautista would suck this bad, we didn't know beforehand Smoak would be that good. And neither of them are really as good or as bad as they showed this year, in all likelihood. Their true talent also changed, which is itself a part of that variance. We can't perfectly predict how true talent for each player will deviate from the projected path, but we know it will, either up or down. And the nature of a mean projected value is that there is a 50% chance it is better, or worse, for every player.

Which then informs what you're projecting for the next year because, yeah: the true talent level of several of our players has changed.

You are losing focus on what we are interested in, which is 2018 W/L record, not 2017 W/L record. Neither one is ideal for projecting 2018 W/L, but 2017 pythag is going to be much worse at that. It is useful to see, though, that the team severely underperformed 2017 projections. When that happens, you don't just assume that's the new baseline. You use regression to end up at some point in between. 2018 projections will of course be an even better predictor of W/L.

I agree that it's a point in between. I think, with smart additions, we'll be roughly a .500 team. That's the problem!

He's one small part of the bad luck, and is completely offset by how good Smoak was. It was a lot more than just Bautista that went awry last year, and a lot of that (injuries, poor performance) will regress.

Doesn't quite offset, no. The projections for Smoak weren't as bad as the actual results for Bautista, not by some distance. That's in part because most projections had Smoak being poor in far fewer PAs; thus, the models baked in a better performance for the sum total of the two than we received.

I don't know what you mean by destiny, but yes, I will most certainly put a lot more weight on the 2018 projections than I will on the 2017 pythag record which is essentially meaningless when trying to predict 2018 W/L record. You can already look at 2018 projections if you want (Steamer/ZiPS adjust ROS projections every day, so we can see what they were after game 162), but obviously there are transactions to be made, and playing time to be assigned. And they will, I am 100% sure, show a much rosier future than our 2017 pythag record would suggest, since it will be heavily regressed back toward the true talent of our players.

Or, as you noted above, the 2017 results will in many cases reflect the true talent of our players, which will have changed. We'll perhaps have fewer injuries, but we're going to again be heavily reliant on players with long injury histories, and an old team is going to keep getting older.

And even then: the rosy 2017 projections didn't have us as world-beaters. Depending on the model, they had us there or thereabouts for a Wild Card spot. We then had a season which will result in the production expectations of many of our players being downgraded, some significantly. This is not a recipe for a high-percentage playoff push.


On the expected record: I keep using that because our run differential from this season is a better marker of how much ground we can expect will need to be made up if we're to compete. That can come from players rebounding, or staying healthy, or additions, or whatever. But it is a hell of a lot of ground.

[Skin Blues]

Which then informs what you're projecting for the next year because, yeah: the true talent level of several of our players has changed.

Rigth, last years results inform this year's projections. I think we're on the same page there. The problem is using ONLY 2017's results to say we need to improve by +150 run differential.

I think, with smart additions, we'll be roughly a .500 team. That's the problem!

It's definitely a problem. But it's a lot better than the 72-90 record you said was our starting point that we'd need to add to with additions. We are really only adding players to a baseline of around 80 wins.

as you noted above, the 2017 results will in many cases reflect the true talent of our players, which will have changed. We'll perhaps have fewer injuries, but we're going to again be heavily reliant on players with long injury histories, and an old team is going to keep getting older.

Age and injury concerns were already taken into account last year when the projections were made. The fact that Tulo gets hurt a lot and is getting old is not a new development. It's not like he's being downgraded from being a 150 game 7 WAR superstar to a 125-game league-average hitter.

On the expected record: I keep using that because our run differential from this season is a better marker of how much ground we can expect will need to be made up if we're to compete. That can come from players rebounding, or staying healthy, or additions, or whatever. But it is a hell of a lot of ground.

What evidence do you have that a Season N's pythag W/L is predictive of Season N+1 actual W/L? People love to put weight on what actually happened, but but when making projections that is almost universally a bad idea. The amount of variance in a one season sample is much larger than the aggregated incremental change in true talent among an entire team. Pythag W/L is a good descriptive stat, but it's terrible predictive one.

[Tanner]

The issue with pythag is that it is not a predictive metric. It tells you how good or bad a team has been over a certain period of time, not how good or bad they will be in future. It's not a projection tool. So you can't really use 2017 run differential for anything other than to evaluate 2017 performance/record.

Projections for individual players is more relevant, but as mentioned, the Jays had so many players who under performed their 2017 projections that regression to the positive (whether slightly or otherwise) is probably more likely than further decline.