Originally Posted by traderumor
This seems to be confusing categories. Ok, so there is more of one thing available than another overall, but we are drafting individual players for an individual team. When you're using a BPA approach, which the Reds claim was going to be their primary philosophy, why does it matter what area has the deepest quality (assuming that was indeed the case) to a particular team's draft? That is akin to saying the Bengals should have drafted a QB with their first round pick simply because folks claimed that the overall draft had a glut of good QBs. I'm not following that logic.
First off, BPA is a subjective measure. Every ratings authority I've seen ranked Nelson in front of Bailey. So it's not like the Reds picked the consensus BPA with their pick. Clearly they used a different, I'd argue flawed, metric.
Beyond that there's an illusion of relativity to deal with, one I whole-heartedly admit to pursuing myself. So Bailey's the best HS pitcher in the nation. What does that mean? How far down the list of college pitchers do you have to go before Bailey's really the better selection? I know that's kind of like asking how many of those scrumptious apples do you have to eat before this orange tastes really great, but that's the dynamic at work here.
Anyway, everyone else is drafting college arms and it's attractive to run toward a high school arm because why get the sixth-best of something when you can get the best of something else? Thing is, there was probably a reason why everyone was drafting those college arms -- they were really good pitchers at a far more advanced level of competition and more physically mature. IMO, the Reds zagged early, while there were still high level college arms on the board. Had Bailey been hanging around on pick #16, his selection would have made a lot more sense and you'd have been spending less for his attractive, if distant upside. And this doesn't even touch upon the BPA, Chris Nelson.
So, if the Reds consciously tried to buck the trend, my argument is they took what might have been a good concept and misapplied it, overdrafting Bailey rather than taking him as an undervalued commodity.