Let’s be the 2023 Pirates at 1–1: Take the Best Collegiate Position Player, or “Keep It Simple, Stupid!”
Let’s not overcomplicate things. We, the Pittsburgh Pirates, have the first overall pick of the 2023 MLB Draft and the largest bonus pool of all 30 MLB organizations. Few clubs selecting behind us can interfere much if we simply grab the best draft-eligible collegiate position player. If we choose the right kid we’ll have a plug-and-play big league regular perennial All-Star candidate and core franchise player within a year or maybe two of his draft date and control that player’s contract for a minimum of seven years at the MLB level. If things went extremely well early we could receive a Prospect Promotion Incentive draft pick later if he stars from the jump as a Rookie of the Year or else attains MVP finalist status pre-arbitration.
Who This Player Is, and Why
You were correct in that he is a junior outfielder from the Southeastern Conference (SEC). But the player isn’t who you expected if you’ve been following draft rankings of the leading baseball prospecting websites. Instead we love Wyatt Langford, who usually ranks #3 on such lists, of the Florida Gators.
On the eve of the College World Series Langford had achieved a 99 Overall Rating on the FaBIO scales, which translates into being in the top 1 percent of NCAA D1 batters at expected runs per plate appearance based on how his 12 FaBIO outcome types (BB+HBP, K, IFFB, Pull OFFB, Center OFFB, Oppo OFFB, Pull LD, Center LD, Oppo LD, Pull GB, Center GB, Oppo GB) sorted out versus each individual pitching staff he faced relative to how other qualifying batters did only against that same staff (97th percentile amounts to plus plus, 84th is plus, 69th is half plus, 50th is average, 31st is half minus, 16th is minus, 3rd is minus minus).
Had Langford reached that 99 Overall destination disproportionately by maxing out his BB+HBP and limiting K (like some around his 99 did) we would not be discussing him as a 1–1 candidate or perhaps even as a draft candidate for any of the 20 rounds. Instead Langford has posted a 95 BB+HBP/87 K Avoid/95 Batted Ball Profile trio in which he rates above fully plus to nearly plus plus at all 3 core FaBIO fundamentals, joining just 7 other ’23 D1 batting qualifiers who pulled off the triply plus trifecta. Checking the extent to which a batter is able to translate a stellar (any) batted ball profile into production of hits and extra bases on batted balls is always advisable as quite a few collegiate batters lack the physicality and/or barrel sense to fully convert optimal launch and spray angles into damage. Unsurprisingly our 1–1 candidate rates 96th percentile at hits on batted balls and 97th percentile at extra bases on batted balls, or basically plus plus at both.
As impressed as we are to this point we hardly stop there given that we’re mulling the first overall pick of the draft. How the FaBIO profile varies with a change in pitcher handedness also has relevance as we seek an everyday producer as opposed to a platoon-skewed player who is relatively easy to stifle by pitchers throwing from one side or the other of the rubber. The righthanded-batting Langford rates 97 Overall with a 95 BB+HBP/76 K Avoid/96 Batted Ball Profile slashie against opposite-handed pitchers and even a tick better against same-handed pitchers per a 98 Overall and 89 BB+HBP/87 K Avoid/90 Batted Ball Profile. And that’s about as good as gets in terms of being platoon-insensitive for a D1 batter with only the opposite-handed K Avoid not fully plus or better (changeups, perhaps?).
We would also prefer that our choice not be a Johnny Come Lately sort who just all of a sudden found it in his draft year. Turn back the clock to ’22 D1 and we have Langford posting a 96 Overall 69 BB+HBP/89 K Avoid/73 Batted Ball Profile line with a 91 Overall vs opposite-handed pitchers and a 95 versus same-handed ones. From all of this we can deduce that in ’23 D1 Langford raised each of BB+HBP and Batted Ball Profile 1.5 standard deviations vs ’22 D1 while losing a mere 2 percentile points of K Avoid, a sacrifice well worth more free bases and better batted ball permutations. Langford only took four plate appearances as a ’21 freshman and if you must know he put up a 0 Overall. Net takeaway is that Langford has posted the all-around plate appearance fundamentals of a future MLB multi-dimensional batting star since he became a regular for the Gators in ‘22.
That Langford logged just 4 plate appearances in ’21 just might be the single most overlooked part of any analysis of his batting. In terms of accrued D1 plate experience Langford should be evaluated as a redshirt sophomore for the sake of ’23 and as a redshirt freshman for ’22. His ’23 batting numbers should be compared to the ’22 ones of players who were true juniors in ’23 and have 3 fuller D1 seasons under their belt now. His ’22 marks should be compared to their ’21 ones. Undertake this exercise and covet him still more.
Summer wood bat league success would instill more confidence in Langford’s ability to translate his fabulous fundamentals from D1 to MiLB and MLB. And while the Coastal Plain League (where he made a briefer ‘22 pit stop after a stint playing domestically and internationally with the USA Collegiate National Team) and Valley Baseball League (’21) are hardly the Cape Cod Baseball League and (due to that) have yet to be run through the FaBIO wringer we have little reason to doubt that the batting fundamentals in those circuits were not equally impressive relative to those of peers.
Langford is an average to few ticks better runner but we’re shopping for an impact bat at 1–1 far more than a pair of legs. Langford has played a mix of left field and centerfield at Florida but projects into an MLB pasture at a corner. Essentially we just have to decide whether he fits best in PNC Park in left where the expanses to cover are larger and throws skew longer or in right where the coverage and throw lengths shrink.
If we were designing a D1 baseball batter who would perennially produce as an MLB batter we would want them to hit line drives, avoid infield popups, avoid pull-third groundballs, hit outfield flyballs, pull outfield flyballs, convert line drives into hits (at the granular level hit the ball squarely and hard enough), convert outfield flyballs into extra bases (hit the baseball on the barrel strongly enough with the requisite backspin to promote carry), take walks (plus hit by pitches, if so be it; a reflection of some combination of a good eye, patience, and pitchers respecting them enough as a batted baller to tread carefully within the zone), avoid strikeouts (seldom expand the zone to chase or swing through pitches within it), deliver high-caliber plate appearances regardless of pitcher handedness, and flash non-batted ball and batted ball success in wood bat summer leagues. Now very near the end of his ’23 D1 season Langford checks 10 of those 11 prioritized boxes and emphatically so in rating in the range of plus to plus plus at definitely nine and probably all of those ten. The lone suggestion of ordinariness lay in the realm of infield popups as his ’23 40 IFFB Avoid was indeed down from a near plus ’22 D1 83 IFFB Avoid. Are you not impressed?
If we choose this route and play our cards optimally by casting a wide pre-draft net that includes exchanging numbers with advisors of players who we are unlikely to take we should be able to land our man Langford not too far over the 1–2 slot value of $9 million leaving us in a good position with leverage to steer a prep player down to our next pick at 2–42 with a firm bonus offer that few teams picking after the 1–20 spot could match. Langford is not only our preferred collegiate position player but also the only one we are willing to take at 1–1. Alternatives at 1–1 must emerge from other draft class niches.
Who This Player Isn’t, and Why
Our collegiate position player is very not the SEC outfielder from LSU who tops most every ’23 draft prospect rankings list, Dylan Crews.
As of the College World Series ’23 D1 Crews has a 96 Overall Rating and
The content that follows is of far too high quality to share publicly so soon. Can we just agree that I will share the rest around when the earliest picks are announced on the night of July 9?
Oh, what the heck, let’s do it now as it seems that we are no longer so alone in being averse to selecting Crews near the tippy top of this draft.
As of the College World Series ’23 D1 Crews has a 96 Overall Rating and a 99 BB+HBP/89 K Avoid/23 Batted Ball Profile slashie. That last bit was no typo as his underlying batted ball profile components are 26 GB Avoid/13 Pull GB Avoid/52 IFFB Avoid/41 LD/20 OFFB/18 Pull OFFB. At the level of core plate fundamentals he fits the bill of the pesky batter described earlier whose Overall Rating is fueled far too much by non-batted-ball outcomes.
In a classical sense the pure hitter rather hits line drives, rather avoids infield popups, and rather doesn’t roll or bounce grounders to the pull-third of the field. ’23 D1 Crews checks zero of those boxes. The lone sense in which ’23 D1 Crews qualifies as a pure hitter is that his extreme hitting success (he is in fact in the 100th percentile at getting hits on batted balls) is owed purely to hitting the baseball so hard. The core LD/IFFB Avoid/Pull GB Avoid hit fundamentals have deteriorated from 60/76/91 as a freshman to 52/60/66 as a sophomore to 41/52/13 as a junior and rather in step with GB Avoid/OFFB falling from 60/74 to 52/54 to 26/20. Crews lacks dimensionality as a hitter today and riding that one video-game-like cheat code to consistent hitting in the pros, and more so in MLB, is unlikely. Hitting the baseball hard at optimal launch and spray angles beats just hitting the baseball hard. A larger concern than that he won’t hit consistently ahead is that it will be very difficult to produce extra bases per how few batted balls are being lofted, as a just plus 84 ISO on Batted Balls Rating by ’23 D1 standards hints at.
Prior to the ’23 D1 96 Overall via a 99 BB+HBP/89 K Avoid/23 Batted Ball Profile route Crews’ FaBIO history includes a ’22 D1 84 Overall 90 BB+HBP/71 K Avoid/69 Batted Ball Profile and a ’21 D1 79 Overall 63 BB+HBP/81 K Avoid/49 Batted Ball Profile. ’23 was in fact the first D1 season in which he rated fully plus or better at Overall. So there is a glimmer of a Johnny Come Lately quality to his ’23 Overall success and even after 3 full seasons at the level concerns remain as to how productive the batted ball profile can be with the pending switch to wood bats, pro pitchers (better equipped to attack the swing and approach holes that explain the ’23 D1 batted ball profile defects), pro infielders, and exclusively grass infields.
What would ease some concerns about Crews’ ability to hit in the pros would be a recent history of success in a wood bat summer league. But since the completion of the freshman ’21 season Crews has logged a grand total of 12 such plate appearances with those coming immediately after that campaign in the close-to-home Florida Collegiate Summer League. With so few college summer leagues operating in 2020 I just happened to run that lesser-known circuit through the FaBIO wringer then and over 74 PA prior to his freshman fall Crews posted a 62 Overall and 62 BB+HBP/87 K Avoid/17 Batted Ball Profile. His ’22 summer was instead spent with the USA Collegiate National Team when in hindsight he may have been better served hitting regularly with a wood bat elsewhere, or at least so as far as his pro (as opposed to draft) fortunes ahead go.
Pitcher handedness splits reveal more flaws on Crews’ FaBIO scorecard. In ’23 D1 versus opposite-handed pitchers the right-handed batting Crews has only a 50 Overall Rating (76 BB+HBP/71 K Avoid/11 Batted Ball Profile) that starkly contrasts with a 97 Overall (98 BB+HBP/91 K Avoid/47 Batted Ball Profile) versus same-handed pitchers. His ’21 D1 debut featured an even more lopsided 26 Overall versus opposite-handed pitchers and 91 Overall versus same-handed pitchers split. Combined those seasons raise concerns about his approach against and vulnerability to lefthanded pitchers ahead, even sandwiched around a ’22 D1 campaign where the opposite-handed Overall (93) exceeded the same-handed Overall (81). That in zero of three full D1 seasons Crews rated plus Overall against each pitcher handedness type casts him as a likelier platoon-sensitive batter in MLB.
So let’s circle back to our hypothetical D1 baseball batter who would perennially deliver MLB production as a result of that they hit line drives, avoid infield popups, avoid pull-third groundballs, hit outfield flyballs, pull outfield flyballs, convert line drives into hits, convert outfield flyballs into extra bases, take walks, avoid strikeouts, post high-caliber plate appearances regardless of pitcher handedness, and flash non-batted ball and batted ball success in wood bat summer leagues. Crews, the #1 ranked player in this draft class by the most popular public domain sources, checks all of 4 of those 11 boxes.
We need not bother evaluating offensive running or defense since Crews does not satisfy enough of our preferred criteria for a batter to be a 1–1 candidate (such would qualify as undue diligence, so to speak). Sure, Crews could make some measure of swing path and/or approach adjustments and end up a big league regular who makes an All-Star team or three. But in seeking certainty with low risk at 1–1 we will not take someone who needs a redesign after three collegiate seasons.
Crews appearing on our timeline as a 2023 1–1 favorite who has been extremely productive batting lately in NCAA but with unhittery traits in the batted ball profile raises one if not two eyebrows. Just one year ago Gavin Cross and Kevin Parada fit this description yet received $5M bonuses and now neither shows any semblance of being a top prospect offensively in Advanced A. The organization that overslots Crews while ignoring the fine print will also swiftly overassign him to AA, so we ought not to be surprised if Crews is middling between peaks and valleys at that level 12 months from now between their mutual haste and inattention to the batted ball profile flaws and their origins. That is a more likely outcome than Crews being in MLB then, still more so with the rogue Angels not on the clock until the 11th pick (he’d be on the MLB roster the next day!!!). While some public domain scouting synopses put a 70 (plus plus) grade on his hit ability, 70 exit velocity measurements and 40 to 45 batted ball profile fundamentals attained at the collegiate level do not couple to produce 70 hit ability at the major league level. Peter Brand, the cinematic father of contemporary baseball analytics, surely has a soft spot for Crews owing to that “He gets on base!” but even Peter wouldn’t take Crews at 1–1 after analyzing the 2023 D1 batted ball profile (facepalm now if you didn’t connect FaBIO with the scouting room scene in “Moneyball”).
So do we just walk away from the Crews negotiation table? Hardly. If he’s the consensus’ 1–1 favorite we should feign that he’s our top choice, too. The main reason is to mask who our primary and backup targets are from their draft advisors and from clubs picking in our wake who could genuinely else nefariously bid up bonus offers we extend. A side benefit is that we can drive a team not far behind us that isn’t nearly so details-focused to drain their bonus pool by overpaying Crews to a level beyond which they already would.
So we’ll float a nonbinding offer of a few hundred thousand dollars over 1–2 slot and wait for Crews’ advisor to respond that he has a firm offer that beats ours and we should go full slot at 1–1 to land this “generational talent”. At that stage we’ll walk away thanking them and offer the more diplomatic explanation “Going full slot at 1–1 isn’t as favorable to us as other options are” rather than bluntly admitting “We’re not wholly convinced that this player is worth a $6 million bonus based on the defects we spot in his ’23 batted ball profile”. Crews and his advisor can thank us later as all the two of them probably wanted from the jump was to land the largest bonus of any player drafted this year — and ever, for this league — and they should accomplish that per what the advisor has shared with us.