Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Dialed In > Discussion
Dialed In
— 

Monday, June 09, 2003

June 9, 2003

A Draft, Please

As a respected member of the Fourth Estate, I participated in the conference call of the MLB First Year Draft. Several Primer authors and posters did. I called the press conference phone number and when asked for my credentials, I said, "Chris Dial, Baseball Primer." And just as if I belonged, I was connected. Yes, it was broadcast on the MLB website, albeit poorly, but it was really exciting to be in on the actual conference call. There were excellent moments: The Devil Rays dropping the call on the first pick; Tommy Lasorda’s voice giving the Dodgers’ selection "Chad Billingsley…from the great state of Ohio". I haven’t read anything in Chad’s write-ups – is he any kin to the Beaver’s mom?

There’s plenty of screeching about drafting college players over high school players – and there’s plenty to that – for starters, college players have already made it past ages 18-20 without a career-ending injury. But there’s also a ton of exaggeration to "College Players!" In the early going of the draft, at least, there has been little difference between the success rate of college players and high school players.

In a completely informal review, I looked at all first rounds in the drafts from 1990-1999 – ten years. That information is readily available, and it gives the draftees time to reach the majors (4 years). I assigned "stars" and "regulars" to the players in each draft. Personally, I couldn’t care less about a player that only got a cup of coffee. He was a bust if you drafted him in the first round and didn’t do more than that. Only "regulars" or better even count.

Then there is the subjectivity of who is a star and who isn’t. Derek Jeter and Troy Glaus are stars; Jose Cruz, Jr. and Trot Nixon are regulars. There would definitely be some debate over some of my assignments, but work with me. I sorted the players by "high school" and "college" and "community college" counts as college, so it’s sort of "college (+)". After I did this, it seemed like I had heard the "total drafted" numbers before, but here is what I found:

High school: 141 players

College (+): 144 players

That was interesting in itself. And it was odd, some seasons were all high school players and some were all college players and most were close to 50:50.

High school stars: 15 (11%)

College (+) stars: 13 (9%)

High school regulars: 31 (22%)

College (+) regulars: 41 (29%)

The high schoolers may still pick up some regulars from the 1997-99 drafts, but they are about 22-24 now and 24 is a typical "reach the majors" age. Guys in those drafts that didn’t quite get counted yet are Michael Cuddyer, Jon Garland and Jack Cust. I also didn’t include three 1996 drafted pitcher: John Patterson, Matt White and Adam Eaton. All six of these players are high schoolers.

My interpretation of this data is that drafting high schoolers in the first round isn’t significantly riskier, if riskier at all, than drafting college players. And the chances of the high schooler being a star is higher, offsetting getting a "regular". That seems like common sense, though. If a high school player is good enough to be considered a top 30 selection, he’s "special."

So all the sniggering by "Moneyball"-created new Beane-counters about the Devil Rays drafting Delmon Young is uncalled for. There have been four number ones from high school in this decade: 1990 (Chipper Jones), 1991 (Brien Taylor), 1993 (Alex Rodriguez), 1999 (Josh Hamilton). With the jury still out on Hamilton, Chipper and ARod make a good argument for drafting high schoolers Number One.

Brien Taylor’s draft? Here are the college players taken in the first round and their slot:

2

Mike

Kelly

3

David

McCarty

6

John

Burke

7

Joseph

Vitiello

8

Johns

Hamilton

9

Mark

Smith

10

Tyler

Green

12

Douglas

Glanville

17

Eduardo

Perez

18

Alfred

Shirley

21

Allen

Watson

23

Aaron

Sele

24

Jonathan

Farrell

25

Scott

Ruffcorn

26

Brent

Gates

Yes, Taylor was a real bust, but then who in this draft wasn’t? Good gravy, what a terrible draft. Oh, wait, here are the high schoolers and slots:

1

Brien

Taylor

4

Dmitri

Young

5

James

Henderson

11

Aaron

Estes

13

Manuel

Ramirez

14

Cornelius

Floyd

15

Tyrone

Hill

16

Shawn

Green

19

Benjamin

Gil

20

Calvin

Reese

22

Brian

Barber

That’s Shawn Estes, Manny Ramirez, Cliff Floyd and Pokey Reese. So maybe Taylor didn’t pan out, but the high schoolers kick the crap out of the college players in this draft.

Naturally, my "star" and "regular" ratings are going to change as players develop, and probably are going to favor the high schoolers (see above guys not included). I suspect there will be a few regulars that change to "stars" for both classifications.

All that said I see no compelling reason to think Rickie Weekes has a better chance of becoming a star/regular in MLB than Delmon Young does.

The Yankees are buying the pennant!

Um, they picked up Ruben Sierra for goodness sake. We have a saying where I work: "That’s not help." If I’m a fan of another team, I just laugh at this move – hey, that’s more money in the "high payroll tax" pool. And I am a fan of another team, just a fan of a team whose fans have nothing to laugh about.

"Baseball has been very, very good to me"

This will be brief. Sosa corked, but corking doesn’t significantly help, and may hurt, one’s ability to hit. So his record isn’t "tainted.’ His HRs would have been HRs. Moving on.

Chris Dial Posted: June 09, 2003 at 01:00 AM | 17 comment(s)
  Related News: General

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages
   1. tangotiger Posted: June 08, 2003 at 10:13 PM (#611330)
Good stuff Chris.

The way I interpret that data (though limited it may be), is that there's an almost point of equilibrium in terms of evaluating college and HS first-rounders. Maybe there should be a little more college players sselected in the first-round, but not that much more.

All that comes with the following caveats:
- the timeline is still too close, especially the HS of the late 90s. You need more time to evaluate them. It may come out that maybe we'll get a few more HS in the "regulars" crowd by the time all the players are 30.

- this is only a 1st round look. You could conceivably have a huge dropoff in the later rounds. While maybe a 50/50 split is equilibrium in the first round, you may be looking at a 75/25 or 90/10 split by the 6th round (I don't know).

- 10 years is still a small sample, so you'd want a 20 or 30 year look. But, the mindset back then, and the way players are conditioned would make the exercise somewhat shaky as it applies to today

Excellent work Chris...
   2. Chris Dial Posted: June 08, 2003 at 10:13 PM (#611339)
Roscoe,
I understand Green is excellent. I was just listing guys whose names weren't obvious - well, except Manny, I guess. Aaron Estes, Calvin Reese and Cornelius Floyd aren't well known.
   3. GregD Posted: June 08, 2003 at 10:13 PM (#611340)
Whoever said Sammy put on 100 lbs of muscle should try to add 100 points to his IQ. Even a devoted steroid user who was absolutely unconcerned with mobility could barely add 30 pounds of pure muscle. Sammy doesn't have anything like 100 lbs of extra body weight--fat or muscle--from his early days. Maybe 30-40 pounds, a decent amount of which is the natural accumulation of fat as he ages.
   4. Walt Davis Posted: June 08, 2003 at 10:13 PM (#611341)
I hope this doesn't hijack the thread, but the following was just ridiculous:

Look at all the 500 home run hitters, and look at McGwire and Sosa's hit totals. VERY low.

What in the world does that have to do with anything? Look at their ABs and you'll find they're VERY low as well. Sammy has over 4,000 fewer ABs than Eddie Murray -- is it a surprise he has fewer hits? On the other hand, he's only got about 1,100 fewer ABs (and more than 2,000 fewer PAs) than Mike Schmidt, but then he's only got about 230 fewer hits.

All your moronic "test" shows is that Sosa and Mac hit HRs at a slightly higher rate than many in the past -- gee, I think we knew that.

Those guys are too big and slow to have anything but home runs.

McGwire was slow, but this is ludicrous to claim about Sosa. He's got 233 career steals. He's always among the league leaders in runs scored, despite not reaching base nearly at the rate that guys like Bonds and Mac do/did (and it's not like the Cubs have had lots of great hitters behind him over the years). Sammy runs just fine.
   5. wcw Posted: June 08, 2003 at 10:13 PM (#611346)
two minor corrections:

one, Robert Adair is a smart guy but he is wrong, wrong, wrong about corking. even aside from the fact that bat speed is more important than bat mass (v-squared), that nobody's investigated the effect on the sweet spot (could it be, I dunno, bigger?) and the fact that bat control leads not only to average but to power (sweet spot's easier to place on the ball) [deep breath]...

..corking does, in fact, increase batted ball speed even at constant bat speed. full stop, experimentally verified and with a nice theoretical model.

please to follow the link to the article, “A Study of the Barrel Construction of Baseball Bats,” linked from UMass-Lowell's Baseball Research Center page, here: http://m-5.uml.edu/umlbrc/

from the abstract: "Finally, the question is addressed as to whether a corked wooden bat really outperforms a solid wood bat. Although commonly thought that corking a bat provides hitters with better control but no additional power, the results of this study show a slight increase, on the order of 1%, in batted-ball speed with the corked bats in comparison to their solid-wood counterparts."

two, could we please, please, please set the dirty-word filter to blank out all posts with the word "s t e r o i d s" in them? thanks.
   6. Depot Posted: June 08, 2003 at 10:13 PM (#611349)
"Second, there are some serious endogeneity problems here. When a team such as Oakland heavily favors college players, and a team like Tampa Bay favors high schoolers, any perceived differential in the success rate could be caused by other factors besides the origin or age of the player being picked. For example, Oakland may have a fantastic development program while Tampa Bay does not. Better development leads to higher success rates and the disparity in the drafting philosophy could potentially lead to incorrect results in the analysis. In other words, comparing draft pick success to the origin of the player being picked is only effective if there is an even distribution of college and high school picks made by each team."

Well, this is probably mitigated somewhat by the fact that it's easier to become a regular on Tampa Bay and other such poor organizations. In other words, using this article's type of analysis, incompetent teams will "mask" (to some extent) their bad drafts by playing guys other organizations wouldn't play.

I agree with the idea of an equilibrium. If a lot of teams were to take the Moneyball draft theory to heart and focus almost exclusively on college players, then eventually it'll probably make much more sense to draft mainly high school players.
   7. Chris Dial Posted: June 08, 2003 at 10:13 PM (#611353)
wcw -
I am aware of the study you cite. That's why I said " no significant advantage, if any". I didn't say he couldn't have gotten some benefit, just no significant gain. 2-3 feet on a ball isn't significant, IMO. That's about an arm and glove length. I seriously doubt that's a factor in Sosa's HR success.
   8. Chris Dial Posted: June 08, 2003 at 10:13 PM (#611355)
Old Gringo,
I missed your point about the first round. In 1996, 19 of 30 first rounders were high school players. What exactly changed? It used to be 24 out of 24? The hysteria is that drafting HS players is in the first round is, well, stupid. That's *demonstrably* not so. Some teams drafted, in 2003, almost exclusively HS players, so, I don't think I'm beating a dead horse at all. Beane is saying "don't draft any HS players early". Well, that's dumb. And a bad plan. Beane would have passed on ARod? What about Austin Kearns?

Dan will get the draft data link working and you can see teams draft HS players as much as they draft college players.

Elsewhere:
As for TB bias - getting to the majors early, that's not what's happening. In fact, TB don't have *any* players rated as a star or regular yet. I didn't check for bias, but I doubt it exists, based on the cyclical nature of baseball.
   9. Greg Pope Posted: June 08, 2003 at 10:13 PM (#611358)
I think I read this in a Neyer column, but it's from James. Something about if you randomly threw out 50% of the draftees, then concentrated your resources on the other 50%, you'd get so much more information about them that you could run rings around the other teams in drafting those players. You'd miss any studs in the first 50%, but you'd find enough in the second 50% to make up for it.

The point was that if you don't even scout high school players, you should be able to get studs from the college ranks before your opposition gets them. At the time, since most teams were drafting lots of high school players, you could get even more benefit.

The thing about saying "You should pass on A-Rod because he's a high schooler? No way, that invalidates this whole way of thinking" is that if circumstances had turned out differently, you'd be saying the same thing about Todd Van Poppel. There was no way to know that Alex Rodriguez would turn into Honus Wagner, just like there was no way to know that Todd Van Poppel would turn into Paul Assenmacher. An exaggerated analogy is "You can't pass up on buying a lottery ticket! Look, that guy won!". Well, it's still not a good bet.
   10. Chris Dial Posted: June 08, 2003 at 10:13 PM (#611359)
Greg,
I see your point, but I don't believe it applies to the first round. Maybe 15 years ago - not today. I think there is *far* too much information out there. Someone (not sure who) in the Draft thread said they looked over stats and wrote down 20 guys he thought the A's would take - and they took most of them. It's not that hard. So, no, I don't think there is *any* chance in today's informational availability that would work. And you missed my ARod point - Beane *would* have taken him.

The larger point to my column is - in the first round, 35% of the picks make it as regulars. The HS picks *in the first round* are every bit as good as the college picks.

And with today's proliferation of information, you don't have to scour Spavinaw and Ninety-Six. Even the really great HS players are playing USA Baseball.

   11. Chris Dial Posted: June 08, 2003 at 10:13 PM (#611363)
Aaron, no, but would you even describe yourself as "good"? Dog Glanville is there too. You don't have to be a bust, you just have to be "eh".

Torii, I don't recall you catching any of Sosa's near-HRs. And it wouldn't be 2-3 feet higher. The ball travels 2-3 feet further. With some velocity and arced trajectory, it's more like a ball just barely clearing the fence. Not really what Sosa is known for.
   12. Greg Pope Posted: June 09, 2003 at 10:14 PM (#611372)
I don't know too much about the draft, so I was not really trying to draw any conclusions. I was really just stating my opinion of the original James point.

Has anyone performed any similar analysis for later rounds? In other words, if in later rounds college provides a clear advantage, then maybe a team can say something like "If there are 15 high schoolers that everyone knows about, we'll scout them for the first round, but after the first (or second, or tenth, or whatever), we're going college exclusively." The marginal prospects in the later rounds can't get scouted very extensively right now, so maybe that's where you would see a benefit from scouting zero marginal high schoolers and double the marginal college players.
   13. Chris Dial Posted: June 09, 2003 at 10:14 PM (#611390)
Greg "The" Pope,
I understand, and I actually agree with what you write in your second paragraph. I tried to apply enough emphasis that this was *first round* analysis, but haven't made that clear. That is important.

I do think college players in later rounds are less risky. On Draft Day, Repoz (I think) posted a Clutch Hit on "the other side" of draft day. It says a lot about the decision HSers have to make.

I definitely think there is no greater risk in drafting Delmon Young than Rickie Weekes. One is a college player and one is a HS star. The upside for Young is *much* higher because you can still get his 20-22 seasons. That can't happen for Weekes.

Much of the recent draft talk has been how teams are shying away from HSers. In the first round, that is a bad strategy - without question.

Yes, there are other issues - signability, cost and to some extent need (since few draftees are immediate help). The lst three weeks, it has been shouted from the rooftops "Don't draft HSers!" There's plenty of disdain for teh DRays for taking a HSer with the #1 slot. And plenty more for other teams passing on the guys Beane wanted. In moneyball, Beane hoots about Ring and gets pissed about drafting Bonderman - hey, those were not bad picks - because *in the first round* they are no riskier than college first rounders, mostly because the HSers in the first round have played against higher level competition and have been thoroughly seen by *everyone*.
   14. Chris Dial Posted: June 09, 2003 at 10:14 PM (#611400)
Philip,
that is a good point. I don't know that is where Beane *does* do well, but might. It simply depends on when you bring up the HSer. Chavez and Tejada are two big reasons for their success. No college players hit the majors at 20. Many HSers do. Many "Superstars" do. So, while the generation of regulars is better from college, the generation of superstars is better from high school. I don't disagree with your point. I'm somewhere in between.

But remember, plenty of regulars suck.
   15. Ned Garvin: Male Prostitute Posted: June 10, 2003 at 10:15 PM (#611441)
I'm sure it doesn't affect the numbers too significantly, but I think you picked the wrong Anderson. The spreadsheet lists Matt Anderson as neither a regular or star, and Ryan Anderson as a regular. One point is below the noise of your choosing categories anyway...

I think that maybe the reason some teams choose more college players is not the talent level, but the projectability (maybe this is what others have been saying). The number of successful players from each place is roughly equivalent (per player drafted), but maybe it is easier to pick out the college players who will be successful. Maybe someone with the data could correlate draft position with career quality, and see if this is true.
   16. tangotiger Posted: June 10, 2003 at 10:15 PM (#611443)
The other significant advantage for college picks (and Chris wrote about this last year), is that a player's peak is around the 26-28 age class. Getting a college player to make the majors at 22-23 means that he'll be a free agent at 29. So, you are underpaying him for 6 years, and is still a commodity after 4 or 5 years if needed.
   17. Chris Dial Posted: June 10, 2003 at 10:15 PM (#611458)
Thanks, Drew.

Dennis, because it's a back-of-the-envelope piece. At least this one.
Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

<< Back to main

Support BBTF

donate

My Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets.

We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule

Buy Cheap MLB Tickets

Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers

Page rendered in 0.4559 seconds
62 querie(s) executed