I assume I'm wrong but I was under the impression that most college draftees started at high A or AA.

That's true on some level certainly, but it's usually the college players that are drafted early that see the high A or AA that quickly. In other words, the best college players, and there's not that many in any given draft class. On a standard college schedule, a player may face a few others of this quality, but 99% of the players he faces are not major league quality in any way.

I assume I'm wrong but I was under the impression that most college draftees started at high A or AA.

Only the best. Even the college draftees see time at the Rookie Leagues before they move on to either low or high A. The guy who starts at AA is rare.

Who was the last guy to go straight to the majors from college ball? Olerud?

I have studied that at considerable length. I can’t tell you the POSITIVE things I might know....

I presume among the positive things would be the ability to know the strike zone and distinguish balls from strikes, since these traits (I would think) would hold fast whether the batter was using a metal or a wooden bat. So if there are positive things in college baseball stats, I would think that walks and strikeout rates could prove useful for determining how a college player will do in the pros.

DB

#5, the problem there is that walk rate is the least stable part of any minor to major projection.

So if there are positive things in college baseball stats

I would think defensively you could see real skills - the ball moves faster off aluminum, and so a 2B that gets to everything could show real defensive potential.

I hope to study this issue at length once I get the time. I understand what Mr. James is saying about the aluminum bat issue but I would think that plate discipline is a trait that can be carried over. Obviously players can learn to become more disciplined as they progress through the minors.

I am a little surprised to learn that walk rates are the least stable part of a projection though which would seem to completely contradict my idea.

I would think defensively you could see real skills - the ball moves faster off aluminum, and so a 2B that gets to everything could show real defensive potential.

What's interesting is that the D-III ball that I've seen up here seems rather deadballesque. A lot of stealing, hitting and running, etc.. Then again, most of the guys from around here playing for those types of schools that have any future are pitchers.

I am a little surprised to learn that walk rates are the least stable part of a projection though which would seem to completely contradict my idea.

A hitting talent that is considered for the early part of a draft might be far and away the best hitter on his team. How much of his walk rate is discipline, and how much is opposing pitchers preferring to pitch to his teammates?

#9 When I've watched top level slow pitch softball (not often) it was played in a weirdly deadball kind of way. A huge percentage of the outs came from lunatic aggression on the basepath. I didn't get it then and I don't get deadball with aluminum bats.

Chris, I'd be really surprised if many college 2B make it to the majors -- at least as a middle infielder. I'd expect the guys who have any shot at either middle infield spot to be playing SS.

What's interesting is that the D-III ball that I've seen up here seems rather deadballesque.

This seems like a good time to ask - how does the whole D-I, D-II, D-III thing work in the states? Is is just defined by school, where all sports at a school are assigned at the same division, or is it done on a sport by sport basis, so that a school can be D-I in Football and D-2 in Baseball?

#9 When I've watched top level slow pitch softball (not often) it was played in a weirdly deadball kind of way. A huge percentage of the outs came from lunatic aggression on the basepath.

Yeah, instinctively it seems like that's not real smart. If an out's worth X when you're trying to score 5-6 runs a game, isn't it worth at least 3X when you're trying to score 15-18 runs a game?

#10 Yeah, some guys pile up a lot of those not quite intentional walks at the lower levels.

#13 15-18? Hell they'd still be batting if they weren't giving up two outs an inning on the basepath.

This seems like a good time to ask - how does the whole D-I, D-II, D-III thing work in the states? Is is just defined by school, where all sports at a school are assigned at the same division, or is it done on a sport by sport basis, so that a school can be D-I in Football and D-2 in Baseball?

For the most part you're in one division for all sports. However, football is divided into Division I-A and Division I-AA. Then there are some sports that have entirely different setups, ice hockey being the most significant of them. The University of North Dakota, for instance, is D-II, but is D-I in hockey. James Madison is D-I in lacrosse and D-III in everything else. Then there is also the NAIA, which is a rival, non-NCAA organization, that's mainly made up of smaller schools that might otherwise be D-III.

There's some speculation that D-II is going to die out one day soon. D-II schools give out scholarships and the division has fairly high requirements for facilities and the number of sports that schools have to offer, but there's not really any money to be made in D-II. So schools have a lot of expenses with little chance of recouping or getting lots of publicity. A fairly large number have moved up to D-I in recent years, and there's pressure on a lot more to move down to the more purely amateur D-III.

This seems like a good time to ask - how does the whole D-I, D-II, D-III thing work in the states? Is is just defined by school, where all sports at a school are assigned at the same division, or is it done on a sport by sport basis, so that a school can be D-I in Football and D-2 in Baseball?

It's defined by the school.

Lizard, Larry, thanks for the answers. As far as I know, we don't really have an equivalent to the D-I/II/III structure up here, so it has always been a point of confusion for me.

The University of North Dakota, for instance, is D-II, but is D-I in hockey. James Madison is D-I in lacrosse and D-III in everything else.

Both of those schools also play Division I men's basketball.

When I write "James Madison", I expect all of you to read "Johns Hopkins".

EDIT: Hell, and North Dakota is D-I all the way around. Well, my point still stands even if my examples are completely pathetic.

For hockey, there are schools like Minnesota-Morris, RPI, and Clarkson that are D-I, but D-III in most other sports.

A hitting talent that is considered for the early part of a draft might be far and away the best hitter on his team. How much of his walk rate is discipline, and how much is opposing pitchers preferring to pitch to his teammates?

Plus if you have a MLB-talent hitter at the plate against a pitcher throwing 86 he is far more likely to swing away, because he can crush so much of what is being thrown, instead of working the count.

James and I used the same data. I know this because the only time I was involved with working "with him" I was down in Indianapolis photocopying College Statistics from the 1990s with one of his helpers whose name I forgot.

Don't know what he did with it. Do know what I did with it.

I thought they were useful to an extent. Certainly when you can adjust for differing strength of opponents at the college level (which I managed to do) it generated results I was quite happy with. The pitcher thing crashed and burned due to data problems (which IMO were absolutely ridiculous to begin with).

The question isn't whether they are perfect. The question is whether they provide additional info to our existing knowledge set about college players. To me the answer to that question is "absolutely yes."

I believe there is a size limit to be D-II. So, for example, Ohio St. can't choose to be D-II. There is no size limit in D-III; the defining characteristic there is the lack of athletic scholarships. So there's a mix of tiny liberal arts schools and fairly large (or at least medium-large) state schools.

I believe there is a size limit to be D-II. So, for example, Ohio St. can't choose to be D-II. There is no size limit in D-III; the defining characteristic there is the lack of athletic scholarships. So there's a mix of tiny liberal arts schools and fairly large (or at least medium-large) state schools.

It's the other way around. There are requirements to move into D-I that make it difficult for small schools to join. There is a higher minimum number of sports offered, and minimum past attendance for some of the revenue sports, plus bigger facilities are required. SFSU, for example, has over 30000 students, and is D-II.

James and I used the same data. I know this because the only time I was involved with working "with him" I was down in Indianapolis photocopying College Statistics from the 1990s with one of his helpers whose name I forgot.

That just reminded me. I wonder what the differences in the usefulness in college stats between the 90s and 00s are since the new bat rules came into effect in either 99 or 01 and curtailed offense some.