ARTICLE: Draft Assessment, 1990-1999

[Brian the Automator]

www.brewerfan.net/ViewArt...icleId=229

 

Patrick Ebert (colbyjack) takes a detailed look at the drafts o the '90's and provides analysis on each position and the high school vs. college debate.

[colbyjack]

I wanted to point out that the 2006 draft coverage is now the default page when you click on "draft" either at the top or off of the homepage on the left-hand side. You can check out Brewerfan.net's top 30 draft eligible prospects as well as their scouting reports, as well as being able to access the raw draft order the DFE candidates and coverage from past year's drafts.

 

I'm curious to get people's thoughts on the feature currently on the homepage.

[bball123h2]

Nice article! I did a brief analysis of the first 3 rounds from 1983-1999 for a paper last year (using Winshares due to time crunch) and found very similar results regarding the HS/College debate (although I left Juco lumped in with the D1 Schools). My theory as to the success/failure differences is that college can act as a filter of sorts, as the increased sample size for the player more accurately shows the talents of an individual player. Of course, it also weeds out injuries, just as you pointed out.

[Blazer25]

Colby,

 

I gotta battle you on a few guys...

 

Rasmus should be in the top 30...97 and he did it 4 or 5 times...not to mention he didn't throw a FB slower than 94 mph..

 

Also I think of the HS SS Ryan Adams is the best "all around" package followed closely by Grant Green.

 

 

I would also include Parmalee in the top 30...he hit all summer against all of the best pitching...he just continued to mash. You can't say that about most of the guys that are considered "top prospects"...this kid has a special bat.

 

 

Oviously this is all good natured speculation on my part...you did a great job as always with the profiles!

[colbyjack]

Rasmus and Parmelee just missed. I should note that this order was established in October, with a few players moving up & down (Matt LaPorta in particular).

 

I like Rasmus, who not only possesses a very good fastball but has one of the best curveballs of any prep pitcher. He topped out at 94 at the Aflac game, and worked 92-94 (although over one inning of work), which surprised me based on previous reports, and then he obviously outdid that performance at the WWBA by touching 97. That said, I'm always skeptical of prep pitchers, and already feel like I have too many in the top 30 as it is, and didn't want to remove the guys I had (Chris Tillman actually fell out of the top 30, who has one of the best FB/CB combos in the nation). Plus, Rasmus' body to me works against him, although I don't get as much into projectability as long as the pitcher shows me he knows how to pitch.

 

Parmelee obviously was huge at the WWBA, and is one of the best pure hitters from the prep ranks. I've heard from a few people (including you) that his future position may be in question, as he may not have enough power down the road to be considered a legitimate 1B and might not have the wheels to play RF. Unfortunately he didn't hit much when I saw him, although you could tell that his bat was for real in BP.

 

At this point in time while neither is in the top 30, I fully recognize that both probably will be the next time I update the list. Jason Place also just missed the cut, and is a name to remember this spring as he's a prime candidate to soar up draft boards (Colin Curtis just missed from the college players).

 

As for the prep infielders, I actually like Nathan Bridges a lot more than Adams & Green. Bridges showed me that he knows how to hit, right now, has done it with a wood bat against tough pitching and in big-game situations, and I also like him better at SS. I have a feeling that Bridges is going to get underrated this spring and will likely attend Cal State Fullerton, only to be a high draft pick in 2009 in the mold of Khalil Greene. If it were up to me, I would take him in the 2nd round without blinking if he's still there. I know some people around here will laugh at the terminology, but he's a gamer.

[filthyfrog]

Nice job on the article, Colby. I'd like to point out a potential flaw in the reasoning. The difference between high schoolers and collegians seems to be mostly due to the high flame out rate of high schoolers: high schoolers were much more likely to be ranked a 2, whereas collegians were more likely to at least reach a 4 or a 5. Is this difference important enough to justify your conclusion that college picks are safer? Yeah, they're less likely to completely flame out, but they're about equally as likely to truly help a Major League team. The numbers are pretty close when it comes to 6, 7, and 8 (I don't think a difference of 39.4% vs 34.3% is significant given the sample size).

 

I would argue that having a player become a 4 isn't much better than becoming a 2. A 4 is easier to trade for something that actually does help, and can provide a small amount of depth, but 4s more or less grow on trees. You can pick them up for free every offseason.

 

And while a 5 by definition helps the Major League team more than a 4, your criteria says that these players are interchangeable. So again, I think these players are easy enough to find that you don't need to worry about drafting them in the first round.

 

I would argue that your analysis shows that college picks are less likely to flame out at the lower levels, but not necessarily more likely to make an impact on a Major League team. And I think helping the Major League team is what ultimately counts.

 

By the way, I was surprised that there was only first rounder in all of the nineties drafted as a 2B. Who was he? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[colbyjack]

Thanks for the feedback frog. I want to point out a snippet from the story that relate to your comments:

 

As you can see, of all of the draftees taken out of the high school ranks, there was a 52.6% chance that they would never have even a marginal impact at the big-league level while they had a 34.3% chance of being productive, long-term big-leaguers. The college draftees only had a 43.2% of burning out and a 39.4% of succeeding long-term. Even if the percentage of succeeding between the high-school players and the college players is relatively close, the percentage between burning out and succeeding is significantly less for a college draftee.

 

I do think the high flameout risk is something to consider when evaluating what players to take. I firmly believe that the best teams with the best talent from top to bottom recognize how to use that talent most effectively. A player that flames out quickly has almost zero value to a team. A player that maxes out as a "4" may have some perceived value to a team, particularly when it comes to trades. While their eventual value isn't as great, they may be able to garner the team a player of even greater value, something a player whose career doesn't last past the low-A level does not have.

 

And while a 5 by definition helps the Major League team more than a 4, your criteria says that these players are interchangeable. So again, I think these players are easy enough to find that you don't need to worry about drafting them in the firs

 

No, you don't need to worry about drafting these kinds of players, but teams don't view it this way. No one drafts a player thinking they can get a reserve player, and one point I should have stressed more was the importance of developing Major-Leaguers, no matter what their impact is at the big-league level. Being able to develop your own bench at times is just as important as developing players deemed to have more impact. You hope you get more from a first-rounder, but it's better to get a short-term reserve than a player that never sniffs the big-leagues.

 

I would argue that your analysis shows that college picks are less likely to flame out at the lower levels, but not necessarily more likely to make an impact on a Major League team. And I think helping the Major League team is what ultimately counts.

 

I agree 100%, but again, a player that flames out quickly isn't very likely to bring your organization any value, either by himself or any other way, such as in a trade. A player that does continue to have success in the upper levels of the minor leagues may just bring something bigger and better to the organization, and I would imagine that the teams that prefer to draft college players are taking this into consideration as well.

 

I also noted that in the story as soon as you start living by these ratios you're going to pass up players like Jeter, Chipper Jones, Arod, etc., so you still need to analyze each player indiividually, which is something I have strongly believed for quite some time.

 

The only 2B to be drafted in the first round in the 90s was Todd Walker. Two notable 2B were drafted in the first rounds of this decade already: Chase Utley and Rickie Weeks. Utley has already proven his value, while Weeks seems poised to do the same. I had a separate paragraph in one of my original drafts that talked solely about 2B, but decided to delete it since I felt the story was already getting too wordy. When a 2B is good enough to be drafted in the 1st-round, without a doubt it has to do with their bat, and when positional prospects are drafted for their bat first and their other tools second, I feel they have a much greater chance at succeeding (like a pitcher being taken for their ability to pitch effectively first and how hard they throw second).

[filthyfrog]

Thanks for the response. I agree with you that a 4 has more worth to an organization than a 2, but I think the difference is small enough to be negligible. Winning clubs are made up of 6s, 7s, and 8s, and the difference between a 6 and a 4 is much greater than the difference between a 2 and a 4. 6s are much harder to acquire and much rarer. And since you can find 4s and 5s in a number of ways other than the draft (trades, FA, waivers, rule 5, etc.), I don't think the likelihood of becoming a 4 (instead of a 2) should have much, if any, bearing on a draft selection. In fact, I think I would separate your numbers into two categories: 2-5 (minimal impact) and 6-8 (impact). We're both in agreement that you should select the player who has the best chance to become an impact player (also weighing how much impact they might be able to make). I guess the difference is that I don't think you should worry about where in the minor leagues the player might fail, simply whether or not you believe they'll make an impact. That said, I do acknowledge that there is a small advantage to ending up with 4s instead of 2s, but I think the advantage is small enough to safely ignore. I might pay more attention to it in the later rounds, when your chances of finding a 6+ player are so slim that it makes sense to pick up some "safe" picks.

 

Anyway, thanks for providing this thought provoking article.

[splitterpfj]

Great work Patrick, that's some outstanding information.

 

When I read through that and realized just how few draft picks really have an impact on the major league team that drafted them, it didn't change my views on who to draft when, but it definitely made me cringe at the signing bonuses that have been given to countless guys who never saw an inning in the bigs.

[gregmag]

Fantastic article. Exceptionally thorough and thoughtful even by your high standards.

 

Greg.

[filthyfrog]

Hey Colby, I see that a whopping 20 of your top 30 are pitchers. Is this year's pitching really that good or is the hitting really that bad?

[Blazer25]

Frog,

 

For me it not so much of a case of pitching being dominant, but how few of the HS guys have distinguished themselves.

 

At this time last year you could reasonably predict which HS players would go in the first 2 rounds (plus sandwich). In addition, you had some "can't miss" position kids like Upton, Maybin, and a few others.

 

This year there isn't a clear-cut prospect. Ask 10 different pro scouts who their #1 HS prospect is and you?re likely to get 10 different answers...this year.

 

I think in years where no guys stand out early (of which this is one) teams kind of defer to College and HS pitchers in the early rounds.

 

I think you will see arms (both college and HS) dominate the early parts of this year?s draft. Not because they are dominate prospects but because they are "safer" picks and easier for organizations to justify.

 

It's easier to justify picking a Jordan Walden who's been 94-95 or Matt Latos (94-95) this year than a position guy who might not pan out.

[colbyjack]

I agree with almost everything Blazer said.

 

This year's draft will likely reflect the 2004 draft, a year in which 19 pitchers were taken in the first round and where two Boras advisees drastically effected the players taken at the very top (Weaver & Drew). Max Scherzer and Ian Kennedy in my mind are the 2nd and 3rd best prospects, just behind Andrew Miller, and both are advised by Scott Boras. I just read recently that Daniel Bard, the 4th best college arm, is also advised by Boras, but I need to confirm that. As we well know that affiliation more than likely will effect the draft order once again.

 

And similar to the high school players, there is uncertainty with the college players as well. Baseball America recently ranked Drew Stubbs ahead of Andrew Miller, which I found somewhat surprising, but it shows you that not all scouting directors are sold on Miller (or Stubbs), and I will point out that both have their flaws despite offering the most exciting collection of tools of any two draft-eligible players.

 

Blazer's best point was the uncertainty about the prep pitchers. Jordan Walden and Matt Latos are typically ranked as the top prep players, but when I saw Kyle Drabek, Dellin Betances and Brett Anderson, I liked the way each pitched a lot better than Walden & Latos, and you didn't lose that much in regards to stuff (Drabek's stuff was better). I will admit that Walden and Latos weren't at their best the days I saw them, based on the comments from the others around me, but I'm sure their performances left the same impression on others as it did me.

 

Where I differ from Blazer's comments about taking more pitchers, deemed as more "safe" picks because they throw 94-95, I do the opposite. I start looking for the player that pitches or hits the best in a weak group, not necessarily the one that throws the hardest in a weak group. I know that is not necessarily his philosophy, just noting how teams historically have handled their picks in this fashion (like in 2004) and how I find flaws in that logic.

 

While the draft at this point in time definitely misses that clear-cut #1 position prospect, as last year's draft had three (Upton, Gordon & Maybin), I will say that I think Matt LaPorta could be this year's version of Pat Burrell, who was considered a no-brainer #1 overall pick in 1998. The Royals have already said that they intend to take a pitcher with the first overall pick, although things can and most certainly will change between now & June.

[Blazer25]

Colby,

 

I actually like Betences the best out of the prep arms...and I also think that Brett Anderson might be the best "pitcher" (college or HS) in the draft.

 

I also agree with you on Drabek...his stuff is nasty and so is his demeanor...he's going to be a winner.

 

I used the examples of Latos and Walden purely because they are near the top of everyone's list.