Safe (college) vs. risky (high school)

[colbyjack]

Interesting little blurb in today's Daily Dish at BA:

 

www.baseballamerica.com/t.../dish.html

 

It basically talks about the Pirates & their decision to take the perceived safer pick in college RHP Bryan Bullington vs. prep SS B.J. Upton. Upton was largely thought of as the best player available in the entire draft, but GM David Littlefield reached for a player that he thought could get to the big leagues & contribute a lot earlier. Turns out Upton was recently promoted to AA, now one level ahead of Bullington, with some rumblings that Upton may see time with the D-Rays before the season is over.

 

Of course, the story also notes that Bullington could bounce back, but it is important to keep in mind that college picks aren't always the more guaranteed route.

 

On top of that, Littlefield & the Pirates reached yet again in this past year's draft taking LHP Paul Maholm. While I like Maholm and think he could be solid contributor at the MLB level, he probably maxes out as a #3 starter, and there were several players that most teams considered to be better players available on the board (Michael Aubrey, Jeff Allison & Lastings Milledge immediately come to mind). These conservative picks may come back to haunt the Pirates.

[RobertR]

Well, just because the DRays are doing something, promoting Upton, doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing.

 

As far as Bullington goes, I think he's still generally acknowledged as a solid prospect. Of course, with apologies to Robert Heinlein, TAASTAAPP.

 

More to the point, I think people can take Oakland's course a little too far. Oakland's on a limited budget, picking towards the end of the round, and contending now. They really don't get a shot at the top end of High School prospects and are picking in a position where players generally have a few warts. They need both safe picks and people that can move through the system quickly, and look good doing it, so that they can sustain their success and create good looking prospects that they can trade for major league ready pieces.

 

I've just finished Moneyball and I think Michael Lewis kind of falls victim to his own subjective feelings towards the subject and assumes an outcome towards the A's draft. Now, I think that Oakland did a pretty favorable job, based on early returns, but the important thing to remember is that Oakland is thinking about problems to reduce risk and maximize results and will take the results of the draft and tweak or change things if they don't get the results that they expect. The most important thing from Moneyball is the idea that they don't know everything about baseball, but are objectively studying the problem, measuring results, and adjusting.

 

Robert

[colbyjack]

First of all, don't get me wrong, I like how the A's draft as much as I think it's foolish that any team virtually ignores high school talent. They've gotten a few of my favorite prospects the past couple of years with Blanton & Sullivan being 2 guys I really liked. And I know I was generalizing while your points prove there is more than one way to build a ballclub through the draft.

 

However, like you said, the A's are already contenders. The title of this post probably didn't help, as I guess my point was that if guys like B.J. Upton, Jeff Allison and/or Lastings Milledge turn out to be as good as everyone thinks they could while guys like Bullington & Maholm max out as productive yet complimentary ballplayers, the Pirates really blew their chance to obtain a few premier players with a couple of high draft choices. The A's can get away & look a lot better in doing so more with their "safe" picks in the 20s & later.

 

Of course, if Paul Maholm turns out to be Barry Zito I'll just shut up http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif .

[RobertR]

Well, more to the point, it also needs to be pointed out that all college picks aren't created equal. The A's don't just draft players because they played college, but because they played college, excelled at the things that the A's believe are important for making it in professional baseball, and have good "makeup" and other qualities. The A's still have scouts, after all. And there is still risk. Not all of the A's picks, even their high ones, are going to work out.

 

Let me say this. In Moneyball, Paul Depodestra discusses Voros McCracken's DIPS findings and basically concludes that McCracken is basically right but that his findings can be taken too far. As far as the A's, and their preference for college players, I believe they are basically right, but it can be taken too far. College player are not automatically better than high school players. I'll bet a lot of college pitchers are worse prospects than Zack Grienke, for instance, one of the players used as a risky counter-example in Moneyball. Prince Fielder was another counter-example cited by Michael Lewis.

 

Robert

[pogokat]

lewis didnt say that prince was too risky...he said he was too fat...and said nothing beyond

 

i enjoyed the book...but you are right...lewis put too much stock into the a's 2002 draft...if things dont work out well with those guys, then the book wont hold much value....though it is useful because it shows how easily beane got all the picks he wanted...whether or not that is a good thing is yet to be decided

[RobertR]

Well, as far as Prince Fielder goes, I believe the risk is that he'll be too fat to play as I don't believe that the A's questioned whether he could hit. In many ways he is the prototypical A's player.

 

Another thing that needs to be brought up is that the A's had a very tight budget, something like $10 million total. So, not only did they have to find low risk players, they had to find players that didn't have a lot of leverage beyond their first couple of picks. They very easily could have blown their whole budget just trying to sign their first rounders. That's one other reason why the A's picked college seniors, beyond thinking that they're lower risk. And, although Lewis assumes everything is going to work out, it's worth noting that the A's signed something like their first 20 picks. They still believe in quantity and are assuming some of their picks are going to fail.

 

Lewis' book is very good and entertaining. And I think you can ignore even the draft section, only 1 to 2 chapters, since there's more to the book than that. But, I think it's fair to say that Lewis simplifies some issues in favor of telling an entertaining story. Kind of like reducing a player to ABsxOBPxSLG. Generally true, but there are other issues.

 

Robert

[Al the Thinking Man]

Kind of like reducing a player to ABsxOBPxSLG. Generally true, but there are other issues.

 

Other issues??? I'll have to look into that.