I've followed the 2016 #18 pick since he's local and wondered about this comment...
"Rutherford slipped out of the top ten for two reasons. One, his age. He turned 19 in May, which makes him older than most high school draftees. And two..."
What's the negative of being a year older, stronger and more mature?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
"Time" is a factor as the age window for playing this game at it's highest level is rather small. So, age along with the skill level for the age is quite a major factor.
2016DAD,
What was the second comment?
Personally I think baseball tends to make mistakes at times based on age. Reasoning behind these things is that younger has more time to develop thus more projection. Yet we see college players drafted by the truck load, ahead of excellent prospects sometimes four years younger. So just How much difference can there be in one year?
BTW, we had Rutherford ranked very high and IMO they got a steal at the slot he went in. The power he has at his age is way ahead of where most anyone younger would project in several years. There is so much that goes into the draft that it no longer becomes the best players in order. Signing below slot is sometimes more beneficial than getting the best player because it allows a club to get two or three of the best players later on.
So IMO Rutherford is more mature than most HS kids, but he is also a better prospect than almost all of the HS players. Anyway, that is what I expect to see in the future. FWIW
PG, the second was "he had big bonus demands" from this article. Just one year doesn't seem like it should matter. Now Hunter Greene, he has a age in his favor. He'll still be 17 in June.
Barring unforeseen circumstances, Blake will play in the bigs and do well. So the age issue is very inconsequential, other than Blake entering his free agent year one year older than peers (thus one year less in contract length).
take two players with the same ability, size, speed etc...one 19 and the other 18 (or even 17 for some)...who has the most upside over their career span?
There was an article written on this a while back and is in one of the threads...if i find it i will post it.
Since there will be a Hunter Greene in the draft is there also a Buff Brown? 
phillyinNJ posted:take two players with the same ability, size, speed etc...one 19 and the other 18 (or even 17 for some)...who has the most upside over their career span?
There was an article written on this a while back and is in one of the threads...if i find it i will post it.
http://www.baseballprospectus.....php?articleid=15295
Depends on who the two players are. A young Donavan Tate who went In the top 5 picks, a young Bubba Starling or a much older Buster Posey or a much older Pedroia. Who had the most upside?
IMO, all things being equal simply doesn't exist. Problem is it is difficult to know for sure who will end up being the best. Being one year younger can be an advantage, then again sometimes maturity can actually be an advantage.
If one year made that much difference the entire first round would be high school kids every year. Why do they draft so many in the first round that are, not one year, but three or four years older? If only it were easy to know which player, one year apart, has the most upside
phillyinNJ posted:phillyinNJ posted:take two players with the same ability, size, speed etc...one 19 and the other 18 (or even 17 for some)...who has the most upside over their career span?
There was an article written on this a while back and is in one of the threads...if i find it i will post it.
http://www.baseballprospectus.....php?articleid=15295
Yes, that is the article. There is no bias, it's just this curve (of course, to PG Staff's point, a specific 19-year-old may be better than lots of -- or all -- 18 year olds, but in general younger players have more upside):
2016Dad posted:I've followed the 2016 #18 pick since he's local and wondered about this comment...
"Rutherford slipped out of the top ten for two reasons. One, his age. He turned 19 in May, which makes him older than most high school draftees. And two..."
What's the negative of being a year older, stronger and more mature?
It is not really a disadvantage but it leaves less room for projection. I think rutherford will have a good Chance and top20 Overall is still very good but generally when you draft HS guys you draft for upside. If a Player is older he is basically "playing down" in HS and Teams are not sure if part of his dominance Comes from being more physically mature against inferior competition.
If you want to draft mature Players you usually go for college Players, while when drafting a HS Player you expect that strength and mechanics still Need some Kind of developement.
but that is just one factor. maybe you get a 15% Penalty or so (made up number) but if you really dominate like rutherford you still get drafted in a good spot. it is just that Teams see more upside if they see a 17.5 year old guy (like harper) posting the same stats than if they see a 19 yo rutherford posting those stats.
´most important Thing remains that you have the Tools.
BTW I don't think the Age curve has something to do with that. yes Players do Peak earlier but Teams also draft college Players who are usually 20-21 and sometimes older.
the Age curve doesn't really matter to the Teams because Teams mostly draft for the six control years. that is also one of the reasons why so many Teams have increased drafting college Players. the HS Players often have better careers but often a larger chunk of that Comes from the time after they are cheap. the most valuable years for a Team are the six control years and especially the first 3 years when a Player only receives the Minimum.
so for a Team having a HS Player in the bigs from 21-26 is not really an Advantage over a college Player from 24-29 because the HS Player will have a better career after that but he also will get super expensive.
so whether rutherford Plays in the Majors from 21-26 or 22-27 for the Yankees is not really an issue for them (as he is still at least a year younger than the youngest college Players). the issue is how much room for improvement they see at all.
Would you rather draft Ken Griffey Jr at 18 or 21? Of course 18. But another interesting angle of looking at things is in last year's draft, many of those players will be in their 2nd summer of pro ball before they turn 19 and\or their buddies are still playing HS ball. Thats a nice head start for kids that can handle it.
if the question is would rather draft Griffey at 18 or 21 the obvious thing is 18...but why wouldn't you take him at 21 if he was available there? obviously you would take him regardless correct?
I am constantly amazed by the baseball world...
bottom line is given the same Tools younger Age will be viewed as an Advantage in many cases because there is more room to grow (but still the Tools displayed are much more important than physical projection).
however don't consider just calender Age. the controversial pitching Guru mike marshall often talked about biological Age. a biologically early blooming 17 year that lifts since he is 14 might be physically closer to his expected Peak than a 19 year old late bloomer who never touched any weights.
yea who would want a fully developed 19 year old...much rather guess at what a 17 year old might look like in 2 years.
old_school posted:yea who would want a fully developed 19 year old...much rather guess at what a 17 year old might look like in 2 years.
well if the 17 year old hits the ball just as far as the 19 year old without being fully developed I take him.
but that being said rutherford still was a top20 pick and the 11th HS Player picked so there weren't many 17 yos hitting the ball like him.
nobody would take a 17yo hitting the ball 300 feet over a 19yo hitting the ball 400 feet, it is just a factor when anything else is equal (or almost equal, if the 17yo hits the ball "only" 380 I still might take him but only if it is very Close).
Dominik85 posted:bottom line is given the same Tools younger Age will be viewed as an Advantage in many cases because there is more room to grow (but still the Tools displayed are much more important than physical projection).
however don't consider just calender Age. the controversial pitching Guru mike marshall often talked about biological Age. a biologically early blooming 17 year that lifts since he is 14 might be physically closer to his expected Peak than a 19 year old late bloomer who never touched any weights.
I think the advice to the kids going to the pro showcases was to shave really close in the morning. I remember one thread on here were some highly ranked high school senior was scheduled to attend and one poster had looked him up and mentioned that his full beard might cost him some positions in the draft.
Speaking of age, my complete fascination with Seth Beer's efforts were ever so slightly diminished (seriously - not trying to take away from his stellar performance) when I ran across his age - had he stayed in high school, he would have been 19 1/2 when he walked across the stage to get his diploma. I still find his journey very interesting as it seems he could have excelled in pro ball and entered with the 2016 draft (he would have been on the older side of high school picks).
I've seen commercials where you can have your "effective" age determined by some type of DNA testing. Perhaps this will become part of the standard physical required for the draft in the near future.
PGStaff posted:Depends on who the two players are. A young Donavan Tate who went In the top 5 picks, a young Bubba Starling or a much older Buster Posey or a much older Pedroia. Who had the most upside?
IMO, all things being equal simply doesn't exist. Problem is it is difficult to know for sure who will end up being the best. Being one year younger can be an advantage, then again sometimes maturity can actually be an advantage.
If one year made that much difference the entire first round would be high school kids every year. Why do they draft so many in the first round that are, not one year, but three or four years older? If only it were easy to know which player, one year apart, has the most upside
Well, for one thing it has to do with timelines of player development. If a high school player is drafted in a high spot, say first two/three rounds, and after 2-3 years of development doesn't seem to be panning out, it would seem logical (in a production sense) that you need to replace that player in the pipeline with someone who can essentially pick up where he is leaving off. Therefore it could be conjectured that a college player being drafted in a high round is being drafted not only because that is where they fall on the board skill-wise, but also need wise. It's a machine, professional baseball, with a continuous chain of players driving its gears. If a link in that chain is missing or projecting to jam the gear it needs to be replaced. That's one way of looking at why college players are drafted high.
BTW Longenhagen said it is a factor but not one of the biggest. Tools are still king and even for growth projection Age is just one of the factors (height, "Frame" and room to fill out are probably more important).
"If a high school player is drafted in a high spot, say first two/three rounds, and after 2-3 years of development doesn't seem to be panning out, it would seem logical (in a production sense) that you need to replace that player in the pipeline with someone who can essentially pick up where he is leaving off."
Barring permanent injury, drug use or disciplinary issues, a HS draft pick in those rounds - assuming a slot or greater bonus - will not be released after 2 - 3 years. The draft contract allows club control for, I believe 6 years, and a club has too much invested (though it's actually sunk costs and really shouldn't be viewed in that manner) to throw in the towel. Keep in mind that to be drafted that high the top officials of the organization collectively agree to draft and pay the kid and have too much ego involved to admit defeat; clubs who draft a HS kid that high know the time line and are prepared for years of development.
I agree. High round picks get a lot of chances to fail, while low round picks have to rake a lot before they move up.
Teams have nothing to lose other than a minors roster spot (and a couple years of Minimum salary) so when you have invested a Million you can wait the whole 4-5 MILB years to see if he makes it.
BTW I don't think MLB Teams think in Terms of "that Player has to replace Player x". they just accumulate as much Talent as possible and then worry about the spots later. some fans ask themselves why a Team good in pitching/hitting and bad in the other still sometimes draft the guys they have in a Surplus but for example if a Team is more confident in their pitching developement they might continue to draft pitchers to trade them later when their stock is higher.
epstein for example continued to draft hitters after the cubs already had a super deep farm on the hitting side because the cubs did well developing hitters and he could still trade some hitters later (for example torres for chapman).
Goosegg posted:"If a high school player is drafted in a high spot, say first two/three rounds, and after 2-3 years of development doesn't seem to be panning out, it would seem logical (in a production sense) that you need to replace that player in the pipeline with someone who can essentially pick up where he is leaving off."
Barring permanent injury, drug use or disciplinary issues, a HS draft pick in those rounds - assuming a slot or greater bonus - will not be released after 2 - 3 years. The draft contract allows club control for, I believe 6 years, and a club has too much invested (though it's actually sunk costs and really shouldn't be viewed in that manner) to throw in the towel. Keep in mind that to be drafted that high the top officials of the organization collectively agree to draft and pay the kid and have too much ego involved to admit defeat; clubs who draft a HS kid that high know the time line and are prepared for years of development.
What I posited was a theory, not gospel. Ego aside, a 3-4 million dollar mistake is made all the time by teams, whether it's solely on one player or collectively on several. Ultimately it's a rich man's game and the players are just pieces of the game...and surely there are players drafted in high rounds who don't pan out and it doesn't take 4-6 years for a team to realize "that dog won't hunt."
This isn't difficult stuff, IMHO. A small age difference is no big deal. A year, sure it's a factor, but can clearly be overcome by other factors. But what about two years? Three? Five? Clearly if there are two prospects that are pretty close tools-wise, a large age difference argues for the younger prospect.
I realize that high school draftees won't have a five-year age difference. But two years is possible; my son has two classmates, both high-level athletes, born in August -- one in 1999 and one in 2001. So one will be 17 when he graduates (and turn 18 in August) and the other will be 19 when he graduates (and turn 20 in August). To me, if they are close tools-wise and performance-wise, the 17 year old is more impressive.
