Draft Picks by State and Region

Interesting. I used your data to find the number drafted per population. For the entire country, there were 4.6 players drafted per million people. By state, for the top ten (or eleven) states:
CA 260 7.13
FL 169 9.34
TX 145 6.17
GA 58 6.19
IL 48 3.74
NC 45 5.08
WA 42 6.57
PA 42 3.38
AZ 40 6.49
OH 32 2.79
NY 32 1.66

Note that your top ten list doesn't include AZ, but the state by state listing shows it as having 40 draftees. If I (actually Excel) did the math right, the state totals are 1388 draftees, while the reginal totals to 1381.

In any case, the above per capita data show a significant bias to warm weather states. But what determines the listed state? Is it the state of birth? State of residence during early and middle teens? Or state of residence (possibly meaning location of college) at the time of the draft? It is hard to draw any conclusions without that knowledge.

And, is there any connection between your state of residence and the fact that Washington seems to have a remarkably high number of draftees for a non-warm weather state?

i know some players were placed in the state they went to school in. high school home state, college where ever the state is. not sure if they are all like that.

quote:

In any case, the above per capita data show a significant bias to warm weather states

analysis is simple .. more scouts live in warm weather states, population is more dense and the job is easier

in Cal/Fla a guy might cover a county or two, up here 1 guy might have Oh, Mich, W Pa, and part of Canada

quote:

in Cal/Fla a guy might cover a county or two, up here 1 guy might have Oh, Mich, W Pa, and part of Canada

Not true here. A lot (most?) of the area scouts here cover Northern & Central California, Oregon, Washington, Northern Nevada and into Idaho/Montana. bbscout was one of those...he used to tell me how he enjoyed his trips to Idaho to see Lewis & Clarke State play. Pretty big geographical area they cover out here as well.

If you want to get further into it, you need to break it down into college vs. HS in each state.

It's hard to determine since many kids leave their home state and get drafted at college and that counts in that state's total. For example in SC, many drafted don't reside in SC and many were college draftees.

That should keep you pretty busy for the day.

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:

quote:

In any case, the above per capita data show a significant bias to warm weather states

analysis is simple .. more scouts live in warm weather states, population is more dense and the job is easier

in Cal/Fla a guy might cover a county or two, up here 1 guy might have Oh, Mich, W Pa, and part of Canada

Bee> - respectfully disagree. a) imho, the reason there are more scouts in those other areas is that they getter a bigger bang for their buck in scouting those areas i.e., they find more potential big league talent in those areas.

I agree with 3FingeredGloves analysis btw...

A reasonable proposition is that athletic genes are spread equally thoughout the population of the US. If this were not true, then these same baseball producing states would also produce the same per capita advantages in the other sports. We know that Ohio produces lots of top football players for example, Minnesota produces lots of the top hockey players, and NY produces lots of top NBA players. For instance, why did Bobby Cremins of GT often go North to NYC to find his star point guards? IMHO, because he knew he could find them there. Ohio State is annually a top five program and most of their players are from Ohio - why is that? Also, wonder what the per capita advantages are in the Dominican. Why has San Pedro De Macoris (sp) produced so many players? The water?

IMHO - producing a top baseball talent requires two basic things - talent + time/experience to cultivate the talent. I started a thread a few weeks backs asking people how many games their sons had played during their youth. The answers in some cases were shockingly different and often depended on what area of the country one grew up. In some cases, some kids had more at bats entering 7th or 8th grade than other kids had entering college. bbscout said some kids had two or three thousand more at bats in some cases. There is a multiplying effect with this discrepancy as well. Those same kids who are playing twice as many games are also playing other kids who have played more games. I am guessing it is easier to project a kid who has had such advantages.

Does this mean the gig is up for the non-baseball producing states? No. It just may mean your kid may need more time to develop than some other kid who has had more experience. It also may mean that some kid who has the requisite athletic ability (good genes) but merely lags in the experience department can possibly have a bigger upside in the long run in some cases. Interesting topic!

I will now sit back and wait for my beating

quote:

IMHO - producing a top baseball talent requires two basic things - talent + time/experience to cultivate the talent. I started a thread a few weeks backs asking people how many games their sons had played during their youth. The answers in some cases were shockingly different and often depended on what area of the country one grew up. In some cases, some kids had more at bats entering 7th or 8th grade than other kids had entering college. bbscout said some kids had two or three thousand more at bats in some cases. There is a multiplying effect with this discrepancy as well. Those same kids who are playing twice as many games are also playing other kids who have played more games. I am guessing it is easier to project a kid who has had such advantages.

Does this mean the gig is up for the non-baseball producing states? No. It just may mean your kid may need more time to develop than some other kid who has had more experience. It also may mean that some kid who has the requisite athletic ability (good genes) but merely lags in the experience department can possibly have a bigger upside in the long run in some cases. Interesting topic!

I will now sit back and wait for my beating

No beating from me!

Here are a couple of anecdotes that support your theory.

I was talking with a Texas college coach a few weeks back about the players he has from Colorado. He mentioned that he has some connections with a couple of good select teams there. He added that overall, players from Colorado lag behind developmentally, mainly because of the colder weather. This does not in any way negate the players' athletic ability; it just means that they may need a bit more time to fully develop and reach their potential.

Here in San Antonio, there seems to be more of an emphasis on football than baseball. Many of the h.s. baseball coaches are primarily football coaches and baseball coaching is merely tacked on to their job description. (Thankfully, this is not the case at my son's h.s.) Even though the metropolitan area has way more than 1 million people, not one h.s. player was taken in the draft this past year (although there have been some notable draftees in past years). A locally-based pro scout has made numerous comments in the past about San Antonio players lagging behind because of the lack of emphasis placed on developing them.

Thankfully, this same pro scout has made great strides in trying to change this. Recently, he organized a pro scout showcase with 230 h.s. juniors and seniors participating and more than 30 pro scouts and 30 college coaches looking on. Others in the community are joining forces to turn things around, with plans in the works for a junior-senior All Star Game and the construction of a high-quality baseball complex, the opening of several baseball instruction facilities, and the expansion of a local baseball message board that is getting the word out on what players need to do to develop and market themselves. Hopefully, these changes will yield positive results in coming years.

No beating here either.

Infield08 good post!

IMO, a lot has to do with the coaching talent as well.

Could we assume that in the states that dominate in the draft, one would find better instruction?

Some of my son's past coaches were former players and scouts in pro ball. Not that it makes you a better coach, but the coaching was made up more of past and present professionals than parents. We also live in a state with very good D1 coaching staffs where players flock to their camps for instruction and scout teams run by true scouts has been the norm here for many years. I think this may make a difference in the overall scheme of things.

My bad. I added Arizona into the top 10. 3 Fingered Glove, that was a cool idea.. "Draft Picks Per Capita!" As the father of a pitcher, it now makes me want to run "Pitchers drafted per capita!". It's all fun.

Agree with both CD and TPM.

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:
analysis is simple .. more scouts live in warm weather states, population is more dense and the job is easier
in Cal/Fla a guy might cover a county or two, up here 1 guy might have Oh, Mich, W Pa, and part of Canada

CD says:
Bee> - respectfully disagree. a) imho, the reason there are more scouts in those other areas is that they getter a bigger bang for their buck in scouting those areas i.e., they find more potential big league talent in those areas.

a closer look reveals we agree

they getter a bigger bang for their buck = population is more dense



anyway warm weather doesn't "create talent/tools" it just allows faster development.
and how tuff is it really to spot well developed talent & tools?
Aunt Millie could tell ya if there's anyone on the field who "has the goods"


the warm guys have it easy ... their lists are all identical to each other


a casual fan could spend a few weeks cruising the Pacific Highway & come up with a pretty good follow list

give the same fan a few weeks to cover Canada, Pa, W Va, Oh, & Mich ...
he's got a maxed out gas card, gained 10 lbs and .. well you get the point

I'm just saying that the guy that will put his neck on the line projecting (relatively) undeveloped cold weather talent & tools is scouting his azz off

quote:

a closer look reveals we agree

they getter a bigger bang for their buck = population is more dense

If we are talking LA, then I agree. If we are talking NYC, then I don't agree. That is why I thought the per capita analysis made sense because it attempts to explain things beyond just the fact that some states have more kids. NY produced the same number of players as Ohio last year but a far cry from Florida who has fewer residents. NY and Ohio combined produced about 1/3 the players as Florida.

quote:

I'm just saying that the guy that will put his neck on the line projecting (relatively) undeveloped cold weather talent & tools is scouting his azz off

I agree.

What a great topic, and many of the points/reasoning made all have merit as far as the area of the USA where kids get drafted from.

The development side comments also are valid. The link below carries it further as to where those that actually developed into MLB players were born, the talent genes and "early development".

The comments regarding scouts concentrating in temperate climate is one I agree with to this extent. IMO, more of the "decision-making" levels of scouts hang more in the warmer areas where play is outside year-long, but eventually the cream rises to the top:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/birthplace.php

Major League Baseball Players by Birthplace
A Historical Analysis

Breakdown by Place of Birth
United States (14,873)

Alabama (296) Louisiana (220) Ohio (974)
Alaska (9) Maine (71) Oklahoma (229)
Arizona (78) Maryland (264) Oregon (115)
Arkansas (145) Massachusetts (642) Pennsylvania (1,347)
California (1,865) Michigan (408) Rhode Island (73)
Colorado (81) Minnesota (151) South Carolina (162)
Connecticut (173) Mississippi (175) South Dakota (36)
Delaware (48) Missouri (568) Tennessee (263)
Florida (349) Montana (19) Texas (744)
Georgia (295) Nebraska (102) Utah (35)
Hawaii (34) Nevada (22) Vermont (38)
Idaho (24) New Hampshire (49) Virginia (261)
Illinois (993) New Jersey (384) Washington (169)
Indiana (345) New Mexico (21) Washington, D.C. (87)
Iowa (207) New York (1,090) West Virginia (117)
Kansas (203) North Carolina (370) Wisconsin (231)
Kentucky (264) North Dakota (15) Wyoming (12)


Got to give those Great Lakes states an "attaboy"

Ohio
PA
Illinois

It is sort of surprising to see how the numbers shake out, especially compared to the previous arguments regarding the benefits of warm weather and year round play. Florida does not stand out, especially compared to a state such as Pennsylvania.
I wonder if the fact that Florida was relatively unpopulated until the 1950's has a impact, especially if the above analysis goes back to the beginning of baseball.
My Son has played organized ball since he was 3. Two years of T-Ball, LOL! Year round after that. I guess it could be construed as abusive by some! But, he really loves the game. That probably translates to a lot of time on the field by the time he turned 18.

quote:

Florida does not stand out, especially compared to a state such as Pennsylvania.

That does not make sense. Did you mean Florida does stand out? They stand out above all others if you view the per capita data and are second only to California when viewing the gross numbers. The above analysis is respect to last year's draft. I am sure scouting has changed over the years as the population has changed i.e., migration to the sunshine states.

OS8,
Nice post.

I found the 2007 information more interesting (current players). Out of almost a 1000 players about 300 are foreign born.

Obviously where one was born doesn't necessarily mean much if one grew up and played somewhere else.

Must be something with the water supply that they drink out in CA.

Is it possible to do a breakdown of how many players in MLB are out of college, just curious.

Don't the gross numbers (not per capita) show Florida with 349; California with 1865; Pennsylvania with 1347; and Ohio with 974?

I understand that there is a very valid difference between per capita and gross. But it still surprises me how great a difference there is. And pre air conditioning, Florida was thinly populated. I am not arguing here just surprised at the difference in the gross numbers.

Florda stands out in the 2007 data.

It would be interesting to know what the numbers are from 1960 on. In the early 20th century the population was mostly in the east and midwest. The PA numbers are very skewed versus today's numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by Tiger Paw Mom:
Is it possible to do a breakdown of how many players in MLB are out of college, just curious.

TPM,

I did that 2 years ago. It was a pain - and took a long time to go through the rosters.

Approx. results

Never in college - over 50%
From a small college (D2-D3-JUCO-NAIA etc...) - 20%
D-1 College - 30%

gee, looking at the gross #'s someone (not me ) could probably make a case that -

1) cold-weather scouts do work hard

2) warm weather states are feeding MiLB ..
alot of (relativley) advanced guys capable of playing that level, but maybe at or are close their ceiling

3) cold states are filling MLB rosters

4) tho somewhat behind deveopmentaly, cold weather guys may be more durable because they developed slower

5) warm weather players are less college oriented


so are the warm weather scouts drafting MLB prospects or filling MiLB rosters?

need more data



(!!skcuB oG)

I am looking for a database site I stumbled upon some time ago that offered the "splits" regarding MLB players.

I will attempt it again?

Here is some "light reading" while researching

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/college/colleges_sort_quantity.shtml


By the way BEE. I am sure you have tossed BP in the winter as I have.

From Baseball Abstract:

James summarizes a "hard study of the baseball draft" in the Cincinnati Reds segment that was first published as a special edition for The Bill James Baseball Abstract Newsletter. His conclusion 20 years ago has had a profound effect on the drafting strategies of several major league organizations since then with an ever growing appreciation the past decade or so.

Not only is there no basis for the prejudice against the drafting of college players, but in fact the reverse is true. College players, from the beginning of the draft until at least 1978, had been seriously under-valued and under-drafted in comparison to high school players.
James offers three theories why college players have shown an advantage:

1) College competition, operating at a higher level, is more difficult to dominate than high school competition. Scouts are bowled over by people who hit .573 and drive in three runs per game; you can't do that in college. College players are good enough that they expose one another's weaknesses.
2) College players succeed relative to their expectations because there is still a prejudice against them, operating at a lower level. A "preference" for drafting high school players, however small, might cause college players to be drafted lower than they ought to be. This would cause their rates of return to be higher.

3) College players are older and more mature than those drafted out of high school, thus better able to deal with and succeed through minor league life. A player drafted out of high school is going to be away from home for the first time; a player drafted out of college isn't.


James provides four other conclusions from his study:

1) The South has been seriously over-scouted and over-drafted.

The Major League amateur draft started in 1965.

More to digest:


From the CCBL website"

Additionally, looking at Major League baseball players from four-year college programs and those drafted out of high school, Wylde found the number of players who make it to the Major Leagues and came from four-year college programs (41.47%) is significantly greater than those who make it to the big leagues and were drafted out of high school (24.07%). This is contrary to the notion among many baseball people that the number of Major League players drafted out of high school and the number of those drafted out of college are relatively equal.

http://www.capecodbaseball.org/News/news2007/images/MLB_Players_2001_2006.pdf

I guess I am posting this stuff because you don't have to be from Florida or California to make it to MLB. You can be from Cedar Rapids, Iowa

I’ve never understood James study regarding high school vs college players. While 22 year old college players are more advanced than 17 year old high school players, one only needs to look at the all star rosters to argue the point.

If we were to take the Cincinnati Reds best players when they were a dominate team and check to see how many were out of HS or college. I’m guessing most of the top Reds were signed out of high school. Don’t have time to look it up right now, but where did Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, Tony Perez, Dave Conception, George Foster, Ken Griffey, Cesar Geronimo, Don Gullet, etc. And you know, only one of those players above came from one of the traditional draft states (Joe Morgan) but three of them were Latin Americans. Most interesting is that three of them came from northern states and signed out of high school.

I think the high school draft picks are riskier, but there is no denying the reward when the scouts get it right. I look at it this way… At one time they were all in high school. It’s just a matter of figuring it who the right ones are. College helps to answer a lot of those questions and lowers the risk at least a little.

weren't most of those guys pre 1965 draft? (maybe it just seems so long ago )

quote:

While 22 year old college players are more advanced than 17 year old high school players, one only needs to look at the all star rosters to argue the point

if all-star rosters are heavily hs signees, what is the conclusion?

are potential all-stars easily identified (no brainers) ... and more often sign out of hs instead of going to college??

or does EVERY player signed out of hs have a better chance to become an all-star than any college player does??

are all-stars not very academicly inclined??

any of the above could be valid


it does make sense that hs picks are riskier ..

hs - you'd look at a 17yr old and project where he'll be at age 25 yrs old

college - you'd look at a 24 yr old and project where he'll be at 25 yrs old

Well PG, mention the Reds and you pique my interest.

Your points are very well taken. However, while only one (Morgan) was born in a "traditional" draft state (California), 6 of the 9 came from warm weather states/nations. Gullett (Kentucky), Rose (Ohio) and Griffey Sr. (Pennsylvania) were the exceptions to the warm weather origins.

Of that bunch Morgan played college ball (JC, 1 year). He later graduated with his BA from Cal. State-Hayward in 1990. Foster played baseball, football and track at El Camino CC in California.

Morgan (California), Bench (Oklahoma), Foster (born-Alabama, but attended both HS and JC in California), Concepcion (Venezuela), Perez (Cuba) and Geronimo (Dominican Republic) all originated in areas generally considered 'warm weather' or close to it. I suspect Bench, Morgan and Foster likely played a 2nd and maybe a 3rd sport in HS (unlike today perhaps).

A few other notable players from those teams: Jack Billingham (Florida), Gary Nolan (California), Dan Driessen (South Carolina) and Pedro Borbon (Dominican Republic) were all from warm weather states/nations. Add in early-70's key players Lee May (Alabama), Bobby Tolan (California), Tommy Helms (North Carolina) and Clay Carroll (Alabama).

So the Big Red Machine certainly does not support the notion that most of the very best players come disproportionately from the NE.

I don't have time to look it up, but I suspect the theory that PA, NY, OH, etc... produced more players than population might suggest, compared to FL, is all about where the game was played most seriously up until the 1950s (i.e., the NE). Thats about 70-80 years of big league ball not even played west of the Mississippi nor south of St. Louis/Cincinnati.

As for the college thing. One has to remember that attending college was a whole different ball game in just our parents' generation. Up until my generation college was considered unique, special, even unusual. Both my parents were the first generation of their families to attend college. I recently researched my family tree and for hundreds of years they were farmers in Virginia. I suspect up until about 1950-something that if a scout had showed up on the farm offering a contract to one of my ancestors they would have quickly taken it and never thought about college as an option instead. Today its a given for a lot of families that all of the kids will attend college...and if they can get it paid for (partially) with some baseball talent, thats a route much more likely taken than just 30/40 years ago...maybe even 15 years ago?

I don't believe the historical data explains what happened in the 2007 draft. The question to be answered is why does Florida, Texas, and California dominate the draft? Having large populations is part of the explanation but the per capita analysis shows those same states produce more players per a given number of the population - in this case players per million.

If one is trying to explain why more players have historically come from the north going back to the 1800's, then I think justbb's explanation is correct. Overtime, Florida will dominate those northern places. There may also be an error/typo in the data explaing why Florida's number is so extrordinarily low.

quote:

I don't have time to look it up, but I suspect the theory that PA, NY, OH, etc... produced more players than population might suggest compared to FL is all about where the game was played most seriously up until the 1950s (i.e., the NE). Thats about 70-80 years of big league ball not even played west of the Mississippi nor south of St. Louis/Cincinnati.