From Baseball Analysts website

again nice job PG

quote:

Hard to argue with those numbers; Chill hits it on the head.

exactly what is the conclusion?

does the list say that the HS "cream of the crop" who chose college - simply choose DI colleges?

or

DI college programs just develop top pro prospects better?

or

DI colleges identify talent and recruit better

tho I suspect #1 fits best, someone could probably make a case for each


it does say few top 5 round prospects play other than DI, but I'd guess the mix gets better as the draft progresses


.

Appreciate all the effort that has been expended to prove what I think should be obvious. DI is better baseball than DIII and DI players are better players and professional "prospects" than DIII. In general, top DI coaches make a lot of money and have very good scouting and recruiting resources. If they do not find the best players, they will not be working. From watching every Bay Area college team for several years, I do think, though, there is a significant difference in the way players progress under different DI coaches.
I know there are a lot of posters who advocate that many DIII players/teams are really DI quality. I have watched a lot of DIII and DI in the last 10 years. With some exceptions, I don't think that is correct.
Appreciate also that the focus of DI baseball and DIII are quite different. DIII players cannot receive any considerations/benefits not available to the entire student body. Not quite the same at DI.
To my way of thinking, this isn't too much different than comparing A'Rod and David Eckstein. Pretty obvious who has the tools and if you were having a pickup game, which would be the first pick. On the other hand, there is something about that Eckstein. Has a ring, makes big plays at critical times and his teams always seem to be there at the end.
PG mentioned earlier in this thread: "Tools first, performance second is usually the way things turn out."
Little doubt that is true when it comes to the draft and having the status of a "prospect" in professional baseball. In some ways, BA identifying and ranking prospects has become almost nauseating to me because they are doing more and more to justify their rankings even when the tools don't perform.
The point that has not yet been made and what players like Eckstein prove to me is that, at some point, tools do not disguise whether the player is performing and performance is ultimately the deciding factor. From what I have seen in professional baseball, knowing that performance ultimately, for the most part, wins out is a driving factor for a lot of players.
With 2 out in the 9th, nobody on base, 2 strikes on the hitter and you are down 2, who would you rather have hitting? Eckstein or A'Rod? Prospects and tools don't get measured then, just performance.

Having had son's play @ D2 and D1 levels, there is basically NO comparison.

Unless your talking about the very very top level of D2 or the bottom rung of D1...the player development is signifigantly better in D1 programs due to Coaching...and size of staff, budgets (which can approach a half million dollars) and competition...especially in the top 10 or so conferences.

The recruiting budgets of the top D1 schools along with most young players wanting to go to a top D1 school is the big difference.

The best coach I have ever seen was a High School coach, not a D1 coach, the best College coach I have seen at developing was a D2 coach who did not have scholarships until his last two years of a 35 year career.

About 10 years ago I had the pleasure of having lunch with Rod Dedeaux, the long time coach at USC and and he told me something that I will never forget. He said, "good coaches coach, great coaches recruit".

quote:

With 2 out in the 9th, nobody on base, 2 strikes on the hitter and you are down 2, who would you rather have hitting? Eckstein or A'Rod? Prospects and tools don't get measured then, just performance.

If we go on their most recent at bat, I will take Eckstein because he hit a ground ball through the left side for a single. ARod's last AB was a ground ball that turned into a DP. Actually I would take Pujols!

Next time in the same situation I will take ARod or again Pujols.

Just like everyone else, I really like Eckstein. He is very easy to like and he sure is a winner. However, I can't understand anyone comparing ARod and Eckstein. Normally don't like to get into these discussions but....

Comparing this year's results, let alone careers. Here are the results.

ABs - Rodriguez 605 - Eckstein 630
Runs - Rodriguez 124 - Eckstein 90
Hits - Rodriguez 194 - Eckstein 185
2B - Rodriguez 29 - Eckstein 26
3B - Rodriguez 1 - Eckstein 7
HR - Rodriguez 48 - Eckstein 8
RBI - Rodriguez 130 - Eckstein 61
TB - Rodriguez 369 - Eckstein 249
BB - Rodriguez 91 - Eckstein 58
OB% - Rodriguez .421 - Eckstein .363
SLG% - Rodriguez .610 - Eckstein .395
B. Ave - Rodriguez .321 - Eckstein - .294
Career
B Ave - Arod .307 - Eckstein .282
OB% - ARod - .351 - Eckstein

Post Season ave. before this year
B.Ave. - ARod .330 - Eckstein .300
Runs - ARod 17 - Eckstein 11
Hits - ARod 34 - Eckstein 24
HR - ARod 6 - Eckstein 0
RBI - ARod 16 - Eckstein 6
BB - ARod 9 - Eckstein 3
OB% - ARod .395 - Eckstein .345
SLG% - ARod .583 - .300

Eckstein has performed great, but as everyone can see ARod has performed better in nearly all areas.

There have been many great hall of famers who had bad world series/playoff stats. There have been many below average MLB players who have been World Series stars. The true picture is told by the entire career, not just one or two series, let alone ONE AT BAT.

Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Alex Rodriguez, Ernie Banks, and many others do not have a World Series "ring".

By the way, I am a big David Eckstein fan. I imagine everyone in baseball loves the guy! Talented, extremely smart, s****** player who gives it his all. I'll pick ARod!

It's part of a different comparison, but if one is putting a team together....

Alex Rodriguez --- $26 million
David Eckstein - $2.3 million

Is Alex 13 times better?

infielddad

Another good post. Your comparison of Eckstein and Arod is perfect. Eckstein is the rare example and someone we all like to cheer for.
I feel that for the most part, although we know lower level colleges are represented in the draft, they too are the exception. And I think you have said so much with your humble references regarding your son and his time in pro ball to date.

Talk in our area frequently turns to levels of play, and as you say a common theme is the D3 rosters filled with players who ALL could have gone D1. Moms and Dads get excited when their D2 teams beat a D1 team but over the course of a series the depth would usually not produce the same results. Levels shouldn't matter once you've made your decision but that ego thing just won't quit...lol.

Regarding Arod:
Was just reading in Sporting News about Chris Carpenter being named the Pitcher of the Year (Now there's one New Hampshire boy for ya!) and I saw a piece on Arod which states he led the Majors in 5x5 value....

20 players had more than 20 stolen bases
Of those 20
5 hit better than .300
4 had more than 100 rbi's
3 hit more than 25 homers
And thats just offense.

PG,
I fully agree with you that A'Rod is the better player and statistically the more productive player. If asked, my guess is Eckstein would agree also. As I said, if I am playing in the back yard and have first pick, I'm taking A'Rod.
What I was trying to distinguish is "tools" against "performance." Many times, "moneyball" players are considered to be "performance" players but in fact those guys usually have a ton of "tools."
In the context of "tools" being the critical factor in the determination of draft selection and "prospect" status, I agree with you completely. Of course, since you do that very successfully for a living, my disagreement might sound a little like CADad battling bbscout and I don't like those odds.
The point I failed to clearly make related to productive at bats in critical game situations, situational hitting where a players average with runners in scoring position, RBI's with two outs, etc. are the measure.
While "tools" not performance get you the best looks in the draft, at some point in your professional career, those tools get you no place unless they translate to performance. I think I over dramatized the Eckstein vs A'Rod comparison in Monday night's game trying to make a point. Your post shows they have actually both been quite productive. Eckstein, to me, does demonstrate that failing to have the "tools" to be a "prospect" or top draft choice or that get you noticed at age 21 does not necessarily equate with performance 5-8 or so years later.. In the A'Rod situation, they clearly do.

Cant argue with the stats.

But when it comes down to the big game - AROD is the "Cooler".

For $26M per year - you gotta get it done when it matters most.

And he doesnt. No excuses.

I don't think any player is worth 20+ million a year. I think Eckstein is a bargain by todays standards.

I do think ARod is the best player and I'm fairly certain history will show that to be true.

Not discounting Eckstein's ability, just think we are comparing him to the wrong guy!

PG,

The bar is raised when you make the big dough.

Arod didnt clear the bar - in fact - the bar smashed him in the forehead. Again.

He needs to either make less - or jump alot higher IMO.

..just had no idea that there was THAT much difference in D1, D2, & D3.

Stunned.

The list is telling - I would love to see the statistics for the other 45 rounds.

According to the DIII baseball website, there were 13 DIII players drafted in 2004 and 24 in 2005. Gets a bit dwarfed amongst the 1500 plus picks.
Several have performed extremely well though. Andrew Pinkney from Emory had great numbers in Low A and Brady Endl from one of the Wisconsin schools is already to AA. I am cheering for everyone.

ARod doesn't need anyone to stick up for him. There is a good reason he is the highest paid player. I think if people look at all the highest paid players... they'll find ARod has produced the best numbers year in and year out... this side of Bonds.

I think it's the fact he gets paid so much that causes problems. If he does no more than what he did this year for the rest of his career... He will hold every hitting record in the books.

Itsinthegame, You can't raise the bar much higher than that.

25 players, sometimes more, win World Series rings every year. Only one player is awarded the MVP. Not debating which is most important, but which one is the toughest to accomplish?

I am not an ARod fan, just appreciate his ability and accomplishments. Everyone who has ever won a World Series ring shouldn't be considered a better player.

PG - I haven't really been following this thread, but I wanted to address you on something.

The other night with Albert Pujols on deck I was thinking about your comments about him on this site. I was thinking, if that guy gets up, he will win it because he has all the tools and the makeup of a great player and great players rise in situations like that. I consider the result YOUR prediction, not mine.

But he definitely joined the ranks of "great players of the game" in my mind the other night. He performed when it counted the most.

One of the moments that hooked me on baseball for life was Johnny Bench's game-tying HR in the bottom of the 9th in the deciding game of the NLCS in 1972. The Reds went on to win that game later in the 9th and the series over the Pirates in Roberto Clemente's last MLB game. I was in the parking lot of our Pop Warner football practice listening on a car radio when Al Michaels made the call. If you navigate to http://www.johnnybench.com you will hear it played as you enter that site. I have remembered Al Michaels' call by heart ever since. Still brings chills to my spine 33 years later.

Albert Pujols' HR reminded me of that the other night.

just,

That was a classic post. I indeed remember that game.

quote:

..just had no idea that there was THAT much difference in D1, D2, & D3.

Stunned.

I observed some players this summer from a perrenial top 10 D2. A couple of position players were great hitters, both above .400 with wood bats for the season.

The first player had good size 6-1, 190, speed, hit for power and average. There was no place to hide him in the field. He had a wooden glove to go with the bat.

The second guy hit for average, great speed, good glove and a HOSE from RF. Oh, he is 5'-7. He is really good though and finished the summer in the Cape League after his MVP game in the Florida League championship game.

Excellent players, but not prototypical.

JB,
You don't post often anymore but when you do you are right on!

Good players should have good stats. The great player is the one with the good stats that always comes through when it is needed. For some that seperates the men from the boys.

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:
again nice job PG

quote:

Hard to argue with those numbers; Chill hits it on the head.

exactly what is the conclusion?

does the list say that the HS "cream of the crop" who chose college - simply choose DI colleges?

or

DI college programs just develop top pro prospects better?

or

DI colleges identify talent and recruit better

tho I suspect #1 fits best, someone could probably make a case for each


it does say few top 5 round prospects play other than DI, but I'd guess the mix gets better as the draft progresses


.

A bit of each?

Not sure if it takes a genius to identify the talent. But the DI schools sure do recruit better. And why not... they're the ones with the the most to offer, the best competition and the biggest recruiting budgets.

DI colleges do develop more top pro prospects.

Among other reasons, they get the best players to develop. In fact, the players they want the most are the ones who don't need as much development.

I love it when a player comes out of a DIII program and makes it big in pro ball. There are a lot of great DIII coaches in this country.

Dad04, I think you misunderstood my post, and I understand why.

I was shocked at the differences in 'quantity' of D1's in the draft v. D2's and D3's.

I don't necessarily agree that the "quality" is THAT different.

http://www.ncaa-baseball.com/draft2005.htm

2005 draftees by school

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
ARod doesn't need anyone to stick up for him. There is a good reason he is the highest paid player. I think if people look at all the highest paid players... they'll find ARod has produced the best numbers year in and year out... this side of Bonds.

I think it's the fact he gets paid so much that causes problems. If he does no more than what he did this year for the rest of his career... He will hold every hitting record in the books.

Itsinthegame, You can't raise the bar much higher than that.

25 players, sometimes more, win World Series rings every year. Only one player is awarded the MVP. Not debating which is most important, but which one is the toughest to accomplish?

I am not an ARod fan, just appreciate his ability and accomplishments. Everyone who has ever won a World Series ring shouldn't be considered a better player.

PG - Business is business.
ARod isnt playing for root beers and hot dogs and plastic trophies.

He is banging in about $175,000 per regular season game.
At that rate - I hold a 14K gold bar - way way up. (And I am not even a Yankee fan - paying his salary via tickets,memorabilia etc...)
And he should jump over it - else he is just another overpaid ballplayer.

The Arod's of baseball cant have it both ways IMO. Big money - and garbage performance in the big games.

He should refund 50% of his salary and give the money to schools in the Bronx that need it.

He stinks in the crunch IMO. And he gets paid really well for it.

Wish I could do that at my job.

Paul, Before this years playoffs, A-Rod had a career post season average of .330.

The Mick was my first hero, and he managed to hit .167 in the 61 series, .241 in the 62 series and .188 in the 63 series. Back to back to back stinkers in the World Series. Of course he hit .406, .400, .364, .545, and .467 in other World Series years. Did he choke in 61, 62 and 63? or did he just have a tough 4-6 games?

In reality, all the players are overpaid, including Eckstein. I can remember when Pete Rose had a goal of being the first singles hitter to make $100,000 per year. Some people thought he was overpaid when he got to that goal.

Doug,

Arod has never had more than 5 rbi's in a postseason playoff series - whether it be the division or the league championships.

That - IMO - stinks for a guy that makes his money.

In 2000 - he hit for average - but also struck out 8 times in 22 ab's in the CHS. And choked in big situations.

Last year - he had a nice division playoff - but in the big ones with Boston - he choked again.

Now - this year - he coughed up huge hairballs at the plate and in the field.

The guy is making alot of money - and not earning it.

I envy anyone that can do that.
He should issue refunds IMO.

Paul, You are being pretty tough on A-Rod. A .330 BA is not choking. In his previous LCS games for his career, he accounted for a run every 2.45 AB's. Over the course of a career, the only guys who have done that are the Babe's, TW's and Musials etc.

What about Mantle? did he choke in 61,62 and 63? 45 years ago he was the highest paid.

Bagwell made 18 million dollars this year and didn't even play in the post season. He must be overpaid too. Eckstein is overpaid also.

quote:

Did he choke in 61, 62 and 63? or did he just have a tough 4-6 games?

Not sure about the other years, but 63 might relate to Koufax, Drysdale, Podres, Koufax. Heck, against those guys, .188 might have been great.
bbscout,my heroes were Hodges and Reese...and they weren't great in the post-season either. Good thing that Chuck Essegian could "pick them up."

Doug,

I dont know about the other guys - but as far as Arod goes - I will go with someone else in the big games.

I have seen enough of him in crunch time.

Bill, in 61 it was the Reds with Maloney, Purkey, Jay and O'Toole. In 62 it was the Giants with O'Dell, Marichal, Sanford and Pierce.

One thing is for sure Bill. The longer we go on this subject the more our ages are showing.

LOL

Doug will be talking about Lazzeri and Combs from the '27 Yankees soon.

I should never debate with my elders.

Watch that "elders" stuff Its !!!

hey what are we doing up so late ???

Between you - Doug and PG - I feel like a little baby.

And infielddad is no spring chicken either.

quote:

There are a lot of great DIII coaches in this country.

Not only are they terrific coaches, they can be wonderful sportsmen. My son received unbelievable support from some opposing coaches, both with scouts and for other recognition. One of those, now retired, Jim Mallon, had nearly 1,200 career wins, but could not have been more generous.

you want age--look at the thread on outfielders

quote:

Originally posted by itsinthegame:
Between you - Doug and PG - I feel like a little baby.

And infielddad is no spring chicken either.

...............................

quote:

I should never debate with my elders.

So I guess Furillo's arm strength and ability to play the wall in Ebbets is out, huh?

quote:

I was shocked at the differences in 'quantity' of D1's in the draft v. D2's and D3's.

I don't necessarily agree that the "quality" is THAT different.

FO

The point I was trying to make is very similar to yours. In that there are very good but generally less complete players among the best in D2. Some short kids who can really play, great hitters that can't field, righties with nice pitchability and stuff but can't crack 85. Saw lots of kids who were the cream of their school teams who had nice parts of their games, but lack a little something that probably kept them in D2 and has so far kept them from being drafted.

I agree. The differences are not THAT big. They can play very well. The differences are just big enough to, well, make a difference.

It does not stop scouts showing up in droves for D2, D3, and NAIA scout days though.

There are plenty of incomplete players on D1 teams as well. I just see more "complete" players in D1.