Interesting read here assessing Prep vs College players:
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Pretty slim odds for either. Course somebody has to make it
I suspect there are a lot more findings that did not get summarized in the article. I would love to see some type of economic analysis of drafted players, perhaps during their initial 10 years (if in fact they survive that long). The idea of playing in the MLB for three years sounds fantastic, but if in fact they were short visits each season, then it sort of loses its luster, at least from an economic standpoint. Factor in signing bonus and salaries (this is really only important during the term of the MiLB contract if in fact you get called up) and then maybe add the initial MLB contract (when the real money gets paid out) and see what the dollar return is for high schoolers versus college. There is significant value in attending college (especially if you graduate), but that additional analysis is probably awfully specific to the individual (the kid that went to Stanford got a whole lot more value than the kid that went to West Central State U).
Interesting article. Looking at the stats it appears it would be better to go to college than sign. But the article doesn't take signing bonuses into account. It hard to walk away from life altering money out of high school. A player could get injured or prove not to be a stud over the following three years. What is life altering money? It depends on the person. But I believe for most it starts at $1M.
A stat I would be interested in is what percentage of top ten picks or top half of the first round make it coming out of high school or college. Is there a point where the numbers sharply skew upward?
From a different angle I once read 80% of American MLBers come from the top ten rounds. Another 10% comes from rounds 11-20. The rest of the draft makes up 10% of the league. When I was in college I asked a scout why here are sixty rounds (then) to the draft. He said so the prospects have teammates. Back then if a player was drafted higher than forty he might never get a phone call if the organization could put together a rookie league team with the top forty picks. It's why there are only forty rounds now.
Even with only forty rounds there are throw away, long shot, nepotism picks in the late thirties. Mike Piazza was a nepotism pick (dad was lifelong buddies with Lasorda) that came through. Most don't make it past low A.
I really believe money in sports is just a measure of how good a player is. I think there are very few athletes playing "for the money".
Maybe at the end of a career, guys hang on extra year.
Thanks for sharing. Interesting numbers. No sure bets.
Well, the stats support the premise that going to college is most likely the best choice (unless one is like a number one pick). . . .and particularly if the college in question is one that has a good BB program and/or is in a very competitive conference.
Truman posted:Well, the stats support the premise that going to college is most likely the best choice (unless one is like a number one pick). . . .and particularly if the college in question is one that has a good BB program and/or is in a very competitive conference.
I think the study is flawed if it's used (as the D1 baseball website I think is using it) as an argument for turning down an opportunity to be drafted highly out of high school in order to wait three years to be drafted highly out of college, since college draft picks do slightly better.
Here's the problem: high draft pick out of HS ≠ high draft pick out of college. In other words, there is no guarantee that by turning down the opportunity to be drafted in an early round out of HS, that the player will have the same opportunity three years later. Kids can get hurt in college, performance can be a little worse -- lots of things can happen, causing that potential high draft pick out of high school to be drafted in a lower round -- or not drafted at all -- three years later. RJM makes a good point about signing bonuses (say, top 2-3 rounds).
Not that it matters, and I think the results would be the same, but the CBA totally changed the methods clubs used to approach the draft today when compared to the time period encompassed in the study. (Nothing changes the fact that top five round players are quite simply darn good with great pro prospects.)
Shoveit4Ks posted:Interesting read here assessing Prep vs College players:
Thanks for the link! Having a 2019 son who recently verbally committed, the HC asked about our view on the draft the day they offered. Had never given much thought because my son is 15, but we know another local kid who throws 94+ who is being looked at strongly for this next draft. Makes you discuss and think about the definition of life changing money and think about the dream of college vs the dream of pro ball. The stats in this article makes me hope we don't have to think about what that definition is outa high school and that hopefully son lives his dreams one after the other....college then a shot at a strong slot in the draft someday! Man it's good to dream before going to bed!lol
As slim as the possibility is that my kid, or anyone I know, will go pro I still like to use the idea as leverage for grades.
"Son, you know what the difference is between 5 million and 500 thousand in the draft? A 4.0 GPA vs. a 1.8 GPA :- )
2019Dad posted:I think the study is flawed if it's used (as the D1 baseball website I think is using it) as an argument for turning down an opportunity to be drafted highly out of high school in order to wait three years to be drafted highly out of college, since college draft picks do slightly better.
Here's the problem: high draft pick out of HS ≠ high draft pick out of college. In other words, there is no guarantee that by turning down the opportunity to be drafted in an early round out of HS, that the player will have the same opportunity three years later. Kids can get hurt in college, performance can be a little worse -- lots of things can happen, causing that potential high draft pick out of high school to be drafted in a lower round -- or not drafted at all -- three years later. RJM makes a good point about signing bonuses (say, top 2-3 rounds).
I agree. It's a false comparison really.
You would need to take into consideration players who didn't sign after being drafted out of high school - and how those players ended up after college.
It's logical that a college draftee is going to be more physically developed, polished, and experienced. It's not a surprise that those players reach the majors at a higher rate than younger players who are expected to need further development.
There is a financial factor as well that has to be considered. The kid drafted out of high school as much more leverage as he can opt to just go to college if the club doesn't meet his number. The college senior doesn't have this advantage.
Just as an opinion I think most kids are better off going to college. Although that has nothing to do with whether or not I think it impacts their chance of playing in the majors. I just think in the end for most kids, given the low probability of playing any type of pro ball, getting a degree will serve them better for the rest of their lives.
I think first two rounds is a no brainer out of HS if you get drafted there. can't pass up that Money (see brady aiken).
it is the rounds 3-5 or so when the decision gets complicated, after that probably going to college is the way to go.
regarding pro Teams it is well known that college Players bust less often but the real top stars are usually HS Players because the real good talents do get offered life changing Money in the first round. there are some late bloomers with that Kind of super Talent (strasburg) but there is no way a guy like harper doesn't become a top10 Overall pick and Ends up at college.
so at the very top there is a selection biased towards HS Kids because those Kids are not getting to the college kid pool (with some exceptions).
If I was a GM and I draft top5 I would probably get a HS kid, but if my first pick is 20th or so college might be the safer Option because that is the range when you have to take HS Players who are a Little bit raw mechanically or physically (or polished but less upside but there is no Point to draft a polished HS Player without great Tools high because then you could just as well take a polished college guy who has proven his polish against college opponents).
Good thoughts in the above posts. But this is an individual decision. I wouldn't judge a kid with a 50% scholarship to a D1, gets drafted 30th round and goes pro. It's an individual's decision. It's not a calculation from a spreadsheet.
Rob T posted:2019Dad posted:I think the study is flawed if it's used (as the D1 baseball website I think is using it) as an argument for turning down an opportunity to be drafted highly out of high school in order to wait three years to be drafted highly out of college, since college draft picks do slightly better.
Here's the problem: high draft pick out of HS ≠ high draft pick out of college. In other words, there is no guarantee that by turning down the opportunity to be drafted in an early round out of HS, that the player will have the same opportunity three years later. Kids can get hurt in college, performance can be a little worse -- lots of things can happen, causing that potential high draft pick out of high school to be drafted in a lower round -- or not drafted at all -- three years later. RJM makes a good point about signing bonuses (say, top 2-3 rounds).
I agree. It's a false comparison really.
You would need to take into consideration players who didn't sign after being drafted out of high school - and how those players ended up after college.
It's logical that a college draftee is going to be more physically developed, polished, and experienced. It's not a surprise that those players reach the majors at a higher rate than younger players who are expected to need further development.
There is a financial factor as well that has to be considered. The kid drafted out of high school as much more leverage as he can opt to just go to college if the club doesn't meet his number. The college senior doesn't have this advantage.
Just as an opinion I think most kids are better off going to college. Although that has nothing to do with whether or not I think it impacts their chance of playing in the majors. I just think in the end for most kids, given the low probability of playing any type of pro ball, getting a degree will serve them better for the rest of their lives.
I second that opinion! What you really need to do is somehow figure out the implied bonus those kid who passed on the draft would have received (probably a handful of kids who end up at Stanford/Vanderbilt that passed on $500k) but were not drafted due to the clear signability issues. The analysis is quite flawed in that it in no way attempts to form any type of control group, but instead uses the draft itself as a mechanism to sort the players. Lots of kids who could have signed as high schoolers end up at college.
As for GO44DAD's comments about it being a personal decision, that is absolutely true. The number and weight of the variables that go into this decision are probably different for everyone (See former threads about what amount of money it takes to forego college for some really good, spirited discussion).
Overall, the article sort of disappointed. Looks to be a simple recap of calculations and not much analysis of underlying drivers.
Articles like this are good reads and it does open people's eyes to the difficulty of reaching the upper levels of any pursuit. But the fact is somebody is going to make it. No matter how small the odds, .05%, 1% or 5%, all of those percentages are much higher than the one is if you don't try, 0%.
2017LHPscrewball posted:Rob T posted:2019Dad posted:I think the study is flawed if it's used (as the D1 baseball website I think is using it) as an argument for turning down an opportunity to be drafted highly out of high school in order to wait three years to be drafted highly out of college, since college draft picks do slightly better.
Here's the problem: high draft pick out of HS ≠ high draft pick out of college. In other words, there is no guarantee that by turning down the opportunity to be drafted in an early round out of HS, that the player will have the same opportunity three years later. Kids can get hurt in college, performance can be a little worse -- lots of things can happen, causing that potential high draft pick out of high school to be drafted in a lower round -- or not drafted at all -- three years later. RJM makes a good point about signing bonuses (say, top 2-3 rounds).
I agree. It's a false comparison really.
You would need to take into consideration players who didn't sign after being drafted out of high school - and how those players ended up after college.
It's logical that a college draftee is going to be more physically developed, polished, and experienced. It's not a surprise that those players reach the majors at a higher rate than younger players who are expected to need further development.
There is a financial factor as well that has to be considered. The kid drafted out of high school as much more leverage as he can opt to just go to college if the club doesn't meet his number. The college senior doesn't have this advantage.
Just as an opinion I think most kids are better off going to college. Although that has nothing to do with whether or not I think it impacts their chance of playing in the majors. I just think in the end for most kids, given the low probability of playing any type of pro ball, getting a degree will serve them better for the rest of their lives.
I second that opinion! What you really need to do is somehow figure out the implied bonus those kid who passed on the draft would have received (probably a handful of kids who end up at Stanford/Vanderbilt that passed on $500k) but were not drafted due to the clear signability issues. The analysis is quite flawed in that it in no way attempts to form any type of control group, but instead uses the draft itself as a mechanism to sort the players. Lots of kids who could have signed as high schoolers end up at college.
As for GO44DAD's comments about it being a personal decision, that is absolutely true. The number and weight of the variables that go into this decision are probably different for everyone (See former threads about what amount of money it takes to forego college for some really good, spirited discussion).
Overall, the article sort of disappointed. Looks to be a simple recap of calculations and not much analysis of underlying drivers.
I don't think the article ever claimed that the means of the study was which decision is better financially for a player. It simply looked at which cohort of drafted players have a higher chance to stick. At no point it stated that it would be better for a player to go to college. The study is not flawed at all it just answers a different question.
BTW I was very surprised to read more pitchers get drafted in the first rounds than hitters. Is that really true?
interesting, each players case is different in deciding to take the money and MiLB or college. IF you get enough money , take the money.... you can always go to college.
Dominik85 postedI don't think the article ever claimed that the means of the study was which decision is better financially for a player. It simply looked at which cohort of drafted players have a higher chance to stick. At no point it stated that it would be better for a player to go to college. The study is not flawed at all it just answers a different question.
BTW I was very surprised to read more pitchers get drafted in the first rounds than hitters. Is that really true?
With regard to the study, and obviously without seeing everything that went into it, my issue is that it didn't take into account some of those college draftees might have been high school draftees as well.
In other words, for the study to be valid for me - it would need to evaluate only college draftees that weren't drafted in high school. If you don't do that the subject group is going to be polluted because it contains subjects that can fit both descriptions. We can't give the "draft after college" group credit for success of players that may well have had the same success straight out of high school. Those players need to be excluded.
Basically we would need 2 groups - players drafted out of high school who signed, and players never drafted until after college. I guess you could also do it with the third group containing high school draftees who didn't sign and then were drafted again. I think that would actually be the best way to go.
All the other factors, financial etc. are really just conversation fodder that weren't specifically considered within the course of the study, but do impact it's relevance.
Dominik85 posted:BTW I was very surprised to read more pitchers get drafted in the first rounds than hitters. Is that really true?
Why wouldn't it be true? 17 year old, not done growing, is hitting 95+mph.....vs.....hitter that has seen a wide variety of bad to very good pitching over the last year, maybe two years?
bacdorslider posted:interesting, each players case is different in deciding to take the money and MiLB or college. IF you get enough money , take the money.... you can always go to college.
That's true.
I think it would be interesting to see a study (well, maybe an article would be the better way to say it) with the paths of a few guys who did the sign/minors/go back to college thing. I'd be curious if playing professionally changed their education decisions. Maybe their baseball experience led them to study a different major than they would have right out of high school? Maybe they gained maturity that leads them to perform better in school?
There are probably stories of an opposite nature as well. Guys who felt too old so they didn't go back to school - that type of thing. I'm sure there are guys who are both happy with and regret their decisions, regardless of what it was.
This is the type of stuff my brain considers when there isn't actual baseball to talk about. The season can't come soon enough.
Rob T posted:Dominik85 postedI don't think the article ever claimed that the means of the study was which decision is better financially for a player. It simply looked at which cohort of drafted players have a higher chance to stick. At no point it stated that it would be better for a player to go to college. The study is not flawed at all it just answers a different question.
BTW I was very surprised to read more pitchers get drafted in the first rounds than hitters. Is that really true?
With regard to the study, and obviously without seeing everything that went into it, my issue is that it didn't take into account some of those college draftees might have been high school draftees as well.
In other words, for the study to be valid for me - it would need to evaluate only college draftees that weren't drafted in high school. If you don't do that the subject group is going to be polluted because it contains subjects that can fit both descriptions. We can't give the "draft after college" group credit for success of players that may well have had the same success straight out of high school. Those players need to be excluded.
Basically we would need 2 groups - players drafted out of high school who signed, and players never drafted until after college. I guess you could also do it with the third group containing high school draftees who didn't sign and then were drafted again. I think that would actually be the best way to go.
All the other factors, financial etc. are really just conversation fodder that weren't specifically considered within the course of the study, but do impact it's relevance.
I was thinking along the same lines- and your email made me think it's even more complicated than what you are pointing out. There's a subset of kids that weren't drafted out of HS because they weren't signable. maybe I'm overthinking the whole thing!
Rob T posted:Dominik85 postedI don't think the article ever claimed that the means of the study was which decision is better financially for a player. It simply looked at which cohort of drafted players have a higher chance to stick. At no point it stated that it would be better for a player to go to college. The study is not flawed at all it just answers a different question.
BTW I was very surprised to read more pitchers get drafted in the first rounds than hitters. Is that really true?
With regard to the study, and obviously without seeing everything that went into it, my issue is that it didn't take into account some of those college draftees might have been high school draftees as well.
In other words, for the study to be valid for me - it would need to evaluate only college draftees that weren't drafted in high school. If you don't do that the subject group is going to be polluted because it contains subjects that can fit both descriptions. We can't give the "draft after college" group credit for success of players that may well have had the same success straight out of high school. Those players need to be excluded.
Basically we would need 2 groups - players drafted out of high school who signed, and players never drafted until after college. I guess you could also do it with the third group containing high school draftees who didn't sign and then were drafted again. I think that would actually be the best way to go.
All the other factors, financial etc. are really just conversation fodder that weren't specifically considered within the course of the study, but do impact it's relevance.
The article was an exercise in math (calculation of percentages), but I will assume the author had an idea that he could bring shed some insight into the process. Rob T's comments are good, but I truly wonder how many high school kids are good enough to get drafted (lets assume rounds 10-20) but would never consider for a moment signing on for something like $50k.
Let's take Seth Beer at Clemson as an example ( a true outlier). He will most likely get drafted in 2018 following his junior year and could go very high (top 10?). He is a kid that never got drafted - he actually left high school early (skipping his senior baseball season) and was a starter as a "freshman" instead as an early enrollee. Ended up being the 2016 College Player of the Year. He will go into the "college" group in the study above. Not many kids like him, but a real good example of the outlier. The article (study?) does not take into account why a player chooses to sign or chooses to go the college route and I strongly believe the underlying reasons may often impact future success. The high school kid from a relatively poor family with a poor academic record may jump at the chance for a $100k signing bonus, but lack any real support system to grind it out year after year in the minors in order to achieve real success. Conversely, a kid from a middle/upper income family with solid academics may view college as a chance to continue his baseball development and maybe limit his time in the bottom rungs of the MilLB grind. Another example comes to mond here - Dansby Swanson. Drafted in 38th round out of high school, but instead went to Vanderbilt (again, would be in the college group) and subsequently drafted in as the #1 pick in 2015 after his junior year. Neither of these guys were actually in the study referenced (too new) but are used to highlight some of the shortcomings as I am sure there were similar situations during the time period analyzed.
As someone mentioned you can sign and go back to college. This article is about Wally L's son.
From can't miss to campus ...