The Great Debate
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/050107debate.html
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Good article. Especially this exerpt:
Every one of us knows that the bat is the most important tool in the world. We’re to the point now where we don’t add up the tool scores and divide by five. We add the bat about four times and then divide the other tools in. You have to hit as a shortstop now. You can’t get by just being a slick-glove guy. And we realize plate discipline is important. But where we would differ a little bit is, Paul Konerko had plate discipline when he was 18 years old. Magglio Ordonez was (swinging) at everything that came up there, but it developed over time. And they’re both great hitters.
Our job, when we go to a high school game, is there better be some swinging as soon as we get out of the rental car. I’ve never wanted to draft a guy where the first line in the report is, “He’s got a good eye.” We’re looking for guys who swing that bat. And if they’re swinging and missing in high school, we ain’t going to be very interested.
Every one of us knows that the bat is the most important tool in the world. We’re to the point now where we don’t add up the tool scores and divide by five. We add the bat about four times and then divide the other tools in. You have to hit as a shortstop now. You can’t get by just being a slick-glove guy. And we realize plate discipline is important. But where we would differ a little bit is, Paul Konerko had plate discipline when he was 18 years old. Magglio Ordonez was (swinging) at everything that came up there, but it developed over time. And they’re both great hitters.
Our job, when we go to a high school game, is there better be some swinging as soon as we get out of the rental car. I’ve never wanted to draft a guy where the first line in the report is, “He’s got a good eye.” We’re looking for guys who swing that bat. And if they’re swinging and missing in high school, we ain’t going to be very interested.
Interesting article. The reality is that a team can use statistics to provide their scouts with a bit of an edge over another team's scouts. However, trying to go on statistics alone would be foolish. The teams that manage to get their scouts to use input from competent statisticians will tend to succeed a bit more often. However, the Yankees will still buy the best team in baseball year in and year out.
The really interesting experiment is going to be DePodesta with the Dodgers. He's making a lot of unpopular moves and he's finding out that being a general manager requires dealing with other general managers who have their own agendas. You can set up all sorts of sweet deals but if the other GMs don't cooperate or your players won't waive their no trade clauses you aren't going to get where you're aiming.
The really interesting experiment is going to be DePodesta with the Dodgers. He's making a lot of unpopular moves and he's finding out that being a general manager requires dealing with other general managers who have their own agendas. You can set up all sorts of sweet deals but if the other GMs don't cooperate or your players won't waive their no trade clauses you aren't going to get where you're aiming.
Stats are not something that is new. At most any college game I have been able to get a stat sheet for as long as I can remember. It does not take a computer expert to look at a stat sheet and see how many walks and K's a pitcher has or how many K's or walks a hitter has.
The high schools are a different story, and the computer guys don't like HS players because they can't track accurate stats. They also would not have signed many of the great players in the big leagues today.
I have spent the past 6-7 years learning how to operate a computer and use it to my advantage, but the computer guys have not spent that time learning how to judge a players potential.
The high schools are a different story, and the computer guys don't like HS players because they can't track accurate stats. They also would not have signed many of the great players in the big leagues today.
I have spent the past 6-7 years learning how to operate a computer and use it to my advantage, but the computer guys have not spent that time learning how to judge a players potential.
quote:
bbscout said:
I have spent the past 6-7 years learning how to operate a computer and use it to my advantage, but the computer guys have not spent that time learning how to judge a players potential.
Two thumbs up!
Billy Beane himself said he had all the tools and all the stats, but the heart wasn't in it.
never trust a computer geek to solve problems that take good old beating the bushes to accomplish. BBScout is correct that it is easier to learn the computer than learn the skills to become a successful scout.
You can reduce greatly the amount of time running after players that can't play via email and checking stuff on the computer.
Good example a player contacted me and claimed he threw 89 mph. I had googled his name (Buster Posey) and found an new paper article saying he was clocked at 89 mph on the stalker gun, and after checking with a MLB scout who confirmed it, sent him an invite to a HS Showcase which he accepted. The player was later clocked at 93 mph at WWBA that fall and played for Team USA Juniors in 2004.
Good example a player contacted me and claimed he threw 89 mph. I had googled his name (Buster Posey) and found an new paper article saying he was clocked at 89 mph on the stalker gun, and after checking with a MLB scout who confirmed it, sent him an invite to a HS Showcase which he accepted. The player was later clocked at 93 mph at WWBA that fall and played for Team USA Juniors in 2004.
quote:
Originally posted by FrankF:
Good article. Especially this exerpt:
Our job, when we go to a high school game, is there better be some swinging as soon as we get out of the rental car. I’ve never wanted to draft a guy where the first line in the report is, “He’s got a good eye.” We’re looking for guys who swing that bat.
I understand where this guy is coming from but the simple fact is that some of these talented young men are playing for some schools that can not protect that quality player by providing a thread behing the "stud." I've had kids before where a scout has said that he's not interested in someone that walks to first. A couple of these kids went on and did very well professionally. However, THEY ALWAYS HAD ANOTHER KID BEHIND THEM THAT COULD ENSURE THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO GET PITCHED AROUND.
Well, I just wanted to make this point.
The expertise that a competent statistician can provide is not in looking at a stat sheet. As bbscout has noted scouts have long been able to look at stat sheets and using computers just helps them be more efficient.
A competent statistician should be able to look at the interplay of statistics and find strengths in players that might have been overlooked otherwise. Does this mean that a team runs out and signs that player? No. It just means that the player's name is passed on to a scout to see if the player has ML potential and if he does then the player might be rated a bit higher than he otherwise would have been when it comes to the draft.
It is very easy to make mistakes trying to apply statistics unless you have a good understanding of all the variables as well as a very good understanding of statistics and all the mistakes that are commonly made.
A scout shouldn't be expected to become a statistician and a statistician certainly shouldn't try to be a scout.
I guess the question comes down to if the scouts are there to aid the statisticians or if the statisticians are there to aid the scouts. My opinion is that the statisticians job is to aid the scouts. You could run an organization without statisticians but you couldn't run it without scouts.
A competent statistician should be able to look at the interplay of statistics and find strengths in players that might have been overlooked otherwise. Does this mean that a team runs out and signs that player? No. It just means that the player's name is passed on to a scout to see if the player has ML potential and if he does then the player might be rated a bit higher than he otherwise would have been when it comes to the draft.
It is very easy to make mistakes trying to apply statistics unless you have a good understanding of all the variables as well as a very good understanding of statistics and all the mistakes that are commonly made.
A scout shouldn't be expected to become a statistician and a statistician certainly shouldn't try to be a scout.
I guess the question comes down to if the scouts are there to aid the statisticians or if the statisticians are there to aid the scouts. My opinion is that the statisticians job is to aid the scouts. You could run an organization without statisticians but you couldn't run it without scouts.
quote:
Originally posted by FrankF:
Good article. Especially this exerpt:
Every one of us knows that the bat is the most important tool in the world. We’re to the point now where we don’t add up the tool scores and divide by five. We add the bat about four times and then divide the other tools in.
You are quite right Frank. I have told my sons, particulary my lumbering 2nd son who didn't have many tools, one thing constantly;
"Just hit the ball, they'll find a place for you."
You can be slow, weak-armed, and field with an iron glove, but if you can hit, you can play somewhere. Coaches want hitters. Now that may not take a kid to the majors, but if it'll get him some PT at even one higher level, he'll appreciate it.
High school stats have got be be real tough for scouts to put a lot of stock in, with the level of competition being so varied. You got to love this quote:
GARY HUGHES: All your statistics are going to tell you is what a guy has done. Somebody has got to make the decision on what the guy’s going to do.
I guess that's where stats are out the window and scouts look at projectability.
GARY HUGHES: All your statistics are going to tell you is what a guy has done. Somebody has got to make the decision on what the guy’s going to do.
I guess that's where stats are out the window and scouts look at projectability.
My interpretation of a part of the "moneyball" approach would be that by drafting mostly college players and bypassing the HS players with higher ceilings you'd get more good players for less money and eventually be able to trade for star players. Will it work? I don't think anyone has gone far enough down the draft college players "only" road for long enough to tell.
It also could affect how a team's minor league system would be built if year in, year out, they really did end up with more players capable of playing in the big leagues sooner. If a team is drafting almost all college players how many of them are going to benefit from playing rookie ball? If you've got more good players than other organizations then you'll either have to have more minor league teams, release more players or make multi-player trades for other minor league players.
It also could affect how a team's minor league system would be built if year in, year out, they really did end up with more players capable of playing in the big leagues sooner. If a team is drafting almost all college players how many of them are going to benefit from playing rookie ball? If you've got more good players than other organizations then you'll either have to have more minor league teams, release more players or make multi-player trades for other minor league players.
Stats can rule out players that you don’t want to look at.
Stats can find players that you might want to look at.
From there someone’s still got to look at them.
Stats can find players that you might want to look at.
From there someone’s still got to look at them.
SBK,
You put it all in a nutshell!!
You put it all in a nutshell!!
jaxnbulldog, you said it all. A friend of son's was told last month by a scout, at a tournament, (he had a particuarly good day at the plate) that ".... if you can hit you have a future in the game because they will always find a place for a hitter....". Son was present when the remarks were made....
The real jist of this is a scouts ego of thinking he can judge talent without stats. But they really use the stats in every part of thier process. Ie. want pitchers that are tall, wanting the pitchers that throws in the 90s, looking for runners under 7 in the 60, etc...........Not many scouts come to the ball park without their gun or stop watch to find talent. Those are stats that those tools produce.........You don't go to the horse track and pick horses that fit profiles, you pick horses on stats. I see the teams using stats are going to prove that point as time goes by. I think the college players stats are eaiser to beleave than HS, so of course it is a good fit with drafting college kids and maybe getting more mature, ready to play players that won't cost as much.......The Yankees are beting every day on the stats of the proven players they pay, somtimes it works, somtimes is doesn't
Since when did the college player cost less than the high school player? Not in the first round, thats for sure.
First of all I agree with bbscout 100%.
I saw Homer Bailey as a 10th grader for 1 inning and told my son to watch this kid. He is a first rounder. I only saw him throw 10 pitches. I didn't need no stinkin stats to know that he was the real deal.
I understand that may be an anomoly. Stats are helpful and help you to look at consistency, but they are limited in determining projection and the stats guys are abandoning an entire group of players (high schoolers) that the largest grpoup of stars come from. Doesn't make sense to me.
Stats guys want to stay away from hs guys because then they would have to scout not just quantify numbers. It is much easier to quantify college numbers than hs, d2, or d3. To abandon entire segments on players because you cannot quantify the numbers is the same thing as giving up on talent too early. jmo
quote:
The real jist of this is a scouts ego of thinking he can judge talent without stats.
I saw Homer Bailey as a 10th grader for 1 inning and told my son to watch this kid. He is a first rounder. I only saw him throw 10 pitches. I didn't need no stinkin stats to know that he was the real deal.
I understand that may be an anomoly. Stats are helpful and help you to look at consistency, but they are limited in determining projection and the stats guys are abandoning an entire group of players (high schoolers) that the largest grpoup of stars come from. Doesn't make sense to me.
Stats guys want to stay away from hs guys because then they would have to scout not just quantify numbers. It is much easier to quantify college numbers than hs, d2, or d3. To abandon entire segments on players because you cannot quantify the numbers is the same thing as giving up on talent too early. jmo
How anyone can judge a players talent based on HS stats is beyond me---HS stats are basically useless--a kid can hit .500 in HS and not be a good hitter --his league could be soft
I recall a HS senior about 10 years back hit over .600 and had stats that were mind boggling. He was even named Player of Year in the Tri County area and was being hyped like nobody ever before him--bottom line-- did not get drafted--no college offers and could not even make the local community college team-- we had played against him for three summers in Legion ball and he was an absolute bomb. His HS league was soft and the competition very weak
College Stats can also be misleading-- for example my son played in Las Cruces where the ball flies out of the park--he was always a good hitter but out there he became a HR hitter as well---very misleading to say the least
I believe that a "good" scout needs to just simply see a player in action to make his determination--he may see him a few times but stats won't enter into it
I recall a HS senior about 10 years back hit over .600 and had stats that were mind boggling. He was even named Player of Year in the Tri County area and was being hyped like nobody ever before him--bottom line-- did not get drafted--no college offers and could not even make the local community college team-- we had played against him for three summers in Legion ball and he was an absolute bomb. His HS league was soft and the competition very weak
College Stats can also be misleading-- for example my son played in Las Cruces where the ball flies out of the park--he was always a good hitter but out there he became a HR hitter as well---very misleading to say the least
I believe that a "good" scout needs to just simply see a player in action to make his determination--he may see him a few times but stats won't enter into it
The money ball people put more stock in college stats than high school, but still need to evaluate and traslate the kid o po ball. I guess they use stats more in proball fo trades and the like.
Rogers is an excellent pitcher but the other team getting him to sign says alot about his league.
quote:
EDDIE BANE: We?d need at least a three-pitch mix already. Command already. We?d not just take an arm in the first round. We?re trying to get our scouts away from the radar gun as much as possible. So a three-pitch mix with makeup. When we get back to the stats, I would not think that anyone would want to know the stats on Mark Rogers versus Phil Hughes last year in the draft. I watched Mark Rogers strike out 21 guys last year and afterward the other team asked him for his autograph . I need to see Mark Rogers and evaluate him, and forget who he's facing.
Rogers is an excellent pitcher but the other team getting him to sign says alot about his league.
I know a college pitcher who was 0-7 his senior year with a 5 or 6+ ERA....he was drafted in the 11th round and had a very good first season in the minors. What do you suppose the stat guys thought about that?
BBScout says -
A college player can cost less because it is probable that they could reach the big leagues a couple years sooner because they are older. Therefore they can begin paying off their investment sooner. In addition it is possible that a college player could cost you less because they can be judged on more reality than projection and therefore be easier to judge their value with more certainty.
TRHit says
I respectfully agree and disagree. While High school stats by themselves are not always useful for seeing if a guy can hit, they can be useful to see if a guy can’t hit.
If a player is a top hitter in any high school league, he may be a top hitter at the next level. However if he is not even a top hitter in high school, you can say with great certainty that he will not be a top hitter at the next level.
As I’ve said before, stats are often more helpful for ruling players out than ruling them in and therefore even high school stats can be helpful in determining talent or lack there of.
quote:
Since when did the college player cost less than the high school player? Not in the first round, that’s for sure.
A college player can cost less because it is probable that they could reach the big leagues a couple years sooner because they are older. Therefore they can begin paying off their investment sooner. In addition it is possible that a college player could cost you less because they can be judged on more reality than projection and therefore be easier to judge their value with more certainty.
TRHit says
quote:
How anyone can judge a players talent based on HS stats is beyond me---HS stats are basically useless--a kid can hit .500 in HS and not be a good hitter --his league could be soft.
I respectfully agree and disagree. While High school stats by themselves are not always useful for seeing if a guy can hit, they can be useful to see if a guy can’t hit.
If a player is a top hitter in any high school league, he may be a top hitter at the next level. However if he is not even a top hitter in high school, you can say with great certainty that he will not be a top hitter at the next level.
As I’ve said before, stats are often more helpful for ruling players out than ruling them in and therefore even high school stats can be helpful in determining talent or lack there of.
bbscout,
I wouldn't guess that a college pitcher drafted in the first round would cost less than a HS pitcher drafted in the first round. I'd guess that if you took all the pitchers drafted in the first 10 rounds and compared the bonus cost per player who makes the majors then you'd find you spent less to get a college player to the majors. For example, (these numbers are pulled out of the air and not based on anything real) let's say 150 pitchers were drafted in the first 10 rounds and 75 of them were college pitchers. Let's say they all got round money and then assume that a HS pitcher drafted in the same round as a college pitcher got 20% less.
90 college pitchers at an average bonus of $400,000 and 60 HS pitchers at an average bonus of 320,000. Given that players are paid somewhere near round money the spread isn't likely to be much more than this if this much.
Let us say that 30 of the pitchers drafted in the first 10 rounds made it to the big leagues. We would then assume that with a college pitcher being twice as likely to make it to the big leagues we'd have 2/3 * 30 = 20 college pitchers and the remaining 10 would be HS pitchers who ended up reaching the bigs.
Our cost for the 75 college pitchers was $30 Million. Our cost for the 75 HS pitchers was $24 Million. Our cost per pitcher who reaches the big leagues for college pitchers would then be $1.5 Million. Our cost per pitcher who reaches the big leagues for HS pitchers would be $2.4 Million. This advantage exists even with a large disparity in how much of a bonus is given to college pitchers vs. HS pitchers.
I wouldn't guess that a college pitcher drafted in the first round would cost less than a HS pitcher drafted in the first round. I'd guess that if you took all the pitchers drafted in the first 10 rounds and compared the bonus cost per player who makes the majors then you'd find you spent less to get a college player to the majors. For example, (these numbers are pulled out of the air and not based on anything real) let's say 150 pitchers were drafted in the first 10 rounds and 75 of them were college pitchers. Let's say they all got round money and then assume that a HS pitcher drafted in the same round as a college pitcher got 20% less.
90 college pitchers at an average bonus of $400,000 and 60 HS pitchers at an average bonus of 320,000. Given that players are paid somewhere near round money the spread isn't likely to be much more than this if this much.
Let us say that 30 of the pitchers drafted in the first 10 rounds made it to the big leagues. We would then assume that with a college pitcher being twice as likely to make it to the big leagues we'd have 2/3 * 30 = 20 college pitchers and the remaining 10 would be HS pitchers who ended up reaching the bigs.
Our cost for the 75 college pitchers was $30 Million. Our cost for the 75 HS pitchers was $24 Million. Our cost per pitcher who reaches the big leagues for college pitchers would then be $1.5 Million. Our cost per pitcher who reaches the big leagues for HS pitchers would be $2.4 Million. This advantage exists even with a large disparity in how much of a bonus is given to college pitchers vs. HS pitchers.
SBK,
In general you are correct that a player who in not a top hitter in HS will not be a top hitter at the next level although I have seen a very few exceptions.
On the other hand although a player who is a top hitter in HS has a bit better chance of being a good hitter at the next level there are so many good HS hitters to draw from that stats become almost meaningless when you try to find the few incredibly gifted hitters.
In general you are correct that a player who in not a top hitter in HS will not be a top hitter at the next level although I have seen a very few exceptions.
On the other hand although a player who is a top hitter in HS has a bit better chance of being a good hitter at the next level there are so many good HS hitters to draw from that stats become almost meaningless when you try to find the few incredibly gifted hitters.
CaDad,
Agree,
High school stats are better utilized to see if a kid can’t hit.
I would though, be curious to see how the player did in the 5 - 10 games they played that were the lowest scoring.
Here’s a little hypothesis I have.
If I had to pick a player sight unseen from a league for my team, I would be tempted to take the kid who led the league in triples as long as they had a decent average. In the long run I’d probably do all right because the chances are the kid can drive the ball and run.
Agree,
High school stats are better utilized to see if a kid can’t hit.
I would though, be curious to see how the player did in the 5 - 10 games they played that were the lowest scoring.
Here’s a little hypothesis I have.
If I had to pick a player sight unseen from a league for my team, I would be tempted to take the kid who led the league in triples as long as they had a decent average. In the long run I’d probably do all right because the chances are the kid can drive the ball and run.
CADad, You are right about picking numbers out of the air. 
SBK, The arguments were about bonus money, and as I said before "since when did the college player cost less than the high school player? Not in the first round, that's for sure".
CADad, the figures are opposite from what you have. I did a quick (note quick) and hopefully fairly accurate data check from BA and the top 10 rounds for draft bonus. There were 100 college pitchers and the average draft bonus was $406,725. There were 37 high school pitchers for an average bonus of $559,810. NOTE: I could only pick the ones that signed and had a bonus by their name. Seems to me that the HS pitchers have more leverage (college) so they can demand more $$.
bbscout is correct for the 1st round. It's pretty much slot money no matter if it's a HS or college pick.
bbscout is correct for the 1st round. It's pretty much slot money no matter if it's a HS or college pick.
Good post Frank, and when Humber, Neiman and Weaver sign, the college bonus money will take a significant jump.
Note: After looking at 1st round results for 1990 through 1994 I've trashed everything I wrote based on just 1990 and the heavily edited results are what follows:
Frank,
In 1990 116 pitchers were drafted in the first 10 rounds (not including multi-position). 77 college pitchers and 39 HS pitchers. 45% of the college pitchers reached the big leagues and 28% of the HS pitchers reached the big leagues. This is fairly close to the often quoted "college pitchers are twice as likely to reach the big leagues as HS pitchers" so 1990 is a reasonable year to use.
If we look at just the first round for the years 1990 through 1994 then 47 of 62 college pitchers selected in the first round made it to the big leagues (76%) and 18 of 32 HS pitchers selected in the first round made it to the big leagues (56%)
The average bonus for a first round pitcher, including supplemental if we give the pitchers bbscout noted the same money as Verlander is $1.66M for college pitchers and $1.45M for HS pitchers.
That would make the cost for each 1st round HS pitcher that reaches the bigs $2.6M while the cost of each 1st round college pitcher that reaches the big would be $2.2M. As you go toward later rounds the trend goes more in favor of college pitchers.
What the statisticians should be doing to help the scouts is determining the likelihood of a HS pitcher vs a college pitcher drafted in a given round making it to the big leagues. That would allow teams to adjust both their draft strategies and bonuses offered accordingly. There isn't a big cost difference between choosing a HS pitcher or a college pitcher in the first round but there is a big difference in the later rounds.
Frank,
In 1990 116 pitchers were drafted in the first 10 rounds (not including multi-position). 77 college pitchers and 39 HS pitchers. 45% of the college pitchers reached the big leagues and 28% of the HS pitchers reached the big leagues. This is fairly close to the often quoted "college pitchers are twice as likely to reach the big leagues as HS pitchers" so 1990 is a reasonable year to use.
If we look at just the first round for the years 1990 through 1994 then 47 of 62 college pitchers selected in the first round made it to the big leagues (76%) and 18 of 32 HS pitchers selected in the first round made it to the big leagues (56%)
The average bonus for a first round pitcher, including supplemental if we give the pitchers bbscout noted the same money as Verlander is $1.66M for college pitchers and $1.45M for HS pitchers.
That would make the cost for each 1st round HS pitcher that reaches the bigs $2.6M while the cost of each 1st round college pitcher that reaches the big would be $2.2M. As you go toward later rounds the trend goes more in favor of college pitchers.
What the statisticians should be doing to help the scouts is determining the likelihood of a HS pitcher vs a college pitcher drafted in a given round making it to the big leagues. That would allow teams to adjust both their draft strategies and bonuses offered accordingly. There isn't a big cost difference between choosing a HS pitcher or a college pitcher in the first round but there is a big difference in the later rounds.
BBScout,
Sorry, didn’t see where you specified bonus. I am used to the accounting world where “cost” when making a comparison between purchase choices is often associated with “Return on Investment”.
With that cleared up, I believe what you say is accurate and I doubt if you would disagree with my two points regarding the two potential advantages I provide for choosing a college player.
Sorry, didn’t see where you specified bonus. I am used to the accounting world where “cost” when making a comparison between purchase choices is often associated with “Return on Investment”.
With that cleared up, I believe what you say is accurate and I doubt if you would disagree with my two points regarding the two potential advantages I provide for choosing a college player.
SBK, If I was doing the picking, I would take the player that I felt had the chance to be the best major leaguer in every single round of the draft. I would not care if he was a HS, JC or 4 year college player.
Absolutely,
I never advocated one over the other. My two points I added about an advantage with college players and assume you would agree is that the older college player can often be in Majors sooner and therefore show a quicker return on investment over an 18 year old kid.
2nd point is that an older college player can often be judged less on projection
I never advocated one over the other. My two points I added about an advantage with college players and assume you would agree is that the older college player can often be in Majors sooner and therefore show a quicker return on investment over an 18 year old kid.
2nd point is that an older college player can often be judged less on projection
If the numbers that I've run turned out to be true for the entire recent history of the draft and if I were picking I'd have the scouting staff determine who the players were with the best chance of making it to the big leagues regardless of HS, JC, etc. I'd use that to determine what round every player should be picked in based on ability and then I wouldn't draft a HS pitcher who the scouting staff showed as being any later than a 6th round pick.
CADad, How about John Smoltz 22nd and Nolan Ryan 10th round high schoolers who signed? Just take the best player every round until the draft is over. 6th round-8th round-10th round, who cares? take the best player available.
CADad & SBK,
It's MORE complicated than what ya'll are doing and the scouts do it all in their head..................
I read a little about it. Something called quantum sling it/slap it thoery.
Josh Bell is sometimes used as an example of both sides of that theory.
It's MORE complicated than what ya'll are doing and the scouts do it all in their head..................
I read a little about it. Something called quantum sling it/slap it thoery.
Josh Bell is sometimes used as an example of both sides of that theory.
bbscout,
1st, I'd only do it that way if the numbers supported it for the whole database. That's a big if.
2nd, I'll bet you can also come up with some pretty good college pitchers who signed in the later rounds and you'd probably have gotten twice as many of them as you would have from the HS pitchers.
Any idea why Ryan was taken so late? Wasn't he throwing incredibly hard in HS? I doubt the 4th round lefty I played HS with threw more than high 80s. He had good movement and OK control but he was quite hittable once you got used to the movement. I doubt the same could be said about Ryan.
1st, I'd only do it that way if the numbers supported it for the whole database. That's a big if.
2nd, I'll bet you can also come up with some pretty good college pitchers who signed in the later rounds and you'd probably have gotten twice as many of them as you would have from the HS pitchers.
Any idea why Ryan was taken so late? Wasn't he throwing incredibly hard in HS? I doubt the 4th round lefty I played HS with threw more than high 80s. He had good movement and OK control but he was quite hittable once you got used to the movement. I doubt the same could be said about Ryan.
CaDad, you would discount players after the 6th round because the numbers do not support it? The numbers don't say that it doesn't happen either. At some point in time you are going to have to scout ability, projection, etc. That is what scares the diapers off of the stats guys. Every player is different. There are guys missed every year that do well. It happens for various reasons. Sometimes a players get dropped lower because of the pack mentality of scouts listening to other scouts and not doing thier own work. That is what bbscout does. His own work. You just cannot discount a whole group of players simply because the percentages drop at certain levels. If you do then you miss that whole segment of player. You still have to scout and take the best player available. Period.
I picked the 6th round because in 1990 not a single HS pitcher selected from the 6th through 10th rounds made it to the big leagues while a large percentage of HS pitchers selected in the first 2 rounds and a reasonable percentage selected in rounds 3 through 5 did make it to the majors. If and only if those numbers held up when looking at the entire draft would I take the approach of not selecting pitchers that my scouts felt were later than 6th round picks.
I didn't say I'd discount players after the sixth round. I said that I'd discount HS pitchers who my scouting staff felt were later than sixth round picks. If I could get a player my scouting staff felt was a sixth round pick in the 12th round I'd take him. That's where the scouting for ability, projection, etc. came in.
You still have to scout and take the best player available. Well after about the sixth round if you are going to take a pitcher then the best college pitcher available is at least twice as likely to make the big leagues as the best HS pitcher available.
You are always going to miss players. You'd miss fewer this way.
I didn't say I'd discount players after the sixth round. I said that I'd discount HS pitchers who my scouting staff felt were later than sixth round picks. If I could get a player my scouting staff felt was a sixth round pick in the 12th round I'd take him. That's where the scouting for ability, projection, etc. came in.
You still have to scout and take the best player available. Well after about the sixth round if you are going to take a pitcher then the best college pitcher available is at least twice as likely to make the big leagues as the best HS pitcher available.
You are always going to miss players. You'd miss fewer this way.