PDA

View Full Version : High School Draftees vs College Draftees


Dadawg_77
05-11-2004, 11:09 AM
I know this has been done before but this is from Gammons report today.

As the Marlins cringe from the Jeff Allison fiasco, one club offers this sobering report: that from 1993 to 2001, $191 million were spent on first-round high school players, and $124.3 million of those dollars have never seen the big leagues. From 1991 through 2001, 49 percent of No. 1 high school picks made the majors, 24 percent of whom were regulars. The college player rate was 68 percent making the major leagues.

jabrch
05-11-2004, 11:36 AM
I wonder what that stat is if instead of "make the bigleagues" we replaced it with "had star calibre careers in the bigleagues"

JRIG
05-11-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
I wonder what that stat is if instead of "make the bigleagues" we replaced it with "had star calibre careers in the bigleagues"

I would be interested in that too, though I bet it's closer than you think. Mark Prior was a collge player. Jeremy Reed, a college player. Frank Thomas a college player. Robin Ventura a college player. And I know you could quote me high schools too. You'll find superstars in both places.

However, for a team on a limited budget, college players have to be the way to go. It's not economically feasible for these teams to pay out a huge sum of money for players that just flash tools of what may be (see Griffin, Colt. K.C. Royals). They need as close to a sure thing as possible, or they're wasting what limited resources they have, both money and draft picks. College picks have a better chance of being productive major league player. Sometims that's all the team can ask for.

poorme
05-11-2004, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
I wonder what that stat is if instead of "make the bigleagues" we replaced it with "had star calibre careers in the bigleagues"

Baseball America studied this exact question about a year or so ago. The same conclusion as above more or less holds, with high school pitchers having the worst chance of amounting to anything in the majors.

maurice
05-11-2004, 12:41 PM
I've argued elsewhere that star college players can be had with high picks, but that you're more likely to find a star with a low pick by taking a HS player. So far, the evidence is scanty and entirely anecdotal (e.g., Prior, Thomas, and Ventura were all high draft picks).

Hopefully, a stathead eventually will take a crack at proving or disproving my theory. It would be extremely time-consuming, but not difficult. Once you define "star," the rest of the analysis involves nothing more than looking up draft history and figuring some percentages.

Dadawg_77
05-11-2004, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by maurice
I've argued elsewhere that star college players can be had with high picks, but that you're more likely to find a star with a low pick by taking a HS player. So far, the evidence is scanty and entirely anecdotal (e.g., Prior, Thomas, and Ventura were all high draft picks).

Hopefully, a stathead eventually will take a crack at proving or disproving my theory. It would be extremely time-consuming, but not difficult. Once you define "star," the rest of the analysis involves nothing more than looking up draft history and figuring some percentages.

Maurice this is a question about resources, players in the first round make millions for signing. Players take later on make substantially less in signing bonuses. So instead of wasting $124.3 million dollars it would be better to wait to draft high schoolers later in the draft, when cost is less and risk is still the same.

Fungo
05-11-2004, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Maurice this is a question about resources, players in the first round make millions for signing. Players take later on make substantially less in signing bonuses. So instead of wasting $124.3 million dollars it would be better to wait to draft high schoolers later in the draft, when cost is less and risk is still the same.

Sounds good, but you'd have to convince the other 29 teams to keep passing on the high schoolers until the later rounds. Probably wouldn't happen because as soon as the draft 'experts' mention the word 'potential' or 'tools' in association with a high school kid, the GMs eyes light up. If the Sox draft stategy was to not pick high school kids until say the 10th round and none of the other teams in the league were following suit, they wouldn't be getting the 'top tier' high schoolers.
Who knows, the draft is such a cr@p shoot anyway. The list of top round pick that were busts is a long one, in all of sports.

IlliniSox
05-11-2004, 01:13 PM
Let's not discount player's development, particularly with pitchers. A 17 year old who goes straight from high school to play rookie ball plays in meaningless games and is simply on a stopover before his next stop in A-ball or whatever. A 17 year old who goes to play in college has pressure to win for his school in a competetive atmosphere. Its no coincidence that Prior and Clemens turned into big gamers.

The difference is basically boils down to (a.) developing the kid's "stuff" or (b.) winning games.

poorme
05-11-2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Hopefully, a stathead eventually will take a crack at proving or disproving my theory.

Like I just said, Baseball America has already done it...they did a multi-page analysis.

maurice
05-11-2004, 01:18 PM
This raises the issue of MLB's ban on trading draft picks. On one hand, maybe MLB should keep the pick-trade ban in place. It'd really suck if bad teams in small markets lost the ability to sign all the best free agents AND the best players in the draft. OTOH, Moneyball indicates that the A's already devalue their high picks by spending them on lower-round talent for monetary reasons. Perhaps small market teams would be better served by the ability to trade down for more picks in later rounds.

maurice
05-11-2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Like I just said, Baseball America has already done it...they did a multi-page analysis.

Did they look at the difference between high-round picks and low-round picks, as I suggested? You first post does not address the distinction I proposed.

SoxxoS
05-11-2004, 01:27 PM
I wouldn't draft high school until the 5th round...every year. Guys that play in college prove it time and time again...especially if they come from big programs like the PAC-10 (which is like High "A" I believe).

NonetheLoaiza
05-11-2004, 01:28 PM
this was talked about in moneyball. beane doesnt like to draft high school players because he says that college players are just better. he doesnt trust high school draftees.

poorme
05-11-2004, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Did they look at the difference between high-round picks and low-round picks, as I suggested? You first post does not address the distinction I proposed.

Yes. They covered it backwards and forwards. They looked at every player ever drafted.

SoxxoS
05-11-2004, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by NonetheLoaiza
this was talked about in moneyball. beane doesnt like to draft high school players because he says that college players are just better. he doesnt trust high school draftees.

Drafting players with that "P" word...POTENTIAL...burns you almost everytime.

That is why the #2 prospect in baseball fell to the early 2nd round...they overlooked tools and potential over production.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
I wouldn't draft high school until the 5th round...every year. Guys that play in college prove it time and time again...especially if they come from big programs like the PAC-10 (which is like High "A" I believe).

Then you wouldn't have Ryan Sweeney or Robert Valido as products of this last draft, and both appear to be future MLB players at this point.

Don't waste the big money signing bonuses on them, I can buy that. But if your highest rated PROSPECTS are on the board in the 2nd or 3rd round, you'd be bonkers to pass, because the money difference from round 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to 5 degreades quickly.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
Drafting players with that "P" word...POTENTIAL...burns you almost everytime.

Come on, dude. You can't be serious...

SoxxoS
05-11-2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Come on, dude. You can't be serious...

If you overlook production just to draft a tools guy, its going to burn you more often than not.

Give me a stone baseball player...Jeremy Reed...over Mr.Tools in Joe Borchard. This is what that book "Moneyball" is about. It's not always about potential and tools, it's about production.

I love guys with potential and enjoy watching them develop in the minors...but give me the baseball player every time. Of course, there is a point of the guy having SOME talent...I.E. Tony Graffanino is a stone baseball player, but he just doesn't have the talent to play regularly at the ML level (even though the Royals think so). You have to find the happy medium.

High school position players are a bit different than pitchers, obviously, and I would be more willing to draft a Ryan Sweeney if he fell over a Colt Griffin or Kris Honel. But although Sweeney looks good, he has struggled in A ball thusfar...and his college counterpart is tearing it up. There is an obvious difference in age, but I am just saying.

SoxxoS
05-11-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Then you wouldn't have Ryan Sweeney or Robert Valido as products of this last draft, and both appear to be future MLB players at this point.

Don't waste the big money signing bonuses on them, I can buy that. But if your highest rated PROSPECTS are on the board in the 2nd or 3rd round, you'd be bonkers to pass, because the money difference from round 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to 5 degreades quickly.

I agree with that. However, realize that Garland, Konerko and Crede are the only players on the roster that didn't go to college. (Although it's hard to evaluate the Domincans).

DrummerGeorgefan
05-11-2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
I agree with that. However, realize that Garland, Konerko and Crede are the only players on the roster that didn't go to college. (Although it's hard to evaluate the Domincans).


I was wondering about that myself. How do the Latin players figure into this equation b/c it seems like there are more Latin players that college players in the big leagues now.

Also, those of you who follow college ball, has there been an infusion of latin players into the ncaa

Randar68
05-11-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
I love guys with potential and enjoy watching them develop in the minors...but give me the baseball player every time. Of course, there is a point of the guy having SOME talent...I.E. Tony Graffanino is a stone baseball player, but he just doesn't have the talent to play regularly at the ML level (even though the Royals think so). You have to find the happy medium.

And if you overlook potential and tools for production, you get players that get to AA or AAA and can't hit or pitch their ways out of a paper bad because they just don't have the stuff or talent to make it against other TOP/Experienced competition. It has to be both, I agree.

However, how many teams wish they'd have drafted Jeff Clement and signed him?

I just belive that after the top 10-20 picks of the draft, the potential to find a "super-star" out of college isn't there when compared to HS players.

I agree that drafting HS pitchers is a risky proposition, but college pitchers have often times been abused in college play and often times offer similar risks. Scouts get paid to find the diamonds in the rough and the ones who slip through the cracks. Those kinds of guys rarely exist when coming out of major college atmospheres.

Frankly, if more teams start drafting like Beane, you're going to get some teams with a higher percentage of draftees reaching the majors, like the A's, but the other teams who stick more to the traditional scouting methods will have a greater selection of top physical talent and potential and develop a greater number of true star players.


Originally posted by SoxxoS
High school position players are a bit different than pitchers, obviously, and I would be more willing to draft a Ryan Sweeney if he fell over a Colt Griffin or Kris Honel. But although Sweeney looks good, he has struggled in A ball thusfar...and his college counterpart is tearing it up. There is an obvious difference in age, but I am just saying.

Agree. But Sweeney is in High-A straight out of Iowa HS, which is amazing on its own.

batmanZoSo
05-11-2004, 02:12 PM
The baseball draft is far and away the toughest in all of sports. The game itself is so intricate and difficult, you cannot make it on physical tools alone like you can in other sports. So many top picks don't even reach the big leagues and even more for only a cup of coffee. If you get drafted in the first three rounds in football, you're playing, maybe even starting your first year. There really isn't a best way to go about the baseball draft, it's like a lottery. Fortunately you get so many chances every year, you're bound to luck out as we did with Maggs and Buehrle.

Can someone post the Sox top picks since 1991? I can't think of any that has become and impact player, though I might be excluding someone. This is one thing that's been very disappointing and some of it is because we haven't had a top ten pick since like 1991--the only team in baseball that hasn't. That says something for our consistency as a big league team, but also our mediocrity and our destiny to remain there if we keep relying on our draft picks.

Looking back, I wish we had finished last in a few of those years where we had no chance to do anything big but were good enough to stay in 2nd-3rd with an under .500 record or slightly above--not good enough to make the playoffs, not bad enough to get can't-miss draftees.

The cubs finished 2nd to last in MLB in 2000 (67-95), and were rewarded with the best pitching prospect in history and probably a hall of famer if he stays healthy. Yes, he's that good. The Sox are always And had Minnesota not been so cheap and/or broke, they would've taken Prior with the first pick. It makes me mad that other teams can suck it up to high heaven and then be able to draft a guy that turns their franchise around within two years. While we're always a respectable team and aren't able to go anywhere.

SoxxoS
05-11-2004, 02:13 PM
And it just occured to me that after re-reading my posts...Garland and Konerko (especially) are prone to big mental breakdowns...

Is that in corralation with them not going to college? Good research question.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
The baseball draft is far and away the toughest in all of sports. The game itself is so intricate and difficult, you cannot make it on physical tools alone like you can in other sports. So many top picks don't even reach the big leagues and even more for only a cup of coffee. If you get drafted in the first three rounds in football, you're playing, maybe even starting your first year. There really isn't a best way to go about the baseball draft, it's like a lottery. Fortunately you get so many chances every year, you're bound to luck out as we did with Maggs and Buehrle.

Can someone post the Sox top picks since 1991? I can't think of any that has become and impact player, though I might be excluding someone. This is one thing that's been very disappointing and some of it is because we haven't had a top ten pick since like 1991--the only team in baseball that hasn't. That says something for our consistency as a big league team, but also our mediocrity and our destiny to remain there if we keep relying on our draft picks.

Looking back, I wish we had finished last in a few of those years where we had no chance to do anything big but were good enough to stay in 2nd-3rd with an under .500 record or slightly above--not good enough to make the playoffs, not bad enough to get can't-miss draftees.

The cubs finished 2nd to last in MLB in 2000 (67-95), and were rewarded with the best pitching prospect in history and probably a hall of famer if he stays healthy. Yes, he's that good. The Sox are always And had Minnesota not been so cheap and/or broke, they would've taken Prior with the first pick. It makes me mad that other teams can suck it up to high heaven and then be able to draft a guy that turns their franchise around within two years. While we're always a respectable team and aren't able to go anywhere.

1) Maggs was signed out of Venezuela, not drafted... as was Carlos Lee, Arnie Munoz, and several others.
2) Yes, not having real high 1st round picks has definitely hurt us. The Cubs got Patterson, Wood, and Prior out of their last 3 top 10 picks, IIRC.
3) I agree about tanking it if you aren't going to make anything of yourself. Look how Josh Beckett has turned around the whole Marlins Organization, essentially... There is a price for always being psuedo-competitive.



1992
Eddie Pearson

1993
Scott Christman

1994
Mark Johnson

1995
Jeff Liefer

1996
*Bobby Seay

1997
Jason Dellaero

1998
Kip Wells

1999
Jason Stumm

2000
Joe Borchard

2001
Kris Honel

2002
Royce Ring

2003
Brian Anderson

In several of these years, the Sox had multiple first round and sandwich picks, but these were their top drafted players since '92. Thanks a lot, Ron...

jabrch
05-11-2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Frankly, if more teams start drafting like Beane, you're going to get some teams with a higher percentage of draftees reaching the majors, like the A's, but the other teams who stick more to the traditional scouting methods will have a greater selection of top physical talent and potential and develop a greater number of true star players.

I agree with you 100% Randar - and I hope things play out that way - provided the Sox stick with what works. The STUDS, more often than not, come straight from HS. The VALUE in the draft, more often than not, comes from HS.

I am not suggesting every HS kid should be paid millions, but at the same time, it isn't wise to discard them just cuz you can't apply them to a formula in your spreadsheet.

soxtalker
05-11-2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by NonetheLoaiza
this was talked about in moneyball. beane doesnt like to draft high school players because he says that college players are just better. he doesnt trust high school draftees.

It was true that Beane didn't (doesn't) believe in drafting high school players, but, as I recall, it wasn't because "college players are just better." Rather, it is harder to compare high school players; there is so much variation in the competition they face. While there is some variation among colleges, the players are concentrated in a smaller number of schools and conferences.

Dadawg_77
05-11-2004, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
I agree with you 100% Randar - and I hope things play out that way - provided the Sox stick with what works. The STUDS, more often than not, come straight from HS. The VALUE in the draft, more often than not, comes from HS.

I am not suggesting every HS kid should be paid millions, but at the same time, it isn't wise to discard them just cuz you can't apply them to a formula in your spreadsheet.

Have anything to back that up?

batmanZoSo
05-11-2004, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
1) Maggs was signed out of Venezuela, not drafted... as was Carlos Lee, Arnie Munoz, and several others.
2) Yes, not having real high 1st round picks has definitely hurt us. The Cubs got Patterson, Wood, and Prior out of their last 3 top 10 picks, IIRC.
3) I agree about tanking it if you aren't going to make anything of yourself. Look how Josh Beckett has turned around the whole Marlins Organization, essentially... There is a price for always being psuedo-competitive.



1992
Eddie Pearson

1993
Scott Christman

1994
Mark Johnson

1995
Jeff Liefer

1996
*Bobby Seay

1997
Jason Dellaero

1998
Kip Wells

1999
Jason Stumm

2000
Joe Borchard

2001
Kris Honel

2002
Royce Ring

2003
Brian Anderson

In several of these years, the Sox had multiple first round and sandwich picks, but these were their top drafted players since '92. Thanks a lot, Ron...

First, thanks for posting the picks. This really brings back memories (none too good). A few names I don't even recognize.

This has to be the worst streak of first round picks for a team that hasn't been drafting last or close to it for the vast majority of the time. I have to say Ron Schueler sucked in this aspect. He didn't produce one star in his whole time here with the first round pick. Only Wells has had moderate success and he's gone (KW's move of course).

Pearson, Christman, Johnson, Liefer, Seay, Dellaero, Stumm --all complete and utter BUSTS. Since KW took over, the picks are looking a lot better. Granted, we can't see the future, but Anderson and Honel seem destined to make it. The jury's still out on Borchard, and Royce Ring was just a stupid pick, and he's gone. We'll see how KW stacks up to Schu...he can't be any worse, that's impossible. But right now, I would say KW is gonna far surpass the work Schueler did with draft picks.

What a turnaround to go from McDowell, Ventura, Fernandez, Thomas to that crop of nobodies. That really set us back I have to say.

SoxxoS
05-11-2004, 02:45 PM
It sure would be nice to have Joe Blanton instead of nothing (Royce Ring) right now.

Blanton's 3-1 with a 2.22 ERA for AAA Oakland.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
First, thanks for posting the picks. This really brings back memories (none too good). A few names I don't even recognize.

This has to be the worst streak of first round picks for a team that hasn't been drafting last or close to it for the vast majority of the time.

To be fair, the Sox almost never drafted in the top half of the draft during this period. However, that does not negate Ron's ineptitude in this area.

However, although 1st round pick are the highest profile, the 2-15 round picks are really the bread an butter of the draft. If you get any good DFE candidates late in the draft or anyone who ever produces anything from a sub-15th round pick, it's gravy.


My problem with Beane's theory, is that he'd basically never have drafted Sweeney, a first round "talent", in the top 3 rounds because he played HS ball in Iowa against substandard HS competition compared to southern states.

SoxxoS
05-11-2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
My problem with Beane's theory, is that he'd basically never have drafted Sweeney, a first round "talent", in the top 3 rounds because he played HS ball in Iowa against substandard HS competition compared to southern states.

True. But he did draft Blanton over a career reliever in Royce Ring...which I am still absolutely :?: :?: :?: over.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
True. But he did draft Blanton over a career reliever in Royce Ring...which I am still absolutely :?: :?: :?: over.

We know how Moneyball portrayed that. However, if the Sox really wanted Blanton and not Ring, why would they not draft him when he actually fell to them?

Ring helped the Sox last year via the Alomar acquisition, and Blanton hasn't helped the A's yet. How is that so different than the glorified Bradford helps Beane now move that some are so in love with?

jabrch
05-11-2004, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Have anything to back that up?

I don't have time to go back and do a 15 year analysis of it, but lets look at 3 consecutive drafts as samples.

1991
First Picks Overall
13 HS
13 College

Top 10 - 7 College, 3 HS
Top 10 Successes - Only Dmitri Young - HS
Top 10 Failures - 7 college, 2 HS

Next 10 3 college, 7 HS
Successes Shawn Green and Manny Ramirez - HS, Doug Glanville and Eduardo Perez - College

Bottom 6 - 4 college, 2 HS
Success - Sele, College

1992
First Picks Overall
20 College, 8 HS

Top 10 - 7 College, 3 HS
Top 10 Success - Nevin and Preston Wilson - college, Jeter - HS

Next 10 8 college and 2 HS
Successes Shannon Stewart - HS

Last 8 - 5 college, 3 HS
Succeses Kendall - HS, Charles Johnson - college

1993
Successes - A-Rod, HS, Nixon, HS, Wagner, HS, Derrek Lee, HS, Carpenter, HS, Hunter, HS and Wagner, College, Varitek, College

I don't know if that fits into a calculator or not, but the studs, the best players, and the best value seem to be the guys you take from HS and develop. Unless you have a top 5 pick and can get a guy like Prior, Wood, Drew, Glaus etc, you will tend to get more reward for drafting a HS player with a less established reputation and developing him well. Taking a college player provides less risk, and will likely get you someone who fits into Beane's system quite well. But like I have said, when drafted in mid to late rounds, those are the role players that make you OK (Hatteberg, Byrnes, Kotsay) but will not get you the studs like you can get by taking a greater risk with a HS player.

jabrch
05-11-2004, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
We know how Moneyball portrayed that. However, if the Sox really wanted Blanton and not Ring, why would they not draft him when he actually fell to them?

Ring helped the Sox last year via the Alomar acquisition, and Blanton hasn't helped the A's yet. How is that so different than the glorified Bradford helps Beane now move that some are so in love with?


Cuz Beane is so smart and KW is so dumb. You should know this by now Randar.

I don't know how Blanton will work out, but I know we already got value from our pick in 2002.

Man Soo Lee
05-11-2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
I don't know how Blanton will work out, but I know we already got value from our pick in 2002.

If Blanton does work out (as it appears he might), do you think three months of mediocre 2B play is comparable value to six years of a starting pitcher?

batmanZoSo
05-11-2004, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
To be fair, the Sox almost never drafted in the top half of the draft during this period. However, that does not negate Ron's ineptitude in this area.

However, although 1st round pick are the highest profile, the 2-15 round picks are really the bread an butter of the draft. If you get any good DFE candidates late in the draft or anyone who ever produces anything from a sub-15th round pick, it's gravy.


My problem with Beane's theory, is that he'd basically never have drafted Sweeney, a first round "talent", in the top 3 rounds because he played HS ball in Iowa against substandard HS competition compared to southern states.

Yeah nice theory Bill. His first taste of big league pitching he ripped a double off Bartolo Colon and looked like he'd been hitting for ten years.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Man Soo Lee
If Blanton does work out (as it appears he might), do you think three months of mediocre 2B play is comparable value to six years of a starting pitcher?

There is a multi-page thread where people are suggesting we trade 3 of out top 10 prospects to get Beltran because they think that will put us over the top.

But now, Alomar was a bad move when we had no established 2B and a hole at the top of the order? Alomar lead the team in sacrifices in barely half a season. He energized the infield and got clutch hits at key times. He also would have been the most experienced and successful guy in the lineup when playoff time rolled around. That was the whole point, to be in the playoffs. Thank JM for that, not Alomar or KW.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Yeah nice theory Bill. His first taste of big league pitching he ripped a double off Bartolo Colon and looked like he'd been hitting for ten years.

Ding Ding. Low Risk, Low reward.

Voice of Reason
05-11-2004, 03:23 PM
One of the things that I see happening is that because more teams are turning towards college talent eventually there will be a point when the high school talent is undervalued. Admittedly it will take a while to get there but it appears to be the likely progression.

SoxxoS
05-11-2004, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Ding Ding. Low Risk, Low reward.

Low risk...high reward I think you meant... :?:

All I am saying is it's very possilbe we could have gave them another prospect for Alomar...it couldn't of been just Ring. It just so happens it was...and that is why we got value for him. It COULD (and should of) been Blanton.

Right now, Royce is struggling a bit in AAA, so he woulnd't of gave us any value had we kept him. You can then evualuate both prosepcts in the minors (minus Alomar) and realize that Blanton is definitely the guy you would rather have.

jabrch
05-11-2004, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Man Soo Lee
If Blanton does work out (as it appears he might), do you think three months of mediocre 2B play is comparable value to six years of a starting pitcher?


ManSoo - Unfortunately things didn't work out last year as well as we'd have liked. But it wasn't Alomar's fault, was it? Alomar played fairly well. If the rest of the team had carried its share of the load, had the manager not sucked, had we not been shut out by the tigers 1-0 twice and lost to Clev/Tam as we did, had we not **** the bed vs Minnesota starting after the Paniagua affair, etc. we would have been in the playoffs and Alomar would have been one of the key pieces. As far as Blanton, 6 years of a SP is a stretch, isn't it? I don't think you can draw that conclusion at all about Blanton yet.

I want to win now. I am willing to give up Blanton or Ring or whomever for a piece to the puzzle that I think could put us over the edge, like I felt about Alomar. I would give up a prospect or two for Beltran also.

Hindsight is very good - at the time, when we got Alomar, I didn't hear anyone complaining. At the time we drafted Ring, I don't remember complaints. Suddenly Moneyball comes out and it becomes the worst move in the history of baseball drafts, Beane is a genius, and KW is a dope.

SoxxoS
05-11-2004, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
I don't know how Blanton will work out, but I know we already got value from our pick in 2002.

And we got value from Sammy Sosa in '92 (or whatever year) but we got George Bell. Doesn't always work out.

Man Soo Lee
05-11-2004, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
But now, Alomar was a bad move when we had no established 2B and a hole at the top of the order? Alomar lead the team in sacrifices in barely half a season. He energized the infield and got clutch hits at key times. He also would have been the most experienced and successful guy in the lineup when playoff time rolled around. That was the whole point, to be in the playoffs. Thank JM for that, not Alomar or KW.

I wasn't criticizing the Ring for Alomar trade, just taking issue with the idea that we already got "value" for the Ring pick while the A's have nothing from Blanton.

Fungo
05-11-2004, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
My problem with Beane's theory, is that he'd basically never have drafted Sweeney, a first round "talent", in the top 3 rounds because he played HS ball in Iowa against substandard HS competition compared to southern states.

Actually, this theory did have some validity to it, but with the Area Code Games and all the other camps for top HS prospects to attend, it doesn't hold much water anymore, like you said. Northern kids are now able to compete with the southern kids and against better competition alot easier in this day and age and have the abilty to showcase their talent. Demographics used to play a larger part than it does now.

SoxxoS
05-11-2004, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Man Soo Lee
I wasn't criticizing the Ring for Alomar trade, just taking issue with the idea that we already got "value" for the Ring pick while the A's have nothing from Blanton.

I think if the A's were willing to trade Blanton right now, they can get a lot more value than Robby Alomar. He might be the big piece in a Carlos Beltran trade.

Then he can bite us in the ass 5 times a year!

Dadawg_77
05-11-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Cuz Beane is so smart and KW is so dumb. You should know this by now Randar.

I don't know how Blanton will work out, but I know we already got value from our pick in 2002.

Alomar wasn't worth anything, no matter how delusional you are.

Dadawg_77
05-11-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
I don't have time to go back and do a 15 year analysis of it, but lets look at 3 consecutive drafts as samples.

1991
First Picks Overall
13 HS
13 College

Top 10 - 7 College, 3 HS
Top 10 Successes - Only Dmitri Young - HS
Top 10 Failures - 7 college, 2 HS

Next 10 3 college, 7 HS
Successes Shawn Green and Manny Ramirez - HS, Doug Glanville and Eduardo Perez - College

Bottom 6 - 4 college, 2 HS
Success - Sele, College

1992
First Picks Overall
20 College, 8 HS

Top 10 - 7 College, 3 HS
Top 10 Success - Nevin and Preston Wilson - college, Jeter - HS

Next 10 8 college and 2 HS
Successes Shannon Stewart - HS

Last 8 - 5 college, 3 HS
Succeses Kendall - HS, Charles Johnson - college

1993
Successes - A-Rod, HS, Nixon, HS, Wagner, HS, Derrek Lee, HS, Carpenter, HS, Hunter, HS and Wagner, College, Varitek, College

I don't know if that fits into a calculator or not, but the studs, the best players, and the best value seem to be the guys you take from HS and develop. Unless you have a top 5 pick and can get a guy like Prior, Wood, Drew, Glaus etc, you will tend to get more reward for drafting a HS player with a less established reputation and developing him well. Taking a college player provides less risk, and will likely get you someone who fits into Beane's system quite well. But like I have said, when drafted in mid to late rounds, those are the role players that make you OK (Hatteberg, Byrnes, Kotsay) but will not get you the studs like you can get by taking a greater risk with a HS player.

All this is really worthless, you randomly pick three years for no apparent reason. I think BA covered this better then anything you did here and came up with different set of conclusions. So I would value BA work more heavily then what you did.

Dadawg_77
05-11-2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
There is a multi-page thread where people are suggesting we trade 3 of out top 10 prospects to get Beltran because they think that will put us over the top.

But now, Alomar was a bad move when we had no established 2B and a hole at the top of the order? Alomar lead the team in sacrifices in barely half a season. He energized the infield and got clutch hits at key times. He also would have been the most experienced and successful guy in the lineup when playoff time rolled around. That was the whole point, to be in the playoffs. Thank JM for that, not Alomar or KW.

Beltran is an elite player, Alomar wasn't last year. I think Willie Harris could have led the team in sacrifices if we wanted him too. I never knew you made major trades for a guy who could bunt. Successful in the past, but not at the time last year. Alomar was as washed up last year and really did hurt the team down the stretch. His OPB was about 280 I believe in September, right around the time we collapsed.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
Low risk...high reward I think you meant... :?:

All I am saying is it's very possilbe we could have gave them another prospect for Alomar...it couldn't of been just Ring. It just so happens it was...and that is why we got value for him. It COULD (and should of) been Blanton.

Right now, Royce is struggling a bit in AAA, so he woulnd't of gave us any value had we kept him. You can then evualuate both prosepcts in the minors (minus Alomar) and realize that Blanton is definitely the guy you would rather have.

No, Low risk, Low reward is EXACTLY what I meant. Low risk, your picks contribute early in some for or another. Low reward, your chances of one of those picks turning into a super star are greatly reduced.

I thought my point was crystal clear.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Beltran is an elite player, Alomar wasn't last year. I think Willie Harris could have led the team in sacrifices if we wanted him too. I never knew you made major trades for a guy who could bunt. Successful in the past, but not at the time last year. Alomar was as washed up last year and really did hurt the team down the stretch. His OPB was about 280 I believe in September, right around the time we collapsed.

Alomar was battle-tested and playoff experienced. What was the goal again? Oh yeah... winning the World Series... silly me. How many times do veteran players turn it up a notch in playoff time? Alomar has ALWAYS been a terrific post-season player. His defense helped Jose out tremendously as well as the team, and his OBP and average were better than the options we had at hand.

It filled a major weakness at the time.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
All this is really worthless, you randomly pick three years for no apparent reason. I think BA covered this better then anything you did here and came up with different set of conclusions. So I would value BA work more heavily then what you did.

No S***, Sherlock. He just picked 3 random years and did a very basic survey of the first round only. Where did he ever claim his was more accurate or valuable? Take a chill pill.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Alomar wasn't worth anything, no matter how delusional you are.

Yeah, we had such better options available. In order to not take on the salary, we had to give up prospects. Had we been willing to take his salary, we would not have had to give up the type of prospects we did. It's isn't as simple as player A for player B. Again, you guys are completely ignoring the complexities involved here for the sake of apples-to-oranges comparisons that hold no value whatsoever.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Fungo
Actually, this theory did have some validity to it, but with the Area Code Games and all the other camps for top HS prospects to attend, it doesn't hold much water anymore, like you said. Northern kids are now able to compete with the southern kids and against better competition alot easier in this day and age and have the abilty to showcase their talent. Demographics used to play a larger part than it does now.

And we've seen over and over now how a tough weekend at one of these camps can cost a HS prospect 2 or 3 rounds or more in the draft. There will always be some excuse for some people to use against drafting a kid on tools, and guys who crap their pants about it like Beane, are missing out on over half of the talent in every draft.

SoxxoS
05-11-2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
No S***, Sherlock. He just picked 3 random years and did a very basic survey of the first round only. Where did he ever claim his was more accurate or valuable? Take a chill pill .

And we have the winner of "Hypocritical post of the day." That's two people in the past 12 hours you have told to take a joke or "chill pill", and yet have been unable to relax yourself, judging by the tone of your posts.

Dadawg_77
05-11-2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
No S***, Sherlock. He just picked 3 random years and did a very basic survey of the first round only. Where did he ever claim his was more accurate or valuable? Take a chill pill.

Hey he made a statement which contradicted the findings form a study already posted. When asked to back up his statement his post shoddy evidence to do so.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
And we have the winner of "Hypocritical post of the day." That's two people in the past 12 hours you have told to take a joke or "chill pill", and yet have been unable to relax yourself, judging by the tone of your posts.

Teal is for jokes, something you are apparently oblivious to.

Take a chill pill, was in reference to basically an attack on a brief survey he did in 30 minutes or less on the subject.

He put the time in to go back and look up the info, more than I have seen a majority of posters do other than reading things verbatim from Moneyball.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Hey he made a statement which contradicted the findings form a study already posted. When asked to back up his statement his post shoddy evidence to do so.

And no, it didn't directly contradict the study's findings, it was about trying to determine the difference in numbers when considering "Becoming a star in the league" as opposed to just "contributing," which the original study did.

Dadawg_77
05-11-2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Yeah, we had such better options available. In order to not take on the salary, we had to give up prospects. Had we been willing to take his salary, we would not have had to give up the type of prospects we did. It's isn't as simple as player A for player B. Again, you guys are completely ignoring the complexities involved here for the sake of apples-to-oranges comparisons that hold no value whatsoever.

You still aren't making any sense. Yeah we know the Sox gave up a player not to pay Alomar. Who really would want to pay millions to Alomar for what he did on the field last year? Then again who would want Alomar to play for him. The reasoning people gave was Alomar couldn't handle the pressure of New York and should rebound for the Sox. Well, he didn't and he was sucking it up for the D Backs, his injury helped them out.

Harris would have been a better option for the cost of Alomar.

kermittheefrog
05-11-2004, 04:11 PM
Dude Randar, how the hell do you manage to always bring up the Alomar trade and argue its merits to death despite the lack of said merits? It's really quite impressive when you think about it. Somehow the Sox are going to end up in the playoffs, maybe even win the series and you are going to tie it into the success of the Alomar trade. So everyone bookmark this post, because I called it.

Randar68
05-11-2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Dude Randar, how the hell do you manage to always bring up the Alomar trade and argue its merits to death despite the lack of said merits? It's really quite impressive when you think about it. Somehow the Sox are going to end up in the playoffs, maybe even win the series and you are going to tie it into the success of the Alomar trade. So everyone bookmark this post, because I called it.

Was I the one who brought it up? No. Get over it. Ring turned directly into Alomar just over a year later. How is that so bad a price to pay down the stretch? The Sox have given up draft picks in a similar range to sign guys like Sandy, but this is worse than that because it's documented in a very slanted book about the greatest GM ever?

Come on. Who's infatuation are we talking about Kermit?

:kermit

Randar68
05-11-2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Dude Randar, how the hell do you manage to always bring up the Alomar trade and argue its merits to death despite the lack of said merits? It's really quite impressive when you think about it. Somehow the Sox are going to end up in the playoffs, maybe even win the series and you are going to tie it into the success of the Alomar trade. So everyone bookmark this post, because I called it.

BTW, you still have NEVER answered to the question of what better options were available at the time.

batmanZoSo
05-11-2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Was I the one who brought it up? No. Get over it. Ring turned directly into Alomar just over a year later. How is that so bad a price to pay down the stretch? The Sox have given up draft picks in a similar range to sign guys like Sandy, but this is worse than that because it's documented in a very slanted book about the greatest GM ever?

Come on. Who's infatuation are we talking about Kermit?

:kermit

Trading your number one pick for a three month second baseman (whom I agree played very well for us) is B-A-D.

It has nothing to do with losing Royce Ring, that was just a stupid pick to begin with. But the fact is, we just flushed a number one pick down the toilet (in two ways, by drafting a reliever, then by giving him up for a guy who we didn't keep). If Alomar were still here, I wouldn't be saying this.

kermittheefrog
05-11-2004, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
BTW, you still have NEVER answered to the question of what better options were available at the time.

I think anyone already in our organization would have been a better option. Jimenez played well down the stretch with the Reds, he could have done that for us. If you absolutely can't stand the idea of Jimenez, how about trying a Willie Harris/Tim Hummel platoon? Seriously it's not like Alomar helped us. He didn't hit well, there just isn't any arguing that he did. And it isn't like his defense or intangibles or ability to bunt lead us to the playoffs.

The move didn't work if you look at Alomar's numbers and it didn't work if you look at the success of the team while he was with us. Basically your evidence that Alomar helped the team is that you say he did. Just because there isn't a plethora of great second basemen doesn't make settling for a bad one who used to be a great one a good idea. Am I wrong?

Randar68
05-11-2004, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I think anyone already in our organization would have been a better option. Jimenez played well down the stretch with the Reds, he could have done that for us. If you absolutely can't stand the idea of Jimenez, how about trying a Willie Harris/Tim Hummel platoon? Seriously it's not like Alomar helped us. He didn't hit well, there just isn't any arguing that he did. And it isn't like his defense or intangibles or ability to bunt lead us to the playoffs.

The move didn't work if you look at Alomar's numbers and it didn't work if you look at the success of the team while he was with us. Basically your evidence that Alomar helped the team is that you say he did. Just because there isn't a plethora of great second basemen doesn't make settling for a bad one who used to be a great one a good idea. Am I wrong?

You're absolutely wrong if you're saying he didn't help the team. That lethargic numb-skull of a player, Jimenez was an absolute bum. On the field, in the clubhouse... everywhere.

Now, you going to platoon Harris and Hummel in the m idle of a pennant run when you already have nobody to hit in the top 2 of the order? it was what was out there, that's it. Gotta fill the hole, and why not fill it with a player that still played perhaps the best 2nd base in the AL and got on overall at only a .330 pace (which was better than many on the team, sadly enough)

could they have used Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo? Yeah, no crap. unfortunately, you just don't have the pick of the litter and have to make do with what's available.

Were you asleep when Jose was damn near flawless at SS when Alomar was there? What other time in his career has he played like that? Truly great players make the players around them better, with leadership, enthusiasm, and the respect they command. That doesn't always show up in the box score, but Alomar contributed far more than just sacrifice bunts as you are insinuating.

Harris and Jimenez had a chance. Jimenez was the definition of Corpseball, and Harris didn't perform in the time he had to win the job. The fact that there wasn't a clear-cut answer or solution to the problem should be enough for people to have been realistic about that move, but apparently it's easier to sit in the armchair and criticize from afar. If we had made the playoffs, would it have been a good move? Don't bother responding, I know your answer, since I couldn't come up with a new stat to measure intangibles.