PDA

View Full Version : Sox have 5 in BA's Top 100


California Sox
02-28-2005, 10:59 AM
Baseball America has started revealing its Top 100 today. They've started with the final quarter, 76-100, and the Sox have two players in theat group, Josh Fields and Iguchi. With Anderson, McCarthy, and Sweeney locks for the Top 100, that means the Sox will have five of the Top 100. I think that's a pretty good showing. :smile:

Here's the link. http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/040228top1001.html

Dadawg_77
02-28-2005, 11:09 AM
Baseball America has started revealing its Top 100 today. They've started with the final quarter, 76-100, and the Sox have two players in theat group, Josh Fields and Iguchi. With Anderson, McCarthy, and Sweeney locks for the Top 100, that means the Sox will have five of the Top 100. I think that's a pretty good showing. :smile:

Here's the link. http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/040228top1001.html

Well it is slighty above average on teams percentage of top 100, 5% vs 3.33%. Also, would a wieghted system giving more credit for higher place prospects be better method of rating teams?

Flight #24
02-28-2005, 12:19 PM
Well it is slighty above average on teams percentage of top 100, 5% vs 3.33%. Also, would a wieghted system giving more credit for higher place prospects be better method of rating teams?

You could look at is as "slightly higher" in terms of it being 1.67% higher, or you could say that if the average team has 3.33%, the Sox have 50% more than the average team by having 5%.

The best way to do this is to rank how many each team has and see where the Sox come out. Higher scores for higher rank would be good, but that's obviously a somewhat difficult thing to do and appropriately balance one top-10 guy v. a number of lower ranked (2d 50) guys - which is better for an organization?

For the record, in the 76-100 range, the Sox are tied with the Angels, Rangers, Indians, Dodgers, & Braves for the lead with 2 prospects.

maurice
03-01-2005, 03:36 PM
According to a poster at soxtalk (http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=30366&view=findpost&p=593104), the Sox have 3 of the Top 50. Only one team (Brewers) had more guys in the Top 50, and only 3 teams had more in the Top 100 (Dodgers, Angels, Braves).

PAPChiSox729
03-01-2005, 04:52 PM
According to a poster at soxtalk (http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=30366&view=findpost&p=593104), the Sox have 3 of the Top 50. Only one team (Brewers) had more guys in the Top 50, and only 3 teams had more in the Top 100 (Dodgers, Angels, Braves).

It will be awesome when Anderson, Sweeney, and McCarthy sweep the top 3 places.

Mohoney
03-01-2005, 08:02 PM
Also, would a wieghted system giving more credit for higher place prospects be better method of rating teams?

Is any weight given to what Class the prospect was last year or is projected to play in this year?

Dadawg_77
03-02-2005, 09:54 AM
According to a poster at soxtalk (http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=30366&view=findpost&p=593104), the Sox have 3 of the Top 50. Only one team (Brewers) had more guys in the Top 50, and only 3 teams had more in the Top 100 (Dodgers, Angels, Braves).

They haven't posted in 1-25 but the Sox top prospect so far is #37 Brian Anderson, Sweeney is 42, and McCarthy is 49. I can't think of anyone else being ranked so no one in the top 25. Thus it looks like the Sox have depth but no real star in the minors from these rankings. This brings up the question, would you rather have a player like Fielder then Anderson, Sweeney and McCarthy.

Ol' No. 2
03-02-2005, 10:48 AM
They haven't posted in 1-25 but the Sox top prospect so far is #37 Brian Anderson, Sweeney is 42, and McCarthy is 49. I can't think of anyone else being ranked so no one in the top 25. Thus it looks like the Sox have depth but no real star in the minors from these rankings. This brings up the question, would you rather have a player like Fielder then Anderson, Sweeney and McCarthy.Wasn't Joe Borchard in the top 25 at one time?:o:

California Sox
03-02-2005, 12:03 PM
They haven't posted in 1-25 but the Sox top prospect so far is #37 Brian Anderson, Sweeney is 42, and McCarthy is 49. I can't think of anyone else being ranked so no one in the top 25. Thus it looks like the Sox have depth but no real star in the minors from these rankings. This brings up the question, would you rather have a player like Fielder then Anderson, Sweeney and McCarthy.

Players like Frank and Maggs were not in the top 25, meanwhile I think Rauch, Baldwin, Garland, and Borchard were. It's an inexact science.

Flight #24
03-02-2005, 01:01 PM
They haven't posted in 1-25 but the Sox top prospect so far is #37 Brian Anderson, Sweeney is 42, and McCarthy is 49. I can't think of anyone else being ranked so no one in the top 25. Thus it looks like the Sox have depth but no real star in the minors from these rankings. This brings up the question, would you rather have a player like Fielder then Anderson, Sweeney and McCarthy.

Honestly, while I'd take 1 top 10 guy over maybe 2 "2d 50" guys, I would take 3 guys ranked 40-45 over the 1 top 10. The # of top,"cant-miss" prospects who actually do miss makes me like the chances of having at least 1 of the 3 top 50 guys make it over the chance of the 1 top 10.

Just IMO, I'm sure someone has some stats somewhere on the success rate of BA top 10 ranked players.

maurice
03-02-2005, 02:46 PM
I would take 3 guys ranked 40-45 over the 1 top 10. The # of top,"cant-miss" prospects who actually do miss makes me like the chances of having at least 1 of the 3 top 50 guys make it over the chance of the 1 top 10.

Agreed. The bust-rate for even highly rated prospects favors strength in numbers. I'm glad that all of our chickens are not in one basket.

Depth also maximizes the possibility of multiple trades -- e.g., trading Reed for Garcia, while retaining 3 Top 50 prospects (plus Fields, Young, Tracey, a bunch of lefties, etc.) for future "use."

You also should consider that Anderson and Sweeney haven't been pros for very long, and McCarthy just hit the "radar" this year. Another solid season could move one or more of them into the Top 25 (and perhaps move Fields into the Top 50).

Dadawg_77
03-02-2005, 10:41 PM
Players like Frank and Maggs were not in the top 25, meanwhile I think Rauch, Baldwin, Garland, and Borchard were. It's an inexact science.

Borchard was more hype then production in the minors. Pitchers get hurt and careers are destroyed, so its hard to say much about pitchers. In my example, Prince Fielder has super star written all over him while Anderson looks to become a quality player. With` Sweeney, his lack of power doesn't look good right now, hopefully he was too young but a .379 slg. Thus I would think the super star player has lot more potential to help your team's chances of winning then two solid players.

OEO Magglio
03-02-2005, 10:50 PM
Borchard was more hype then production in the minors. Pitchers get hurt and careers are destroyed, so its hard to say much about pitchers. In my example, Prince Fielder has super star written all over him while Anderson looks to become a quality player. With` Sweeney, his lack of power doesn't look good right now, hopefully he was too young but a .379 slg. Thus I would think the super star player has lot more potential to help your team's chances of winning then two solid players.
What about Bmac, if the projections were just by production don't you think he'd be much higher?

Randar68
03-03-2005, 12:01 AM
Borchard was more hype then production in the minors. Pitchers get hurt and careers are destroyed, so its hard to say much about pitchers. In my example, Prince Fielder has super star written all over him while Anderson looks to become a quality player. With` Sweeney, his lack of power doesn't look good right now, hopefully he was too young but a .379 slg. Thus I would think the super star player has lot more potential to help your team's chances of winning then two solid players.

Ahhh, number crunching a kid who basically went straight to High A out of Iowa HS...

Nothing like a good stat-head evaluating 19 year olds in High A...

Randar68
03-03-2005, 12:03 AM
What about Bmac, if the projections were just by production don't you think he'd be much higher?

BA has been hesitant to move him up all along. They don't see the 95 mph electric arm, etc that makes them jump around. He ascended so quickly, as well...

trailboss
03-03-2005, 12:16 AM
Baseball America rankings are based on money. This makes them popular with baseball people who don't want to look stupid for giving millions to 18 year olds. If you got a million dollars, you have to go out and prove you can't play. If you got peanuts, you have to go out and prove you can.Brandon is a 17th round pick with tremendous production. Baseball America says #49. FoxSports says #14. BA looks at bonus. FoxSports looks at productivity.

OEO Magglio
03-03-2005, 12:23 AM
Randar, correct me if I'm wrong on this. I think BA looks at production and also how much potential and talent each of these players have. While others like foxsports might primarily look at productivity. Like I said before if the rankings were based alone on how each individual has produced so far, Brandon would be way higher.

Randar68
03-03-2005, 11:11 AM
Randar, correct me if I'm wrong on this. I think BA looks at production and also how much potential and talent each of these players have. While others like foxsports might primarily look at productivity. Like I said before if the rankings were based alone on how each individual has produced so far, Brandon would be way higher.

BA is primarily about scouting and projection. As with any scouting, they tend to have their favorites despite statistical or production evidence to the contrary, etc etc.

They do generally seem to consider production, but they don't give it much credence in most cases until it is done in AA at least.


That post by trailboss is utterly ridiculous.

rdivaldi
03-03-2005, 11:23 AM
I've always found BA to have 2 major faults.

#1, when they evaluate pitchers they fall in love with the radar gun readings.
#2, they overrate players from teams that have had recent success developing players.

Randar68
03-03-2005, 11:54 AM
I've always found BA to have 2 major faults.

#1, when they evaluate pitchers they fall in love with the radar gun readings.
#2, they overrate players from teams that have had recent success developing players.

I definitely agree with #1, and in doing so, they most often fail to truly analyze the mechanics of said pitchers...

#2? I'm not terribly sure that is the case, but I can see how one might see that.

Like any scouting service, they identify favorites prior to drafts and in college and HS games and tend to have a hard time moving them down in relation to guys they didn't pick up on or were "under the radar" types.

rdivaldi
03-03-2005, 12:02 PM
#2? I'm not terribly sure that is the case, but I can see how one might see that.

I base that quite a bit off what happened in 2001 and 2002. After our success and some Flubbie success, unworthy players were needlessly pushed up the charts at BA.

Dadawg_77
03-03-2005, 12:16 PM
Ahhh, number crunching a kid who basically went straight to High A out of Iowa HS...

Nothing like a good stat-head evaluating 19 year olds in High A...

I expect as much form you. I guess we just have to believe the scouts who said Borchard was the second coming of Mantle. Instead of looking at other players have done at age 19 in A ball and their success level in the majors. I mean one method is filled with hope and dreams while the other doesn't look to good. I am not condemning him, just pointing out that it is something to be concerned about.

Dadawg_77
03-03-2005, 12:18 PM
Like any scouting service, they identify favorites prior to drafts and in college and HS games and tend to have a hard time moving them down in relation to guys they didn't pick up on or were "under the radar" types.

Whereas production analyst is based on what a players does not where they came from nor what you personally thought of them.

rdivaldi
03-03-2005, 12:38 PM
I am not condemning him, just pointing out that it is something to be concerned about.

I think there are 2 things you are overlooking in respects to Sweeney. One big thing is his age in respect to what level he played at. There are very, very few 19 year olds that play in the Carolina League. It's very rare for a kid that age to get pushed up to that level. The fact that he played as well as he did is extremely encouraging.

Secondly, I've found most scouts to believe that power is not something to be concerned about at the lower level of the minors. There have been many players who start off at 19/20 who just grow into their bodies and develop power. Occaisionally you will have a freak of nature like Griffey or A-Rod tear it up at 18/19, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Randar68
03-03-2005, 01:21 PM
Whereas production analyst is based on what a players does not where they came from nor what you personally thought of them.

And disregards age, experience, history, persona, determination to improve, mentality, mechanics, and athletic ability.

Don't get me started. You can attack Borch and many other players over the years, but if you think statistical analysis can porvide a better analysis and has any bearing whatsoever when it comes to evaluating 18, 19, 20, and 21 year old's ability to play in the major leagues, you're too far removed from the field at your desk.

Randar68
03-03-2005, 01:23 PM
Whereas production analyst is based on what a players does not where they came from nor what you personally thought of them.

Does a top 100 list mean anything, Dawg? Who cares, really, it's not what teams use other than as bargaining chips... Who really cares if a scouting service favors players they've known about a long time over newcomers?

How in the hell does that validate statistical analysis. Your arguments are so shallow...

Randar68
03-03-2005, 01:26 PM
Instead of looking at other players have done at age 19 in A ball and their success level in the majors. I mean one method is filled with hope and dreams while the other doesn't look to good. I am not condemning him, just pointing out that it is something to be concerned about.

Your comments are uneducated in nature and instigating in purpose. I'll be waiting for your advanced statistical analysis of 19 year-olds track rocords from High A to the majors...

*not holding my breath*

Meanwhile, Sweeney goes 2-for-2 yesterday in the first Spring Game against higher-level pitching than he's faced during any regular season action...

Color me "unconcerned" while you get yourself worked up for no reason...

trailboss
03-03-2005, 02:10 PM
'Scuse us!!

Evidence and confirmation to the contrary, you keep your opinion.

Dadawg_77
03-03-2005, 02:49 PM
I think there are 2 things you are overlooking in respects to Sweeney. One big thing is his age in respect to what level he played at. There are very, very few 19 year olds that play in the Carolina League. It's very rare for a kid that age to get pushed up to that level. The fact that he played as well as he did is extremely encouraging.

Secondly, I've found most scouts to believe that power is not something to be concerned about at the lower level of the minors. There have been many players who start off at 19/20 who just grow into their bodies and develop power. Occaisionally you will have a freak of nature like Griffey or A-Rod tear it up at 18/19, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

The thing is Sweeney's ISO power was lower then what you normally see. I wouldn't be concerned if it was .20 higher. You expect a guy to grow into more power but the concern is does his current performance show a lower celling. Some scouting report mention he has a slower bat so that might be playing into his low power numbers.

Dadawg_77
03-03-2005, 02:51 PM
And disregards age, experience, history, persona, determination to improve, mentality, mechanics, and athletic ability.

Don't get me started. You can attack Borch and many other players over the years, but if you think statistical analysis can porvide a better analysis and has any bearing whatsoever when it comes to evaluating 18, 19, 20, and 21 year old's ability to play in the major leagues, you're too far removed from the field at your desk.

Want to know the best way to figure out who is going to be a good player in the MLB. Look at their production, in general those who produce in the minors produce in the majors and those who don't, don't. It is that simple. You want to make it more complex, go head, but someone just looking at the numbers will have a better percentage of picking MLBers in the minors.

Dadawg_77
03-03-2005, 02:57 PM
Does a top 100 list mean anything, Dawg? Who cares, really, it's not what teams use other than as bargaining chips... Who really cares if a scouting service favors players they've known about a long time over newcomers?

How in the hell does that validate statistical analysis. Your arguments are so shallow...

Shallow? I was using you point to make mine. A scouting service, what BA does, you do here, is filled with personal bias that make it nonobjective. The only truly objective rating of players that I have seen is their production. Tools don't mean a thing unless they translate into production.

Scouting can help you figure out who may produce in draft and such, but once you hit the minors, production is much more telling then scouting. You can adjust for any variable such as age, park or league.

rdivaldi
03-03-2005, 02:57 PM
The thing is Sweeney's ISO power was lower then what you normally see. I wouldn't be concerned if it was .20 higher. You expect a guy to grow into more power but the concern is does his current performance show a lower celling. Some scouting report mention he has a slower bat so that might be playing into his low power numbers.

Fair enough, honestly I've never seen or heard about bat speed concerns though.

Most scouts have him as a guy that is going to be a 15- 20 home run hitter with an average in the .300 range (Olerud is who most compare him to). From what I've seen during ST and in Winston-Salem that's a pretty fair comparison.

maurice
03-03-2005, 03:18 PM
You're oversimplifying, Dawg. Even if you think that all scouting observations are worthless because they're subjective, Sweeney's age and level are not subjective. A 19-year-old at high-A is very unusual. Reason dictates that he would have produced significantly better numbers in rookie ball or even low-A. Moreover, the assumption that, on average, 19 year olds fill out and become stronger as they age is a medical fact.

If you manage to pull together a large body of data comparing the major-league performance of hitters to their performance as 19 year olds in high A ball, then you might be on to something. Otherwise, it's extremely unfair and illogical to compare Sweeney's numbers to 22 year olds at high A and 19 year olds in rookie ball. You acknowledge that "[y]ou can adjust for any variable such as age, park or league." Please factor these adjustments into your evaluation of Sweeney.

SoxxoS
03-03-2005, 03:20 PM
I would take a John Olerud. He was flirting with .400 a WHILE ago... what 1992? Is Sweeney going to wear the helmet on defense as well? :D:

The only thing about Sweeney is...wouldn't him playing 1B wasting that arm we hear so much about?

rdivaldi
03-03-2005, 03:29 PM
The only thing about Sweeney is...wouldn't him playing 1B wasting that arm we hear so much about?

Sorry, I meant at the plate only. Sweeney is an outfielder without a doubt, putting him at first would definitely be a waste of a great arm just like you said.

Randar68
03-03-2005, 03:37 PM
I would take a John Olerud. He was flirting with .400 a WHILE ago... what 1992? Is Sweeney going to wear the helmet on defense as well? :D:

The only thing about Sweeney is...wouldn't him playing 1B wasting that arm we hear so much about?

Yeah, it would be somewhat wasteful, but he has great size and is left-handed and agile.

Randar68
03-03-2005, 03:40 PM
Want to know the best way to figure out who is going to be a good player in the MLB. Look at their production, in general those who produce in the minors produce in the majors and those who don't, don't. It is that simple. You want to make it more complex, go head, but someone just looking at the numbers will have a better percentage of picking MLBers in the minors.

LOL! If you insist, Dawg. Please let me know what Robert Valido's production is going to be so I can stop wasting my time. *****. Stats don't allow for "improvement" or making good on a player's athletic ability, defense, or instincts. Never mind that these young kids/adults have yet to physically mature and the fact that each player does so at different rates and times in their lives, mentally and physically, if at all...

Let me know when you have stats that measure that.


"but someone just looking at the numbers will have a better percentage of picking MLBers in the minors"

These kind of craptastic unsupportable statements are what make your comments utterly useless.

Dadawg_77
03-03-2005, 05:32 PM
You're oversimplifying, Dawg. Even if you think that all scouting observations are worthless because they're subjective, Sweeney's age and level are not subjective. A 19-year-old at high-A is very unusual. Reason dictates that he would have produced significantly better numbers in rookie ball or even low-A. Moreover, the assumption that, on average, 19 year olds fill out and become stronger as they age is a medical fact.

If you manage to pull together a large body of data comparing the major-league performance of hitters to their performance as 19 year olds in high A ball, then you might be on to something. Otherwise, it's extremely unfair and illogical to compare Sweeney's numbers to 22 year olds at high A and 19 year olds in rookie ball. You acknowledge that "[y]ou can adjust for any variable such as age, park or league." Please factor these adjustments into your evaluation of Sweeney.

I think I stated this. Sweeney's ISO Power (SLG - AVG) is low for his age at his level. I am not saying he should be like A Rod, but it should have been higher. Yes, he should develop more power over the years, just at 19 he underpreformed. The large data pull has been done, just too lazy to go out and find it and link it.

Dadawg_77
03-03-2005, 05:42 PM
LOL! If you insist, Dawg. Please let me know what Robert Valido's production is going to be so I can stop wasting my time. *****. Stats don't allow for "improvement" or making good on a player's athletic ability, defense, or instincts. Never mind that these young kids/adults have yet to physically mature and the fact that each player does so at different rates and times in their lives, mentally and physically, if at all...

Let me know when you have stats that measure that.


"but someone just looking at the numbers will have a better percentage of picking MLBers in the minors"

These kind of craptastic unsupportable statements are what make your comments utterly useless.

I said "in general" and you bring up a single case to dispute it. The fact is lot more "tools" phenoms without the production fail then guys without the "tools" who produce do and guys without the "tools" but produce succeed more often then the "tools" phenoms without the production. You can back that claim up with research.

Scouting isn't worth much when you look at minor leaguers, all the intangibles you mention would be worth something if a player produces thus covered by looking at the numbers. The player tells you everything you need to know by whether or not they are producing in the minors.

Back to the list, ***? Joe Mauer is their number one prospect? Come on now, the only reason this guy could be consider was he got hurt last year. That is a cheap choice.

Jabroni
03-03-2005, 06:10 PM
Back to the list, ***? Joe Mauer is their number one prospect? Come on now, the only reason this guy could be consider was he got hurt last year. That is a cheap choice.I guess a "small sample size" of 107 major league at bats only counts when you want it to. :rolleyes:

maurice
03-03-2005, 06:13 PM
I think I stated this. Sweeney's ISO Power (SLG - AVG) is low for his age at his level.

I don't mean to nit pick, but you said "Sweeney's ISO power was lower th[a]n what you normally see." You might have meant age / level, but I didn't read it that way . . . hence my response.

If you manage to pull together a large body of data comparing the major-league performance of hitters to their performance as 19 year olds in high A ball, then you might be on to something.

The large data pull has been done, just too lazy to go out and find it and link it.

That's very surprising, given the derth of 19 year olds at high A. It's even more surprising that somebody took the time to calculate the ISO power for a statistically significant sample of 19 year olds at high A who are now old enough to have an established MLB performance level. Quite an undertaking.

I can see why Bill James' group might have the interest (and financing) to compile this information, but they'll propably keep most of their cutting-edge data proprietary as long as they're working for the Red Sox.

In any event, y'all have a nice weekend. I'm off to do some relatively worthless subjective scouting in Tucson.
:gulp:

Daver
03-03-2005, 06:43 PM
Statheads, and their self appointed superiority, will never fail to crack me up.

Dadawg_77
03-03-2005, 11:33 PM
Statheads, and their self appointed superiority, will never fail to crack me up.

And teams never fail to amaze me by wasting millions and selling off MLB stars for pipe dreams.

Jabroni
03-04-2005, 01:39 AM
And teams never fail to amaze me by wasting millions and selling off MLB stars for pipe dreams.Please tell me this is not another Jeremy Reed-related post. :rolleyes:

fquaye149
03-04-2005, 09:55 AM
you'd better hope he comes down w/ laryngitis then

Randar68
03-04-2005, 12:03 PM
I said "in general" and you bring up a single case to dispute it. The fact is lot more "tools" phenoms without the production fail then guys without the "tools" who produce do and guys without the "tools" but produce succeed more often then the "tools" phenoms without the production. You can back that claim up with research.

Scouting isn't worth much when you look at minor leaguers, all the intangibles you mention would be worth something if a player produces thus covered by looking at the numbers. The player tells you everything you need to know by whether or not they are producing in the minors.

Back to the list, ***? Joe Mauer is their number one prospect? Come on now, the only reason this guy could be consider was he got hurt last year. That is a cheap choice.

When using performance-based analysis of draft-eligible players, you're limiting yourself to really only college players. Doing that more than halves your draft/talent-pool. On top of that, unless you have top 10 picks every year (where the top-producing college players, especially pitchers, usually end up), you're pool of players has been greatly pulled over with a fine-tooth comb. This method is no-doubt a good way to draft players with a higher chance of making/producing in the majors and generally in a shorter period of time, but it also GREATLY reduces the chances for drafting/developing a star/stud and limits the utility gained by drafting anywhere after the top 12-15 rounds.

That is the major fault I find with applying performance-based analysis to draft-eligible players. HS players not only have the greatest opportunity for coaching and development, but finding the ones that are physically talented and mentally capable is what GOOD scouting is. There are a lot of bad scouts out there working in baseball, don't get me wrong, but you brandish your keyboard against all scouts as some kind of Excallibur, and it's patently ridiculous...

Flight #24
03-04-2005, 12:11 PM
When using performance-based analysis of draft-eligible players, you're limiting yourself to really only college players. Doing that more than halves your draft/talent-pool. On top of that, unless you have top 10 picks every year (where the top-producing college players, especially pitchers, usually end up), you're pool of players has been greatly pulled over with a fine-tooth comb. This method is no-doubt a good way to draft players with a higher chance of making/producing in the majors and generally in a shorter period of time, but it also GREATLY reduces the chances for drafting/developing a star/stud and limits the utility gained by drafting anywhere after the top 12-15 rounds.



Intersting point, has anyone done an analysis of say the top 50-100 players in MLB to see which were drafted out of college v. HS? I've heard the "college players are better bets to make the bigs, but less to be stars" argument before, but have never seen any data analyzing that situation.

Off the top of my head, I'd guess the FA signings from Latin America might be the biggest source of stars, and that's more akin to HS drafting than colleges. But that's not based on any analysis.

rdivaldi
03-04-2005, 12:24 PM
The way things are going in MLB, it appears that in the future most of the top players won't even be drafted. Tons are flowing in from training academies in South America...

Dadawg_77
03-04-2005, 12:26 PM
When using performance-based analysis of draft-eligible players, you're limiting yourself to really only college players. Doing that more than halves your draft/talent-pool. On top of that, unless you have top 10 picks every year (where the top-producing college players, especially pitchers, usually end up), you're pool of players has been greatly pulled over with a fine-tooth comb. This method is no-doubt a good way to draft players with a higher chance of making/producing in the majors and generally in a shorter period of time, but it also GREATLY reduces the chances for drafting/developing a star/stud and limits the utility gained by drafting anywhere after the top 12-15 rounds.

That is the major fault I find with applying performance-based analysis to draft-eligible players. HS players not only have the greatest opportunity for coaching and development, but finding the ones that are physically talented and mentally capable is what GOOD scouting is. There are a lot of bad scouts out there working in baseball, don't get me wrong, but you brandish your keyboard against all scouts as some kind of Excallibur, and it's patently ridiculous...

I wasn't talking about scouting high school players for the draft. Obviously there is need for scouting there. What I am talking about once a player is drafted, performace-based analysis becomes a lot more valuable then scouting reports and grows in value the closer you get to the majors. It has been 17 years since James proved minor league stats correlate with major league performance yet you don't see it application used as widely as it should till recently.

Dadawg_77
03-04-2005, 12:28 PM
Intersting point, has anyone done an analysis of say the top 50-100 players in MLB to see which were drafted out of college v. HS? I've heard the "college players are better bets to make the bigs, but less to be stars" argument before, but have never seen any data analyzing that situation.

Off the top of my head, I'd guess the FA signings from Latin America might be the biggest source of stars, and that's more akin to HS drafting than colleges. But that's not based on any analysis.

Go look at BP and you'll find. The biggest area you see the gap is pitchers because of the meat grinder they go through between 18-24. Since college pitchers have pass through most of this already, they have less of a injury risk.

Randar68
03-04-2005, 12:32 PM
Go look at BP and you'll find. The biggest area you see the gap is pitchers because of the meat grinder they go through between 18-24. Since college pitchers have pass through most of this already, they have less of a injury risk.

College pitchers are also far more abused than HS or minor league pitchers and get less coaching.