Sixteen-Year 1st Round Draft Project

[Greg Pappas]

Below are the results of a time-intensive but fairly simple draft project I'vwe been working on. I was asked to extend some previous research, which was based upon which grouping (HS Hitters/HS Pitchers/College Hitters/College Pitchers) had the best rate of success in the draft. The previous research was for the top ten picks, and subsequently the top 15 picks in each draft since '97, as I was looking to determine the success of the higher draft picks.

In the top overall 15 picks from 97-03 the HS Hitters (55%) and College Hitters (45%) distanced themselves from the HS Pitchers (26%) and College Pitchers (23%) by obviously large margins.

This current research extends to the entire first round, and dates back to 1987, the first year of the modern and still current draft process, and runs through to 2002. Previous years included multiple phases of the draft and were too difficult to gauge.

Using a simple formula of determining whether a player had some form of success as a ML'er, I chose to either include them in the 'Successful' category, or 'Non-Successful' one.

The results of success are here:

HS Hitters: 49/126 or 39% successful
College Hitters: 39/94 or 41% successful
HS Pitchers: 25/98 or 26% successful
College Pitchers: 41/137 or 30% successful

This research shows an advantage for the collegians in each case, but the hitters were averaged at 40% to the pitchers at 28%.

As a side note, Juco/CC players were so few in number, that I added their results into the college figures.

One can certainly argue the merits of my research, determining that my decisions on who was or wasn't a good pick was faulty, but I assure you that even were you to note a few exceptions the data is fairly secure in the overall results.

While I was asked to even further the research by adding such information as whether a player sustained an injury, was an all-star, or was merely a bit player at the big league level, the time required to spend on such a venture is beyond me at this time.

I hope that this has been helpful in some way.

[DennisTheOsFan]

All things considered equal, I'd go with the college player--as your trend indicates, they are safer picks. But if there's a big time high school player (batter or pitcher), and there's more than a good chance that he becomes a high caliber player in the MLB, I would not shy away from drafting him.

Do any of you remember if Pedro Alvarez was highly touted coming out of high school? He certainly made the right move by going to Vanderbilt and putting up monstrous numbers there, thus improving his draft stock.

[makoman]

Thanks a lot! Interesting and excellent research.

Just an observation, and this is probabaly stating the obvious to many here but I'll still say it: I suppose the reason you'd go for the high school guy, despite the lesser chance of being a successful MLer, is because you're going for the home run. Your special talents, your A-Rods and Griffeys and Mannys, seem to more often come from the high school ranks, while the college guys are known quantities and more likely to reach their ceilings, even if that ceiling may be lower (of course there are exceptions to everything, as guys like Bonds, Helton, Tex, Mussina went to college, just for example).

That's anectdotal, so I'd be curious to see if that's really the case. It would be interesting to see where most of the all stars or "superstars" come from, though I respect the time issue you mention of breaking things down even more than you did. Perhaps someone with more time on their hands will do such a breakdown one day.

Also, given the wash out rate of prospects (over half of even the best college guys aren't successful), maybe this shows it pays off to go the high school route, at least IF you think the guy has superstar type talent.

Again, thanks.

[Greg Pappas]

All things considered equal, I'd go with the college player--as your trend indicates, they are safer picks. But if there's a big time high school player (batter or pitcher), and there's more than a good chance that he becomes a high caliber player in the MLB, I would not shy away from drafting him.

Do any of you remember if Pedro Alvarez was highly touted coming out of high school? He certainly made the right move by going to Vanderbilt and putting up monstrous numbers there, thus improving his draft stock.

Alvarez was a well liked prospect at his New York HS, and if memory serves me, he would have likely been a second or third rounder.

[DennisTheOsFan]

Alvarez was a well liked prospect at his New York HS, and if memory serves me, he would have likely been a second or third rounder.

So say we had drafted Alvarez in the 3rd round a few years ago out of high shcool--would we have developed him into the hitter he is now (arguably the top batting prospect in college)? Or is there something wrong with the way we develop our bats in the minors? (I say this from an observational stance, since we've had so few good bats come through our system in recent memory, aside from Roberts and Markakis).

[Greg Pappas]

Thanks a lot! Interesting and excellent research.

Just an observation, and this is probabaly stating the obvious to many here but I'll still say it: I suppose the reason you'd go for the high school guy, despite the lesser chance of being a successful MLer, is because you're going for the home run. Your special talents, your A-Rods and Griffeys and Mannys, seem to more often come from the high school ranks, while the college guys are known quantities and more likely to reach their ceilings, even if that ceiling may be lower (of course there are exceptions to everything, as guys like Bonds, Helton, Tex, Mussina went to college, just for example).

That's anectdotal, so I'd be curious to see if that's really the case. It would be interesting to see where most of the all stars or "superstars" come from, though I respect the time issue you mention of breaking things down even more than you did. Perhaps someone with more time on their hands will do such a breakdown one day.

Also, given the wash out rate of prospects (over half of even the best college guys aren't successful), maybe this shows it pays off to go the high school route, at least IF you think the guy has superstar type talent.

Again, thanks.

Thanks for the kind words. :)

A quick look at the multi-time all-star types >

Ken Griffey, Jr. , HS
Craig Biggio , College
Robin Ventura , College
Mo Vaughn , College
Chuck Knoblauch , College
Chipper Jones , College
Mike Mussina , College
Manny Ramirez , HS
Derek Jeter , HS
Alex Rodriguez , HS
Derrek Lee , HS
Torii Hunter , HS
Nomar Garciaparra , College
Paul Konerko , HS
Jason Varitek , College
Todd Helton , College
Roy Halladay , HS
Troy Glaus , College
Vernon Wells , HS
Lance Berkman , College
C.C. Sabathia , HS
Josh Beckett , HS
Barry Zito , College
Ben Sheets , College
Alex Rios , HS
Chase Utley , College
Joe Mauer , HS
Mark Prior , College
Mark Teixeira , College
Prince Fielder , HS
Scott Kazmir , HS
Cole Hamels , HS

[DennisTheOsFan]

With that list, you could go either way.

Are majority of those players 1st round picks?

[makoman]

Thanks for the kind words. :)

A quick look at the multi-time all-star types >

...


Well what do you know, it was 16-16, thanks for the slightly more intensive breakdown. Funny how stats let you know if your anectdotal recollections might be off. :)

I suppose, given the wash out rate of all prospects, that more than anything you just have to put faith in your scouting department (as well as your ability to actually sign those so-called uber-prospects and not pick lesser talents due to signability). I do feel better about our chances of success in both of those issues more these days than I did 5 years ago...

[mapierce]

Alvarez was a well liked prospect at his New York HS, and if memory serves me, he would have likely been a second or third rounder.

I thought that the BoSox did draft Alvarez straight out of high school and he opted not to sign with them? Or am I thinking of someone else? :confused:

[makoman]

I thought that the BoSox did draft Alvarez straight out of high school and he opted not to sign with them? Or am I thinking of someone else? :confused:

You're right, in the 14th round:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/index.cgi?franch_ID=BOS&year_ID=2005&draft_type=junreg

[Stotle]

I thought that the BoSox did draft Alvarez straight out of high school and he opted not to sign with them? Or am I thinking of someone else? :confused:

Alvarez was a 14th round pick for the BoSox back in '05, I believe.

[Greg Pappas]

With that list, you could go either way.

Are majority of those players 1st round picks?

All are from the researched years... so yes.

[Greg Pappas]

I thought that the BoSox did draft Alvarez straight out of high school and he opted not to sign with them? Or am I thinking of someone else? :confused:

It was a 14th round attempt by the Sox to get a higher end talent. :)

[Greg Pappas]

So say we had drafted Alvarez in the 3rd round a few years ago out of high shcool--would we have developed him into the hitter he is now (arguably the top batting prospect in college)? Or is there something wrong with the way we develop our bats in the minors? (I say this from an observational stance, since we've had so few good bats come through our system in recent memory, aside from Roberts and Markakis).

Fair questions and ones that are unanswerable. I'll say that Alvarez would still be outstanding, but one cannot be 100% certain.

[crawdad]

Well, I would wonder what the year to year data would yield. The thing is that player development has changed immensely in the past 20 years. Just lumping it all together may be hiding a lot of data. I think a major issue is that in the early 00s there was a run on college players because they were valued due to more easily (or perceived easily) projected performance. In turn, many college guys were overvalued an allowed high school talent to drop a bit in where they were selected. This is just a hypothesis. I havent tested it. Just from looking at year to year selections . . . it looks like there are apparent strategies and teams gravitating to certain strategies when it appears they work.

[furryburres]

I've always been a high school hitter sort of guy. They always seem to have more upside.

[odogs101]

This is what BA had to say about Alvarez before the '05 draft.



Pedro Alvarez SS Horace Mann HS, Bronx, N.Y. NY

The lefthanded-hitting Alvarez is one of the better hitters to come out of New York City since the Indians took Manny Ramirez with its first-round pick in 1991. He has beaten up weak pitching this spring, hitting .526-8-23 in 38 at-bats, forcing scouts to schedule their own batting practice sessions after games to get a truer reading on his hitting ability. He looked overmatched at last summers' East Coast Professional Baseball Showcase, but got himself in much better shape for this season, and it made a difference in all phases of his game, particularly his speed and mobility in the field. He’s also shown a better swing, with power potential that some scouts have graded up to 65-70 on the 20-80 scouting scale. Alvarez is not overly athletic and has a thick physique that resembles a young Carlos Baerga. A Vanderbilt recruit projected to go as high as the third round, he has attracted major league general managers to his games.

[Greg Pappas]

This is what BA had to say about Alvarez before the '05 draft.

I knew I'd read that somewhere. :)

[Greg Pappas]

Well, I would wonder what the year to year data would yield. The thing is that player development has changed immensely in the past 20 years. Just lumping it all together may be hiding a lot of data. I think a major issue is that in the early 00s there was a run on college players because they were valued due to more easily (or perceived easily) projected performance. In turn, many college guys were overvalued an allowed high school talent to drop a bit in where they were selected. This is just a hypothesis. I havent tested it. Just from looking at year to year selections . . . it looks like there are apparent strategies and teams gravitating to certain strategies when it appears they work.

This post rings of truth, and that's why these studies are inexact. This research does however show, as had my previous research, that Hitters are noticeably more successful than Pitchers, whether it be in the entire first round or just in the top 10 (again, not using the entire draft).