BP article on correlation between age on draft day and future success

[Stotle]

Not new within the industry, but I think this is the first publicly published piece I've seen on this topic. Worth a read if you like draft stuff:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=15295

[Can_of_corn]

Not surprising but still enlightening to see the details. I know the piece was hitter specific but age versus peer group was one of the reasons I wasn't fond of the Hobgood pick, the Givens pick as well.

[bobmc]

Bottom line then Delmonico as well as Givens are busts?

[Frobby]

Billy Rowell was 17 when we drafted him.

[Hallas]

Billy Rowell was 17 when we drafted him.

Sure, but I think that, looking past our own draft failures, we have to consider that a 17 year old can eff up for a year or two and still make it in the majors by age 22 or 23. Bill Rowell just turned 23, and he had the luxury of being able to repeat a grade twice and still be on track with his development, because he was so young. Obviously the chances of him figuring it out are pretty slim, but that's a huge margin of error that just doesn't exist when you are drafting a 19 year old. If Rowell were that age, we would have stuck a fork in him 2 years ago.

[Pat Kelly]

Brandon Snyder was 18 when he was drafted in 2005 but turned 19 five months later in November. Jay Bruce drafted one pick before was 18 in April. Cameron Maybin and Andrew McCutcheon were both 18 although McCutcheon like Snyder turned 19 later that year. Justin Upton drafted first overall was 17, turning 18 in August.

Now for the good news Manny Machado was 17 when drafted (turning 18 on July 6) playing in high A ball at 19 and potentially in AA in 2012 at 19 as well. Let's hope he follows the trend and with the O's in the summer of 13 at 20 or 21!

[Frobby]

Sure, but I think that, looking past our own draft failures, we have to consider that a 17 year old can eff up for a year or two and still make it in the majors by age 22 or 23. Bill Rowell just turned 23, and he had the luxury of being able to repeat a grade twice and still be on track with his development, because he was so young. Obviously the chances of him figuring it out are pretty slim, but that's a huge margin of error that just doesn't exist when you are drafting a 19 year old. If Rowell were that age, we would have stuck a fork in him 2 years ago.

I'm not disagreeing with the concept, just demostrating that picking the young guy doesn't always work. Other 17-year olds we drafted include Brandon Erbe and Manny Machado.

[hoosiers]

I do not know how our scouting department and directors stack up with others in drafting guys old or young for HSers on draft day, but we have chosen our share of early round busts who were old for their age - off the top of my head, Bryan Bass, Cory Schafer, Givens and several others were older HSers.

This study is no surprise to me. Books out there like Outliers make it very clear the advantage the older kids have for their age groups and there was criticism several years ago here that Bass and Schafer might not measure up when they were older on draft day.

Similarly, Bryce Harper and Manny Machado may be that much more talented than kids taken in their drafts considering how young both of them were.

Again, no new ground to me here other than someone formalizing what many have perceived for years. Our scouts and scouting director need to do a better job of taking this into account on draft day.

[Lucky Jim]

Again, no new ground to me here other than someone formalizing what many have perceived for years. Our scouts and scouting director need to do a better job of taking this into account on draft day.

I think - all of our (collective and long-established) differences aside - that we can agree on this.

[Stotle]

I think - all of our (collective and long-established) differences aside - that we can agree on this.

I disagree with the assessment that this is a stance that has been perceived for years. I mean, in general I guess that's true. But the author's point is a bit more extreme -- that is, he advocates the position that Francisco Lindor should have been drafted ahead of Starling without question, based solely on their respective dates of birth. I don't recall reading those thoughts around these parts last June.

I have heard the "Lindor over Starling" argument from area scouts, with age as the primary reason. But have never read that argument put forth on a message board or on a blog. Maybe I don't read enough message boards (really its only this one for me) or blogs (I haven't read draft blogs regularly for a year or two).

[Can_of_corn]

I disagree with the assessment that this is a stance that has been perceived for years. I mean, in general I guess that's true. But the author's point is a bit more extreme -- that is, he advocates the position that Francisco Lindor should have been drafted ahead of Starling without question, based solely on their respective dates of birth. I don't recall reading those thoughts around these parts last June.

I have heard the "Lindor over Starling" argument from area scouts, with age as the primary reason. But have never read that argument put forth on a message board or on a blog. Maybe I don't read enough message boards (really its only this one for me) or blogs (I haven't read draft blogs regularly for a year or two).

I agree with you. I think everyone knows that younger is better as a general rule but I don't think most folks thought the impact was nearly as great as presented here. I know I certainly didn't expect the effect was that pronounced.

[Lucky Jim]

I disagree with the assessment that this is a stance that has been perceived for years. I mean, in general I guess that's true. But the author's point is a bit more extreme -- that is, he advocates the position that Francisco Lindor should have been drafted ahead of Starling without question, based solely on their respective dates of birth. I don't recall reading those thoughts around these parts last June.

I have heard the "Lindor over Starling" argument from area scouts, with age as the primary reason. But have never read that argument put forth on a message board or on a blog. Maybe I don't read enough message boards (really its only this one for me) or blogs (I haven't read draft blogs regularly for a year or two).

I meant the second part. Should have quoted more accurately. Or just avoid trying to draw consensus in general. (Probably the latter. )

[allstar1579]

I look at the age as a part of the equation but I don't put as much weight into it as the author was trying to give it. Kind of like Marrero from Az. St. When I saw him in the UA game a couple years back I really liked him because of the age and the D at SS. I still don't know for sure what you're going to get with the bat, but there is time for that to develop a bit, that defense though is unreal.