Researching the MLB Draft...

[Greg Pappas]

Last year, before the 2007 MLB Draft, I had made a comment roughly to the effect that it was my belief that regarding first-round picks, and especially high first-round picks, Hitters seemed to be the most likely choice to be successful ML'ers, in comparison to Pitchers. I also felt that H.S. Hitters were perhaps the best choice overall.

The choices were:

1] High School Hitters

2] High School Pitchers

3] College Hitters

4] College Pitchers

I decided that I had better do some research to determine if my recollection of past drafts were accurate, and did so. To conclude a pick's success or failure, I determined that I should use the most recent time period to use as a reference point, so I went back ten years and began with the 1997 draft. Moving forward, I collected data on the next five drafts as well, stopping at the 2002 draft, as the fairness of concluding one's success or failure was a bit premature beginning in '03, for many of the picks had not yet made the big leagues. The basis of what I determined as 'successful vs not' is simply opinion based and therefore subjective.

Please download the attachment if you'd like to have my Excel spreadsheet, containing the research results for your own.

The results showed, albeit in a small sample size, and using the top ten choices as a focal point, that indeed; hitters were far more likely to be successful when choosing a top-ten draft pick.

1] High School Hitters > 72% good picks

2] College Hitters > 57% good picks

3] High School Pitchers > 31% good picks

4] College Pitchers > 28% good picks

These numbers may change, and likely would to some degree going back in time, however, it's my belief that scouts have more advantages than in years past. More tournaments, showcases, better equipment such as speed guns, scouting services to pull more resources from, and the advent of a new way of how to view talent (Moneyball, etc...) gives the modern scout an outstanding chance to determine the best talent out there.

Why are hitters more likely to be successful? I think the answer lies in the underlying issues of being a stud pitcher, whether in High School or College. Overuse and overthrowing are the likely causes, as the extra stress on their young arms often is evident within a few years of being drafted. Tommy John and other surgeries abound, and some of these youngsters are never the same. Another reason, and one that is just as likely as injury is that these youngsters never learn how to pitch. They never develop the skill to have command, or cannot master the all-important need for secondary pitches. Throwing 95 mph is great and certainly cannot be taught, but taking a pitcher who throws hard and may someday be able to harness his talents, is walking on thin ice. There are great early first round success stories among pitchers, that cannot be and is not being debated, but taking a hitter appears to be a much safer way to early-pick success.

Draft Research.xls

Draft Research.xls

Draft Research.xls

[SteveA]

Good stuff!

Very interesting that high school players tended to do better than college players. In Moneyball, Billy Beane avoided high school players because there wasn't an adequate way to compare them statistically like there is for college players. High school players are chosen essentially on scouting alone (tools, observation, etc).

[Greg Pappas]

Good stuff!

Very interesting that high school players tended to do better than college players. In Moneyball, Billy Beane avoided high school players because there wasn't an adequate way to compare them statistically like there is for college players. High school players are chosen essentially on scouting alone (tools, observation, etc).

Thanks.

Remember that my report is only looking at 60 total players and depending on your view of success the results can vary slightly. However, the major difference lies in hitters vs. pitchers, and again, just reviewing a 6 draft period from '97 - '02 and only the top ten.

My whole contention is this; I'd feel safer using a high pick, a top ten pick, on a hitter. Now there are circumstances where I might select a pitcher, but in general I would avoid that. An example is that come the 2008 draft and with the Orioles selecting 4th, there are two players ranked equally on our board... say 1B'man Justin Smoak, and lefty starter Brian Matusz. I would choose Smoak (and watch as Matusz goes on to win 3 Cy Youngs in a stellar career while Smoak fades into "bust land").

[Greg Pappas]

I just updated my research to contain the years '93-'96, so now we have a full ten year period to pull numbers from.

The new overall results for the success rates of top ten picks?

College Hitter > 69% (11/16)

HS Hitter > 63% (17/27)

HS Pitcher > 35% (8/23)

College Pitcher > 34% (11/32)

Conclusion: Hitters are nearly twice as likely to be better choices.

Draft Research Updated with a Ten Year Period.xls

Draft Research Updated with a Ten Year Period.xls

Draft Research Updated with a Ten Year Period.xls

[Natural7]

College hitters arrive in the majors faster and have greater immediate success than high school hitters, even if you factor in age.

[Greg Pappas]

College hitters arrive in the majors faster and have greater immediate success than high school hitters, even if you factor in age.

What information/research do you have to back this statement up?

I would tend to think there isn't much difference either way, but you may be right that a difference does exists.

[hoosiers]

College hitters arrive in the majors faster and have greater immediate success than high school hitters, even if you factor in age.

What's your source?

This is highly dubious, IMO, when adjusted for age.

[Gurgi]

Starting here because there is an error on the other thread. Feel free to move it to that thread when fixed.

So what would you suggest? Drafting just hitters with a high draft pick?

Just for curiosity sake why dont you take your research back all the way to the start of the draft.

Why use only the first ten players drafted. Why not use the whole first round?

In theory you could draft only hitters for the first ten rounds then switch to high school pitchers for the rest of the draft(since any college pitcher falling to below the first ten rounds cant be all that good). You could load up on better hitters who pan out at a higher average and trade the surplus for pitchers.

Something about this seems wrong but hey maybe there is a hidden advantage in there for someone.

[Greg Pappas]

Starting here because there is an error on the other thread. Feel free to move it to that thread when fixed.

So what would you suggest? Drafting just hitters with a high draft pick?

Just for curiosity sake why dont you take your research back all the way to the start of the draft.

Why use only the first ten players drafted. Why not use the whole first round?

In theory you could draft only hitters for the first ten rounds then switch to high school pitchers for the rest of the draft(since any college pitcher falling to below the first ten rounds cant be all that good). You could load up on better hitters who pan out at a higher average and trade the surplus for pitchers.

Something about this seems wrong but hey maybe there is a hidden advantage in there for someone.

I don't have the time to research back to 1965. The main point of the article/research is to show that recent history suggest that top ten picks favor selecting hitters over pitchers. I said nothing of any other round, especially ten rounds. My research is simply top ten pick based. I find it relevant because once again we are selecting in the top ten, and will likely do so again the year after.

My conclusions are that for that first pick, with all things being equal (talent, projection) in the scouts eyes, a hitter is the better choice, because they are safer bets to have success as ML'ers in comparison to pitchers. I believe that hitters are easier to scout because they are far more available to the scouts to be seen. They play everyday, whereas pitchers play far less often, pitching once every 4-5 games (roughly).

This comment is one that has merit... "You could load up on better hitters who pan out at a higher average and trade the surplus for pitchers." ... in regards to choosing a hitter in the top ten, again, with all things being equal.

[Tony-OH]

I don't have the time to research back to 1965. The main point of the article/research is to show that recent history suggest that top ten picks favor selecting hitters over pitchers. I said nothing of any other round, especially ten rounds. My research is simply top ten pick based. I find it relevant because once again we are selecting in the top ten, and will likely do so again the year after.

My conclusions are that for that first pick, with all things being equal (talent, projection) in the scouts eyes, a hitter is the better choice, because they are safer bets to have success as ML'ers in comparison to pitchers. I believe that hitters are easier to scout because they are far more available to the scouts to be seen. They play everyday, whereas pitchers play far less often, pitching once every 4-5 games (roughly).

This comment is one that has merit... "You could load up on better hitters who pan out at a higher average and trade the surplus for pitchers." ... in regards to choosing a hitter in the top ten, again, with all things being equal.

This is interesting stuff, but I would tell you that most scouts would tell you that pitching is easier to scout than hitting. The problem with pitching is injuries. Pitchers break down way more than hitters do so I think you would need to go a little deeper into the research before coming to that conclusion.

It would be interesting to see someone research the entire first round over the last twenty years and break it down by college hitter, college pitcher, JUCO pitcher, JUCO hitter, high school pitcher and high school hitter then break it down by which ones were injured/ just weren't any good/ became a bit player in the majors/ major league starter/ major league all-star ...

Then some definite conclusions could be drawn...

Good start though...

[Gurgi]

I would love to see someone break this down in detail. If it works for the first ten players maybe it works for the first round or multiple rounds. If it is true I could see someone using this trick until the league figured it out. After they did it would throw things out of wack. If everyone started drafting hitters real heavy at the top of the draft folks would then assume great pitchers are just waiting to be plucked like ripe fruit.

Actually I would be interested if any ballclub has basically begun to do this on the sly. That would take way more time than I have on my hands to figure it out.

[Greg Pappas]

This is interesting stuff, but I would tell you that most scouts would tell you that pitching is easier to scout than hitting. The problem with pitching is injuries. Pitchers break down way more than hitters do so I think you would need to go a little deeper into the research before coming to that conclusion.

It would be interesting to see someone research the entire first round over the last twenty years and break it down by college hitter, college pitcher, JUCO pitcher, JUCO hitter, high school pitcher and high school hitter then break it down by which ones were injured/ just weren't any good/ became a bit player in the majors/ major league starter/ major league all-star ...

Then some definite conclusions could be drawn...

Good start though...

That would surprise me. I don't have have contact with these scouts (unfortunately), but I imagine you do. Perhaps you could get a chane to ask a few of them the reasons behind that. I really would like to understand.

As far as the deeper research, I'd like to know the answers to all of that as well, and if I get the time, I'll give it a shot.

Good post Tony, and thanks.

[Icterus galbula]

I'm no professional scout, but I can imagine why scouting a pitcher would be easier. When you go to watch a starter, you get a lot more repetition to view than you do with a hitter. How fluid is their delivery? How much command do they have? What pitches do they throw? How hard do they throw? Are they a GB or FB pitcher? How do they handle adversity? All of those questions could be reasonably answered after watching a starter throw for a few innings, whereas a hitter, in his limited 4 ABs or so per game, may not get much of a chance to show off his: ability to hit for power or contact, batting eye and ability to work the count, speed/instincts on basepaths, skill as a fielder. It would take many more games to appreciate the nuances of a hitter's abilities rather than the requisite couple of starts for a pitcher.

I'm certainly willing to be corrected on any of this, but thats how it seems to me.

[Greg Pappas]

I'm no professional scout, but I can imagine why scouting a pitcher would be easier. When you go to watch a starter, you get a lot more repetition to view than you do with a hitter. How fluid is their delivery? How much command do they have? What pitches do they throw? How hard do they throw? Are they a GB or FB pitcher? How do they handle adversity? All of those questions could be reasonably answered after watching a starter throw for a few innings, whereas a hitter, in his limited 4 ABs or so per game, may not get much of a chance to show off his: ability to hit for power or contact, batting eye and ability to work the count, speed/instincts on basepaths, skill as a fielder. It would take many more games to appreciate the nuances of a hitter's abilities rather than the requisite couple of starts for a pitcher.

I'm certainly willing to be corrected on any of this, but thats how it seems to me.

Good post and you may be right.

[bird watcher]

Last year, before the 2007 MLB Draft, I had made a comment roughly to the effect that it was my belief that regarding first-round picks, and especially high first-round picks, Hitters seemed to be the most likely choice to be successful ML'ers, in comparison to Pitchers. I also felt that H.S. Hitters were perhaps the best choice overall.

The choices were:

1] High School Hitters

2] High School Pitchers

3] College Hitters

4] College Pitchers

I decided that I had better do some research to determine if my recollection of past drafts were accurate, and did so. To conclude a pick's success or failure, I determined that I should use the most recent time period to use as a reference point, so I went back ten years and began with the 1997 draft. Moving forward, I collected data on the next five drafts as well, stopping at the 2002 draft, as the fairness of concluding one's success or failure was a bit premature beginning in '03, for many of the picks had not yet made the big leagues. The basis of what I determined as 'successful vs not' is simply opinion based and therefore subjective.

Please download the attachment if you'd like to have my Excel spreadsheet, containing the research results for your own.

The results showed, albeit in a small sample size, and using the top ten choices as a focal point, that indeed; hitters were far more likely to be successful when choosing a top-ten draft pick.

1] High School Hitters > 72% good picks

2] College Hitters > 57% good picks

3] High School Pitchers > 31% good picks

4] College Pitchers > 28% good picks

These numbers may change, and likely would to some degree going back in time, however, it's my belief that scouts have more advantages than in years past. More tournaments, showcases, better equipment such as speed guns, scouting services to pull more resources from, and the advent of a new way of how to view talent (Moneyball, etc...) gives the modern scout an outstanding chance to determine the best talent out there.

Why are hitters more likely to be successful? I think the answer lies in the underlying issues of being a stud pitcher, whether in High School or College. Overuse and overthrowing are the likely causes, as the extra stress on their young arms often is evident within a few years of being drafted. Tommy John and other surgeries abound, and some of these youngsters are never the same. Another reason, and one that is just as likely as injury is that these youngsters never learn how to pitch. They never develop the skill to have command, or cannot master the all-important need for secondary pitches. Throwing 95 mph is great and certainly cannot be taught, but taking a pitcher who throws hard and may someday be able to harness his talents, is walking on thin ice. There are great early first round success stories among pitchers, that cannot be and is not being debated, but taking a hitter appears to be a much safer way to early-pick success.

I would think it would be difficult to compare HS hitters to college hitters strictly by success numbers. A HS hitter has to be really really good for his age to get drafted where a college hitter has to be merely good. Looking at the NBA you could say that HS players have a better chance to succeed but that is because there aren't as many.

This is the same problem with saying (looking at the NFL) that teams that run the ball over 30 times and for at least 100 yards win the game. You can't say oh well then lets just keep running the ball because we will eventually get those counting stats.

If you decided to only draft high school hitters you would run out of top talent before you would if you included college hitters.

Most hitters don't become elite (relative to their age) until into their college years 18-21 (this part is just my thoughts, I can't prove it).

Good discussion. This is why I love the OH.