H.S. v. College, Hitter v. Pitcher...

[Greg Pappas]

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57155

I researched the top ten draft picks over a 6 year period beginning in 1997 with the intent to show what choices were more likely to have success in the majors. Was H.S. better than college, were hitters the better choice over pitchers? Read the article and see for yourself.

Thanks.

[Lucky Jim]

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57155

I researched the top ten draft picks over a 6 year period beginning in 1997 with the intent to show what choices were more likely to have success in the majors. Was H.S. better than college, were hitters the better choice over pitchers? Read the article and see for yourself.

Thanks.

Nice work. Thanks for that resource, Greg.

[Greg Pappas]

Nice work. Thanks for that resource, Greg.

Thanks. I admit it's a short period of time, but as I said I believe choosing the top players has gotten a bit easier in scouting, so fewer mistakes are being made, at least on hitters.

[Greg Pappas]

My research has been updated to go back four further years, so we now have a full ten year period to pull data from.

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57155

Go to post #4 for the updated info.

[wayne25]

I sure hope the front office has this kind of info and USES it. We should take a hitter , unless there is none available.

[Mashed Potatoes]

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.

Thanks for the research Greg, you hold a special place in my heart.

I know your definition of success was subjective, but could you be a little more specific, perhaps a couple of sample cases on the border? Thanks in advance.

Assuming your conclusions are accurate our strategy should be to focus on hitters nearly regardless of the state of our ML roster. People always say you win with pitching, or, lets stockpile young arms and some will pan out. I say if you want to stockpile pitching then draft hitting with your top 10 pick! Build a surplus of positional talent, then trade that off for pitching thats already made some progress through the minors, lowering the pitchers bust potential.

[Greg Pappas]

Thanks for the research Greg, you hold a special place in my heart.

I know your definition of success was subjective, but could you be a little more specific, perhaps a couple of sample cases on the border? Thanks in advance.

Assuming your conclusions are accurate our strategy should be to focus on hitters nearly regardless of the state of our ML roster. People always say you win with pitching, or, lets stockpile young arms and some will pan out. I say if you want to stockpile pitching then draft hitting with your top 10 pick! Build a surplus of positional talent, then trade that off for pitching thats already made some progress through the minors, lowering the pitchers bust potential.

Yeah, there were guys like Wayne Gomes and Paul Wilson who were very borderline for me. Gomes was counted against, because his best year in the bigs was a 70 inning 4.30 ERA effort, well below his short career ERA average. Wilson did have a couple of solid years as a starter, so while he was regarded as a bust, he at least had success as a big leaguer.

I ask everyone to go through my Excel attachment in post 4 of the Article thread and use your own judgement. It will still show a noticeable difference in hitters v. pitchers.

Thanks as always for the kind words bro.

[hoosiers]

I applaud the effort, Greg. A lot of similar research is done comparing stuff like win shares by some respectable publications.

I have some issue with some classifications like Josh Hamilton. He did nothing for TB and has less than half a season under his belt. I think Loewen and Greinke will produce more in the majors before age 25 than Hamilton - yet the hitter is given a good pick and the two pitchers were not. Further, it's difficult for me to accept Hamilton as a good pick since he did not produce for the team that drafted and he was not used as a piece in trade by TB.

The bigger issue I have with this and other comparisons is that it does little to determine what kind of hitter or pitcher to draft. To just state flatly, "hitters are a better value in the top 10 pitcks" is a broad generalization, IMO, and does little to address the why. Surely, the odds of Bedard becoming a quality pitcher had little to do with the round he was chosen in. Bedard would be exactly where he is today if he were the first overall pick or drafted in the sixth round. IMO, someone will have found the real stuff when they understand how to separate out the Bedards from the Colt Griffins/Grulers/Everts/Karps and then draft accordingly.

[Greg Pappas]

I applaud the effort, Greg. A lot of similar research is done comparing stuff like win shares by some respectable publications.

I have some issue with some classifications like Josh Hamilton. He did nothing for TB and has less than half a season under his belt. I think Loewen and Greinke will produce more in the majors before age 25 than Hamilton - yet the hitter is given a good pick and the two pitchers were not. Further, it's difficult for me to accept Hamilton as a good pick since he did not produce for the team that drafted and he was not used as a piece in trade by TB.

The bigger issue I have with this and other comparisons is that it does little to determine what kind of hitter or pitcher to draft. To just state flatly, "hitters are a better value in the top 10 pitcks" is a broad generalization, IMO, and does little to address the why. Surely, the odds of Bedard becoming a quality pitcher had little to do with the round he was chosen in. Bedard would be exactly where he is today if he were the first overall pick or drafted in the sixth round. IMO, someone will have found the real stuff when they understand how to separate out the Bedards from the Colt Griffins/Grulers/Everts/Karps and then draft accordingly.

Thanks for the kind words.

Grienke and Loewen were already both counted as good picks. See the stats for 2002 in the attachment. Not sure why you felt they weren't. Bolded players were selected as good picks. My little note was how I saw them last year. So we agree they should have been (and were) counted as successful.

As far as your last sentence goes... the person that figures that out will be a very, very rich man.