Tom Boswell on Using Top 5 Draft Picks on Pitchers

[TJ Wrangler]

They can laugh at biomechanics all they want. The track record isn't good, and the mechanics are questionable.

Since when were scouts really good at predicting arm injuries?

I'm really liking where you're coming from in this thread. Mechanical analysis is only one part of scouting. I'm no scout, but I would think that they primarily look at whether or not a guy has the ability to succeed at the major league level and then projecting that ability before they look at things like mechanics. Coaches seem to be the ones who play a more prominent role in developing and correcting mechanics.

[Miller192]

I'm really liking where you're coming from in this thread. Mechanical analysis is only one part of scouting. I'm no scout, but I would think that they primarily look at whether or not a guy has the ability to succeed at the major league level and then projecting that ability before they look at things like mechanics. Coaches seem to be the ones who play a more prominent role in developing and correcting mechanics.

From my experience you are correct.

I got signed at a independant league camp in Sarasota Florida. There were handfuls of scouts there.

I am going to upload my scouting report here soon.

It is an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper with only one sentence attributed to my mechanics.

Obviously, they're are not looking at a bunch of draft prospects at that point so the attention to mechanics wasn't there as it is with the upper half of draft eligible prospects.

[crawdad]

Have you ever considered being the O's GM? We'd be in a decent place if you had been choosing.

Well . . . I think the reason why my list looks so good is because of the ever of overslot avoidance was so prevalent for a while. It is not anymore. For instance, the way last year shook out is somewhat close for what I thought . . . at least the first 15 picks minus Castro.

[allstar1579]

Well . . . I think the reason why my list looks so good is because of the ever of overslot avoidance was so prevalent for a while. It is not anymore. For instance, the way last year shook out is somewhat close for what I thought . . . at least the first 15 picks minus Castro.

Yeah, for a good chunk of those picks you posted for the O's we wouldn't deal with Boras, so that has a lot to do with it. I know there are other teams like the White Sox that feel the same.

[crawdad]

Prior to the 2008 Draft, Greg Pappas, provided some interesting research on Top 10 draft-picks during the 10 year draft-period of 1993 through 2003.

While subjective, he determined that of those picks:

A) High School Hitters > 72% good picks

B) College Hitters > 57% good picks

C) High School Pitchers > 31% good picks

D) College Pitchers > 28% good picks

I think you have to evaluate each prospect on their own merits... but I think this a good arguement for a team that is rebuilding (and some what limited resources compared to their main competetion) to be drafting the college position player, if they grade out basically even with the pitcher.

I can not blame Jordan and the Orioles for selecting Matusz... they selected the player they graded the highest...

That said, I thought there was an arguement at the time that the safer bet was SS Gordon Beckham... and I still believe that to be true.

Beckham btw, tore up the AFL... and has 7XBH, in 37 at-bats this Spring... he has gone back to SS, after Ozzie Guillen was briefly considering Beckham as the possible Opening Day 2nd baseman this year..

These numbers have certainly been bandied about forever and by several different sources, but the thinking behind it really is quite flawed.

I mean . . . teenage drinking does not get you pregnant.

[mweb]

I just want to point out that Ben McDonald was not a total bust like Boswell seems to claim and Kevin Brown is close to being a HOF pitcher.

[birrman54]

I'm really liking where you're coming from in this thread. Mechanical analysis is only one part of scouting. I'm no scout, but I would think that they primarily look at whether or not a guy has the ability to succeed at the major league level and then projecting that ability before they look at things like mechanics. Coaches seem to be the ones who play a more prominent role in developing and correcting mechanics.

And Keith Law mentions the 'inverted W' "wasn't there when he saw [strasburg]". Did he watch high speed film? at multiple angles?

If these guys think they can make reasonable biomechanical judgments based on casual observation, that is pure lunacy.

[Stotle]

And Keith Law mentions the 'inverted W' "wasn't there when he saw [strasburg]". Did he watch high speed film? at multiple angles?

If these guys think they can make reasonable biomechanical judgments based on casual observation, that is pure lunacy.

I think the issue may partly come from the fact that the inverted W isn't as big a flag if you can't see it in the normal course. As with everything, I think it's degrees.

[Greg Pappas]

Boswell's research coincides with my very own, shared here at the OH some time ago.

I used a ten year period from 1993-2002 to determine the success rates of the top ten draft picks from each year.

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.

Despite this, I still feel that Matusz was an exception that will result in a great choice for us. And it stands to reason that MacPhails mantra of 'inventory' -especially regarding pitchers- makes perfect sense. We need 10-12 starter prospects in hopes to get 5 to pan out.

[Hutman]

Boswell's research coincides with my very own, shared here at the OH some time ago.

I used a ten year period from 1993-2002 to determine the success rates of the top ten draft picks from each year.

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.

Despite this, I still feel that Matusz was an exception that will result in a great choice for us. And it stands to reason that MacPhails mantra of 'inventory' -especially regarding pitchers- makes perfect sense. We need 10-12 starter prospects in hopes to get 5 to pan out.

So Greg, based on this with the # 5 pick the Orioles select ???? What's your opinion?

[JTrea81]

Neyer chimes in on Boswell's article and the Nats and Strasburg.

It's fashionable to rip Boswell for his analysis, which sometimes falls a bit short of modern standards. But man, does he have a good point here. It's not that you don't want Strasburg in your organization. You do. He's almost certainly your first choice, in a vacuum. But we don't live in a vacuum.

Strasburg might be the best college pitcher in the history of college pitchers, and the next guy might be just the eighth-best college first baseman in the history of college first basemen. But that doesn't necessarily mean you don't take the first baseman. If the college first baseman actually has a better chance of helping you win baseball games for five or six years, then you probably should take the first baseman.

But of course there's even more. What if Strasburg is five percent more likely to help you win, but will cost you 100 percent more to sign? Do you take him anyway?

I don't know the answer to that question. What I do know is that the Nationals shouldn't draft Strasburg simply because everyone says they have to draft him. That's a really lousy way of doing business. Which would, come to think of it, be par for the course with this organization.

[Greg Pappas]

So Greg, based on this with the # 5 pick the Orioles select ???? What's your opinion?

We'll select the top player available. Jordan will go with whomever is the top player remaining on his board, regardless of position. JMHO.

[wickedwitch]

Neyer chimes in on Boswell's article and the Nats and Strasburg.

Boswell asks "What if Strasburg is five percent more likely to help you win, but will cost you 100 percent more to sign?"

That argument is flawed. Elite talent always costs exponentially more. Markakis won't be help us win 1000% more, but paying him $10 million instead of another player $1 million is considered a great deal despite his salary being 1000% higher. Assuming a decent sized-budget, say $70 million, a team can afford to pay for a star or two even if their salary is fairly high.

The goal isn't to create the most efficient team in terms of salary/wins, but to create the best team while staying under a certain budget.

[crawdad]

Boswell asks "What if Strasburg is five percent more likely to help you win, but will cost you 100 percent more to sign?"

That argument is flawed. Elite talent always costs exponentially more. Markakis won't be help us win 1000% more, but paying him $10 million instead of another player $1 million is considered a great deal despite his salary being 1000% higher. Assuming a decent sized-budget, say $70 million, a team can afford to pay for a star or two even if their salary is fairly high.

The goal isn't to create the most efficient team in terms of salary/wins, but to create the best team while staying under a certain budget.

Right, so the question is whether or not the money allotted to Strasburg could be better allocated?

For instance, does it make sense to sign Strasburg to a 10-15MM bonus or does it make sense to go after above slot talent in rounds 2-10?

I'd say that question is a lot more difficult to answer than it may seem on the surface. I guess it depends how much faith has in their system or whether they are just a Strasburg away from competing.

From my perspective . . . I think Strasburg is the right PR move. If you combine it with an aggressive push in the mid rounds and in free agency, it is the right baseball move. If the team is not willing to make that push, then they are better served with a long term plan which would make more sense to use the 10-15MM on overslotting high school or underclassmen.

[Mackus]

Boswell's research coincides with my very own, shared here at the OH some time ago.

I used a ten year period from 1993-2002 to determine the success rates of the top ten draft picks from each year.

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.

Despite this, I still feel that Matusz was an exception that will result in a great choice for us. And it stands to reason that MacPhails mantra of 'inventory' -especially regarding pitchers- makes perfect sense. We need 10-12 starter prospects in hopes to get 5 to pan out.

What was your criteria for "success"?

It would make some sense that hitters have roughly a twice as high success rate as pitchers. There are about twice as many starting hitters as starting pitchers on a team, so they only need to be half as good to earn a starting position.