Tom Boswell on Using Top 5 Draft Picks on Pitchers

[Stotle]

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

ISn't Neyer basically saying, "Assuming Boswell is right about his conclusion, Boswell is right!" As Crawdad has pointed out, I don't think Boswell's case is built upon a strong statistical foundation.

[wickedwitch]

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.

Baseball Analysts did something similar. http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/05/the_mlb_draft_c.php

As I noted in the comments:

I agree it would have been better to rate the players' success on a gradient.

I wonder how this would look if you took the top x players in each category, as opposed to limiting it to the first round. Maybe if HSers were picked at the same rate as college ones, the result would be different.

[crawdad]

ISn't Neyer basically saying, "Assuming Boswell is right about his conclusion, Boswell is right!" As Crawdad has pointed out, I don't think Boswell's case is built upon a strong statistical foundation.

Yeah . . . I think the question is valid, but Boswell's study is not based on a solid experimental foundation. His data set sucks, to be kind. It is descriptive, but not useful in a predictive format because it genericizes the data.

[Lucky Jim]

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.

I don't think this is true. In fact, I'm sure it's not.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-six

The money paid per win is linear. Great players get longer contracts. In other words, teams are willing to pay for declining years more readily for better players, once a certain threshold is reached.

Second, it appears you're not really reading the point correctly. Does Markakis only offer a 5% better chance of winning than a $1m player?

I'm not sure what a 5% better chance to win really is. But a FA $1m player is, generally, a sub 1 WAR guy. And Markakis was at 6.2 WAR last year.

And if we're just pointing to players Markakis is 5% better than, then we're talking about a difference of 6.2 to 5.8 WAR or something similar. Certainly, that's not worth 100% more in pay. Right?

[crawdad]

I don't think this is true. In fact, I'm sure it's not.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-six

The money paid per win is linear. Great players get longer contracts. In other words, teams are willing to pay for declining years more readily for better players, once a certain threshold is reached.

Second, it appears you're not really reading the point correctly. Does Markakis only offer a 5% better chance of winning than a $1m player?

I'm not sure what a 5% better chance to win really is. But a non-FA $1m player is, generally, a sub 1 WAR guy. And Markakis was at 6.2 WAR last year.

And if we're just pointing to players Markakis is 5% better than, then we're talking about a difference of 6.2 to 5.8 WAR or something similar. Certainly, that's not worth 100% more in pay. Right?

To make this discussion even more difficult. A 5 win player for a 70 win team is worth differently than a 5 win player on a 90 win team.

[Lucky Jim]

To make this discussion even more difficult. A 5 win player for a 70 win team is worth differently than a 5 win player on a 90 win team.

Yeah - this is the point that separated a lot of us in the Teix discussion from those clamoring for a signing.

Understanding value in the context of time & leverage is complicated. But I'm of a mind that you have to try.

[JTrea81]

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

I disagree with this as under MacPhail, Jordan did not take the best player available which was either Buster Posey, Gordon Beckham or Justin Smoak. The previous three drafts, Jordan did take what he thought was the BPA.

The Orioles drafted for need with Matusz as MacPhail's philosophy is to have as much pitching as possible.

We will take the best pitcher available IMO.

[allstar1579]

I disagree with this as under MacPhail, Jordan did not take the best player available which was either Buster Posey, Gordon Beckham or Justin Smoak.

The Orioles drafted for need with Matusz as MacPhail's philosophy is to have as much pitching as possible.

We will take the best pitcher available IMO.

That is YOUR opinion, not theirs, obviously theirs was that Matusz was a better overall talent, and opinion that is both educated and acceptable.

You really need to get over this "my opinion is fact" thing.

[Lucky Jim]

That is YOUR opinion, not theirs, obviously theirs was that Matusz was a better overall talent, and opinion that is both educated and acceptable.

You really need to get over this "my opinion is fact" thing.

He refuses to acknowledge his own biases and logical shortfalls. It's remarkable.

[JTrea81]

That is YOUR opinion, not theirs, obviously theirs was that Matusz was a better overall talent, and opinion that is both educated and acceptable.

You really need to get over this "my opinion is fact" thing.

It's not just my opinon as the rankings of the top prospects in baseball speak for themselves:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/2009/267698.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=law_keith&id=3840355

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8506

Matusz was not the BPA at #4. He may have been the BPA on the Orioles' board, but I would guarantee that was influenced by Andy MacPhail.

Buster Posey was the BPA on all accounts, (though I think Smoak will overtake him), thus the Orioles did not take the BPA.

[Stotle]

It's not just my opinon as the rankings of the top prospects in baseball speak for themselves:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/2009/267698.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=law_keith&id=3840355

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8506

Matusz was not the BPA at #4. He may have been the BPA on the Orioles' board, but I would guarantee that was influenced by Andy MacPhail.

Buster Posey was the BPA on all accounts, thus the Orioles did not take the BPA.

Ummmmmm, why on earth are you using lists made almost a year after the draft to state who the BPA was at the time of the draft???

Baseball America had Matusz rated third at the time of the draft, behind T. Beckham and Alvarez -- http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/draft-tracker/2008/266183.html

Posey 4th

Smoak 7th

[Mackus]

I disagree with this as under MacPhail, Jordan did not take the best player available which was either Buster Posey, Gordon Beckham or Justin Smoak. The previous three drafts, Jordan did take what he thought was the BPA.

This is so utterly ridiculous, even for you.

Jordan took who he thought was clearly the best player available last year.

He was debating between Smoak and Matusz right up until the night before the draft. When he said he had an epiphany that one of the biggest reasons he was ranking them so closely was because of the organizational need for a 1B. So when he stopped factoring that in, Matusz was the easy choice.

[JTrea81]

Ummmmmm, Baseball America had Matusz rated third at the time of the draft, behind T. Beckham and Alvarez -- http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/draft-tracker/2008/266183.html

That's one ranking.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7611

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/draft2008/insider/news/story?id=3418698

[JTrea81]

And then there's this:

4. Baltimore Orioles. The universal feeling here is that the Orioles have put all of their energy picking between the top two college arms, and that’s been reflected in their frequent attendance in the two’s recent appearances. So the decision will come down to taking the pitcher with the deeper arsenal and better command (Matusz), or the one with more pure power stuff (Crow). There is little belief they’ll go in any other direction, but Alvarez somehow getting here would certainly prompt some heated internal discussions.

The Orioles were going college arm regardless it seems, so BPA wasn't really a factor IMO.

Jordan was just toeing the company line IMO. As you noticed we also didn't draft a single Boras client in 2008 unlike 2007. I doubt you will see us draft a Boras client in 2009 as well...

[Stotle]

That's one ranking.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7611

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/draft2008/insider/news/story?id=3418698

1. One ranking is all you need to show that there is debate. Your post was an attempt to make it look like there was no way Matusz could have been considered the best player available.

2. We've heard Jordan's thoughts on Matusz/Smoak (which you now dismiss as flat out lying).

3. We also have ten other teams passing on Smoak in the actual draft.

To put everything into context, BA takes into account all the organizational scouts and cross-checkers they speak to, while someone like Keith Law is going off of just his own ratings. Now, I generally respect Law's evaluative skills, but BA is most likely a better gauge as to what the "group think" is among the industry folks. I don't know anything about Baseball Prospectus's coverage of the draft, and how they get their rankings.