My Top 30 Vs. Yours.....

[allstar1579]

I wish the guy who did the study would repost it. Like I said it was well done. The study was done for 1st rounders only. It seems to me he was a regular.

All one really has to do is look up drafts from say 2006 and later to see the names who have basically panned out. 2004 and later for HS pitchers.

Pretty sure it was Greg. The only problem is that tells you in hindsight what % panned out, but there is no way of knowing which of those % for each category might work. There is also going to be differences year to year, kinda like the NFL. There are always QBs taken in the first round, usually one will be a stud and one will be out of the league in 4 years, but then there are exception years like '83, or 2004 where you see multiple make it, and then years like 2002 where none of them do.

You can't think about % you have to evaluate each player and then make the most educated decision you can.

[crawdad]

Pretty sure it was Greg. The only problem is that tells you in hindsight what % panned out, but there is no way of knowing which of those % for each category might work. There is also going to be differences year to year, kinda like the NFL. There are always QBs taken in the first round, usually one will be a stud and one will be out of the league in 4 years, but then there are exception years like '83, or 2004 where you see multiple make it, and then years like 2002 where none of them do.

You can't think about % you have to evaluate each player and then make the most educated decision you can.

These studies are everywhere on the internet, just do a search.

I tell you, though, this type of work is often horribly misunderstood.

[QBsILLEST1]

These studies are everywhere on the internet, just do a search.

I tell you, though, this type of work is often horribly misunderstood.

Its more than horribly misunderstood, you cant use a "blanket clause" with the draft. Its no secret that both Matusz and Paxton are first round pitchers (from different drafts). If you wanna conclude that they have the same chance of becoming a usable MLer, then you can go right ahead, but be ready to be wrong. The idea of high fllor and someone being considered "safe" really throws a wrench into the % theory.....

* I guess to keep it apples to apples I coulda used Gibson rather than Matusz, but the basis is still the same....

[allstar1579]

These studies are everywhere on the internet, just do a search.

I tell you, though, this type of work is often horribly misunderstood.

Yup, and then used to make any argument legitimate. It's annoying.