anybody ever research the relationship between

[ibot2much]

success in the majors and the round a player was chosen in the draft pick?

 

That would be an interesting topic that I would love to spend some time on someday when I have the time. I thought of it when I saw that Darnell McD was a 1st rounder.....and his success has been pretty limited.

 

Somebody like Youk was taken pretty high, spent a long time in the minors and finally got his success.

 

I wonder if there IS any relationship...or some people peak early and fade

[Spitball]

That would be an interesting study on an inexact science like drafting potential players.

 

Without an indepth study, I can say there have been some recent drafting errors. Matt Bush was taken number one by the Padres earlier in the last decade and was a complete bust. Brian Bullington was taken as the first player in the '02 draft by the Pirates and has not pitched much nor effectively in the big leagues. The Angels' former first pick Brandon Wood was chosen the Minor League Player of the Year a couple of years back but now is trying to win a utility job with the Rockies. The Red Sox and Yankees had a couple of first round shortstops fail in Jason Place and C.J. Henry.

 

With more than a thousand players drafted every year, there have been many undrafted players be successful. Undrafted John Axford was an all-star last year. Heath Bell, George Sherrill, and Darren O'Day went undrafted. Rod Barajas and Ryan Hanigan were not drafted. Former Red Sox Matt Stairs and Daniel Nava were not drafted.

 

I know there have been studies on the merits of drafting college versus high school pitchers. Billy Beane and others have made it more of a scientific approach. It will be interesting to see how drafting progresses into the future.

[ibot2much]

You know more about this than I do so I was interested to read what you wrote. I would love to see where the various Hall of Fame players ranked in their respective drafts. They had their long and successful careers so that would be a given-----not just a couple of years of success

[User Name]

I recall reading a study about this subject, but if focused on BA's prospect rankings, and those usually correlate pretty closely (at least the top 20) with the rounds the players were taken in.

 

I'll see if i can find it.

[User Name]

http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

 

Not exactly what you're looking for, but there's some semblance of correlation.

[ibot2much]

Thanks, I skimmed the charts. The CONCLUSION section was interesting.

[example1]

I suspect there is a positive correlation between being picked higher and having MLB success. It isn't a 100% correlation but higher picks get more money for a reason.

[Elktonnick]

success in the majors and the round a player was chosen in the draft pick?

 

That would be an interesting topic that I would love to spend some time on someday when I have the time. I thought of it when I saw that Darnell McD was a 1st rounder.....and his success has been pretty limited.

 

Somebody like Youk was taken pretty high, spent a long time in the minors and finally got his success.

 

I wonder if there IS any relationship...or some people peak early and fade

 

Here is a quick summary that you may find interesting:

 

Extracted from The Bill James Baseball Abstract 1988

Ballantine Books, New York

Copyright 1988 by Bill James

 

“What I wanted to write about… is a very basic question. Of all the studies I have done over the last 12 years, what have I learned? What is the relevance of sabermetric knowledge to the decision making process of a team? If I were employed by a major-league team, what are the basic things that I know from the research I have done which would be of use to me in helping that team?”

1.Minor league batting statistics will predict major league batting performance with essentially the same reliability as previous major league statistics.

2.Talent in baseball is not normally distributed. It is a pyramid. For every player who is 10 percent above the average player, there are probably twenty players who are 10 pecent below average.

3.What a player hits in one ballpark may be radically different from what he would hit in another.

4.Ballplayers, as a group, reach their peak value much earlier and decline much more rapidly than people believe.

5.Players taken in the June draft coming out of college (or with at least two years of college) perform dramatically better than players drafted out of high school.

6.The chance of getting a good player with a high draft pick is substantial enough that it is clearly a disastrous strategy to give up a first round draft choice to sign a mediocre free agent. (see note #1)

7.A power pitcher has a dramatically higher expectation for future wins than does a finesse picther of the same age and ability.

8.Single season won-lost records have almost no value as an indicator of a pitcher’s contribution to a team.

9.The largest variable determining how many runs a team will score is how many times they get their leadoff man on base.

10.A great deal of what is perceived as being pitching is in fact defense.

11.True shortage of talent almost never occurs at the left end of the defensive spectrum. (see note #2)

12.Rightward shifts along the defensive spectrum almost never work. (see note #2)

13.Our idea of what makes a team good on artificial turf is not supported by any research.

14.When a team improves sharply one season they will almost always decline in the next.

15.The platoon differential is real and virtually universal.

[a700hitter]

15.The platoon differential is real and virtually universal.

People think the sabremetric stuff is relatively new with all the MoneyBall hooey. The platoon thing was a religion for Casey Stengel in the 1950's. His players hated him for it. He knew the benefit, and he probably never looked at a stat to see if he was right about it. I have to laugh at the OBP stuff. Yeah, Billy Beane invented that. I can remember my dad telling me about that as a kid. "Look at how much he walks not just the average." Since the game was invented, coaches have told their kids, " a walk is as good as a hit." There's nothing new under the son. Lot's of stuff that people think is new and revolutionary is something a bunch of other people already forgot about.

[ORS]

People think the sabremetric stuff is relatively new with all the MoneyBall hooey. The platoon thing was a religion for Casey Stengel in the 1950's. His players hated him for it. He knew the benefit' date=' and he probably never looked at a stat to see if he was right about it. I have to laugh at the OBP stuff. Yeah, Billy Beane invented that. I can remember my dad telling me about that as a kid. "Look at how much he walks not just the average." Since the game was invented, coaches have told their kids, " a walk is as good as a hit." There's nothing new under the son. Lot's of stuff that people think is new and revolutionary is something a bunch of other people already forgot about.[/quote']

Who thinks Beane created OBP?

[User Name]

Who thinks Beane created OBP?

 

Also, what does that have to do with the original topic of conversation, or anyone else's ideas on the current thread for that matter?

 

The man has officially joined the SoxSport school for lovers of the non-sequitur.

[a700hitter]

Who thinks Beane created OBP?

I didn't mean that literally.

[ORS]

I didn't mean that literally.

Oh, hyperbole? Maybe I should put in my signature, and a couple of days later when nobody notices, increase the font size and bold part of it?

 

Just saying.

[a700hitter]

Oh, hyperbole? Maybe I should put in my signature, and a couple of days later when nobody notices, increase the font size and bold part of it?

 

Just saying.

Touche!

 

I am a big Giants fan so I couldn't pass up the opportunity. Hopefully, by opening day I'll have a new sig.

[SoxSport]

One of the reasons many people think Tampa Bay has so many good young players is they drafted high for many years when they were losing. Plus they have a good organization which drafts well. No guarantees, but overall there is an advantage to drafting early.

[Spitball]

One of the reasons many people think Tampa Bay has so many good young players is they drafted high for many years when they were losing. Plus they have a good organization which drafts well. No guarantees' date=' but overall there is an advantage to drafting early.[/quote']

 

I have brought this up a few times. Between 1999 and 2008 they have had four number one picks, a number two, two number 3s, a number 4, a number 6,and a number 8. In the same time frame, the Sox have had only four in the top twenty. They've had a 16, two 17s, and a 19.

 

The Rays have drafted well, though. They are a good example of a team competing in the AL East against the big spending Yankees and Red Sox. It will be interesting to see how they move forward with success and much higher draft picks.

[SoxSport]

I have brought this up a few times. Between 1999 and 2008 they have had four number one picks, a number two, two number 3s, a number 4, a number 6,and a number 8. In the same time frame, the Sox have had only four in the top twenty. They've had a 16, two 17s, and a 19.

 

The Rays have drafted well, though. They are a good example of a team competing in the AL East against the big spending Yankees and Red Sox. It will be interesting to see how they move forward with success and much higher draft picks.

 

The Yankees are a spend first team. Watch what they do, not what they say. They do the sensible thing--maximizing their revenue advantage. Until there is local TV cable revenue sharing in baseball, the playing field will be uneven. The other team to watch this year is the Angels--they have another $100 million in local TV revenue from Fox sports that's paying for Pujols and Wilson. No added TV money, no Pujols.

 

I believe the main reason Epstein is now with the Cubs is the last few years he was playing the Yankee money game. And it pretty much blew up in his face.

[Palodios]

I have brought this up a few times. Between 1999 and 2008 they have had four number one picks, a number two, two number 3s, a number 4, a number 6,and a number 8. In the same time frame, the Sox have had only four in the top twenty. They've had a 16, two 17s, and a 19.

 

The Rays have drafted well, though. They are a good example of a team competing in the AL East against the big spending Yankees and Red Sox. It will be interesting to see how they move forward with success and much higher draft picks.

 

Well, considering the Rays drafted 8 players in the first round this year, they will be reaping the rewards from that for the next decade.

[Spitball]

Well' date=' considering the Rays drafted 8 players in the first round this year, they will be reaping the rewards from that for the next decade.[/quote']

 

Picks 24 through 64 are not the same as 1 through 10.

[Palodios]

Picks 24 through 64 are not the same as 1 through 10.

 

There still is a ton of talent in those rounds. Look what the Red Sox have gotten from those rounds. 8 first rounders is 8 first rounders any way you look at it.