Drafting HS vs College

[TruffleShuffle]

I figured this is a pretty important debate, and rather than dump it in the lengthy 2007 draft discussion, I'll just start a new thread.

 

I favor the Cubs going with a college player as opposed to a high school player, because I want something that is more of a sure thing. I know that this has been studied - I think by BA, maybe BP - but I found this excellent article on the equally excellent brewerfan.net page. Here are a recap of some findings:

 

-Rated every player drafted in the first round from 1990-1999 on a scale from 2 (no production above A-ball) to 8 (superstar)

 

-College players had a better average score (4.92 to 4.44)

 

-52.6% of high school players were rated as a bust (2,3,4 - didn't make any meaningful contribution at the big league level) versus 43.9% of college players

 

-39.4% of college players went on to become decent to great major leaguers (6,7,8) versus 34.3% of high school players

 

 

And, I like what he has to say at the end:

 

I usually stay in the middle of the prep vs. college debates, and I almost always prefer the college players when everything else is considered even. That much has been confirmed, but after this study I may just start to lean towards the college players in the first round learning not only how much more likely you are to find a future Major League Baseball player, but how less likely they are to burn out quickly. With millions of dollars on the line, it makes sense to play the odds wisely.

 

 

I agree with this sentiment. If there were a Delmon Young, Ken Griffey Jr., A-Rod, etc., sitting there when the Cubs picked, I'd be all for it. Those were guys who were regarded as lower-risk high school players because they were just that talented. But I don't see there being any players of that caliber, so I'd lean toward selecting a college player with the 3rd overall pick. I think Wieters is a safe pick who has a pretty solid chance of becoming a better than average major leaguer.

[Outshined_One]

Copy-paste!

 

I've repeated this time and again whenever people try to do limited analyses of drafted players in terms of success rates based on a certain classification (pitchers, position players, college, HS, etc).

 

They do not work.

 

There are numerous factors which make things so incredibly muddled in terms of determining whether a team made the right decision in drafting a player. I've seen a number of studies done on overall success rates in the draft and whatnot, but you absolutely cannot make universal judgments on players based on something like whether that player was drafted in the Top 10 or if that guy was drafted as a shortstop.

 

Here are a few factors worth noting...

 

-Signability. In 2006, the consensus best player in the draft (Andrew Miller) fell to #6 due to signability concerns, since the top teams were worried about his contract demands. In 2004, Jered Weaver and Stephen Drew suffered the same fate. Because of contract demands, college commitments, and a variety of other factors, guys who would otherwise be taken in the Top 10, first round, first five rounds, or whatever, based on talent instead fall well out of those spots.

 

It's not necessarily that the Cubs have been able to unearth guys like Sean Gallagher, Jeff Samardzija, and Chris Huseby because they were diamonds in the rough. Instead, the Cubs had enough scouting and money to pry those guys away from their commitments.

 

-Injuries. Yes, they are an unfortunate fact of life when it comes to sports, but I maintain that the majority of injuries which occur are not foreseeable. Sometimes, bad things happen to guys which no one could see coming and it could at the least set back their development and at worst end their careers. How fair is it to judge a team based on drafting a certain player in hindsight when, at the time, he had a clean bill of health with no red flags?

 

Cripes, just imagine what the Mets' rotation would look like if Isringhausen, Wilson, and Pulsipher didn't all have arm injuries. I'll refrain from addressing the Cubs' history in this area, but you get the idea.

 

-Arbitrariness/Sample Size. This is part nitpick, part major point. The nitpick is, why limit yourself to the Top 10? What makes 10 so special? How much would it affect the numbers, success rates, and correlations if you increased the sample size to something like Top 15, Top 20, and so on? Based on the signability issues I mentioned above, wouldn't it make some sense to expand the pool to include these potential top picks who fell because of money concerns?

 

Secondly, this is an incredibly difficult thing to accurately measure in terms of sample size. I've seen people pull out the last 15 #6 overall picks in the NFL draft based on the Bears' tradeup rumors and people have been making predictions based on the success numbers at that pick. The problem is, the pick itself does not dictate how good or bad a player will be; it's the scouting department, talent available, and to a certain extent the luck that will determine that matter.

 

To me, that's the bottom line in all of this. I don't particularly care who the Cubs draft, where the guy played ball, how old he is, and so on. What I really care about is whether the Cubs did their homework on the guy and know that he's got the chops to make an impact on the big league club some day.

 

Poor scouting and bad luck lead to more busted draft picks than anything else, you know?

[UK1679666180]

Let's the chips ride, trust Wilken, the area crosschecker, the national crosschecker, & area scout on their BPA.

 

Trust that the Cubs instructors can maximize their talents and take the nec. steps to keep them as healthy as possible.

[cubweiser03]

-Rated every player drafted in the first round from 1990-1999 on a scale from 2 (no production above A-ball) to 8 (superstar)

 

-College players had a better average score (4.92 to 4.44)

 

-52.6% of high school players were rated as a bust (2,3,4 - didn't make any meaningful contribution at the big league level) versus 43.9% of college players

 

-39.4% of college players went on to become decent to great major leaguers (6,7,8) versus 34.3% of high school players

 

The bolded part is what i hear most about wanting to draft HS players. HS players have all the huge upside, you find more all stars, ect. Interestingly this analysis points in the other direction.

 

College players are safer AND you have higher probablity of upside, whats not to like.

 

Signability Question-I dont think this is that much of a negative to this analysis. True, guys who have signability issues can drop down the draft. But rarely are they out of the 1st round. After pick 20 you are getting a real accurate read of their true slot without any signability issues. If you were going to analysis top 5 or top ten, then yes i thinks its valid.

 

College guys are closer the to bigs and thus your return on the investement is quicker. That should count too.

[Scotti]

Signability Question-I dont think this is that much of a negative to this analysis. True, guys who have signability issues can drop down the draft. But rarely are they out of the 1st round. After pick 20 you are getting a real accurate read of their true slot without any signability issues. If you were going to analysis top 5 or top ten, then yes i thinks its valid.

 

I disagree. Andrew Miller is case in point. Clear #1 as HS kid but with signability issues he dropped to round 3 and went to college. IIRC Prior was a legit 1st rounder who dropped to 2nd and didn't sign. In fact many HS guys who fall do so because they want high/mid 1st round cash and teams picking in the late 1st and supplemental round are unwilling to fork over the cash to take them/risk a kid not signing (and, in the past, lose their 1st round pick).

 

This generally does NOT happen to college players unless they have other legit options (Samardzija). Returning to college for a senior season is generally not a legit option as this player then has no bargaining option. So it really only happens to guys like Veal (concerns about his commitment to education) or Prior or Miller who ALL had legit options left (college).

 

Signability for a college player generally means "Boras" (or similar) and that player usually doesn't slide far. Signability for a HS often means he has a solid option of going to college to improve his status--college players cannot go back to HS.

[CoolHandLuke]

I am almost to the point where I am sold on Vitters. He sounds like a very atypical high school hitter (ie. polished, a baseball player first and foremost, not an athlete)

 

I would still prefer Wieters, but if we were to take Vitters, I don't think I would be too upset.

[Scotti]

Signability Question-I dont think this is that much of a negative to this analysis. True, guys who have signability issues can drop down the draft. But rarely are they out of the 1st round. After pick 20 you are getting a real accurate read of their true slot without any signability issues. If you were going to analysis top 5 or top ten, then yes i thinks its valid.

 

I disagree. Andrew Miller is case in point. Clear #1 as HS kid but with signability issues he dropped to round 3 and went to college. IIRC Prior was a legit 1st rounder who dropped to 2nd and didn't sign. In fact many HS guys who fall do so because they want high/mid 1st round cash and teams picking in the late 1st and supplemental round are unwilling to fork over the cash to take them/risk a kid not signing (and, in the past, lose their 1st round pick).

 

This generally does NOT happen to college players unless they have other legit options (Samardzija). Returning to college for a senior season is generally not a legit option as this player then has no bargaining option. So it really only happens to guys like Veal (concerns about his commitment to education) or Prior or Miller who ALL had legit options left (college).

 

Signability for a college player generally means "Boras" (or similar) and that player usually doesn't slide far. Signability for a HS often means he has a solid option of going to college to improve his status--college players cannot go back to HS.

 

Scrolling through Brewerfan.net I ran across this diddy re Wieters, "Had Wieters not made it be known that he intended to honor his commitment to Georgia Tech coming out of high school, he likely would have been a first-round pick in 2004."

 

And this on Price, "In high school Price was also a very talented hitter, and would have been selected in the first three rounds had he not made his intentions to attend Vanderbilt clear to scouts."

 

And this for Moskos (they rate him 6th), "Moskos stands to be the best left-handed pitcher drafted out of Clemson since Tyler Lumsden, a first round supplemental pick in 2004."

 

And Brackman, "Brackman was well known coming out of high school, where his two-sport star status made him an incredibly tough sign."

 

So all four of their top college players for this year were either picked in the first, or dropped considerably as high schoolers as "tough signs."