How has Tim Wilkens done in 2 years?

[Mephistopheles]

most scouting departments are more worried about selling jeans than drafting baseball players

 

 

/moneyball

I was hoping for a better response. :(

 

i just love that reference. i had to post it!

 

Maybe the real success was the player development part of the systems, not the drafting....

 

 

im just saying. it doesnt take a special ability to recognize talent. it may take one to develop it...

:-k

 

Not sure I can agree that it doesn't take a special ability to recognize talent. There are a lot of college players that put up great numbers. Being able to map which of those players will be able to successfully transition their skills to the pros is not straightforward, though, otherwise first round picks wouldn't fail at such a high rate. If a scouting department can find players that have a lower failure rate, that is most certainly valuable.

 

It is difficult to separate the quality of the inputs from the process, though. Hmm...I wonder if some of the tools I use in business to do that could be applied here.

 

I'd actually argue that drafting players in the last ten years has become much more numbers oriented and that the success rate of first rounders is increasing. Besides most of the pitchers who fail fail because of injuries. The analyst in me says avoid at all costs. The eye can catch the bad mechanics that cause injuries -- but more often than not it doesn't matter: Mark Prior.

 

In sum drafting pitching is bad. Pay for it on the open market. Or draft it late hoping you get lucky (rich hill etc)

With your last statement then, you would agree with the way the draft went with the Cubs selecting many more players than pitchers earlier in the draft. Only 4 pitchers selected in the 1st 15 rounds, 6th/11th/12th/14th with those being Lambert , Siegfried, Acosta and Russell and three of those being left handers and all having decent moments at times this summer.

 

drafts arent won and lost with picks 5+. If you get one of those right you're either lucky, have great player development or threw a lot of money at a guy who was a tough sign. Really rounds 3-4 arent useful much either. You win on picks 1 and 2. I wouldnt have made the picks he made thats for sure.

[the splendid splinter]

most scouting departments are more worried about selling jeans than drafting baseball players

 

 

/moneyball

I was hoping for a better response. :(

 

i just love that reference. i had to post it!

 

Maybe the real success was the player development part of the systems, not the drafting....

 

 

im just saying. it doesnt take a special ability to recognize talent. it may take one to develop it...

:-k

 

Not sure I can agree that it doesn't take a special ability to recognize talent. There are a lot of college players that put up great numbers. Being able to map which of those players will be able to successfully transition their skills to the pros is not straightforward, though, otherwise first round picks wouldn't fail at such a high rate. If a scouting department can find players that have a lower failure rate, that is most certainly valuable.

 

It is difficult to separate the quality of the inputs from the process, though. Hmm...I wonder if some of the tools I use in business to do that could be applied here.

 

I'd actually argue that drafting players in the last ten years has become much more numbers oriented and that the success rate of first rounders is increasing. Besides most of the pitchers who fail fail because of injuries. The analyst in me says avoid at all costs. The eye can catch the bad mechanics that cause injuries -- but more often than not it doesn't matter: Mark Prior.

 

In sum drafting pitching is bad. Pay for it on the open market. Or draft it late hoping you get lucky (rich hill etc)

With your last statement then, you would agree with the way the draft went with the Cubs selecting many more players than pitchers earlier in the draft. Only 4 pitchers selected in the 1st 15 rounds, 6th/11th/12th/14th with those being Lambert , Siegfried, Acosta and Russell and three of those being left handers and all having decent moments at times this summer.

 

drafts arent won and lost with picks 5+. If you get one of those right you're either lucky, have great player development or threw a lot of money at a guy who was a tough sign. Really rounds 3-4 arent useful much either. You win on picks 1 and 2. I wouldnt have made the picks he made thats for sure.

Well maybe we better make you the scoting director, Wilken who's considered one of the tops doesnt look very good according to your criteria and all of his picks look horrible.

[UK1679666180]

In sum drafting pitching is bad. Pay for it on the open market. Or draft it late hoping you get lucky (rich hill etc)

 

I wouldn't consider Hill a late pick or luck at the stage of the 4th rd. That's where you select a avg. major league player, for a starter that a #4 spot. He's likely exceeded that but not to the point where it's luck moreso than a player slightly doing better, especially with the flaws he had at Michigan.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

The word "uninspiring" comes to mind...but neither class has even had 2 years to show anything.

[the splendid splinter]

The word "uninspiring" comes to mind...but neither class has even had 2 years to show anything.

They generally look " uninspiring" to most until the light at the other starts to show.

[Mephistopheles]

In sum drafting pitching is bad. Pay for it on the open market. Or draft it late hoping you get lucky (rich hill etc)

 

I wouldn't consider Hill a late pick or luck at the stage of the 4th rd. That's where you select a avg. major league player, for a starter that a #4 spot. He's likely exceeded that but not to the point where it's luck moreso than a player slightly doing better, especially with the flaws he had at Michigan.

 

 

teams may be looking for a guy who can be an average ML player or a #4, but in reality the odds of them getting that guy in the fourth round are roughly 1 in 20.

 

Looking from 1990-96 drafts in the fourth round here are guys that I included to be average ML guys.

 

1996 0 30

1995 2 30 Russ Ortiz, Adam Everett*

1994 1 27 Danny Graves

1993 1 28 Billy Koch*

1992 1 28 Joey Hamilton

1991 3 28 Terry Adams, Brian Boehringer, Paul Byrd

1990 3 26 James Baldwin, Garrett Anderson, Mike Meyers

 

11 197

 

Koch and Everett didn't sign so they may have been tough sign guys who slipped. There are a couple solid players there, but I am including LOOGYs....as average ML players and success picks. They may be looking for a guy who can be an average player with the fourth pick. They won't get it very often. So in effect, they only get it if they're lucky or rich.

[the splendid splinter]

In sum drafting pitching is bad. Pay for it on the open market. Or draft it late hoping you get lucky (rich hill etc)

 

I wouldn't consider Hill a late pick or luck at the stage of the 4th rd. That's where you select a avg. major league player, for a starter that a #4 spot. He's likely exceeded that but not to the point where it's luck moreso than a player slightly doing better, especially with the flaws he had at Michigan.

 

 

teams may be looking for a guy who can be an average ML player or a #4, but in reality the odds of them getting that guy in the fourth round are roughly 1 in 20.

 

Looking from 1990-96 drafts in the fourth round here are guys that I included to be average ML guys.

 

1996 0 30

1995 2 30 Russ Ortiz, Adam Everett*

1994 1 27 Danny Graves

1993 1 28 Billy Koch*

1992 1 28 Joey Hamilton

1991 3 28 Terry Adams, Brian Boehringer, Paul Byrd

1990 3 26 James Baldwin, Garrett Anderson, Mike Meyers

 

11 197

 

Koch and Everett didn't sign so they may have been tough sign guys who slipped. There are a couple solid players there, but I am including LOOGYs....as average ML players and success picks. They may be looking for a guy who can be an average player with the fourth pick. They won't get it very often. So in effect, they only get it if they're lucky or rich.

Llord good draft research! Little trouble with Anderson as an avg player, pretty good career, 297 hitter and will probably end up hitting 300 home runs. The Cubs can hope that Barney becomes an avg player being a 4th rounder and if he does great.

[Mephistopheles]

i should rephrase myself, those are all the guys who were decent or better. so i wasnt saying anderson was average. there wasnt anyone better than them only guys worse.

[UK1679666180]

In sum drafting pitching is bad. Pay for it on the open market. Or draft it late hoping you get lucky (rich hill etc)

 

I wouldn't consider Hill a late pick or luck at the stage of the 4th rd. That's where you select a avg. major league player, for a starter that a #4 spot. He's likely exceeded that but not to the point where it's luck moreso than a player slightly doing better, especially with the flaws he had at Michigan.

 

 

teams may be looking for a guy who can be an average ML player or a #4, but in reality the odds of them getting that guy in the fourth round are roughly 1 in 20.

 

Looking from 1990-96 drafts in the fourth round here are guys that I included to be average ML guys.

 

1996 0 30

1995 2 30 Russ Ortiz, Adam Everett*

1994 1 27 Danny Graves

1993 1 28 Billy Koch*

1992 1 28 Joey Hamilton

1991 3 28 Terry Adams, Brian Boehringer, Paul Byrd

1990 3 26 James Baldwin, Garrett Anderson, Mike Meyers

 

11 197

 

Koch and Everett didn't sign so they may have been tough sign guys who slipped. There are a couple solid players there, but I am including LOOGYs....as average ML players and success picks. They may be looking for a guy who can be an average player with the fourth pick. They won't get it very often. So in effect, they only get it if they're lucky or rich.

 

It might be 1 in 20, but most years there will be guys rated with an OFP of 50 still around in the 4th that are there not only b/c of signability but b/c of a deep draft.

[Mephistopheles]

then the scout grading system is too optimistic...

[the splendid splinter]

then the scout grading system is too optimistic...

Good homework. For some reason thou, Wilken and his scouts have had good history of making lower draft picks work. I was just trying to say, dont give up on some of their lower picks, they might be better than you think.

[Mephistopheles]

if that statement is true, then its more than likely good development.

[Guest]

if that statement is true, then its more than likely good development.

How do you explain a case like Minn where they keep missing on their first round picks, but keep getting success with lower rounders? Is it simply a case of picking the field vs Tiger?

[the splendid splinter]

if that statement is true, then its more than likely good development.

At first I thought I would leave this alone, but the more I thought about it I couldnt let it go. If you dont want to give scouts or Wilken his do ( his track record is 2nd to none) you'll just have to live with that yourself. When your at 3 different places with 3 different ideas of player developement and your still successful at getting players/pitchers of quality, somewhere its stops being a fluke and player developement all the credit, it just means your better than the people your scouting against and you have talent to select. Thats just the way I see it!!!

[Mephistopheles]

the rays havent exactly produced anything outside their top five picks.

[UK1679666180]

the rays havent exactly produced anything outside their top five picks.

 

I assume you mean 1st 5 rounds?

 

Not many teams do.

 

But Walker, Hammel, Sonnanstine, Jennings, Riggans, etc. is not a bad group of post 10th rd. selections.

[the splendid splinter]

the rays havent exactly produced anything outside their top five picks.

 

I assume you mean 1st 5 rounds?

 

Not many teams do.

 

But Walker, Hammel, Sonnanstine, Jennings, Riggans, etc. is not a bad group of post 10th rd. selections.

Also Perez their Cf at Montgomery who hit over 300 last season in the Cal League and once again at Montgomery a 7th round pick and a chance to be a real good player and Ryan Royster who as 20 yr old hit 329 at Columbus as a 8th rounder in 2004 and led their club to a championship this yr.

[badnews]

The Devil Rays have a very enviable record wit their 5+ round draft picks, one that I'd love the Cubs to have.

 

I don't see a ton of change from Stocksill to Wilken, just like the Devil Rays' drafts don't look a lot different since Wilken left. I wonder if picks like Jacob McGee were Wilken picks or D-Rays' picks, because I don't see any signs of us landing a McGee or other brilliant Wilken steals. The primary focus area still seems to be the southeast, Virginia, Florida, etc. and we still seem to be going for low-ceiling college guys like we did with Stocksill, instead of trying to land the future Matt Kemps, Curtis Grandersons, Joel Zumayas, even guys like Sean Gallagher who have better value than their round would augur.

 

Tony Thomas may have been a Wilken pick, but guys like Colvin, Barney, Guyer, Ty Wright, Marquez Smith, Leon Johnson, Wyatt, Samardzija, Lansford, Kopach, Camp, all seem like guys that would've been picked under Stocksill anyway.

 

I'd like the Cubs to use at least one mid-round pick a draft apiece on the youngest high school pitcher and the youngest high school outfielder they can find who will sign. Some of the guys who come out of high school are barely 17 and others are almost 19, pick up a couple of barely 17 year olds on a gamble and year and maybe they'll develop in a way no one can expect.

 

I'll give you an example, in 2006 the Phillies drafted an outfielder in the 5th round, D'Arby Myers, who was only 17 and a half. Now, he's not any good, but I'd rather roll the dice on a guy like that than flush the pick down the toilet with a guy like David "Trey" Taylor in 2005, who the Cubs drafted twice and I never even saw pitch.

 

Two other examples of "The youngest guy available:" Brandon Erbe and Sean Gallagher.

 

Vitters fits this example for sure, but I mean taking a guy Vitters' age in the mid rounds, a pitcher and an outfielder.

[UK1679666180]

The Devil Rays have a very enviable record wit their 5+ round draft picks, one that I'd love the Cubs to have.

 

I don't see a ton of change from Stocksill to Wilken, just like the Devil Rays' drafts don't look a lot different since Wilken left.

 

Some of that's luck and some of that is scouting and development, I highly doubt Wilken has changed anything in his approach as the Dir. of Scouting from his days with Toronto till now.

 

The Cubs are competing against 29 other teams, I'm sure they had players slotted that were taken right before them, which is part of luck and chance.

 

Of course, it might also show the Cubs are not as productive with the scouting and development as other teams. Wilken was very glowing about the scouting dept. of the Rays.

[the splendid splinter]

Home Unfiltered Articles Newsletter Statistics Fantasy Events Radio Glossary Search

 

Arizona DiamondbacksAtlanta BravesBaltimore OriolesBoston Red SoxChicago CubsChicago White SoxCincinnati RedsCleveland IndiansColorado RockiesDetroit TigersFlorida MarlinsHouston AstrosKansas City RoyalsLos Angeles AngelsLos Angeles DodgersMilwaukee BrewersMinnesota TwinsNew York MetsNew York YankeesOakland AthleticsPhiladelphia PhilliesPittsburgh PiratesSan Diego PadresSan Francisco GiantsSeattle MarinersSt. Louis CardinalsTampa Bay Devil RaysTexas RangersToronto Blue JaysWashington Nationals

 

 

<< Previous Article

Prospectus Q&A (05/27) << Previous Column

Wait 'Til Next Year (05/22) Next Column >>

Wait 'Til Next Year (05/29) Next Article >>

Every Given Sunday (05/27)

May 27, 2007

Wait 'Til Next Year

The Scouting Directors, NL Central

 

 

by Bryan Smith

Printer-

friendly

Contact

Author

 

 

This series is my attempt to identify the drafting tendencies of Major League scouting directors. In looking at the scouting directors, I'm hoping that the past might tell us something about the future. I'm analyzing them in multiple categories: Best Player Produced, Best Prospect in Minors, Notable Steals (any notable player that was drafted after round five), Five-Round Strategy (total picks in first round divided by college and high school selections), and Strategy in a Nutshell (subjective look at the scouting director's choices). Finally, I use this information to look into the 2007 Draft Crystal Ball and determine if we can forecast choices merely based upon previous tendencies. Today, we move to the NL Central. You can find the AL West here, the NL West here, and the AL Central here.

 

Chicago Cubs

Scouting Director: Tim Wilken (Drafts run: 2006, Devil Rays 2005, Blue Jays 1996-2000)

 

Best Player Produced: Vernon Wells (1st round, 1997) or Michael Young (5th round, 1997)

Best Prospect in Minors: Jeremy Hellickson (3rd round, 2005)

Notable Steals: Reed Johnson (17th round, 1999), Jay Gibbons (14th round, 1998), Orlando Hudson (43rd round, 1997), Mark Hendrickson (20th round, 1997)

Five-Round Strategy: 34 total picks. 44.1% college, 44.1% high school, 5.9% Latin, 2.9% junior college.

Strategy in a Nutshell: Landing Wilken as scouting director was a coup for the Cubs, as he's long been considered one of the best talent evaluators in the business. Hitter or pitcher, college or high school, Puerto Rican or American, it’s hard to spot biases in the way Wilken drafts. Whoever he has evaluated as the best player available, he will take. Wilken does evaluate differently, as he's made as many scratch their heads in the past over a pick like Alex Rios as they do now with Jeff Samardzija. But look for Wilken’s legacy to grow with the Cubs, as a bigger pocketbook should lend to more late-round steals.

2007 Draft Crystal Ball: While I have not used inside info in this section before, our own Kevin Goldstein has called Wilken's affinity for Josh Vitters the "draft's worst-kept secret." This doesn't necessarily defy his previous selections, so barring a late interest in Matt Wieters if he drops to the Cubs, we'll project Vitters here.

 

Cincinnati Reds

Scouting Director: Chris Buckley (Drafts Run: 2006, Toronto Blue Jays 2001-2003)

 

 

 

The rest of this article is restricted to Baseball Prospectus Subscribers.

 

Not a subscriber?

 

Click here for more information on Baseball Prospectus subscriptions or use the buttons to the right to subscribe and get access to the best baseball content on the web.

 

 

 

Cancel anytime.

 

 

 

That's a 33% savings over the monthly price!

 

 

 

That's a 33% savings over the monthly price!

 

Already a subscriber? Click here and use the blue login bar to log in.

 

 

 

<< Previous Article

Prospectus Q&A (05/27) << Previous Column

Wait 'Til Next Year (05/22) Next Column >>

Wait 'Til Next Year (05/29) Next Article >>

Every Given Sunday (05/27)

 

RECENTLY AT BASEBALL PROSPECTUS

Prospectus Today: Wrapping up the Playoffs' ...

Prospectus Toolbox: On Awards and Statistic...

Prospectus Matchups: Me So Worthy, or Unwort...

Nippon Prospectus: The NPB Playoff Picture

Playoff Prospectus: There's No Place Like Ho...

 

MORE FROM MAY 27, 2007

Every Given Sunday: Harvesting Pirates

Prospectus Q&A: Jack McKeon

Nationals Treasure?: Green Initiatives in DC

 

 

MORE BY BRYAN SMITH

2007-06-05 - Wait 'Til Next Year: My Guys on Draft Day

2007-05-31 - Wait 'Til Next Year: The Scouting Directors,...

2007-05-29 - Wait 'Til Next Year: The Scouting Directors,...

2007-05-27 - Wait 'Til Next Year: The Scouting Directors,...

2007-05-22 - Wait 'Til Next Year: The Scouting Directors,...

2007-05-20 - Wait 'Til Next Year: The Scouting Directors,...

2007-05-15 - Wait 'Til Next Year: The Scouting Directors,...

More...

 

MORE WAIT 'TIL NEXT YEAR

2007-06-05 - Wait 'Til Next Year: My Guys on Draft Day

2007-05-31 - Wait 'Til Next Year: The Scouting Directors,...

2007-05-29 - Wait 'Til Next Year: The Scouting Directors,...

2007-05-27 - Wait 'Til Next Year: The Scouting Directors,...

2007-05-22 - Wait 'Til Next Year: The Scouting Directors,...

2007-05-20 - Wait 'Til Next Year: The Scouting Directors,...

2007-05-15 - Wait 'Til Next Year: The Scouting Directors,...

More...

 

 

Baseball Prospectus Home | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Copyright © 1996-2007 Prospectus Entertainment Ventures, LLC.