Drafty in here...
by Grant Brisbee on Mar 18, 2005 2:00 PM PST
in News
Email
PrintSince Michael Tucker was taken in the first round of the 1992 draft, here are all the position players drafted from the 21st pick of the first round until the end of the round (including supplemental rounds).
Jason Varitek OF
Charles Peterson OF
Kevin Orie SS
Mike Bell 3B
Josue Estrada OF
Pat Watkins OF
Jermaine Allensworth OF
Todd Dunn OF
Matt Farner OF
Kelcey Mucker OF
Andy Rice 1B
Hiram Bocachica SS
Dante Powell OF
Brian Buchanan 1B-OF
Mark Johnson C
Kevin Witt SS
Jay Payton OF
Russ Johnson SS
Jacob Cruz OF
David Miller 1B
Corey Jenkins OF
Jeff Liefer 3B
Shea Morenz OF
Michael Barrett SS
Chris Haas 3B
Damian Rolls 3B
John Oliver OF
A.J. Zapp 1B
Danny Peoples 1B
Paul Wilder OF
Pete Tucci 1B-OF
Jayson Werth C
Tyrell Godwin OF
Glenn Davis 1B
Darnell McDonald
Kevin Nicholson
Troy Cameron SS
Jack Cust 1B
Brett Caradonna OF
Mark Fischer OF
Ntema Ndungidi OF
Scott Hodges SS
Jason Romano 3B
Jason Fitzgerald OF
Thomas Pittman 1B
Dan McKinley OF
Matthew LeCroy C
Tootie Myers OF
Jason Tyner OF
Bubba Crosby OF
Andy Brown OF
Rick Elder OF
Chip Ambres OF
Arturo McDowell OF
Brad Wilkerson OF
Aaron Rowand OF
Raphael Freeman OF
Mamon Tucker OF
Jeff Winchester C
Eric Valent OF
Larry Bigbie OF
Keith Reed OF
Jason Repko OF
Mike Rosamond OF
Chris Duncan IF
Brian Roberts SS
Nick Trzesniak C
David Espinosa SS
Scott Heard C
Corey Smith IF
Robert Stiehl C
David Parrish C
Scott Thorman IF
Tripper Johnson 3B
Tyrell Godwin CF
Aaron Herr IF
John-Ford Griffin OF
Bobby Crosby IF
Josh Burrus 3B
Bryan Bass SS
Mike Woods IF
Jeff Mathis C
Bronson Sardhinha IF
Michael Garciaparra SS
David Wright 3B
Richard Lewis IF
Todd Linden OF
Mike Conroy OF
Jayson Nix IF
I picked the 21st slot, because the Giants haven't picked earlier since 1997. I also stopped the list at 2001, because the other drafts are still too recent to judge. I understand the idea behind the gaaah-don't-give-away-a-draft-pick-for-Michael Tucker position. Hell, I wrote the self-serving forward for the book. I'm wondering if this changes my mind.
Eighty-nine players. Eight of them are worth more than one season of Michael Tucker, and I've put them in bold. Nine, if you are Jay Payton's mother or think Jeff Mathis is going to rebound. This is what the Giants hope to get if they don't sign Tucker? A nine-percent chance at a player whose talent ranges from Matt LeCroy to Brad Wilkerson? The pitchers were an even bigger horror show.
One of the biggest problems with this argument, is that just because these players didn't succeed in the majors, doesn't mean they were always without value. There are at least ten or twenty players up there who would have brought a nice return if they were traded at their peak.
Does the 5%, or whatever, chance of getting a Wilkerson-type talent benefit the team more than the bird-in-the-hand philosophy with the Giants?For what type of player do you sacrifice the pick for? Michael Tucker, or better? Does the value of first-rounder as eventual trade chit carry much weight with you? Will Batman untangle himself from the ropes before the robotic alligator gets to him?
Your thoughts....
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
In general
by prospecthound on Mar 18, 2005 2:37 PM PST reply actions
Surprisingly, no
Nope.
Drunk with power, I tell you.
by Grant Brisbee on Mar 18, 2005 5:34 PM PST up reply actions
the real problem
Yes, however...
Let's say 20% of these guys end up playing in bits of three years in the majors. Amortizing that gives you an average cost of $1.4 million for your 21-30 pick - $1.2 million plus 20% of $1 million.
Only five percent of the sample Grant found was up to Tucker's level of quality. Let's be generous and say ten percent - maybe this was just a rotten run for late first rounders. This means that you're paying an average of $1.4 million to have a 10% chance of getting a Michael Tucker for three years. To oversimplify, by signing your 21-30 pick, you're inking Michael Tucker to a three year, $14 million year - but you don't know when he'll show up for work.
the jeremy brown response
Great idea
a less sophisticated answer
Compensation pick
interesting....
I'm not so sure the union would give a crap. There always seem to be one or two first round picks who don't end up signing, and the union doesn't do much about it. I'm assuming the Giants would negotiate in good faith in an attempt to sign the guy, their offer would just be lower than the guy might expect. The player gets to be a free agent if he doesn't sign, too, so it's not like he gets nothing out of it.
Free Agency
They only get that if they aren't officially a contract [any offer I think] in writing within 15 days of the draft. So the player could get screwed if the Giants tendered a contract, then refused to budge from a unreasonably low offer.
The predraft negotiations are of dubious legality as well, if I remember correctly
I would still do it, and tell the Union to shove it.
lowball
Either way, if you really want to save the money, I like the strategy of picking the best "content to stay in school" college player, the kind of guy who would go Top Five with a $3-$4 million bonus if he announced his intention to go pro. Offer him the $1.5 million you would offer any other late first rounder. If he changes his mind, you may have a bargain on your hands. If not, you don't have to spend any of that dirty evil prospect money.
Perhaps we should pool all of our ideas and publish a research paper entitled "How Not To Draft A Guy."
lakjlaj
Now for bringing up questions about my post, your IP will now be blocked. Down with dissent!
by Grant Brisbee on Mar 18, 2005 5:31 PM PST up reply actions
A few things
2.) If they had waited 24 hours they could have had the pick and Tucker, unless you believe they couldn't have paid for both. Considering where the Giants have been picking, the draft should cost them around 3 million a year in bonuses. Does that come out of their salary budget?
3.) The farm system is the only source of cheap [<2 million] talent that is necessary to finish out a roster with a limited budget. While there are notable exception, most of the
4.) I believe that teams have to trust that their scouting departments will find the best players. Certainly, some organizations are better than others. As far as I am concerned, the Giants have been pretty good under Tidrow, when you take into account their preference for pitching.
5.) Clearly, the Giants are making a push in to win while Bonds is still playing. Even if they do draft a guy intending to trade him, they couldn't for a year after he signed.
6.) Star quality players are not available for trade/FA very often, so your best chance at getting one may be through the draft.
7.) I think it largely has to do with thvery risk averse nature of Sabean. He would rather go with consitency over potential in my opinion. This, in my opinion, is why Alfozo was acquired.
Well...
I didn't include the 2nd or 3rd round picks because I just wanted to focus on the 1st round, or most valuable picks.
I think my biggest mistake with this post is that I focused too much on Tucker, and not the theory behind the forfeiture of the picks. This is why my best work is the journalistic equivalent to armpit-farting noises, and not in-depth exposes.
On that note: phhhppppppt! frraaaap!
by Grant Brisbee on Mar 18, 2005 5:27 PM PST up reply actions
Sounds good!
Touche...
by Grant Brisbee on Mar 18, 2005 7:11 PM PST up reply actions
Fair Enough
It may also be true that the money you put into a #1 pick is better spent internationally [not that the Giants are putting enough money/time there].
In the end, I think it comes down to whether you want a consistent team of average players, or to take the chance on getting stars. But I still think the Giants are thinking short term, and will worry about the draft in year 1 P.B. [Post Barry]
Low Draft Picks
good point
the right to dream
Jason Varitek OF
Michael Barrett SS
Jayson Werth C
I really thought the point was going to be "players rarely play the position they were drafted at," particularly since I think Tucker was drafted as a shortstop. But the "why don't we waive Matheny and start Torcato at catcher" conclusion never came.
Beyond that, right or wrong, Sabean's stance hurts fans in that we don't get the opportunity to dream about our first round picks, even if that dream is short-lived. It's one of the joys of being a sports fan, and somehow a second round pick (even an intriguing one like EM-E) just isn't the same.
Giants fans don't get to spend a June afternoon saying things like "our offensive problems will be solved as soon as Tootie Myers arrives!" or "the Ntema Ndungidi era has begun!" or "hop on the Trzesniak Trzain, people!" We don't get to register the domain www.kelceymuckerisgod.com.
Sabean never takes the value of my daydreams into account when making these decisions...
Tucker was drafted as a shortstop?
Isn't that a Matt Christopher book?
by The Balls of Summer on Mar 20, 2005 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
not actually lefthanded....
Haha
Players drafted 21st and later since 1992
- C - Jason Kendall
- C - Charles Johnson
- OF - Johnny Damon
- C - Jason Veritek
- P - Jake Westbrook
- P - Gil Meche
- OF - Brad Wilkerson
- OF - Aaron Rowand
- P - Mark Prior
- Jerome Williams
- SS - Bobby Crosby
- P - Jeremy Bonderman
- P - Noah Lowry
- P - Joe Blanton
- P - Matt Cain
- P - Dan Meyer
- 3B - Mark Teahan
Hell, Eric Duncin, Daric Barton and Carlos Quentin were drafted 27, 28 and 29 in 2003! All 3 are top prospects.
Prior
by achiappanza on Mar 22, 2005 11:50 PM PST up reply actions
Drafting 21st or higher
Draft Picks: 21-40
% who played in the MLB: 50.8%
% with careers longer than 5 years: 28.6%
Avg time to reach majors: 3.71 years
It stands to reason that in a four year period, an average drafter in this range will get one good MLB player, one marginal MLB player, and two duds.
by gdog @ McCovey Chronicles on Mar 20, 2005 7:40 PM PST reply actions
interesting stuff....
stats from baseball cube
Expanding on that data -
Drafts: 1976-1995
Picks: 21-40
Total Players: 398
Within 9 years of being drafted:
99 Hitters reached the majors
Avg GP: 365
Avg/Obp/Slg: .265/.331/.405
111 Pitchers reached the majors
Avg IP: 446.1
ERA: 4.23
K/9: 5.95 BB/9: 3.42 HR/9: 0.92
It's reasonable to assume we get one good player for every four picks. Eg, an outfielder who plays 700 games in his first five full seasons and posts an OPS as high as .800. This hitter will cost ~ $3 million is his first nine pro seasons.
The other three players will cost $4 million to sign, and may or may not be traded for veterans...Overall, the four picks cost $7 million.
It costs the Giants somewhere between $2 million (Tucker) and $7 million (Alou) to fill an outfield spot each year. So on the free agent market, 700 games of an OF with a .740-.760 OPS costs at least $10 million. Marvin Benard cost $11 million for 230 games.
Given these cost realities, I don't see why you wouldn't make use of your draft picks.
by gdog @ McCovey Chronicles on Mar 21, 2005 1:18 AM PST up reply actions
Random
This concludes the irrelevant comment of the day.
I love...
My analysis of drafts from 1986-1998
I also used Baseball Cube's data - gdog probably bought the data because they don't provide each players' batting stats for each draft pick easily on the website; I hand collected and catgorized everything - but only back to Sabean's first year as a draft coordinator - for the Yankees - in 1986. However, I covered to 1998 because around 4-5 seasons after the draft, most good to star players have already broken out and I had data to 2003. His data seems to bear that out, though his data includes all players and there were a lot of players who played less than 3 seasons worth of MLB games.
What I did was categorize each drafted player for the first 100 overall picks into 5 categories: Star, Good, Useful(good enough to get arbitration), Marginal (basically 0.5-3 seasons), and, to be kind, the Rest.
The problem with averages, which gdog used to illustrate his argument can be seen by this quote I got from some manager (quoted somewhere): if your left hand is in boiling water and the right hand is in freezing water, the average temperature means that you should be comfortable. You cannot look at the average and assume some certain rate of performance, as gdog did. You need to actually categorize them and count them to develop the actual odds of picking for that selected time period.
You can read my whole article but for the picks in question here, picks 21-40, only 1.9% of picks from 21-60 were stars (I grouped picks by how similar their frequency of the particular category was), only 10.8% of picks from 21-30 and 4.0% of picks 31-90 were either a Star or Good player, and 32% of picks 21-30 and 22% of picks 31-50 were either a Star, Good, or Useful.
Using the expected odds of picking a star vs. the typical bonus for that pick range, most teams end up spending around $30M in draft bonuses to find a star player. For one at least good player, you end up spending around $10-15M in draft bonuses. And for one at least useful player, you end up spending around $5-7M. And that doesn't include the salaries you eventually pay the player.
Taking Michael Tucker as an example, he is the classic useful player. Would you rather buy a $1.5 million lottery ticket (i.e. pay your first round pick in the 21-30 range) in hopes that you'll get at least a good player (about 1 in 9 chance; a useful player can be signed easily) plus have to wait up to 5 years for him to breakout?
Or, would you rather spend it on a already proven useful player like Tucker? In total, it could be up to 5 seasons before you actually pick a Useful player, then another 5 to 10 years before he is actually performing like a useful player in the major leagues. Tucker contributed immediately.
So if the choice is one or the other, this data suggests that you go for Tucker if you have that need right now. And for that draft pick they gave up but could have had, the Giants odds of picking a good player is about 1 in 9 so the data suggests that they did not really lose much - at least in expected value of a good player - by giving up that pick.
And if you negotiate a third round pick for that spot, the odds for the 3rd round pick being a good player was between 1.5% and 4.0%, for being a useful player was around 13%. Again, you did not give up much, you can probably sign a useful player for about what you pay in bonuses and salaries in drafting a useful player.
And that's just the expected return. Similar to how the mutual funds legalese states, there is no guarantee in the draft that your returns will match the market's return. There might be a 11% chance of picking up a good player, but will you be good and pick 20% or bad and pick only 5%?
About drafting players good enough to trade, I wish there was a database that shows whether the draft pick was traded or not as that would allow us to analyze what the odds of drafting a player good enough to be a trading piece, but I'm not aware of that. But as far as actually drafting a good player, the odds have not been good at all, even for the 21st overall pick of the draft, as suggested by the data I collected.
by Martin BiasedGiantsFanatic on Mar 21, 2005 10:27 PM PST reply actions
I bought the data?
Believe me, I've generated the CDF of player performance based on draft order and age, but this isn't the Journal of Quantitative Baseball Analysis, so I figured some averages might be more understandable.
Anyways, for every Michael Tucker, Free Agent, there's a Marvin Benard or a Jason Christiansen ready do his impression of a giant (Giant?) money toilet. Your analysis is incomplete without looking at performance vs. salary for 6+ year players.
by gdog @ McCovey Chronicles on Mar 23, 2005 9:11 AM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
