Top 30 Picks...1982-2001..Hitters v Pitchers, College v High School

by merkin on Apr 21, 2009 9:27 PM PDT Comment 9 comments

So that other thread is up over 200+ posts, so hope no one minds of I post this here....

Prior to the 2007 season I sat down and did stats on the June Drafts from 1982-2001 with "performance" through the 2006 Season.
The draft picks were evaluated on 4 criteria.
1) Did they put in a full season at the major league level
2) Did they make an all star appearance
3) Did they finish in the top 10 of a major stat category in any year
4) Did they play enough at the major league level to lose their rookie status
Imperfect for many reasons, yet fairly valid as a point of comparing within the data set. After reading the debate of Bumgarner v Heyward v Porcello v Alderson v Noonan v Smoak v whomever....
I figured it would be worthwhile treat the data in a new way......Hitter vs Pitcher, High School v College......

To that end I submit the following.......(CLICK IT TO ENLARGE)

via i51.photobucket.com

And of course the plug for Giantsboard.com...... a larger version is here
PS data was complied manually, and triple checked....but its a ton of data....I apologize in advance if I am off a little bit somewhere....but I believe I got it ironed out fairly well

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

1 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You’d have to assume that a more normal organization would have either a higher % of hitters or a lower % of pitchers make the majors (most likely both). Because most orgs have more college hitters make it than pitchers, and their HS pitchers’ rate of success would be a lot lower in relation to the other 3 groups.

/lolgiantsoffense

"he walked 18; new league record! Struck out 18, another new league record! He also hit the sportswriter, the PA announcer, the bull mascot twice..."

by i did my job on Apr 21, 2009 10:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Cool. Thanks.

El Presidente Larry Baer's epitaph
"Nothing important ever happened without me."

by ResDog on Apr 22, 2009 7:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Nice job!

I’d done something like this many years ago, studying the difference in quality players available by where they are picked in the draft. Could you please present your data in four categories: first 5 picks, first 10 picks, picks 11-20, picks 21-30. I would like to see if there are more quality players, by the categories you chose, for the higher picks, particularly for the Top 5 picks. I would expect there to be a much higher percentage for the top picks.

I know what a bear it is to collect this data, but if you ever have time or do something similar in the future, it would be good to see the percentage of players who reach arbitration (or thereabouts, basically 3 seasons) and/or free agency (basically 6 seasons).

Adoptive parental unit of Ehire Adrianza.
Godfather of Travis Ishikawa.

"I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz
"Woo hoo" - Tim "The Kid" Lincecum
"Let's go get them in 2009!" - The Kid

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Apr 22, 2009 2:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

took quite an effort, The data was originaly compiled before the 2007 draft to see what kind of return we could expect from our draft picks. I can break down by pick # or team, but I have a couple other pressing projects first. Will post that data when I exract later.

I was going to let the data be interpreted by the masses, but since I don’t see anyone jumping to conclusions, I will go ahead and make that leap myself…..

Hitters v Pitchers is basically a wash
Both reach the majors and put in a full season at about the same rate.
Top 10 stats also run about even, with the only separation coming with All Star appearances. This looks to be a flawed way to evaluate the data as the proportion of hitter picks vs pitcher picks is about even, whereas all star roster spots are basically 3:2.
The 3:2 doesnt completely offset the 2:1 all star appearance differential but the data set is too small to draw meaningful conclusions…….

College v High School?
Different story…..I think you can say with some confidence that not only do College players make it to the show more often, they also have success more often as seen in full seasons, All Star, and Top 10 appearances

One of the more interesting suggestions the data makes is the spread between High School Hitters vs Pirchers and College Hitters v Pitchers. Where High School hitters seem to have an advantage over High School Pitchers, the inverse seems to be true for College. College Pitchers might actually have a better success rate than College Hitters. This data is vague at best, but it woul at least indicate that College Pitcher aren’t the worst investment…

Tommy Lasorda HATES GIANTSBOARD.COM

Say Hey! Say Who? Say Willie, that Giant Kid is Great!

by merkin on Apr 22, 2009 8:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

College Pitchers might actually have a better success rate than College Hitters.

Looks like the opposite to me. You may have more pitchers eventually appearing in the show, but if I’m reading your table right, the all-star rate is 15.4% for hitters and 8.4% for pitchers. Drafting in the first round, I’d happily trade my odds of getting a mediocre player for a much better shot at getting a star.

By the way, floating around the internets are at least two incredibly thorough studies of draft results, one by Baseball Prospectus and one by some guy at Sons of Sam Horn.

by Evan on Apr 23, 2009 6:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for your input

I put more credence in the Top 10 data, than the all star in looking for a ceiling. The Top 10 is a comparison of the pick vs their peers and there is an equal opportunity for hitters and pitchers (50 slots every year). The all star game is skewed towards hitters with about a 3:2 ratio going towards hitters.

Tommy Lasorda HATES GIANTSBOARD.COM
Cut and Pasted Blog redundancy can be a good thing
Say Hey! Say Who? Say Willie, that Giant Kid is Great!

by merkin on Apr 23, 2009 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't realize you wanted us to opine on your data

First, I agree, I like your Top 10 stats category, that is much more objective. I would have added OBP, SLG, and OPS for the hitters; K% and K/BB for pitchers.

Top Table

Clearly can see the quality of the college players over the HS here. That was particularly true for pitchers. BP’s study found, however, that while there was an edge for the College players early in their study period, they found that to be less true later on. If you could split that data into 1982-1991 and 1992-2001, that would be interesting to see if your data follows their conclusion.

Noticed discrepancy: you have 111 picks in top table with Top 10 stats, 113 in bottom table.

Bottom Table

In the bottom table,

Issues

As noted, I think it’s a nice study, but as with all studies, there are always issues that need to be noted. First, given that there are more hitters than pitchers on any roster, that gives an advantage to hitters for playing a full season, making the All-Star game, Top 10 Stats, and Lost Rookie Status (just re-read your text, this covers all rosters, not just ASG). Small advantage, but still should be noted. Second, obviously, relievers will never be tops in Wins, ERA, WHIP, or Strike-outs, but there are very valuable reliever out there, unlike hitters who only get 400 PA. Perhaps you can adjust for relievers, use only relievers to rank, and check games instead of wins. Third, in your Top 10 stats, the following is highly dependent on how others do: runs, RBI, wins. In addition, ERA is highly dependent on forces outside a pitcher’s control (DIPS theory).

I would also add that making the All-Star game is often not a sign of performance, but because your team don’t have a representative and you are the best on your team.

Again, I salute you, I know how hard it is to compile all this data together, it’s a total pain, but ultimately a labor of love. Thanks again.

Adoptive parental unit of Ehire Adrianza.
Godfather of Travis Ishikawa.

"I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz
"Woo hoo" - Tim "The Kid" Lincecum
"Let's go get them in 2009!" - The Kid

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Apr 24, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ooops, never finished bottom table

OK, hitters look like a better choice than pitchers for high school (wouldn’t know it from the Giants experience selecting high school hitters and pitchers, Torcato, Fairley vs. Cain, Bumgarner, Alderson (though Craig Whitaker was a big flop).

Looks like a push for college players. though, as I noted above, more hitters than pitchers on roster, leans odds toward hitters for Top 10. And I just realized your 3:2 ratio, which is really more 8:5 ratio, in terms of starting positions. I was thinking more of roster positions on the 25 man, but really by the counting stats, we should only look at the starting positions that can rack up those Top 10 slots.

Again, it would be interesting to see how these percentages look like when the Top 30 picks and broken up into groupings of 10.

Adoptive parental unit of Ehire Adrianza.
Godfather of Travis Ishikawa.

"I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz
"Woo hoo" - Tim "The Kid" Lincecum
"Let's go get them in 2009!" - The Kid

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Apr 24, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Problem with BP study and, I think, the SSH study,

Is that they totally ignore the distribution of the talent when evaluating the data. That has been my point all along.

For example, they tout how high the average VORP was for the top picks, relative to the other picks. I think any of us could have said that without a study.

I wonder how many people here looking at that study realize that the average VORP for the top picks were roughly the VORP that Marquis Grissom and Michael Tucker amassed in their careers (top end and bottom end, if memory serves). And it goes way downhill from there.

The average means crap, it is useless for managing the draft, it is the distribution that matters most here, because we don’t care what we get on average with the #10 pick – we would if we could have, say, 10 #10 picks every year and get an average from that, but we don’t, we only get one shot at it each year, and not always 10th, sometimes 5th when losing, sometimes 25th when winning.

Teams picking 6-10 find a good player 23% of the time in my study, or roughly 1 in 4 or 5. Thus, it would take a team 4 or 5 years of playing poorly enough to get a 6-10 pick, on average, in order to find a good player via the draft with that first round pick. And the odds go waaay down once you get to the bottom third of the draft, about 1 in 9 or 10 chance, according to my data.

Adoptive parental unit of Ehire Adrianza.
Godfather of Travis Ishikawa.

"I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz
"Woo hoo" - Tim "The Kid" Lincecum
"Let's go get them in 2009!" - The Kid

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Apr 24, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs