How did all those Moneyball draft picks do? Nick Swisher and Joe Blanton were guys that everyone was on... Teahen was OK for a few years. What do you want? I mean, aside from any reason to bash anything that this organization you claim to be a fan of does.
I always thought that part of the theory behind Moneyball was to draft college players because less scouting was required. Partly because their stats meant a little more than high school stats would, but also because college players would be a little closer to physical maturity so less projection would be needed when evaluating a player. Now I not sure what Thrylos' point in all this is, but I too have hard time seeing how analylic input would be very useful with high school players and even most college players.
As far as Ryan's part in this. I know he is a skilled scout. I doubt if he sees many or maybe not any of the drafted players. So I doubt if his input is very significant during the draft. He certainly evaluates players after they have joined the organization. There could easily be some pointed questions about why certain players were drafted at that point.
Back to the subject. One can project using college performance a lot, esp. analyzing performance vs. certain opponents. Major college level ball is probably close to A level competition and JC level is close to Rk level competition for good school. As someone can (and should) analyze MiLB performance beyond "ability to spin the ball", they can analyze College players. High Schoolers are somewhat of a different story because lots of them have not stopped growing yet.
Major college level ball is probably close to A level competition and JC level is close to Rk level competition for good school
I have seen this claim before. I really wonder how true it is. I believe I read recently that the average age in the Midwest League is about 22. That would be considerably older than the average age at any major college. On top of that most of players in A ball are either the best players from college or superior high school players who often have played pro ball for a year or two. What might be true is that the skill level at in major college conference is comparable to A ball. I doubt if the talent level is.
Thyrlos could have a point if there was a large enough sample size of playing against the top talent in high school and college. Did the moneyball book talk of doing data analysis on college players? I would wonder because Beane has had better luck trading for players than drafting.
Moneyball is a book. I am not claiming that the A's and Beane are a prototype to follow; there are teams that use analytics more effectively (Boston for one). Last I checked, the A's won as many World Series as the Twins recently...
I don't want to be argumentive, but all baseball is competitive. While major college baseball is certainly competitive, I don't think that will help much in deciding whether a guy can play major league ball. I remember a few years ago, one of Twins minor leaguers(one of Seth's favorites but I can't remember his name) had played with Nick Swisher in college. He was drafted in the middle to late rounds by the Twins. He even had similar college stats to Swisher. I believe he got as far as AA. I don't think college stats are very meaningful. They tell you nothing about where they are in terms of physical maturity, or what developmental stage they are at. Some people are physically mature at 18, most probably aren't. Stats can't tell you any of that. Most major leaguers say that work ethic and makeup are important to major league success. Stats can't tell you about that.Quote:
I was talking about the competition level, not exactly the talent. And if you look at the draft, some college teams (the best) have most of their draft-eligible players drafted even if in later rounds and usually start at high Rookie or A ball in most organizations. Fact is that A level ball has older high school draftees and foreign signees who were weeded out in the Rookie clubs, so the talent level is higher.
There is a reason why teams have so many scouts and why more than one scout looks at the top prospects. Even with that, there is more failures than success in a draft. Can the Twins do a better job of drafting. I suppose. But there is a certain amount of luck involved as well. Injuries happen. Some kids won't do the necessary work, no matter how talented they might be. Some probably can't handle the travel or pressure. The Twins organization can certainly be criticized on many levels, but I don't think stat analysis is likely to replace oreven be much help to scouting.
I get the arguments you are making. And for every argument you are making about why numbers do not matter, I can make the same argument why opinions that were formed by scouts who saw someone pitch 10 innings or have 30 PAs matter even less. So you need to have a combination in order to make more informed decisions. And I am not talking about the kids who everyone knows that they will be a superstar (everyone knows those), I am talking about finding the diamonds in the rough who will have a great career but nobody knows it yet.
Thanks for posting this. It's a very interesting read.
Q&a articles with folks inside the organization is just so Damon interesting.
By the way - he pretty much cofirmed that they will take a college arm in the 1st round is that right?
Awesome job Jeremy. I enjoyed every part of every question. Also, what a great interviewee! Very good, thoughtful, in-depth answers. Couldn't have asked for much more.
This is pretty much how a draft should go IMO. It is impossible to compare statistics of players that don't face the same levels of competition. I don't buy that something was different heading into the draft last year, they are changing for the better.
The questions I would have liked to have seen is: How does a player like Bryce Harper fall so far in the draft and then become a superstar?? How come so many teams, including the Twins, passed on him?