Drafting an Ace

[Badsmerf]

I anticipate this to turn into an awesome thread, so I'll start out with my criteria. I took all the top 20 ERA's from qualified starters since the 2007 season and highlighted anyone that appeared more than once. Note, this list is semi-flawed as it is a sample and guys like Smoltz only made it one year and Strasburg hasn't pitched enough to qualify. So, theoretically, this list could be longer. I didn't want to make exceptions since I believe that would flaw the sample. Savvy? The results: 24 pitchers made the list. I'll list the name and where they were selected. We can discuss from there. I believe this is a fairly accurate list of guys you could call an Ace.

 

Kershaw: 7th overall 2006

Price: 1st overall 2007

Verlander: 2nd overall 2004

Dickey: 18th overall 1996

Cain: 25th overall 2002

Weaver: 12th overall 2004

Gonzalez: 38th overall 2004

Hamels: 17th overall 2002

Hernandez: INTL FA 2002- 16 years old

Lee: 4th round 105th overall 2000

Kuroda (surprised he made it): INTL FA in 2007- 32 years old

Vogelsong (surprised again... only 2 good years happen to be in the cut): 5th round 158th overall 1998

Halladay: 17th overall 1995

Lincecum: 10th overall 2006

Beckett: 2nd overall 1999

Sabathia: 20th overall 1998

Haren: 2nd round 72nd overall 2001

Johnson: 4th round 113th overall 2002

Wainwright: 29th overall 2000

Oswalt: 26th round 684 overall 1996

Hudson: 6th round 185th overall 1997

Santana: INTL FA 1995- 16 years old

Peavy: 15th round 472nd overall 1999

Webb: 8th round 249th overall 2000

[Oxtung]

I'm going to copy paste the discussion Kab21 and I had into this thread as it is where it really belongs.

[Oxtung]

Posted in another thread

I went back and reread my post and found it very confusing. That's what I get for trying to post at 3AM. I'll try and clarify my points.

 

Where do "Ace" pitchers come from? I thought this was an intriguing question. To see my methods of determining an "Ace" pitcher see the Method section below. There is an interesting split in the data between those players acquired before 2001 and those players drafted/signed since 2001. So I will break down the data along those lines.

Data

Before 2001:

• 16 Aces
  
• 4 were 1st round draft picks
  
• 4 were international signings
  
• 8 were drafted after 1st round
  

 

Since 2001:

• 8 Aces
  
• 7 were 1st round draft picks
  
• 1 (King Felix) was an international signing
  
• 0 were drafted after 1st round
  
• 5 of the 7 drafted were taken in the first 12 picks.
  

 

This interesting split potentially implies that in today's game the only way to acquire an "Ace" is to use a very high draft pick.

 

For reference here are the "Since 2001 Aces" (number of times ranked, draft position in 1st round):

Felix Hernandez (3, Int)

Clayton Kershaw (3, 7)

Tim Lincecum (3, 10)

Matt Cain (2, 25)

Cole Hamels (2, 17)

Verlander (2, 2)

Jared Weaver (2, 12)

David Price (2, 1)

 

You can view the full data set in google Drive by following this link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ar9R-KOx1gfydFEtVkZtU253eS1GanY4cHpwUkJWRUE&usp=sharing

 

Method

I looked at the number of times a pitcher was ranked in the top 10 players in ERA for a single season. I choose the years 2003-2012; since my last post I looked back an additional 5 years for more data points. If a player was ranked at least 1 time between 2003-2012 I included all of their ranked seasons in the data regardless if they all fell in that 10 year range. For example Roger Clemens only had two seasons ('03-'04) ranked but I included his other 8 seasons he was ranked (occurring between '86 & '98) so I could get a better picture of just how big of an "Ace" he really was in comparison to other pitchers. Well OK, I didn't really need the data to tell me Clemens >>> Erik Bedard. If a player didn't have a single season ranked between '03-'12 I didn't include them in the data. Sorry Greg Maddux. To qualify as an "Ace" a player drafted/signed before 2001 must have ranked in 3 separate seasons. A player drafted/signed since 2001 must have ranked 2 times. This allows young players like David Price, Justin Verlander and Jared Weaver, who are still in their prime and probably most would consider to be Aces today, to be considered.

[Oxtung]

Posted in another thread

I would consider expanding the list further because a sample size of 8 is too small to draw any conclusions. Here is a list of the top 25 ranked(smoltz and Pettitte excluded) by ERA- (fangraphs). 600 inning min (2005-2012).

 

Summary - No big surprises here. if you want a potential ace then either you have the #1 (maybe #2) pick and get an elite college arm (not available this year) or you take your chances with a HS 1st rd'er. Big bonus int'l FA's are poor investments (as starters, RPers are different story). It is interesting how many aces were late rd picks from 1999-2002.

 

One additional conclusion is that it's unlikely that the college arms after Appel and Manaea can be considered potential 1-2 starters. Most likely #3's. Even Appel and Manaea are unlikely to be #1 and probably not #2's. The same is true of Zimmer and Gausman last year.

 

1st 2 rds and HS - 7 - notice how most of these are late 1st rd'ers

Kershaw 1-7 (2006) - HS

Carpenter 1-15 (1993) - HS

Halladay 1-17 (1995) - HS

Hamels 1-17 (2002) - HS

CC 1-20 (98) - HS

Cain 1-25 (2002) - HS

Wainwright 1-29 (2002) - HS

 

1st rd college players - 5 - Price and Verlander (and Strasburg) were considered BPA in their drafts and there isn't a comparable college arm out there this year.

Price 1-1(2007) - UNI

Verlander 1-2 (2004) - UNI

Lincecum 1-10 (2006) - UNI

Sheets 1-10 (1999) - uni

Weaver 1-12 (2004) - UNI

 

late rd college players - 7

Haren rd2 (2001) - uni

Hudson rd6 (1997) - UNI

Harden rd 17 (2000) - uni

Wilson rd5 (2001) - uni

Webb rd 8 (2000) - UNI

Lee rd4 (2000) - UNI

Oswalt rd 23 (1996) - (CC)

 

late rd HS'ers - 3 - I'm not sure if any of these were overslot big bonus picks though

Lester rd2 (2002) - HS

JJohnson rd4 (2002) - HS

Peavy rd 15 (1999) - HS

 

International arms - 3

Felix - int'l FA (big bonus) - ('02)

Santana int'l FA (low bonus) (95)

Cueto int'l FA (2005) - small bonus I think

[Oxtung]

Posted in another thread

I agree that 8 is a SSS but on the other hand when you're talking true aces that in it self means SSS by definition.

 

I'm not sure if you clicked my link to see my whole list or not but almost every player you listed is on my full list so it is good to see we agree who the best pitchers over the last 10 years or so have been even though we are looking from separate criteria.

 

The pre-2001/post 2001 split is evident in your analysis too. I think the real question we should be asking is what is causing that. Is that an artifact of SSS, and maybe this is what you're trying to argue, or has there been a change in how pitchers are evaluated? Given the informational/statistical revolution that has occurred in the last few decades I think it is plausible that we are just better at predicting who the best pitchers will be. Another reason could be the increased team incomes of the last 15 years. Maybe this has allowed teams to put more money into their scouting departments and they get to see more pitchers. Perhaps previously there were insufficient resources to see all the potential pitchers.

 

As a comparison here is a list of "Aces" during the '90s and Round they were drafted/acquired:

 

• Roger Clemens (Round 1, College)
  
• Kevin Brown (1, College)
  
• Mike Mussina (1, College)
  
• Randy Johnson (2, College)
  
• Tom Glavine (2, HS)
  
• Greg Maddux (2, HS)
  
• Curt Schilling (2, College)
  
• Al Leiter (2, HS)
  
• David Cone (3, HS)
  
• Jason Schmidt (8, HS)
  
• Bret Saberhagen (19, HS)
  
• Andy Pettitte (22, HS)
  
• John Smoltz (22, HS)
  
• Pedro Martinez (INT)
  

 

Most elite pitchers drafted in the '80's weren't 1st round acquisitions. That isn't what we're seeing today. So I guess my question is why? If we think there truely is a reason, and not just SSS, then it behoves the Twins to draft a pitcher with their first pick because Mike is right. The only way to acquire an "Ace" is to draft or trade, making the safe assumption we won't acquire one in FA.

[Oxtung]

Posted in another thread

Part of the problem with using 2001 as a cut date is that int'l FA's signed that year are still only about 28. HS draftees have just hit 30. Most of the HS/int'l pool in the >2001 period doesn't show up in your list because they haven't hit their peak yet. This is also true of later rd picks. They don't move through the minors as fast and typically debut later. This skews your post 2001 acquisition conclusions imo to college players drafted early.

 

A player might appear on your overall list but you eliminated them (only 1 top season) from your analysis so I only consider your short list since that is what you have analyzed. I guess I didn't say it but part of the reason I expanded the list was to include a bigger cut of top of the rotation arms. They don't have to be absolute stud aces but the guys that you want on the mound in big games. I can see trends with 25 names that I can't see with 8 names.

[Oxtung]

Posted in another thread

I went back and looked at how quickly "Ace" players developed excluding the players acquired since 2001. I saw no correlation between how they were acquired, early draft pick/late draft pick/international, and when they were first ranked. Through their age 26 season 66% of the pitchers were ranked at least 1 time. However only 25% of pitchers were ranked 2+ times through age 26 season.

 

There was no difference in the development rate of 1st round picks and late round picks. So since we have 7 1st round picks already at "Ace" status and 0 late round picks that is significant.

 

Young international signees are different though. If a latin player signed as a 16yo and placed at 26 for the first time they would have had to have been signed in 2002. Certainly I may have excluded some here. However, this doesn't take into account players like Hernandez, signed as a 16yo and by 21 already was ranked, or Zambrano, signed by 16yo and ranked by 22. They are two of the three youngest ranked; Saberhagen is the third, drafted in the 19th round and ranked at 21. It also doesn't take into account the recent influx of Asian pitchers that are already mature. The banner carrier here is Hideo Nomo who signed at 26 and ranked in his age 26 & 27 seasons. There have been several pitchers acquired from Asia with hype but that didn't produce at "Ace" levels.

 

If you think 2001 is unfair to international signees, which I'm not sure if I agree with but for the sake of argument:

 

• Carlos Zambrano (signed in 1997, 3 seasons ranked)
  
• Johan Santana (signed in 1995, 4 seasons ranked)
  
• Hideo Nomo (signed in 1995, 3 seasons ranked)
  

 

I might also have culled some recent pitchers from "Ace" status by requiring 2 seasons being ranked. I did this because I needed a way to remove those pitchers that had 1 great season but were certainly not "Ace" material. I'm looking at you, Dontrelle Willis. It is possible that some of the others that have been ranked 1 time could still turn into "Aces" later in their careers. Randy Johnson and Kevin Brown weren't ranked until their age 31 seasons. Here is the list of players that were acquired between 2001-2006 (anything more recent and they haven't turned 26 which is an important number as shown earlier), have been ranked 1 time and I think still have a chance of becoming "Aces":

 

• Josh Johnson
  
• Zach Greinke
  
• Johnny Cueto
  
• Gio Gonzalez
  
• Clay Buckholz
  
• Dan Haren
  
• Jaime Garcia
  

 

Of those players only Haren, Johnson and Garcia weren't 1st round picks.

 

So to summarize; 1st round picks and late round picks historically develop at the same rate. Since we have 7 first round "Aces" already and no late round "Aces" is notable I think. Of the potential "late bloomer" Aces only 3, Haren, Johnson and Garcia, weren't 1st round picks. International signees may not fit well within my pre-2001/post-2001 assumptions but even if you bump their acquisition date back 5 years to 1996, making them essentially equivalent to 21 year old college pitchers, only Carlos Zambrano is added to our list.

 

So our new list of Post-2001 Aces would look like:

 

• Carlos Zambrano (Int, 3 Seasons ranked)
  
• Felix Hernandez (Int, 3 Seasons)
  
• Matt Cain (round 1, 2 Seasons)
  
• Cole Hamels (round 1, 2 Seasons)
  
• Justin Verlander (round 1, 2 Seasons)
  
• Jared Weaver (Round 1, 2 Seasons)
  
• Clayton Kershaw (Round 1, 3 Seasons)
  
• Tim Lincecum (Round 1, 3 Seasons)
  
• David Price (Round 1, 2 Seasons)
  

 

Potential Additions would be:

• Dan Haren (round 2, 1 Season)
  
• Josh Johnson (round 4, 1 Season)
  
• Zach Greinke (round 1, 1 Season)
  
• Johnny Cueto (Int, 1 Season)
  
• Gio Gonzalez (Round 1, 1 Season)
  
• Clay Buckholz (Round 1, 1 Season)
  
• Jaime Garcia (Round 22, 1 Season)
  

[Oxtung]

Posted in another thread

I think the biggest part of the back and forth was figuring out how many to include in the ace category. The 8 that you picked doesn't allow us to make any statistical conclusions because the sample size is too small. Including near aces brings a little more clarity to the subject and you start seeing trends.

 

College pitchers that become aces usually get drafted really at the top (like Appel should) or at least in the top 10-15. HS pitchers that become aces are scattered throughout the first rd and that makes sense also. They pitched against all kinds of competition and usually significant projection and time is required for that to happen.

 

The disappointing trend is that int'l FA's rarely turned into #1/2's. the suprising trend was that there were a lot of #2's that were picked in later rd from college ball. If you look at the list (Haren, Wilson, Hudson, Lee, Webb, Harden, Oswalt) though it's not filled with many stuff pitchers (other than Harden) but guys that excelled on control.

 

What does this mean for this draft? Appel might be in the Verlander/Price/Strasburg tier of draftees but if you're looking for a collegiate pitcher as an ace it probably isn't happening. Perhaps one of the guys in this draft can become Sheets/Weaver but the odds are against. You are more likely getting a #3/4 starter if you go the college route. If you really want an ace then start looking at the wild card HS pitchers similar to last year's Max Fried. He kind of has that Kershaw/Bundy type of awesome scouting report but there is significantly more risk and time required for a HS pitcher to make it. So far there are very few similar HS pitchers that have popped up on my radar.

 

The hitting thing would be interesting to look at sometime. I feel fairly certain that latin players would have a significantly higher success rate. This is especially true in the MI.

[Oxtung]

Posted in another thread

I just want to clarify a few things. My goal when I started my original research was to find out where the truly elite pitchers come from and if it is possible to find them outside of the first round. I looked at the yearly ERA top 10 lists. If a person was listed in multiple seasons in the top 10 I called them an elite Ace. There were 8 of those. I didn't just "pick" them arbitrarily.

 

Second, I see no difference from a statistics perspective between 8 pitchers and let's say 16 pitchers. Both are way to small to be anything other than SSS.

 

However, if you do include the fringe "aces" there were still only about 3 of the top 20ish pitchers that were drafted after the first round. I think it's safe to say we both agree that if you want to get an ace, whether that is an elite ace or a fringe ace, you are going to find it in the first round or not at all.

 

I also found it amazing that our lists of "Aces" were almost void of international signings.

[Oxtung]

Posted in another thread

I'm not sure if you actually looked at my analysis. I had 25 on my list and there were 11 drafted after the 1st rd.

[Oxtung]

Posted in another thread

I have many times. I am sticking to my original assertion in my original post since no one has been able to come up with any reason to discredit the data (other than by arguing SSS which I don't disagree with but when you're talking elite pitchers you're always going to be talking SSS in which case you work with the data you have):

 

Data

Before 2001:

 

• 16 Aces
  
• 4 were 1st round draft picks
  
• 4 were international signings
  
• 8 were drafted after 1st round
  

 

 

Since 2001:

 

• 8 Aces
  
• 7 were 1st round draft picks
  
• 1 (King Felix) was an international signing
  
• 0 were drafted after 1st round
  
• 5 of the 7 drafted were taken in the first 12 picks.
  

 

Since you stopped responding to my posts in the other thread I assumed we had come to some kind of consensus or at the least an understanding. Your 11, of which I would argue several would never be considered aces by most people, ignore the data split that is seen since 2001. Expanding the list to 25 pitchers just to get a larger sample size, that still is too small eliminate small sample size errors, does not make them all aces. However even on your expanded list only 4 pitchers have been acquired since 2001, Haren, Wilson, Lester, Josh Johnson.

 

If you would like to discuss this further I suggest we go back to the previous thread so that the discussion is housed in 1 thread. Or perhaps start a new thread of it's own because it wasn't necessarily well related to the discussion in that thread either. I thought we had found some consensus in our discussion and was just trying to lend some statistics to what I saw as a related discussion in this thread since the work was already done.

[kab21]

Here is the list that I came up with a couple of weeks ago using cumulative ERA- for a relatively long period. Most of the names match up and guys like Strasburg, Gio and Darvish aren't on the list but should be in a couple of years.

 

Here is a list of the top 25 ranked(smoltz and Pettitte excluded) by ERA- (fangraphs). 600 inning min (2005-2012).

 

Summary - No big surprises here. if you want a potential ace then either you have the #1 (maybe #2) pick and get an elite college arm (not available this year) or you take your chances with a HS 1st rd'er. Big bonus int'l FA's are poor investments (as starters, RPers are different story). It is interesting how many aces were late rd picks from 1999-2002.

 

One additional conclusion is that it's unlikely that the college arms after Appel and maybe Manaea (edit - this now maybe includes Gray) can be considered potential 1-2 starters. Most likely #3's. Even Appel and Manaea are unlikely to be #1 and probably not #2's. The same is true of Zimmer and Gausman last year.

 

1st 2 rds and HS - 7 - notice how most of these are late 1st rd'ers

Kershaw 1-7 (2006) - HS

Carpenter 1-15 (1993) - HS

Halladay 1-17 (1995) - HS

Hamels 1-17 (2002) - HS

CC 1-20 (98) - HS

Cain 1-25 (2002) - HS

Wainwright 1-29 (2002) - HS

 

1st rd college players - 5 - Price and Verlander (and Strasburg) were considered BPA in their drafts and there isn't a comparable college arm out there this year.

Price 1-1(2007) - UNI

Verlander 1-2 (2004) - UNI

Lincecum 1-10 (2006) - UNI

Sheets 1-10 (1999) - uni

Weaver 1-12 (2004) - UNI

 

late rd college players - 7

Haren rd2 (2001) - uni

Hudson rd6 (1997) - UNI

Harden rd 17 (2000) - uni

Wilson rd5 (2001) - uni

Webb rd 8 (2000) - UNI

Lee rd4 (2000) - UNI

Oswalt rd 23 (1996) - (CC)

 

late rd HS'ers - 3 - I'm not sure if any of these were overslot big bonus picks though

Lester rd2 (2002) - HS

JJohnson rd4 (2002) - HS

Peavy rd 15 (1999) - HS

 

International arms - 3

Felix - int'l FA (big bonus) - ('02)

Santana int'l FA (low bonus) (95)

Cueto int'l FA (2005) - small bonus I think

[Oxtung]

Posted in another thread

Oxtung, I followed along with your research and disagree with your criteria for being an Ace. First of all, your list is too exclusive. You can't limit the sample to potential HOF pitchers, it has be more encompassing. Maybe we should move this to another thread, as it is an interesting discussion.

 

To start, define Ace pitcher. To me, an Ace pitcher is elite, not necessarily HOF worthy or even Cy Young caliber. There were 662 pitchers that saw MLB time last season, 88 of them were classified as "qualified" starters. I'm not purposing there should be 30 Ace pitchers for 30 MLB teams, but the top 20% would put it at about 17 for last season alone. I really don't think that is too gracious.

 

The problem with limiting it to super high caliber pitcher is the data will be skewed. Guys like Verlander and Strasburg are no-brainer top picks. They are few and far between, and your data proves that you need a top pick to grab one. However, lighten up on your standards and very high quality pitchers can be found later.

[Oxtung]

All caught up now. Agree that this is going to be an interesting thread and thought it would be good to have it in 1 place so we could look back at the conversation as a whole.

[kab21]

What a mess you made...

[Oxtung]

I anticipate this to turn into an awesome thread, so I'll start out with my criteria. I took all the top 20 ERA's from qualified starters since the 2007 season and highlighted anyone that appeared more than once. Note, this list is semi-flawed as it is a sample and guys like Smoltz only made it one year and Strasburg hasn't pitched enough to qualify. So, theoretically, this list could be longer. I didn't want to make exceptions since I believe that would flaw the sample. Savvy? The results: 24 pitchers made the list. I'll list the name and where they were selected. We can discuss from there. I believe this is a fairly accurate list of guys you could call an Ace.

 

Kershaw: 7th overall 2006

Price: 1st overall 2007

Verlander: 2nd overall 2004

Dickey: 18th overall 1996

Cain: 25th overall 2002

Weaver: 12th overall 2004

Gonzalez: 38th overall 2004

Hamels: 17th overall 2002

Hernandez: INTL FA 2002- 16 years old

Lee: 4th round 105th overall 2000

Kuroda (surprised he made it): INTL FA in 2007- 32 years old

Vogelsong (surprised again... only 2 good years happen to be in the cut): 5th round 158th overall 1998

Halladay: 17th overall 1995

Lincecum: 10th overall 2006

Beckett: 2nd overall 1999

Sabathia: 20th overall 1998

Haren: 2nd round 72nd overall 2001

Johnson: 4th round 113th overall 2002

Wainwright: 29th overall 2000

Oswalt: 26th round 684 overall 1996

Hudson: 6th round 185th overall 1997

Santana: INTL FA 1995- 16 years old

Peavy: 15th round 472nd overall 1999

Webb: 8th round 249th overall 2000

 

I think a lot of our disagreement stems from our expectations for an Ace as you implied. When drafting in the top 5, let alone the number 2 overall pick, I want to go get that elite Ace. I'm not looking for James Shields, who is a very nice pitcher, but instead I want that guy who is going to go out and dominate on the mound year in and year out. Not have 1 or 2 dominant seasons mixed with a bunch of mediocrity. There is a difference between an elite Ace and a fringe Ace, for lack of better terms, and the 8 pitchers I listed seem to fit that elite ace description. That is why I have them listed.

 

That said, if you want to expand to just a more general term "ace" you still have the pre2001/post2001 issue to deal with because it is evident in your data too. Seven out of eleven of your aces acquired since 2001 came in the first round. To me that says you need to draft a pitcher in the first round if you want an ace. Of your 4 who weren't drafted in the first round one is an international (Felix Hernandez), Josh Johnson has had 1 great season and then a bunch of nice but not great years, Dan Haren has had a few real nice years but also some pretty mediocre years, and Gio Gonzalez has only pitched 3 full seasons in the majors.

 

Just for comparison's sake:

 

Pre-2001: 25% were 1st round picks (this is using my stricter elite ace standards too. If I added in the more fringy aces this would drop to below 20%)

Post-2001: 64% were 1st round picks (using my data it's 88%)

 

I have yet to see that explained. Until then I contend any pre-2001 data is irrelevant.

[Oxtung]

What a mess you made...

 

Only because you didn't let me finish posting in ALL the previous conversation.

[AlwaysinModeration]

Here is my summary--the higher you draft a pitcher, the more likely that pitcher will be a dominant pitcher. However, given the high rate of flameout of pitchers, due to injury and other issues ("there is no such thing as a pitching prospect"), drafting a pitcher is typically riskier than drafting a position player. Also, given the fact that many pitchers take a long(er) time to develop into their full potential, it is unsurprising that many superstar pitchers come from relatively unheralded draft spots.

[Badsmerf]

I think a lot of our disagreement stems from our expectations for an Ace as you implied. When drafting in the top 5, let alone the number 2 overall pick, I want to go get that elite Ace. I'm not looking for James Shields, who is a very nice pitcher, but instead I want that guy who is going to go out and dominate on the mound year in and year out. Not have 1 or 2 dominant seasons mixed with a bunch of mediocrity. There is a difference between an elite Ace and a fringe Ace, for lack of better terms, and the 8 pitchers I listed seem to fit that elite ace description. That is why I have them listed.

 

That said, if you want to expand to just a more general term "ace" you still have the pre2001/post2001 issue to deal with because it is evident in your data too. Seven out of eleven of your aces acquired since 2001 came in the first round. To me that says you need to draft a pitcher in the first round if you want an ace. Of your 4 who weren't drafted in the first round one is an international (Felix Hernandez), Josh Johnson has had 1 great season and then a bunch of nice but not great years, Dan Haren has had a few real nice years but also some pretty mediocre years, and Gio Gonzalez has only pitched 3 full seasons in the majors.

 

Just for comparison's sake:

 

Pre-2001: 25% were 1st round picks (this is using my stricter elite ace standards too. If I added in the more fringy aces this would drop to below 20%)

Post-2001: 64% were 1st round picks (using my data it's 88%)

 

I have yet to see that explained. Until then I contend any pre-2001 data is irrelevant.

Isn't it obvious? What do we do now, that we didn't pre-2001? The elephant in the room is the internet IMO, with steroids mixed in. There is greater access to information about prospects and their tools than ever before. Also, steroids had to be around at the prospect level making guys look better than they actually were causing them to be drafted higher.

 

The lack of INTL guys is very strange and surprising at the same time. That is what I can't seem to explain. Seems to me there should be more high quality arms to come from Latin America than there actually is. Maybe their arms are getting destroyed at a young age? Santana and Felix were drafted at 16 and sheltered. To me, that means to find an ace out of there you need to identify them at 16... which is incredibly young.

[Mike Sixel]

It is about odds. There are 30 plus rounds, of course some will come after round one.....but how many pitchers have to be chafe to get that little wheat? You need five starting pitchers. The twins have one they drafted on the roster. Worley, Pelfrey, Diamond, Correia, who will be the rotation, were not drafted here. Gibson and Hendriks are it for probably two plus years. Zero effective pitchers that were drafted came up last year. Zero the year before. Zero the year before. The last good pitcher to come up that was drafted was Baker. Think about that and think about how you judge their ability to produce players.

[Badsmerf]

It is about odds. There are 30 plus rounds, of course some will come after round one.....but how many pitchers have to be chafe to get that little wheat? You need five starting pitchers. The twins have one they drafted on the roster. Worley, Pelfrey, Diamond, Correia, who will be the rotation, were not drafted here. Gibson and Hendriks are it for probably two plus years. Zero effective pitchers that were drafted came up last year. Zero the year before. Zero the year before. The last good pitcher to come up that was drafted was Baker. Think about that and think about how you judge their ability to produce players.

Garza would qualify as the last to come up that was drafted, I would consider him pretty good. He was the 25th pick overall. What we are discussing is where Ace pitchers come from. It seems pre-2001 the draft was much more of a crap shoot than it is today. Its also clear that the top pitchers are now going to college first rather than coming straight from HS.

[old nurse]

It is about odds. There are 30 plus rounds, of course some will come after round one.....but how many pitchers have to be chafe to get that little wheat? You need five starting pitchers. The twins have one they drafted on the roster. Worley, Pelfrey, Diamond, Correia, who will be the rotation, were not drafted here. Gibson and Hendriks are it for probably two plus years. Zero effective pitchers that were drafted came up last year. Zero the year before. Zero the year before. The last good pitcher to come up that was drafted was Baker. Think about that and think about how you judge their ability to produce players.

There were times 3/5 of their starting rotation was drafted by the team.

[Mike Sixel]

Ah, I got Garza and Baker timelines messed up, sorry about that. Either way, it has been awhile. I expect Gibson to fix that problem this year. I really don't know what to expect from Wimmers, and I have little confidence in any other pitcher in the minors they drafted before this last draft.

 

As for the topic, it should be obvious that as the information age has matured, and teams have started spending more on information and scouting, (and they changed their opinion of college vs HS, and more kids go to college) that it is even more important to have a high draft pick than it was before. That's how market efficiency works.

[Badsmerf]

As for the topic, it should be obvious that as the information age has matured, and teams have started spending more on information and scouting, (and they changed their opinion of college vs HS, and more kids go to college) that it is even more important to have a high draft pick than it was before. That's how market efficiency works.

 

How it is supposed to work. Previously, it hadn't worked like that. With the new CBA and if drafting trends continue we will see more "bad" teams getting high quality pitchers. I'm not sure I would trade Buxton for Appel at this point.

[old nurse]

In terms of college versus high school for the talented pitcher the question is which way will get me to the majors (free agency) the fastest. Slot bonuses took away the big money. A high school pitcher may go in the middle of the first and take the couple million. The draft strategy could change.

In regards to Buxton and Appel, no way. In a couple of years you may see a Hicks for the next version of Appel as Buxton is major league ready.

[old nurse]

You don't necessarily have to be good at drafting pitchers if you can be good enough at developing talent in other areas and be good at trades. Right now you could say the Twins are not good at developing pitchers and middle infielders. That needs to change. Improving one to go along with the other areas the Twins do well in would be fine. Much of this may have to do with what randomness there is in the luck of drafting players so it cycles up and down towards a mean.

[Mike Sixel]

Hicks for a number 2 pitcher, established in the majors? Wow, I can't see that (assuming Appel works out as expected).

[Oxtung]

Isn't it obvious? What do we do now, that we didn't pre-2001? The elephant in the room is the internet IMO, with steroids mixed in. There is greater access to information about prospects and their tools than ever before. Also, steroids had to be around at the prospect level making guys look better than they actually were causing them to be drafted higher.

 

The lack of INTL guys is very strange and surprising at the same time. That is what I can't seem to explain. Seems to me there should be more high quality arms to come from Latin America than there actually is. Maybe their arms are getting destroyed at a young age? Santana and Felix were drafted at 16 and sheltered. To me, that means to find an ace out of there you need to identify them at 16... which is incredibly young.

 

So looking to build some consensus here.

 

Do we agree that the pre-2001/post-2001 split is in fact more than statistical noise and is likely to continue going forward?

 

If you disagree what do you think is causing that split in our data?

 

To me that is what the whole draft debate hinges on, in conjunction with a study of other positions later round success rates. If it is true that ace level pitching (defined however you want for the moment) is incredibly hard to find after round 1 should that change how we look at drafting? BPA is an easy (not easy to determine who the BPA is but easy to understand conceptually) way to think about the draft but if you need ace level pitching (and certainly the Twins do) and the only place to find that is in the first round.....

[Oxtung]

Here is my summary--the higher you draft a pitcher, the more likely that pitcher will be a dominant pitcher. However, given the high rate of flameout of pitchers, due to injury and other issues ("there is no such thing as a pitching prospect"), drafting a pitcher is typically riskier than drafting a position player. Also, given the fact that many pitchers take a long(er) time to develop into their full potential, it is unsurprising that many superstar pitchers come from relatively unheralded draft spots.

 

I have seen many of you making similar claims to this. Is there data to back up these assertions:

 

1) Pitchers are less likely to make it to MLB.

 

2) Pitchers take longer than hitters on average to develop.

 

If those are both true it still needs to be shown that it holds true for top level talent like 1st round picks. Does anybody have a link to studies looking into this?

[cmb0252]

I believe, my memory ain't what it used to be, Mr.Garrioch over at minorleagueball did a study that looked at draftee success. If I remember right he compared college vs high school and position vs pitcher success of first Rounders. If I wasn't stuck on my phone I would try and find/link his study.

 

Edit: here is a link to his study on success rate. Not sure if he has updated it since.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/7/3/2255951/mlb-draft-success-rates