Drafting an Ace

[The Wise One]

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

 

I read the comment as Hicks for a prospect.

[Thrylos]

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?

 

Both of those are BS, other than the fact that Pitchers are more likely to suffer career ending injuries in the minors.

 

And the key word here is "average"

 

you got phenom young pitchers and phenom young hitters and some of them develop later.

[kab21]

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.

 

Your expectations are way too high if a James Shields career for any draft pick is not what you are looking for. 3 times in the last decade there have been a Strasburg, Verlander and Price in the draft. If there isn't an elite pitcher in the draft then your chances of acquiring a true ace by your definition go down significantly.

 

I think you are cherry picking your 2001 cut date. There are several late rd'ers that were picked in 2000 and 2001 while there are several HS first rd'ers picked in 2002. If you move that date around a year or two the numbers change.

 

Additionally many of these aces have been traded or signed as FA's so it's possible to acquire aces other ways than in the first rd of the draft as you contend.

[Badsmerf]

thrylos, where is your research? Before claiming something is BS you should present some evidence why it is BS, otherwise your claim is weak.... especially since some of us have been looking at this data and tracking it for a few weeks.

 

Oxtung, I believe #1 is true based solely on numbers. There are 8 positions to play and only 5 starting pitchers. If you are considering bullpen arms in this I might change my mind. Latin American influence is also more heavily represented in the field I believe (see below for upcoming study). Reading through the entire study from the guy on that link (I used MLB Draft Prospects: MLB Draft - Success Rates of Prospects by Position ) It was really unclear. This data is also only from 1987 to 2001... which lines up perfectly with our agreed upon data shift. I don't think we can use this for much evidence because it is just numbers. He doesn't clearly define his criteria. The most useful is the minor leaguer stat IMO, which still isn't clear. I want to know more detail about his numbers before I use them to come to conclusions.

 

That still leaves out the post 2001 data. Which, yes, I think we are in agreement that there was a clear shift. I'm going to have to dig a little to find where successful position players are drafted. I'll most likely use a compilation of WAR on fangraphs with the top 10 at each position in the last 7 seasons. I'll get back to you about that after I've compiled the data.

 

To me, it looks like the trend since 2001 has been elite college arms at the top of the draft and HS arms at the bottom of the 1st round are the best chance to get an Ace. Depending on where top position players are drafted (we'll have a bigger sample size), we should be able to break it down from there.

[Oxtung]

Your expectations are way too high if a James Shields career for any draft pick is not what you are looking for. 3 times in the last decade there have been a Strasburg, Verlander and Price in the draft. If there isn't an elite pitcher in the draft then your chances of acquiring a true ace by your definition go down significantly.

 

I have explained myself several times now in this thread. With a very high draft pick I am looking for someone that is going to have the potential to be an elite pitcher. You clearly are not. Shields is certainly a nice pitcher and if that is what the Twins ultimately ended up with I wouldn't complain but I certainly hope the Twins are trying to draft the guy with a ceiling in the mold of Kershaw or Lincecum.

 

I think you are cherry picking your 2001 cut date. There are several late rd'ers that were picked in 2000 and 2001 while there are several HS first rd'ers picked in 2002. If you move that date around a year or two the numbers change.

 

And yet the fact remains between 64% - 88% of aces acquired in the last 13 years have been drafted in the first round. Since you don't seem to believe that data accurately represents the current state of baseball why is the data saying it is?

 

Additionally many of these aces have been traded or signed as FA's so it's possible to acquire aces other ways than in the first rd of the draft as you contend.

 

I made no such contention. As a matter of fact I said,

 

The only way to acquire an "Ace" is to draft or trade, making the safe assumption we won't acquire one in FA.

 

Ace level pitchers are perhaps the hardest thing to trade for. We saw just how hard when we had to give up an above average MLB CF with a cost controlled 3 year contract for a pitcher who had thrown a whopping 7 games above low A ball. If we have to repeat that process very often our talent bank will go broke pretty quickly.

[Mike Sixel]

BTW, I think "ace" is too high to shoot. A solid/good number 2 is one of the 30-40 best pitchers on the planet. The Twins have drafted and developed 2 of those in the last decade, traded one for nothing, and the other got hurt. Hopefully Gibson lasts longer than those two.

[old nurse]

And yet the fact remains between 64% - 88% of aces acquired in the last 13 years have been drafted in the first round. Since you don't seem to believe that data accurately represents the current state of baseball why is the data saying it is?

 

 

.

If your figure is 64-88% then I think from a statistics viewpoint you have no clue what the number may be. That the number of "ace" level pitchers are drafted after the first few picks would be evidence that while a team figures a pitcher might be good there are no consistent indicators to identify them. The drafting process remains random for who shall be an ace.

[diehardtwinsfan]

can we stop pretending that a pitcher and a hitter have the same value on a game? A hitter will see 4 at bats, maybe 5 in the average game. A pitcher will typically face the other team 3 times and has more impact on the outcome of a game than the hitter ever will. I get that a pitcher goes once every 5 days, but on any given day, your most important starter is the guy on the mound.

[Mike Sixel]

Not to mention you need 5-7 pitchers, and if they get hurt a lot, you need to draft even more of them! Think about it, if you need 20-30 pitchers in your system to produce 5-7 good ones, shouldn't you be drafting even more of them?

 

An individual hitter is probably more valuable than an individual pitcher, imo. they play "every day", instead of every 5. But, to a team, getting pitchers is more valuable, imo, because you need so many, and because their performance has a huge impact on every at bat for the otehr team, not just 5 at bats (or 4).

 

I'm not arguing passing on Bryce Harper here....I'm arguing that if it is not extremely obvious, you need to take team need into account. by team need, I mean from A ball to the MLB roster, not just the MLB roster.

[kab21]

I have explained myself several times now in this thread. With a very high draft pick I am looking for someone that is going to have the potential to be an elite pitcher. You clearly are not. Shields is certainly a nice pitcher and if that is what the Twins ultimately ended up with I wouldn't complain but I certainly hope the Twins are trying to draft the guy with a ceiling in the mold of Kershaw or Lincecum.

 

I think you need to review some draft history and look at how often teams in the top 5 or top 10 didn't even get a decent hitter/pitcher with their pick. There are years when there are obvious elite pitchers available and they go #1 or #2 (Strasburg, Price, Verlander and Prior for example) and then there are a whole pile of good but not great pitching prospects that have varying levels of success from pretty good to AAAA players.

 

 

And yet the fact remains between 64% - 88% of aces acquired in the last 13 years have been drafted in the first round. Since you don't seem to believe that data accurately represents the current state of baseball why is the data saying it is?

 

the problem is that you are dealing with tiny sample size of players (8) and think you are seeing a trend in 2001. In my data there were 12 pitchers drafted in 1st rd, 10 pitchers drafted after the 1st rd and 3 int'l FA's. My data shows a clump of players from '97-'02 that were drafted in the later rds. there is also a clump of 1st rd'ers drafted from '02-'07. I believe these clumps would even out if the sample size was larger.

 

 

I made no such contention. As a matter of fact I said,

 

Ace level pitchers are perhaps the hardest thing to trade for. We saw just how hard when we had to give up an above average MLB CF with a cost controlled 3 year contract for a pitcher who had thrown a whopping 7 games above low A ball. If we have to repeat that process very often our talent bank will go broke pretty quickly.

 

I think you're overestimating the likelihood of finding an ace using any avenue of acquisition. You only consider there to be 8 aces from 7-8 years of drafts/int'l signings. It's incredibly difficult for any team to acquire one. It's even more difficult if you don't have the #1 overall pick.

[Oxtung]

If your figure is 64-88% then I think from a statistics viewpoint you have no clue what the number may be. That the number of "ace" level pitchers are drafted after the first few picks would be evidence that while a team figures a pitcher might be good there are no consistent indicators to identify them. The drafting process remains random for who shall be an ace.

 

Go back and read the thread. The 64%-88% is variable because people's definition of "ace" is variable. The tighter the definition of ace the less likely it is to be found outside of the first round. At least post-2001. As for the number drafted after the first round, if you look at (for lack of a better term) elite aces there hasn't been a single one drafted after the first round. Only Felix Hernandez crashes the party as an international player. So in the last 12 years there doesn't seem to be anything random about it.

[Oxtung]

I think you need to review some draft history and look at how often teams in the top 5 or top 10 didn't even get a decent hitter/pitcher with their pick. There are years when there are obvious elite pitchers available and they go #1 or #2 (Strasburg, Price, Verlander and Prior for example) and then there are a whole pile of good but not great pitching prospects that have varying levels of success from pretty good to AAAA players.

 

I agree success rates would be interesting to look at. Perhaps that should be a variable in the decision of whether to draft a pitcher or hitter.

 

the problem is that you are dealing with tiny sample size of players (8) and think you are seeing a trend in 2001. In my data there were 12 pitchers drafted in 1st rd, 10 pitchers drafted after the 1st rd and 3 int'l FA's. My data shows a clump of players from '97-'02 that were drafted in the later rds. there is also a clump of 1st rd'ers drafted from '02-'07. I believe these clumps would even out if the sample size was larger.

 

Back to the SSS argument. I agree it's SSS. Choosing to increase your number of "aces" to 25 does nothing to alleviate SSS though. You'd have to look at every draft since the inception to even start to make a dent in SSS. So if your argument is it is an artifact of SSS I have no disagreement but don't see the point in continuing this discussion because there is no way to know who to draft from a statistical approach and we should just all go home and pull a name out of a hat.

 

 

I think you're overestimating the likelihood of finding an ace using any avenue of acquisition. You only consider there to be 8 aces from 7-8 years of drafts/int'l signings. It's incredibly difficult for any team to acquire one. It's even more difficult if you don't have the #1 overall pick.

 

You keep saying that it needs to come out of the top 2 picks but even with my stricter "ace" qualifications that isn't true.

 

Drafted 1-5: Verlander, Price

Drafted 6-10: Kershaw, Lincecum

Drafted 11-15: Weaver

Drafted 16-20: Hamels

Drafted 21-25: Cain

 

 

Look, if all you want out of a draft pick is a #2 starter then you should never take a pitcher in the first round. #2 starters can be found after the first round. I view the point of a first round draft pick as going after someone who has the potential to be a superstar. If that prospect only turns out to be a #2 starter so be it. If that prospect burns out completely and never makes MLB, fine. If you draft a player with #2 pitcher as his ceiling then you'll never find that elite ace. And ultimately that is what I am looking for with this high a draft pick. A chance at greatness. Will that chance work out, I don't know. But give me that chance.

[Mike Sixel]

If you draft a hitter with a pick, you are pretty much 100% guaranteed not to get an ace, right, and what percent are you likely to get a number 2 or 3 type pitcher if you draft a hitter?

 

And really, the next 15-20 best pitchers on the planet are easy to find past round 1? Then why haven't the Twins done so lately?

[Badsmerf]

Oxtung, I finished my data for hitters... very intriguing. The pre-2001 and post-2001 splits are evident too.

 

To recap my findings I'll start from the beginning. I used WAR data for the top 9 (was going for 10 but found out i had copied it wrong when I was finished...) position players for C,1b,2b,ss,2b,3b,cf,of from 2006 to 20012. Not too bad of a spread. But! The splits for pre-2001 and 2001-current are amazing.

[TABLE=width: 500]

[/TD]

[TD]1st

INTL FA

2nd

3-5

6-10

10+

All

34%

19%

14%

11%

9%

13%

pre-2001

33%

0

17%

17%

11%

22%

2001-current

35%

26%

13%

9%

9%

9%

[/TABLE]

 

As you can see, the likely-hood that one of these players was drafted in the 1st round is 34%. The lack of players taken after round 2 that made it into this group is incredibly small post 2001. Only 27%, compared to 50% pre-2001. That is a significant statistical shift that IMO validates our data about pitchers drafts as well. However, a lot of INTL FA make up the post 2001 data as well (players signed after 2001 to be clear).

 

What to do with this data? This isn't at all being used to predict likelihood of becoming one of these players, just where these players were acquired. Since we've agreed that 64-88% of Ace pitchers (depending on definition, 64 being the most forgiving) are drafted in the first round and only 34% of the position players were drafted in the first round the better bet would be to draft as many pitchers in the first round to try and hit on an ace, and find position players via INTL FA or the 2nd round.

 

I didn't anticipate the data to turn out this way. Rounds 1 and 2 along with INTL FA are the most important part of building talent. Side fact, the Twins have done very well in this range of data. Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Torii Hunter and Jason Bartlett all made the cut. I know Bartlett was a trade and not a draftee, but still the Twins are well represented.... If only they could have drafted 1 pitcher with that group...

[Badsmerf]

Then why haven't the Twins done so lately?

Their drafting philosophy was flawed. The last guy they drafted that even profiled that high was Garza. Arguments can be made that Wimmers and Gibson profile as #2... but that is ceiling, not what they are thought to become. I reserve judgement until after this draft since I was satisfied with last year and they might have changed how they scout.

[Oxtung]

Oxtung, I finished my data for hitters... very intriguing. The pre-2001 and post-2001 splits are evident too.

 

To recap my findings I'll start from the beginning. I used WAR data for the top 9 (was going for 10 but found out i had copied it wrong when I was finished...) position players for C,1b,2b,ss,2b,3b,cf,of from 2006 to 20012. Not too bad of a spread. But! The splits for pre-2001 and 2001-current are amazing.

[TABLE=width: 500]

[/TD]

[TD]1st

INTL FA

2nd

3-5

6-10

10+

All

34%

19%

14%

11%

9%

13%

pre-2001

33%

0

17%

17%

11%

22%

2001-current

35%

26%

13%

9%

9%

9%

[/TABLE]

 

As you can see, the likely-hood that one of these players was drafted in the 1st round is 34%. The lack of players taken after round 2 that made it into this group is incredibly small post 2001. Only 27%, compared to 50% pre-2001. That is a significant statistical shift that IMO validates our data about pitchers drafts as well. However, a lot of INTL FA make up the post 2001 data as well (players signed after 2001 to be clear).

 

What to do with this data? This isn't at all being used to predict likelihood of becoming one of these players, just where these players were acquired. Since we've agreed that 64-88% of Ace pitchers (depending on definition, 64 being the most forgiving) are drafted in the first round and only 34% of the position players were drafted in the first round the better bet would be to draft as many pitchers in the first round to try and hit on an ace, and find position players via INTL FA or the 2nd round.

 

I didn't anticipate the data to turn out this way. Rounds 1 and 2 along with INTL FA are the most important part of building talent. Side fact, the Twins have done very well in this range of data. Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Torii Hunter and Jason Bartlett all made the cut. I know Bartlett was a trade and not a draftee, but still the Twins are well represented.... If only they could have drafted 1 pitcher with that group...

 

Interesting. I'll have to think on this for a bit. Did you use the top 9 players by WAR regardless of position (excluding pitchers of course) or did you use the top 9 of every position? I.E. does your data set include 9 players (just top 9 hitters over 7 combined years) 63 players (top 9 players per season for 7 seasons) or 504 players (top 9 players per season per position)?

[Badsmerf]

Top 9 for each position over that time. So, I think it was a little over 60 players. Still, the players on this list are very very good players. Obviously to be in the top 9 in WAR over 7 season a player needs to be good for a long period of time, which is what any team wants in a position player. Some of the guys were surprising. Both JJ Hardy and Jason Bartlett were on the list as SS. Considering how dreadful the Twins have been at the position yet had 2 of the best and got rid of them... pretty unbelievable. Using WAR might not be the best way to judge, but it includes offense and defense and WAR over a large sample size of games is a pretty good judge IMO. I could name the players I used if everyone would like...

[kab21]

25 is a significantly larger sample than 8. I'm not sure how that is debatable.

 

I understand your quest for greatness but it's disturbing how easy you dismiss pitchers as #2's when they have put up top 25 numbers for a long period of time. these guys are really, really good pitchers and I would be thrilled to get a guy that I thought would be a top 25 pitcher for a long time.

 

Imo Weaver profiles closer to the #2's that you dismiss. out of your sample this gives you Verlander, Price and Lincecum as college aces. The first two (along with another ace that hasn't made the discussion yet - Strasburg) were no doubt BPA's in the draft. Those guys aren't available at #4 this year. Lincecum dropped a few spots because he's short. The other 3 were HS'ers. If you want to pursue greatness then your argument is that the Twins should go with a HS pitcher that profiles more like Bundy or last year's Max Fried but the risk of getting nothing is significantly higher. Perhaps you go for a go like Kohl Stewart instead of Chris Anderson or Ryan Stanek if your main goal is getting a true ace.

[Badsmerf]

Oxtung has acknowledged his definition is strict. Kab, I believe you and I both listed 24 pitchers. Interestingly enough, this larger sample still shows the same trends. It is not as drastic because limiting it too far down results in can't-miss guys that get snatched up right away.

 

Mostly with having this discussion, the split we see at 2001 is intriguing. Since the data held up with pitchers and position players, I think we are seeing a trend. It shouldn't be surprising. Guys drafted in the first rounds should end up better, that is why they are drafted there. The "missed" prospects are going to be fewer and further between. Also, it looks like you have a better chance of finding a position player that develops than a pitcher.

[Thrylos]

thrylos, where is your research? Before claiming something is BS you should present some evidence why it is BS, otherwise your claim is weak.... especially since some of us have been looking at this data and tracking it for a few weeks.

 

Ummmmm

 

do the math (or search it yourself) :

drafted pitchers are making the majors at about the same rate as position players.

 

That's what I called BS (claiming that Ps are less likely to make the majors than position players - matter of fact they are more likely)

 

I kinda still waiting for the definition of an "Ace" (in a quantitative manner, btw)

[kab21]

Oxtung has acknowledged his definition is strict. Kab, I believe you and I both listed 24 pitchers. Interestingly enough, this larger sample still shows the same trends. It is not as drastic because limiting it too far down results in can't-miss guys that get snatched up right away.

 

Mostly with having this discussion, the split we see at 2001 is intriguing. Since the data held up with pitchers and position players, I think we are seeing a trend. It shouldn't be surprising. Guys drafted in the first rounds should end up better, that is why they are drafted there. The "missed" prospects are going to be fewer and further between. Also, it looks like you have a better chance of finding a position player that develops than a pitcher.

 

The larger sample doesn't show the same trends as Oxtung's imo. Oxtung's group of 8 shows zero players drafted after the 1st rd while my group has 10/25 drafted after the 1st rd.

 

I'm also not sure that the 2001 split is anything more than a sample size issue. Are you suggesting that things were significantly different during the 5 years before 2001 and the 5 years after? I don't think things change this quickly. One other issue is that there are several aces (Lincecum, Price and Kershaw) that were drafted in 2006 or 2007. they flew through the minors as 1st rd picks and because they were very good. Guys that are later rd picks usually take longer to develop because they didn't start as highly ranked.

[Badsmerf]

thrylos, we all explained our criteria for an Ace. Kab and I have 25 players (him 25, 24 for me). Perhaps if we badger Oxtung enough he will agree to loosen his criteria and we can all agree.

 

Kab, I do think things changed that drastically. The main things I can attribute: the internet, cell phones, money in the game, steroids, sabermetrics. I believe they all had a significant influence on scouting players and drafting and continue to do so. We can only wait and see, but I firmly believe this trend will continue.

[kab21]

I don't think that changed in two 5-6 yr periods.

[Badsmerf]

I don't think that changed in two 5-6 yr periods.

Maybe, data says otherwise. How much evidence do you need? In 5 more years it should be even more clear, but I don't know of any hot prospects or hot young players that buck this trend.

[kab21]

I did a quick scan of young pitchers and came up with these guys as potential #1/2's with a full season of experience. I left out guys like Miley, Parker, Samardzija, Hudson and Kennedy since I need a little more convincing about their upside. I also left off guys like Harvey, Bundy and Fernandez (all 1st rd'ers) since they have barely pitched in the majors yet.

 

late rd picks

Gio - 1st supplemental - HS - '04

Zimmerman - rd 2 - Uni - '07

Latos - rd 11 - HS - '06

Moore - rd8 - HS - '07

Gallardo - rd2 - HS - '04

 

1st rd picks

Bumgarner #10 - HS - '07

Sale - #13 - Uni - '10

Scherzer - #11 - Uni - '06

Strasburg - #1 - Uni - '09

 

int'l but different than the previous int'l FA's

Darvish - megabucks Japan

[Mike Sixel]

So, not many college relievers in rounds 2+ on the list....hopefully the Twins discovered some kind of market inefficiency.....but I have my doubts.

[Oxtung]

Oxtung, I finished my data for hitters... very intriguing. The pre-2001 and post-2001 splits are evident too.

 

To recap my findings I'll start from the beginning. I used WAR data for the top 9 (was going for 10 but found out i had copied it wrong when I was finished...) position players for C,1b,2b,ss,2b,3b,cf,of from 2006 to 20012. Not too bad of a spread. But! The splits for pre-2001 and 2001-current are amazing.

[TABLE=width: 500]

[/TD]

[TD]1st

INTL FA

2nd

3-5

6-10

10+

All

34%

19%

14%

11%

9%

13%

pre-2001

33%

0

17%

17%

11%

22%

2001-current

35%

26%

13%

9%

9%

9%

[/TABLE]

 

As you can see, the likely-hood that one of these players was drafted in the 1st round is 34%. The lack of players taken after round 2 that made it into this group is incredibly small post 2001. Only 27%, compared to 50% pre-2001. That is a significant statistical shift that IMO validates our data about pitchers drafts as well. However, a lot of INTL FA make up the post 2001 data as well (players signed after 2001 to be clear).

 

What to do with this data? This isn't at all being used to predict likelihood of becoming one of these players, just where these players were acquired. Since we've agreed that 64-88% of Ace pitchers (depending on definition, 64 being the most forgiving) are drafted in the first round and only 34% of the position players were drafted in the first round the better bet would be to draft as many pitchers in the first round to try and hit on an ace, and find position players via INTL FA or the 2nd round.

 

I didn't anticipate the data to turn out this way. Rounds 1 and 2 along with INTL FA are the most important part of building talent. Side fact, the Twins have done very well in this range of data. Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Torii Hunter and Jason Bartlett all made the cut. I know Bartlett was a trade and not a draftee, but still the Twins are well represented.... If only they could have drafted 1 pitcher with that group...

 

I have thought about this for a week now and as much as I wanted to agree with you Smerf I just can't. I don't see anything in that data saying elite hitters getting drafted in the 1st round are succeeding more often than pre-2001 levels. What I do see is that some of the fringe seasons that came out of later rounds are instead going to international signees.

 

However, it also appears that elite hitting talent, while still most prevalent in the first round, can be found in the later rounds. This is different from elite pitching talent. Even if I expand my data to include all 19 pitchers that have placed on a top 10 list at least one time and were acquired after 2001 only 3 of them were drafted outside of the first 2 rounds, Jaime Garcia, Josh Johnson and Doug Fister.

[Oxtung]

The larger sample doesn't show the same trends as Oxtung's imo. Oxtung's group of 8 shows zero players drafted after the 1st rd while my group has 10/25 drafted after the 1st rd.

 

I'm also not sure that the 2001 split is anything more than a sample size issue. Are you suggesting that things were significantly different during the 5 years before 2001 and the 5 years after? I don't think things change this quickly. One other issue is that there are several aces (Lincecum, Price and Kershaw) that were drafted in 2006 or 2007. they flew through the minors as 1st rd picks and because they were very good. Guys that are later rd picks usually take longer to develop because they didn't start as highly ranked.

 

As I've said previously it doesn't matter where an Ace is drafted (or signed internationally) historically. If you're an Ace level pitcher you move through the system at the same pace whether you're drafted 1st overall or in the 8th round. Hell, Saberhagen was drafted in the 19th round and is the youngest pitcher in the last 30 years to be ranked at least one time in the top 10 in ERA for a season.

 

Your "25 aces" group splits the same way as my data, just not quite as extreme, with a pre-2001 post-2001 acquisition date. Only Josh Johnson and Lester were drafted outside of the 1st round in your group. I don't know if I believe post-2001 is SSS or not but I do think the many reasons brought up by Badsmerf could explain why we're seeing a split in the data. So much has changed since the mid-90's in how players are evaluated. I'm not willing to flat out rule that out. If that is true then it needs to be reflected in draft strategies.

[Badsmerf]

I have thought about this for a week now and as much as I wanted to agree with you Smerf I just can't. I don't see anything in that data saying elite hitters getting drafted in the 1st round are succeeding more often than pre-2001 levels. What I do see is that some of the fringe seasons that came out of later rounds are instead going to international signees.

I'm not really saying that. More, that elite hitters are more likely to come from the 1st round or INTL FA now. The data pre-2001 shows there was more talent picked-up in later rounds than there is now. It also didn't have a single INTL FA, which was surprising. I agree it does show that while the odds are lower, there are still talented players being drafted in later rounds.... unlike Ace level pitchers.

[Oxtung]

25 is a significantly larger sample than 8. I'm not sure how that is debatable.

 

I understand your quest for greatness but it's disturbing how easy you dismiss pitchers as #2's when they have put up top 25 numbers for a long period of time. these guys are really, really good pitchers and I would be thrilled to get a guy that I thought would be a top 25 pitcher for a long time.

 

Imo Weaver profiles closer to the #2's that you dismiss. out of your sample this gives you Verlander, Price and Lincecum as college aces. The first two (along with another ace that hasn't made the discussion yet - Strasburg) were no doubt BPA's in the draft. Those guys aren't available at #4 this year. Lincecum dropped a few spots because he's short. The other 3 were HS'ers. If you want to pursue greatness then your argument is that the Twins should go with a HS pitcher that profiles more like Bundy or last year's Max Fried but the risk of getting nothing is significantly higher. Perhaps you go for a go like Kohl Stewart instead of Chris Anderson or Ryan Stanek if your main goal is getting a true ace.

 

There is almost no difference between 8 and 25 players. They are both ridiculously SSS. The difference is I acknowledge mine is SSS and you keep saying your 25 is conclusive. The only way you are going to get rid of SSS is if you expand the search parameters to include many more seasons. I don't think that really helps us though because so much has changed in the 15 years let alone the last 50. Is draft data from the 1970's really relevant to today's game?

 

You and I have a different definition of Ace. That's OK. I have explained myself several times. I'm not sure why you keep poking this with a stick.

 

When it comes to the draft I'm not sure if the Twins should draft a pitcher at 4 or not. That is why I was looking into the numbers behind previous drafts. If they do draft a pitcher I don't care if he comes from the college ranks or high school so long as there is considerable upside. If that means a HS pitcher at 4 I have no problems with that. Lincecum (taken 10th) and Weaver (12th) were taken later in the first round so it isn't like you can't get college pitchers that turn into Aces at the 4th spot.