PDA

View Full Version : Jim Callis (BA) regarding the Reds draft



NorrisHopper30
04-07-2008, 03:26 PM
By the way, the Reds have the seventh pick, and BA's Jim Callis thinks they'll go for a pitcher. He names Shooter Hunt, Tanner Scheppers, and Tim Melville as the main candidates.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/ask-ba/2008/265874.html

Joseph
04-07-2008, 03:34 PM
Shooter, now thats a pitchers name.

Benihana
04-07-2008, 03:40 PM
Shooter, now thats a pitchers name.

We could have a staff with Shooter and Homer? Aaron, Johnny, Edinson, Homer, and Shooter. I like it!

Caveat Emperor
04-07-2008, 06:14 PM
We're seriously devoid of good nicknames in the organization, from top to bottom.

edabbs44
04-07-2008, 07:32 PM
We could have a staff with Shooter and Homer? Aaron, Johnny, Edinson, Homer, and Shooter. I like it!

Better yet, we could have a Shooter and a Hopper.

NorrisHopper30
04-07-2008, 07:33 PM
Better yet, we could have a Shooter and a Hopper.

:laugh:

Nice catch!

RedlegJake
04-07-2008, 11:13 PM
Crow, Matusz, Melville, Hunt, Scheppers -I'd be thrilled with any one of them. Personally, I like Scheppers. College righty, late to pitching (converted from SS) without a lot of HS wear on his arm who's gotten better and better and hits high 90s on occasion. I'm figuring Crow and Matusz will likely be gone and possibly Melville. Melville is a HSer and not obviously better than the college guys so why take that risk at #7 when Schepers gives you a "young" arm with a more mature head.

Superdude
04-07-2008, 11:22 PM
http://bp2.blogger.com/_RaZc771eDZY/RnsOp9v208I/AAAAAAAAAWg/sRkizM1rTNQ/s1600-h/mcgavin.jpg

Edd Roush
04-07-2008, 11:28 PM
Mark me down for Shooter. I want a pitcher who will contribute some time within the Reds' window to compete and Tim Melville is still way too far away and Tanner Scheppers had an ERA of 4.74 last year in the WAC and a 9.00 ERA the year before. If it is between these three, the only one I would consider is Shooter.

OnBaseMachine
04-07-2008, 11:31 PM
My only concern is Shooter Hunt has walked 27 batters in 44.1 innings.

Edd Roush
04-07-2008, 11:50 PM
My only concern is Shooter Hunt has walked 27 batters in 44.1 innings.

True, but 58 Ks in 44.1 innings pitched is absolutely disgusting. Oh, and for all of those fans of traditional stats, how about a 5 and 0 record with a 1.02 ERA. He seems like he would fit well into the Reds' window to compete.

OnBaseMachine
04-07-2008, 11:56 PM
I tried to find a scouting report on him but was unsuccessful. Anyone know what type of pitches he throws or his velocity?

OnBaseMachine
04-08-2008, 12:00 AM
Didn't look hard enough I guess. I just found this report on him along with a video. Look who they compare him to:

Physical Description - Tall, wiry, proportioned body with decent projection. Looks thinner than his listed weight. Thin legs, long lower half with room to grow. Looks very, very young. Very strong, and a complete, all-around athlete. Looks like Jensen Lewis.

Fastball - True power arm, fastball sits at 92-94, touches 96. Attacks hitters with heat and loves to work inside. Knocks hitters down to setup the outer half. Command of the fastball comes and goes, very, very inconsistent. The command is a major concern. Fastball moves late and hard in on righties, breaks a lot of bats. Enough movement to cause his control problems. Electric fastball.

Curveball - Hammer curveball at 78-82 MPH, seems to spot this pitch better than any other. Doesn’t throw many bad ones and works it on both sides of the plate. Plus pitch. Breaks late and just drops off the table. 12-6 break with tight, hard spin. Great feel for this pitch and throws it with conviction. Big swing and miss pitch, just needs to stay ahead in the count to use it. Still some issues with his command of this pitch.

Changeup - Power changeup, throws at 84-87 MPH. Very straight with very little movement or action. True straight changeup, and is surprisingly very effective with hitters sitting on his heat. Definitely his third pitch and doesn’t use much. When he uses it he shows a decent feel, its a fringy pitch but a good change of pace.

Mechanics - High leg kick, throws right over the top. A little big herky jerky and can get out of sync in a hurry. Smooth, very quick arm action but will need to tighten up the rest of his mechanics. Has trouble repeating his delivery, perhaps should trying simplifying his delivery. Too many moving parts. Shoulders flies open occassionally. Delivery is very similar to Mark Melancon.

Notes - Power pitcher but struggles with command in spurts. Sometimes spots his pitches as well as anyone but can fall out of his groove incredibly quickly. Lots of walks, lots of strikeouts. When on, he’s got frontline potential. Plus makeup, plays to win, great competitive attitude. Must learn to pitch, not throw. Huge upside.

Adjusted Overall Future Potential: 60

Present Group: P, Future Group: A-

Projected Role: #2 starter

Draft Projection: Picks 10-20

Overall Comparison: Homer Bailey (with rougher mechanics)

http://saberscouting.com/2008/03/22/scouting-report-shooter-hunter/

The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdA429c8_LE&eurl=http://saberscouting.com/2008/03/22/scouting-report-shooter-hunter/

Aronchis
04-08-2008, 01:15 AM
Hunt sounds interesting. Sort of a Bailey-lite ability. But older and maybe about ready to put it all together?

RedlegJake
04-08-2008, 07:23 AM
Mark me down for Shooter. I want a pitcher who will contribute some time within the Reds' window to compete and Tim Melville is still way too far away and Tanner Scheppers had an ERA of 4.74 last year in the WAC and a 9.00 ERA the year before. If it is between these three, the only one I would consider is Shooter.

Yep but Scheppers just started pitching in college. He's going to be farther away than Hunt, not as far as Melville. I like his arm better.

SunDeck
04-08-2008, 09:52 AM
Shooter, now thats a pitchers name.

I'd draft him just for the name. Unless a guy named Cutbaiter Fish is available.

Edd Roush
04-08-2008, 10:17 AM
Yep but Scheppers just started pitching in college. He's going to be farther away than Hunt, not as far as Melville. I like his arm better.

Yea, I didn't realize that until it was brought up on another thread. Scheppers looks like he could turn into something special, and so could Hunt. All in all, if these three pitchers were the only ones that the Reds are considering selecting, I think I'd still stick with Hunt, but after enough analysis, I think I would actually rather have some one else. I like the idea of stock piling arms, but if we can get a guy who legitmately could rake and would only need as much time in the minors as a guy like Frazier, sign me up.

I don't think our organization is overly deep at any position other than third base, so if we can bring a big bat that isn't stuck at third, I think I would go for that.

edabbs44
04-08-2008, 10:25 AM
My only concern is Shooter Hunt has walked 27 batters in 44.1 innings.

Wonder what that is about...he only walked 30 in 100 innings last year.

REDblooded
04-08-2008, 11:52 AM
I really wouldn't mind seeing Gordon Beckham being drafted and gromed as a replacement for BPhilly eventually at second.

Edd Roush
04-08-2008, 01:26 PM
Wonder what that is about...he only walked 30 in 100 innings last year.

I have heard that he has herky-jerky mechanics and gets out of his groove easily ie Homer Bailey.

RedlegJake
04-08-2008, 02:12 PM
I have heard that he has herky-jerky mechanics and gets out of his groove easily ie Homer Bailey.

And my last for Scheppers. He's been taught by a pitching coach hired by his dad, a HS coach, since he started pitching in college. Mechanics are smooth and he's aded several mph to his velocity over the past 2 years. He is still trending upward. I'd be happy with Shooter, too, don't get me wrong. I just think TS has the stuff to be really special.

M2
04-08-2008, 02:12 PM
If the Reds draft a pitcher with the first pick (particularly a college pitcher), expect it to be a guy with a good K/BB. Scheppers is 64/15 in 44.2 IP.

OnBaseMachine
04-08-2008, 02:40 PM
Scheppers is really growing on me more and more each day. Baseball America ranks him as the 9th best draft prospect and said he was more impressive than Matusz and Crow at the USD tournament in February. He's got a great power pitcher body and clean mechanics. Sign me up for Tanners Scheppers at #7. In the third round I'd go after a big HS OF bat...

edabbs44
04-08-2008, 02:56 PM
Scheppers is really growing on me more and more each day. Baseball America ranks him as the 9th best draft prospect and said he was more impressive than Matusz and Crow at the USD tournament in February. He's got a great power pitcher body and clean mechanics. Sign me up for Tanners Scheppers at #7. In the third round I'd go after a big HS OF bat...

I'm not sure about his hat...

http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/fres/sports/m-basebl/auto_headshot/1594017.jpeg

lollipopcurve
04-08-2008, 03:06 PM
Scheppers is really growing on me more and more each day. Baseball America ranks him as the 9th best draft prospect and said he was more impressive than Matusz and Crow at the USD tournament in February. He's got a great power pitcher body and clean mechanics. Sign me up for Tanners Scheppers at #7. In the third round I'd go after a big HS OF bat...

Not sure about this guy this high. New to pitching, primarily fastball with a hard slider he doesn't control all that well and no third pitch to speak of. He's raw. He may never get that third pitch, which makes him a reliever. And the fastball/hard slider combo is a bit risky, elbow-wise -- especially, I'd say, for a guy who hasn't pitched a whole lot.

I'm not real keen on the hard throwers at the top this year. The lefty Friedrich is the most intriguing to me at this point (I don't think Matusz drops to the Reds). But mainly I'm partial to the hitters this year.

Kingspoint
04-09-2008, 02:46 AM
The College baseball season has just begun. The 1st Round is upside down right now from what it will be 3 months from now.

I want to see how the University of Michigan's ACE does this season, and if he does as well as I think he will, I think he'll rise into the upper 3rd of the 1st round draft. A young pitcher of 21 who'll be ready to pitch in the Majors by mid-season 2009.

Pitcher of the Week
By Chris Meszaros, written on Apr. 1, 2008

Michigan pitcher Zach Putnam was chosen pitcher of the week by the Big Ten Conference. Putnam pitched a whale of a game in his home debut against Iowa on Saturday, striking out 12 batters and pitching a perfect game through six and a third innings. The Wolverines won that game in extra innings 4-3. However, Putnam was denied the win because of three costly errors in the seventh inning. Shortstop Leif Mahler made a poor throw and was unable to field a ball, allowing Iowa runners on base and giving the Hawkeyes a chance to get back in the game.

To add to his already impressive performance, Putnam struck out the side twice, in the fifth and sixth innings, before leaving the game in the eighth inning. However Putnam was crucial in to the win, driving home the game winning run with an RBI double.

Putnam has started the season well on the mound, and though he has only recorded one win on the season, he has a team best 2.66 ERA on the year. To add to his accomplishments, Putnam is one of the better hitters on the team and nearly won the two games against the Hawkeyes, particularly the first game, single-handedly. Putnam and the Wolverines will head up to Central Michigan tomorrow and to Penn State this weekend.

LoganBuck
04-09-2008, 07:22 AM
I'm not sure about his hat...

http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/fres/sports/m-basebl/auto_headshot/1594017.jpeg

Dork Alert!

cincyinco
04-09-2008, 07:08 PM
Dork or not, if that guy can win us some games.. i could care less.

Sabo was a pretty big lookin dork in those goggles... heh.

Newman4
04-09-2008, 09:07 PM
Watching the video of Hunt, it appears that he throws a lot with his arm. Plants the front leg earlier than he should and doesn't push off the mound much. I bet he could gain 3-4 mph on the fastball with some guidance.

M2
04-10-2008, 02:22 PM
Watching the video of Hunt, it appears that he throws a lot with his arm. Plants the front leg earlier than he should and doesn't push off the mound much. I bet he could gain 3-4 mph on the fastball with some guidance.

IMO, that's an excellent reason not to draft a guy. With the #7 pick I'd want someone who doesn't require re-engineering (e.g. Drew Stubbs).

cincyinco
04-11-2008, 01:31 AM
If its something the Reds believe they can fix, why not?

You should be confident with the guys you surround your kids with that they can teach them the game..

IslandRed
04-11-2008, 09:39 AM
If its something the Reds believe they can fix, why not?

You should be confident with the guys you surround your kids with that they can teach them the game..

Nothing wrong with having faith in development, but when it comes to fixing, there's refining (everyone needs that, unless he's ready for the majors right then and there) and then there's overhauling. At #7 overall, there's no reason to take on the risks of an overhaul, not unless you believe the guy's talent is far superior to any other option on the board.

M2
04-11-2008, 02:32 PM
Nothing wrong with having faith in development, but when it comes to fixing, there's refining (everyone needs that, unless he's ready for the majors right then and there) and then there's overhauling. At #7 overall, there's no reason to take on the risks of an overhaul, not unless you believe the guy's talent is far superior to any other option on the board.

Exactly. With the #7 pick, you take someone who's got his game together. It's an acquisition pick, not a development pick.

A guy who might be good if you remake his delivery is something the Reds can take with that 3rd round pick.

Kingspoint
04-11-2008, 03:07 PM
Exactly. Odds of a player from the 1st Two Rounds even making it to the Majors is already at 50%. Odds of them being good is much less than that. So many things can happen with "developing" a player, and the most likely thing is that they just don't develop enough.

The College system is great right now and there are a lot of proven tremendous talents out there at various stages of their College careers, not that you're suggesting a College player.

dougdirt
04-11-2008, 03:15 PM
Exactly. Odds of a player from the 1st Two Rounds even making it to the Majors is already at 50%. Odds of them being good is much less than that. So many things can happen with "developing" a player, and the most likely thing is that they just don't develop enough.

The College system is great right now and there are a lot of proven tremendous talents out there at various stages of their College careers, not that you're suggesting a College player.

HS/College doesn't really matter anymore. Pitchers/Catchers from both are big risks and flop a whole lot. Outfielders and corner infielders are generally safe picks. Middle IF guys are hit and miss.

M2
04-11-2008, 05:17 PM
HS/College doesn't really matter anymore.

In the upper first round it absolutely does.

Aronchis
04-11-2008, 05:18 PM
Mark me down for Shooter. I want a pitcher who will contribute some time within the Reds' window to compete and Tim Melville is still way too far away and Tanner Scheppers had an ERA of 4.74 last year in the WAC and a 9.00 ERA the year before. If it is between these three, the only one I would consider is Shooter.

Actually, Melville doesn't need to be in the Reds window to compete, we already have that. He would be a replacement.

Crow sounds like somebody the Reds would drool over. Though Matusz and Melville(this years Porcello) sound more interesting in that order.

dougdirt
04-11-2008, 05:23 PM
In the upper first round it absolutely does.

Not really. It matters if you possibly want the guy who get their faster.... but that doesn't always translate into the better player.

lollipopcurve
04-11-2008, 05:25 PM
In the upper first round it absolutely does.

I'm going to disagree here, too. But we'll never settle this.

M2
04-11-2008, 05:45 PM
I'm going to disagree here, too. But we'll never settle this.

We'll never settle it because you refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming data that shows college pitchers taken in the upper first round deliver for the teams that drafted them roughly three times better than HS arms taken in the upper first round.

It's not debatable. There's no gray area.

I'm not saying never draft a HS arm in the upper first round, just that if you're drafting there and looking at the best HS arm on your board and the best college arm, then you better like HS better by a few orders of magnitude, otherwise you should be picking the college arm.

The path to failure is littered with folks who thought they knew how to beat those odds.

M2
04-11-2008, 06:00 PM
Not really. It matters if you possibly want the guy who get their faster.... but that doesn't always translate into the better player.

Wrong, and it's about time you stop spouting that nonsense. It doesn't matter after you past that upper first round, but when it comes to the highest dollar, best-chance-of-success picks, the hit rate (hit rate meaning you actually pitch well for the team that drafted you) on college pitchers is roughly 30% while the hit rate on HS pitchers is roughly 10%.

That is a massive differential. The problem with drafting HS pitchers, and this couldn't be more obvious, is that no one does it well. There is no portion of the draft where the industry has ever been able to deliver a meaningful success rate on HS arms.

Once the success rates drop on other player types (which happens in the latter portion of the 1st round), then it becomes a guessing game, but up in those top picks (especially the top 10) college arms have been a vastly superior investment.

dougdirt
04-11-2008, 06:02 PM
We'll never settle it because you refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming data that shows college pitchers taken in the upper first round deliver for the teams that drafted them roughly three times better than HS arms taken in the upper first round.

It's not debatable. There's no gray area.

I'm not saying never draft a HS arm in the upper first round, just that if you're drafting there and looking at the best HS arm on your board and the best college arm, then you better like HS better by a few orders of magnitude, otherwise you should be picking the college arm.

The path to failure is littered with folks who thought they knew how to beat those odds.

Firstly, its highly debatable because the data used for such studies is from drafts 10 years ago and longer and so many things have changed in terms protecting these arms now days of young pitchers. Lets see how these studies play out for drafts between 2000 and 2007 or so in about 2015 and let me know how that data looks.

Still, I don't think it had anything to do specifically with pitchers as it did with all players.

Doc. Scott
04-11-2008, 06:05 PM
It was definitely interesting that Chris Buckley took Mesoraco in the first round last season after presiding over or participating heavily in selecting between 2001-2005:

-David Bush (polished college closer immediately converted to starting, like what we tried with Sean Watson last year)

-Gabe Gross, Aaron Hill and Russ Adams (polished college hitters with limited upside)

-David Purcey/Ricky Romero/Zach Jackson (polished college lefthanders with #4ish ceilings).

All of those in the first or second rounds. Buckley (http://www.baseballamerica.com/execdb/?show=exec&eid=bucklch01) was only scouting director from 2001-2003, but he was still in the Jays front office in 2004 and 2005.

I say this every year: I just want the Reds to take the best player available, regardless of position. Risk aversion (i.e. avoiding HS pitchers in round 1) is good, but if you're the 2007 Detroit Tigers, for example, and Rick Porcello is the best player left- you take him.

I also believe that the failure rate of HS arms will decrease going forward. The overall level of knowledge in MLB about the care and feeding of teenage pitchers has risen considerably over the last 10 years.

dougdirt
04-11-2008, 06:15 PM
Wrong, and it's about time you stop spouting that nonsense. It doesn't matter after you past that upper first round, but when it comes to the highest dollar, best-chance-of-success picks, the hit rate (hit rate meaning you actually pitch well for the team that drafted you) on college pitchers is roughly 30% while the hit rate on HS pitchers is roughly 10%.

That is a massive differential. The problem with drafting HS pitchers, and this couldn't be more obvious, is that no one does it well. There is no portion of the draft where the industry has ever been able to deliver a meaningful success rate on HS arms.

Once the success rates drop on other player types (which happens in the latter portion of the 1st round), then it becomes a guessing game, but up in those top picks (especially the top 10) college arms have been a vastly superior investment.

Data from long ago that is completely irrelevent now due to changes in the ways high school pitchers are protected and brought along from the time that data was taken.

2001 Draft top 15
HS pitchers - Gavin Floyd, Colt Griffin, Mike Jones
College Pitchers - Mark Prior, Dewon Brazelton, Josh Karp, Chris Smith, John VanBenschoten, Kenny Baugh

A whole lot of crap.... and Mark Prior.

2002 Draft top 15
HS Pitchers - Chris Gruler, Adam Loewen, Clint Everts, Zack Greinke, Scott Kazmir
College Pitchers - Bryan Bullington, Jeff Francis, Joe Saunders

2003 Draft top 15
HS Pitchers - John Danks
College Pitchers -Kyle Sleeth, Tim Stauffer, Paul Maholm

2004 Draft top 15
HS pitchers - Mark Rogers, Homer Bailey
College Pitchers - Justin Verlander, Phil humber, Jeff Niemann, Jeremy Sowers, Wade Townsend, Thomas Diamond, Jared Weaver

2005 is way too soon, but lately it would be difficult to assume that the college arms have some type of big gap of talent here. There are plenty of big misses in that college corp, just like there are some big ones in the high school corp. Sleeth, Stauffer, Sowers, Bullington are equal to Gruler, Rogers, Griffin and Jones.

M2
04-11-2008, 06:20 PM
Firstly, its highly debatable because the data used for such studies is from drafts 10 years ago and longer and so many things have changed in terms protecting these arms now days of young pitchers.

I remember hearing that 10 years ago. Just because it's new to you doesn't mean it isn't the same old B.S.


Lets see how these studies play out for drafts between 2000 and 2007 or so in about 2015 and let me know how that data looks.

We've been over this. The early returns on the 2000-2007 are looking even more pro-college than the '90s or the '80s. It's 5:1 in favor of college pitchers (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1540739&postcount=109)drafted in the top 15 in those drafts who've qualified for an ERA title with a sub-5.00 ERA (I missed Scott Kazmir in my orginal post, he's the 1 HS guy). Frankly, if the industry does get better about protecting "young arms" then that benefits college arms as well and the net effect could be that 3:1 hit ratio remains, but the overall gross number of hits grows in favor of the college arms.

The data is screaming at you. I suggest you listen.


Still, I don't think it had anything to do specifically with pitchers as it did with all players.

Anyone conflating HS/college into "all players" groups need to unhit him/herself with a shovel. When you're talking about pitchers, there is a substantially higher return on investment on college arms in the upper first round compared to HS arms. Where the dollar risk is highest, they have proven a superior investment.

On the position player side, I'd have to take another look at it, but I believe HS players have proven a marginally better investment than college players in high first round picks. I've never looked at it, but I'd be interested to see how that breaks down in the latter portion of the 1st round, 2nd round/supplemental 1st and 3rd rounds. I suspect there's a niche in the that favors college players and then it begins to tip back toward HS position players.

dougdirt
04-11-2008, 06:37 PM
College Pitchers taken in the Top 20 between 2001 and 2004 (stopped there because HS guys drafted in 2004 turn 22 this year, so even still there isn't a ton of room for play):
Dewon Brazelton, Josh Karp, Chris Smith, John VanBenschoten, Bryan Bullington, Jeff Francis, Joe Saunders, Royce Ring, Kyle Sleeth, Tim Stauffer, Paul Maholm, Justin Verlander, Philip Humber, Jeff Niemann, Jeremy Sowers, Wade Townsend, Thomas Diamond, Jared Weaver, Chris Lamber and Mark Prior.
So we have Francis, Maholm, Verlander, Weaver and Prior out of 26 picks.

High School pitchers taken in the top 20 over the same time period:
Gavin Floyd, Colt Griffin, Mike Jones, Kris Honel, Dan Denham, Chris Gruler, Adam Loewen, Zack Greinke, Scott Kazmir, Cole Hamels, John Danks, Jeff Allison, Mark Rogers, Homer Bailey, Scott Elbert and Clint Everts.
So that is Greinke, Kazmir, Hamels and Bailey out of 17.

Are you really trying to tell me that the college group has some big advantage there? As we can use more data as the group from 2004 and on gets older, I think we will continue to see the same thing going on.....

M2
04-11-2008, 07:17 PM
College Pitchers taken in the Top 20 between 2001 and 2004 (stopped there because HS guys drafted in 2004 turn 22 this year, so even still there isn't a ton of room for play):
Dewon Brazelton, Josh Karp, Chris Smith, John VanBenschoten, Bryan Bullington, Jeff Francis, Joe Saunders, Royce Ring, Kyle Sleeth, Tim Stauffer, Paul Maholm, Justin Verlander, Philip Humber, Jeff Niemann, Jeremy Sowers, Wade Townsend, Thomas Diamond, Jared Weaver, Chris Lamber and Mark Prior.
So we have Francis, Maholm, Verlander, Weaver and Prior out of 26 picks.

High School pitchers taken in the top 20 over the same time period:
Gavin Floyd, Colt Griffin, Mike Jones, Kris Honel, Dan Denham, Chris Gruler, Adam Loewen, Zack Greinke, Scott Kazmir, Cole Hamels, John Danks, Jeff Allison, Mark Rogers, Homer Bailey, Scott Elbert and Clint Everts.
So that is Greinke, Kazmir, Hamels and Bailey out of 17.

Are you really trying to tell me that the college group has some big advantage there? As we can use more data as the group from 2004 and on gets older, I think we will continue to see the same thing going on.....

Golly, you've got me. All I need to do is embrace bad methodology. I mean, let's count Greinke and not Saunders. Greinke's pitched more, but Saunders has pitched equally well. Let's also move in the 16-20 picks (which fall after the college pitcher hit rate begins to drop) so that we can count Cole Hamels. Sure, it wouldn't help you one bit with a draft pick investment strategy, but why pass up an opportunity to taint data?

Let's also count Bailey, who's done nothing in the majors, but ignore Sowers (who pitched fairly well in the majors in 2005), Niemann and Humber, even though all three of them are pitching in AAA as well.

And definitely let's ignore 2005 since college draftee Mike Pelfrey's pitching in the majors and Lance Broadway's in AAA. You definitely wouldn't want pay any attention to 2006 either since Tim Lincecum and Andrew Miller are in the majors (Lincecum doing well, Miller not). Luke Hochevar, Greg Reynolds and Max Scherzer are in AAA. Brandon Morrow is back in AA after spending 2007 in the majors.

The only first half of the first round high schooler even on the radar from those two drafts in Clayton Kershaw.

If you want to project the number of top 15 picks that might join the ranks of guys who go 162+ in 2008 with a sub-5.00 in the majors, adding to the current 5:1 advantage for the post-2000 college guys, then the most likely bet is one HS guy and three college guys. You'll see it move to a 4:1 ratio and 8:2 overall.

So, yeah, if I put on blinders and stand on my head in a bucket full of slop, then it does all look the same.

dougdirt
04-11-2008, 07:24 PM
Saunders... I did miss. Regardless I think it still holds true. The difference in recent history suggests that the difference is only in who gets their quicker and its generally your college kids. The quality however doesn't seem to differ much. As for post 2004 draft, well yeah, I don't see the reason to count sub 21 year old pitchers as failures, which is what they would be if we started counting 2005 draftees.

M2
04-11-2008, 07:45 PM
Saunders... I did miss. Regardless I think it still holds true. The difference in recent history suggests that the difference is only in who gets their quicker and its generally your college kids. The quality however doesn't seem to differ much. As for post 2004 draft, well yeah, I don't see the reason to count sub 21 year old pitchers as failures, which is what they would be if we started counting 2005 draftees.

There's only one top 15 HS pitcher from 2005-6 currently healthy and pitching. I'm not punishing anyone for being young. It's a simple matter of there being only one guy to count. To be fair, only two guys got drafted. What's happened, and make no mistake about it, is MLB franchises have caught onto the investment inefficiency with highly drafted HS arms and they're being pushed back into middle and later portions of the first round. In previous years, guys like Kyle Drabek and Mark Pawelek would have gone in the upper first round, but now they're being treated with warranted apprehension.

The outcome, hopefully, will be that being more selective will lead to a better hit rate when drafting HS arms.

lollipopcurve
04-12-2008, 08:33 AM
The outcome, hopefully, will be that being more selective will lead to a better hit rate when drafting HS arms.

I think this is a reasonable conclusion -- still I would not rule out the drafting of all HS arms in the top part of round 1. A rare arm is a rare arm. You cannot categorically close the door on guys like Kazmir and Kershaw for the sake of avoiding 2-3 million dollars of risk or the opportunity cost of missing out on players who project to be average major leaguers. In the end, it's about trusting your scouting and development departments. Cast a wary eye, sure, but don't turn away.

camisadelgolf
04-12-2008, 11:45 AM
We'll never settle it because you refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming data that shows college pitchers taken in the upper first round deliver for the teams that drafted them roughly three times better than HS arms taken in the upper first round.

It's not debatable. There's no gray area.

I'm not saying never draft a HS arm in the upper first round, just that if you're drafting there and looking at the best HS arm on your board and the best college arm, then you better like HS better by a few orders of magnitude, otherwise you should be picking the college arm.

The path to failure is littered with folks who thought they knew how to beat those odds.

I don't have the time to look at things, but is it possible that the high school pitchers may be more likely to fail, but if they succeed, their success is greater?

M2
04-12-2008, 12:43 PM
I think this is a reasonable conclusion -- still I would not rule out the drafting of all HS arms in the top part of round 1. A rare arm is a rare arm. You cannot categorically close the door on guys like Kazmir and Kershaw for the sake of avoiding 2-3 million dollars of risk or the opportunity cost of missing out on players who project to be average major leaguers. In the end, it's about trusting your scouting and development departments. Cast a wary eye, sure, but don't turn away.

Yep, I agree. Like I said, if there's a high school arm you like orders of magnitude better than anyone else on the board, then draft him. Just make sure it's a screamer of a pick and not a case where you like him a little bit better. Rick Porcello last year is the perfect example. There was a point fairly early in the draft where he was heads and shoulders above everybody else. I know that if I was drafting for a team where the GM was considered a bit of a contract wizard, he'd have been my pick.

WMR
04-12-2008, 01:27 PM
Did you like the Homer Bailey pick, M2?

HeatherC1212
04-12-2008, 01:31 PM
I don't know how this fits into the discussion here but Adam Loewen is currently pitching for the Baltimore Orioles and has been for the last three years although he was injured and missed most of last year.

lollipopcurve
04-12-2008, 01:35 PM
There was a point fairly early in the draft where he was heads and shoulders above everybody else. I know that if I was drafting for a team where the GM was considered a bit of a contract wizard, he'd have been my pick.

Couldn't agree more. It does not appear there's a comparable HS arm this year -- Melville could come on, I guess, since he's in the midwest and things move more slowly there (Porcello emerged a bit late, too, I think, coming out of NJ).

I'm noticing that Shooter Hunt's numbers look more like a HS kid dominating his competition than a college kid. His competition isn't great, though.

Still on board with a position player pick (Posey, Hosmer, Skipworth....Beckham won't be there).

dougdirt
04-12-2008, 01:42 PM
Did you like the Homer Bailey pick, M2?

No he didn't.

OnBaseMachine
04-12-2008, 01:43 PM
I like Hosmer a lot but I think he's a Boras client. Scratch him off the Reds list of probable picks.

lollipopcurve
04-12-2008, 01:51 PM
like Hosmer a lot but I think he's a Boras client. Scratch him off the Reds list of probable picks.

You're probably right, given the reports of what he's going to be asking for. But if Boras does right by the kid, he'll understand Cincy is a great place for a hitter.

WMR
04-12-2008, 03:01 PM
lollipopcurve: Do you mind clicking "Quote" when you quote someone instead of just copying and pasting the sentence you are referring to? Doing that inserts the name of who you are quoting and makes it much easier to see whose post you are referring to.

Kingspoint
04-12-2008, 04:06 PM
I think a lot of it has to do with the large bonus money being paid to the upper half of the 1st Round. It's simply not a good risk to pay that kind of money on HS talent. The amount of information available about a High School pitcher doesn't justify the risk of giving someone that much money, whereas a College Pitcher's future is far more easier to predict simply because there's a lot more information to work with. One of the biggest question marks is the psychological makeup of an 18-year old kid where there's no way to predict how he will change during those dreaded years of 19 and 20 no matter what psychological exams you give to him. He can be the greatest, strongest-minded person at 18, and then melt down mentally by the age of 20. With a college player, the kid has already gone through it. That's a huge return on investment when evaluating whether or not to make an investment of Millions of dollars.

18-year olds are flakier now than they've ever been as are the parents who raise them. I'd much rather risk my investment on someone who's already gone past the age of 20 so I could see for myself how he's adapted to the adult world.

dougdirt
04-12-2008, 04:08 PM
I think a lot of it has to do with the large bonus money being paid to the upper half of the 1st Round. It's simply not a good risk to pay that kind of money on HS talent. The amount of information available about a High School pitcher doesn't justify the risk of giving someone that much money, whereas a College Pitcher's future is far more easier to predict simply because there's a lot more information to work with. One of the biggest question marks is the psychological makeup of an 18-year old kid where there's no way to predict how he will change during those dreaded years of 19 and 20 no matter what psychological exams you give to him. He can be the greatest, strongest-minded person at 18, and then melt down mentally by the age of 20. With a college player, the kid has already gone through it. That's a huge return on investment when evaluating whether or not to make an investment of Millions of dollars.

I disagree. Look at the names I listed above. College pitchers flop a lot more often than they don't. Just like high school pitchers.

Kingspoint
04-12-2008, 04:40 PM
I'd wager that this year's Top-15 has more College pitchers in it than HS pitchers simply because the risk factor of a young mind vs the bonus money is too great nowadays. It won't be because of projected talent.

dougdirt
04-12-2008, 05:22 PM
I'd wager that this year's Top-15 has more College pitchers in it than HS pitchers simply because the risk factor of a young mind vs the bonus money is too great nowadays. It won't be because of projected talent.

I think you are putting way too much stock into the 'mind factor'.