Was O'Brien's First Draft Really That Bad?
After reading people's posts criticizing Dan O'Brien's first draft, I ask, "Was O'Brien's First Draft Really That Bad?"
Okay, he took another high school pitcher in the first round with Homer Bailey. But Bailey was ranked as a top 10 player. And even though the risks of taking high school pitchers is greater, they do have higher ceilings than college pitchers....even though college pitchers are the surer bets.
But what about the rest of the draft? We all know first round picks don't make a draft. Are the rest of the players drafted that horrible? And how can you say it was a horrible draft when we haven't really seen if the players have developed after a half of season of organized ball?
Everyone talks about Moneyball and how it is the baseball gospel. Before computers came on the scene, GMs like Branch Rickey and even Bob Howsam relied on scouts watching these kids to see if they will be successful major leaguers. So, I guess we kick scouts to the curb since we can rely on statistics to determine if a player will be successful ballplayer? Sounds like Marge Schott talking.
So, I ask.....Was O'Brien's First Draft Really That Horrible?
If you think small, you'll go nowhere in life.
Last edited by Krusty; 10-26-2004 at 09:51 AM.
Reason: Please move this thread to Dan O'Brien's First Year GM Thread.