Strong outing by Homer Bailey tonight

[lollipopcurve]

I remember that Jayazerli piece. The thing to remember about Jayazerli is that he's often lazy. He was in that piece

It's a 6-part piece for which he used the help of a research assistant. I'm curious to know what you think is lazy about it.

[GullyFoyle]

I think that a consensus is forming that is somewhere in the middle of this debate. Here is an article (posted July 14th) that sheds some light on the discussion of HS vs. College pitching in process of reviewing the book Scout's Honor (a book about how how the Braves prefered HS Pitchers): http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...ian-dialectic/

One interesting quote FWIW:

Finally, in support of drafting high schoolers, Shanks cites a study done by Baseball America's Jim Callis. The study showed that in the first 10 rounds of the draft from 1990 to 1997, 39% of college players made it to the majors, while only 28% of high schoolers did. Callis also found that 8.7% of college players and 8.4% of high schoolers became major-league regulars or better. However, 4.3% of high schoolers became better than average players or stars while only 2.3% of college players did.

[Cedric]

Again, this is Rany Janerzyli, from his 2005 draft study published in Baseball Prospectus (this study looked at drafts from the mid 80s to 1999). First round high school pitchers are 10-15% more risky than college pitchers, according to this study. In my mind, this is a negligible difference, to be discarded in the face of the data one collects in any given year of scouting. To think otherwise is to cling to a dying ideology.

Take that 10-15% risk and compare it with the high ceilings of certain high school pitcher and I don't think it's really that bad. Look at the top pitchers in baseball and most of them didn't attend college.
Dontrelle Willis, Johan Santana, A.J. Burnett, Ben Sheets, Roy Halladay, Millwood, Jon Garland, Bartolo Colon, Carlos Zambrano, Kerry Wood, Freddy Garcia, John Patterson, Jake Peavy.

You can come up with a good list of college pitchers, but in my view it's nowhere near the level of that group.

[SteelSD]

Again, this is Rany Janerzyli, from his 2005 draft study published in Baseball Prospectus (this study looked at drafts from the mid 80s to 1999). First round high school pitchers are 10-15% more risky than college pitchers, according to this study. In my mind, this is a negligible difference, to be discarded in the face of the data one collects in any given year of scouting. To think otherwise is to cling to a dying ideology.

Hey, do you have a link to that study you can provide? I'm not sure that the word "value" (from the study) is interchangeable with your use of the word "risk".

It's possible for a player subset to be Y% more or less valuable while still being Z% more risky.

[lollipopcurve]

Hey, do you have a link to that study you can provide? I'm not sure that the word "value" (from the study) is interchangeable with your use of the word "risk".

It's possible for a player subset to be Y% more or less valuable while still being Z% more risky.

You have to be a subscriber -- go to the Baseball Prospectus Web site. $40/year or $4.95/month.

[SteelSD]

Take that 10-15% risk and compare it with the high ceilings of certain high school pitcher and I don't think it's really that bad. Look at the top pitchers in baseball and most of them didn't attend college.
Dontrelle Willis, Johan Santana, A.J. Burnett, Ben Sheets, Roy Halladay, Millwood, Jon Garland, Bartolo Colon, Carlos Zambrano, Kerry Wood, Freddy Garcia, John Patterson, Jake Peavy.

You can come up with a good list of college pitchers, but in my view it's nowhere near the level of that group.

Carlos Zambrano wasn't drafted. Neither was Johan Santana or Freddy Garcia. Ditto Bartolo Colon. Ben Sheets went to college.

[SteelSD]

You have to be a subscriber -- go to the Baseball Prospectus Web site. $40/year or $4.95/month.

Ok, then can you cut-and-paste where the author defines the word "value" in the article?

Fair use and all that.

[OnBaseMachine]

Let me jump in on thise and toss in some names of high school pitchers taken in later rounds. As someone else(M2?) pointed out earlier, it's just as easy to find a good high school arm in rounds three, seven or eight.

My philosophy has always been draft a safer pitcher(college) in round one or two and then you can take some risks in later rounds.

Jake Peavy-15th round of 1999 draft
Dontrelle Willis-8th round of 2000 draft
Kevin Millwood-11th round of 1993 draft
Zach Duke-20th round of 2001 draft
Carl Pavano-13th round of 1994 draft
A.J. Burnett-8th round of 1995 draft
Edwin Jackson-6th round of 2001 draft
Jason Schmidt-8th round of 1991 draft
John Smoltz-22nd round of 1985 draft
Matt Clement-3rd round of 1993 draft

Prospects with big league futures:

Troy Patton-9th round of 2004 draft
Joel Zumaya-11th round of 2002 draft
Kyle Davies-4th round of 2001 draft
Scott Olsen-6th round of 2002 draft
Anthony Lerew-11th round of 2001 draft
Ian Snell-26th round of 2000 draft

2004 draft--HS pitchers taken after Bailey in round 3 or later:

Gaby Hernandez-3rd round
Eduardo Morlan-3rd round
Chuck Lofgren-4th round
Sean Gallagher-12th round
Troy Patton-9th round

[Cedric]

Carlos Zambrano wasn't drafted. Neither was Johan Santana or Freddy Garcia. Ditto Bartolo Colon. Ben Sheets went to college.

I know that. I apologize about Sheets. All those guys obviously weren't first round picks. I was just showing that for whatever reasons even in later rounds high school pitchers have higher ceilings than those that attend college. Because FCB said he'd never draft one, ever. I was talking about that 10-15% risk.

[M2]

Again, this is Rany Janerzyli, from his 2005 draft study published in Baseball Prospectus (this study looked at drafts from the mid 80s to 1999). First round high school pitchers are 10-15% more risky than college pitchers, according to this study. In my mind, this is a negligible difference, to be discarded in the face of the data one collects in any given year of scouting. To think otherwise is to cling to a dying ideology.

And why are we looking at an eight-year slice?

Seriously, why? I mean, outside of that's the only way Jayazerli could claim to have found something new.

And for the folks playing along at home, Jayazerli (being lazy) did not put the percentages in relation to each other. That 10-15% rate is the overall gap between them. Also we're not talking about the difference between a 50% hit rate and a 60-65% rate. It's more like a 10% hit rate and a 20-25% rate. When that 10-15% represents DOUBLE the success rate, then, yeah, it's significant.

Complete sidenote, one of the things the A's did so well was revamp the way they scout college players, based on performance more than tools. During the '90s you had some scouting directors, notably Terry Reynolds with the Dodgers, who fell in love with toolsy college talents and they came out of the decade with a big goose egg. Simply by recognizing the value of performance, the A's were able to boost their hit rate. Jayazerli know this, but apparently he couldn't be bothered with including it in a discussion about how the draft has changed.

BTW, if anyone's gotten an impression that Jayazerli isn't high on my list of folks who made meaningful baseball observations, you'd be absolutely right.

[lollipopcurve]

And for the folks playing along at home, Jayazerli (being lazy) did not put the percentages in relation to each other. That 10-15% rate is the overall gap between them. Also we're not talking about the difference between a 50% hit rate and a 70-75% rate. It's more like a 10% hit rate and a 20-25% rate. When that 10-15% represents DOUBLE the success rate, then, yeah, it's significant.

It appears to me you haven't read the articles. RJ does not talk in terms of "hit rate." He uses measurements that he terms expected value and discounted value, and he aggregates these -- and compares them against each other, of course -- for college and high school players. Where you get this "hit rate" thing is beyond me. I really think you're just blustering here, M2 -- but a calm explanation of how you are translating RJ's research into "hit rate" would be appreciated.
My recommendation to those reading along -- since M2 has graciously offered his guidance for you already -- is that you read Jayazerli's piece yourself, on the Baseball Prospectus Web site.

[M2]

Take that 10-15% risk and compare it with the high ceilings of certain high school pitcher and I don't think it's really that bad. Look at the top pitchers in baseball and most of them didn't attend college.
Dontrelle Willis, Johan Santana, A.J. Burnett, Ben Sheets, Roy Halladay, Millwood, Jon Garland, Bartolo Colon, Carlos Zambrano, Kerry Wood, Freddy Garcia, John Patterson, Jake Peavy.

You can come up with a good list of college pitchers, but in my view it's nowhere near the level of that group.

As Steel noted, much of that list isn't high school guys. Also, only three of those guys were first round picks and only two managed to deliver big perfomance for the club that drafted them (Wood and Halladay). Josh Beckett's the other guy who fits that mold.

BTW, Roger Clemens, Barry Zito, Randy Johnson, Roy Oswalt, Curt Schilling, Andy Pettitte, Mark Buehrle, Tim Hudson, Mike Mussina, Mark Mulder, Mark Prior and Brett Myers were all college or JC guys. Six of those guys were #1 picks and each one of those six delivered big results for the team that drafted him.

[lollipopcurve]

And why are we looking at an eight-year slice?

Seriously, why? I mean, outside of that's the only way Jayazerli could claim to have found something new.

Because, as he explains at the beginning of Part 1, he felt it was too soon to judge the drafts beginning in 2000.
And here we have people judging drafts as they happen.
"The only way Jayazerli could claim to have found something new" -- this is some bizarre channeling -- I don't read any such boastful claim's in the piece.

[M2]

It appears to me you haven't read the articles. RJ does not talk in terms of "hit rate." He uses measurements that he terms expected value and discounted value, and he aggregates these -- and compares them against each other, of course -- for college and high school players. Where you get this "hit rate" thing is beyond me. I really think you're just blustering here, M2 -- but a calm explanation of how you are translating RJ's research into "hit rate" would be appreciated.
My recommendation to those reading along -- since M2 has graciously offered his guidance for you already -- is that you read Jayazerli's piece yourself, on the Baseball Prospectus Web site.

"Hit rate" was shorthand for success rate, e.g. how many of these guys actually turned out to be functional major leaguers, e.g. how often these guys went from draftees to bona fide players. Of course the entire bloody point of using what's supposed to be obvious shorthand is not to have to explain it afterward.

And you're right, Jayazerli introduced numerous pointless, vague and ultimately fruitless concepts into the piece. Meanwhile he forgot how to compare percentages to each other, go figure.

Though I also suggest people read the study as well. Like PAP (man, was that well-named), it's a magnificent piece of machinery that goes nowhere. It's kind of like going to a transportation museum.

[Falls City Beer]

Like PAP (man, was that well-named), it's a magnificent piece of machinery that goes nowhere. It's kind of like going to a transportation museum.

You're killin' me. I think I might have browned my drawers a bit on that one.