Failed Picks

[princeton]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I think the point is made, nearly every team could look at their draft history in this way.

you're kidding, right?

your numbers show that the Reds produced three pretty good ballplayers, when the Royals had absolutely none. That's a huge difference. That's hope vs. hopelessness

[lollipopcurve]

your numbers show that the Reds produced three pretty good ballplayers, when the Royals had absolutely none. That's a huge difference. That's hope vs. hopelessness

not hopelessness -- KC's drafted pretty well lately -- nobody drafts well all the time, nobody bombs all the time -- there's no "system" to it

[princeton]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

not hopelessness -- KC's drafted pretty well lately -- nobody drafts well all the time, nobody bombs all the time -- there's no "system" to it

ugh. I worry about pattern recognition by Americans

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Let's do this for the Reds, looking at players with solid major league careers drafted after us in the first round, including the supplemental.

Year, Pick: Player (career) - Could Have Had: Player Pick,

1989, #20: OF Scott Bryant (minors only) - CHH: Tom Goodwin #22, Mo Vaughn #23, Chuck Knoblauch #25, Todd Jones #27
1990, #7: C Dan Wilson (solid major league career) - CHH: Jeromy Burnitz #17, Mike Mussina #20
1991, #20: SS Pokey Reese (decent major league career) - CHH: Aaron Sele #23, Scott Hatteberg #43
1992, #5: OF Chad Mottola (cup of coffee) - CHH: Derek Jeter #6, Preston Wilson #9, Michael Tucker #10, Shannon Stewart #19, Jason Kendall #23, Charles Johnson #28, Johnny Damon #35
1993, #32: OF Pat Watkins (cup of cofee) - CHH: Nobody of note
1994, #9, P CJ Nitkowski (cup of coffee) - CHH: Nomar Garciaparra #12, Paul Konerko #13, Jason Varitek #14, Terrance Long #20
1995, No Pick
1996, #25 OF John Oliver (minors only) - CHH: Chris Reitsma #34, Jason Marquis #35
1997, #14 3B Brandon Larson (cup of coffee) - CHH: Lance Berkman #16, Adam Kennedy #20, Jack Cust #30,
1998, #7 OF Austin Kearns (solid major leager) - CHH: Brad Lidge #17, CC Sabathia #20

So we had more first rounders reach the majors than not (8/10), but only 3 guys who did anything of note in the majors. I think the point is made, nearly every team could look at their draft history in this way. Chances are each team will have a few good hits, a few really bad misses, and a whole lot of missed opportunities. You look at a team like the Braves and they went from Chipper Jones in 1990 until Adam Wainwright in 2000 without hitting on a single good first round pick.

You figure there are only 5-10 guys from each first round who really turn out to have decent major league careers. Doing the math, that leaves each team with 1 good first round pick every 3 or 4 years. Ouch. A team who gets a decent major leaguer every other year is ahead of the curve. What becomes notable as you look through the list of first round picks is how many superstars were passed over at least once by everybody.

Watch what you say about CJ...he was my HS teammate.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by princeton

you're kidding, right?

your numbers show that the Reds produced three pretty good ballplayers, when the Royals had absolutely none. That's a huge difference. That's hope vs. hopelessness

Here's an exercise. Take 350 first round draft picks over 10 years. Assign them randomly to 30 teams. See how many teams end up with how many good major leaguers.

If you assume a 25% success rate for first rounders become decent major leaguers, the chances of getting no decent major leaguers is .75^11.7 (350/30) = 3.5%. That means if players were assigned randomly, you'd likely get at least 1 team with no good major leaguers. The average team will get 3.

Now, I understand that the Royals tended to pick in the upper half of the draft. I also understand that talent evaluation and development is hardly random. However, I think understanding that if it were random, at least 1 team would probably get nobody of value is an important point. It's a real crapshoot out there.

[lollipopcurve]

ugh. I worry about pattern recognition by Americans

the pattern that is patternlessness counts too

[StillFunkyB]

Originally Posted by KoryMac5

Just an example from ESPN.com and one that obviously does not represent all teams:

THE ROYALS SELECT...
Player Career Could've had (1st round)
27. Jim Pittsley, RHP (No. 17, 1992) 7-12, 6.02 Shannon Stewart (No. 19)
26. Jeff Granger, LHP (No. 5, 1993) 0-1, 9.09 Derrek Lee (No. 14)
25. Matt Smith, 1B/LHP (No. 16, 1994) Never reached majors Scott Elarton (No. 25)
24. Juan LeBron, OF (No. 19, 1995) Never reached majors Michael Barrett (No. 28)
23. Dermal Brown, OF (No. 14, 1996) .234, 14 HRs Eric Milton (No. 20)
22. Dan Reichert, RHP (No. 7), 1997 21-25, 5.55 Lance Berkman (No. 16)
21. Jeff Austin, RHP (No. 4, 1998) 2-3, 6.75 Brad Lidge (No. 17)
20. Kyle Snyder, RHP (No. 7, 1999 2-9, 5.64 Barry Zito (No. 9)
19. Mike Stodolka, LHP (No. 4, 2000) Never reached majors Chase Utley (No. 15)
18. Colt Griffin, RHP (No. 9, 2001) Never reached majors Bobby Crosby (No. 25)

From 92 to 2001 the Royals selected 10 players who never worked out for one reason or another this and other reasons have set there franchise back a great deal. The Pirates and Reds also come to mind because of injury problems they have had with first round pitchers. I know that the MLB having more rounds allows you to absorb some of the blow of missing on a pick. But how much did Gruler getting hurt or passing on a Linecom hurt the Reds or any team for that matter.

It saddens me that a guy with the name of Juan LeBron didn't go anywhere.

[HokieRed]

Just a minor note about "making the majors" as being a meaningful category. Bad organizations have a real stake in getting their high picks into the majors, however briefly. It makes them look less bad than they really are.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by HokieRed

Just a minor note about "making the majors" as being a meaningful category. Bad organizations have a real stake in getting their high picks into the majors, however briefly. It makes them look less bad than they really are.

That is true. Add that the fact that they are bad provides ample opportunity for marginal guys to get extended playing time.

We should call this the Householder effect. Younger 'zoners may wish to call it the Larson theorem.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by mth123

That is true. Add that the fact that they are bad provides ample opportunity for marginal guys to get extended playing time.

We should call this the Householder effect. Younger 'zoners may wish to call it the Larson theorem.

Eh, Larson at least was killing it in AAA before he got his chance. There are other guys who have gotten to the majors with having no success in the minors at all, see Sardinha, Dane.

[Highlifeman21]

Thanks RMR, you had to remind us about Chad Mottola.

I had completely forgotten about that horrendous pick.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Eh, Larson at least was killing it in AAA before he got his chance. There are other guys who have gotten to the majors with having no success in the minors at all, see Sardinha, Dane.

Not that it has any bearing on your overall point, but lots of times players will get a free pass to the bigs at premium defensive positions. Sardinha is a perfect example of that -- most teams can afford to have a weak-stick backup catcher on the roster if injury creates a need for a warm body on the 25 man. You can also look at guys like Bergolla and Olmedo -- defense-first players who couldn't hit a lick and only get ML service time because injuries required a backup be summoned from AAA.

Paul Janish and Chris Dickerson should expect similar career paths.

[camisadelgolf]

IIrc, Sardinha being on the Major League roster had more to do with him having a Major League contract (and in 2003, the Reds didn't have another team playing in September).