What ever happend to Jeremy Brown?

[lollipopcurve]

You sound like a scout.

How many draft picks even get an at-bat in the majors?

No, but I stayed in a Holiday Express once after going off the road in a nor-easter and hitting a rock cliff.

I agree that Brown had a solid minor league career. But sometimes I think that's all a lot of those "Moneyball" were destined for -- nice numbers early in the minors, gradually moderating and then, without quite enough tools to carry them to the next level, hitting the ceiling in AAA. Unless you can turn those guys into trade bait, the only real plus they might offer is contributing to a winning atmosphere and, by virtue of moving up each year for a while, perhaps, a subculture of "success" in the minors. But not everybody believes in that stuff. Some will say the prupose of the minors is to develop major leaguers. And through that lens, guys like Brown, Colamarino, Kiger and Stanley, etc., add up to nothing more than insta-flameouts like Aaron Goins, John Oliver and Monte Roundtree.

[blumj]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

The guy had no defensive ability. Unless he was going to DH, he was never a viable prospect. You can pluck dozens of guys out of college ball who could put up a decent hitting line through the minor leagues -- doesn't make them big league prospects.

As long as there are teams giving DH at bats to lousy hitters, and there most definitely are, he could still be a viable prospect for one of them. That still shows inefficiencies in the system, IMO. But, if Brown would rather retire than perhaps go the route of the A's current DH, that's his choice to make.

And it occurs to me that, since you read the book for the first time just a year ago, you may be taking some of the successes from it for granted. That Chad Bradford and Scott Hatteberg would continue to have successful major league careers only seems like a "gimme" with the hindsight that they, in fact, have. The success of Kevin Youkilis makes a pretty good case that's obscured by hindsight, too.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by jojo

IMHO, any draft pick the results in a player posting .276/.364/.469 in AAA can't really be considered a failure. Drafting is a huge crapshoot even under the best of conditions. A traditional scouting approach would've suggested Brown had no chance to accomplish what he did in his professional career (reach the 99.99999999th percentile in his field).

But the scouting approach would have yielded a better end result, which would have been spend a 1st round pick on the player most likely to make it to the major leagues, which would not have been Brown. I really do not see the gain in rolling the dice longer if the end result of the game is still craps and you lose the bet. The object of the game is not to predict who will have a better minor league career. One could also argue that the injury excuse might have been part of the scouts' success/failure prediction, considering Brown's known physique. It seems to point out that skewing things too far one way or the other is most likely to yield poor results.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by traderumor

But the scouting approach would have yielded a better end result, which would have been spend a 1st round pick on the player most likely to make it to the major leagues, which would not have been Brown. I really do not see the gain in rolling the dice longer if the end result of the game is still craps and you lose the bet. The object of the game is not to predict who will have a better minor league career. One could also argue that the injury excuse might have been part of the scouts' success/failure prediction, considering Brown's known physique. It seems to point out that skewing things too far one way or the other is most likely to yield poor results.

That's circular reasoning made possible by hindsight though....

BTW, the original point wasn't that the end game is simply to predict who will have a better minor league career........ Concerning Brown, the As were much closer to accurately projecting Brown than the traditional scout crowd was.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by jojo

That's circular reasoning made possible by hindsight though....

Um, no, two different ways of making predictions. You admitted the scout would have not made Jeremy Brown a first round pick and then dinged him because he would not have predicted Brown being as successful as he was in the minors. Besides being faint praise, I don't think the goal of scouting or statistically based predictions is to project the minor league career, esp. with a first round pick. There is nothing circular or hindsight about that. The scout would not have recommended Jeremy Brown to be picked in that spot, and he would have been right. That is not hindsight, that is evaluating a prediction.

Although what I quoted is a quick and easy way (since you did not demonstrate why you consider it to be circular and hindsight) to dismiss what someone is saying...it just happens to be inaccurate.

[M2]

Originally Posted by traderumor

But the scouting approach would have yielded a better end result

Not really, it could have landed them Adam Donachie. That's the catcher the scout-centric Royals selected at the top of the 2nd round.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by M2

Not really, it could have landed them Adam Donachie. That's the catcher the scout-centric Royals selected at the top of the 2nd round.

I'm not sure I understand that logic. I really wasn't saying the scouting approach was superior, but in this case that type of input would have been helpful. Who is to say they had to draft a catcher there? And why would they have arrived at the same conclusion as the Royals scouts given the hundreds of candidates to be selected? I must be missing something.

[lollipopcurve]

What makes a "viable" prospect? Was Mark Schramek, taken five picks after Brown, a "viable" prospect?

A guy who plays in the middle of the diamond better be able to play defense. Brown couldn't. Schramek was a 3B -- defense isn't nearly as big a deal there.

Brown progressed to AAA and health is what really kept him from being a backup C in the majors.

Some would say his health problems were forseeable in his bad body, already evident at Alabama. They may very well have made the same mistake with Landon Powell.

That you can easily find college bats to hit at a respectable clip through the minors is nothing but a pile of Szymanski.

Easy or not, I think it's safe to say that looking for little beyond high OBP guys at big colleges is not a formula for success. Seems to me you have to put your outdoor shoes on more often.

Szymanski's appeal was clearly his athleticism and the fact that he may have had more room to devlop baseball skills, given that he'd been a two-sport guy. I have no problem with that profile in a 2nd rounder.

It gets even trickier to find a catcher who can do anything positive with the stick.

Problem there is in your definition of "catcher." In my book, he's got to be able to catch.

Obviously the A's could have made a better pick. Brian McCann and Chris Snyder were drafted in the second round that season. That's two big league catchers, one from the college ranks, taken shortly after Brown.

Right. Key point being they never would have even considered the high schooler McCann. They were shopping at the strip mall while the mega-mall loomed across the street.

The A's also missed on some college talents from later rounds - Dave Bush, Jesse Crain, Curtis Granderson, Rich Hill, John Maine, Pat Neshek. In fact, when you look at the 2002 draft, the A's were fishing in the right waters. They just missed on some of the prize fish.

If you want the best shot at big league talent, you better be fishing in the biggest ocean. The As weren't doing that. And it had nothing to do with the available talent in 2002.

The lesson that ought to be learned, IMO, is that their college-centric approach to the draft needed refinement.

No one's ever going to hit on all picks. That degree kind of refinement is impossible in the MLB draft. In my opinion, their Moneyball draft was an exercise in working the compensation pick market. They got themselves 7 of the top 39 picks and managed to hit on 3. Nice job there. The indictment of the Moneyball approach comes in the fact that of the 4 1st rounders who missed, and of the entire rest of that draft, not a single player will benefit the major league squad in any way. In blunt terms -- you have to look at more than "college guys with good numbers, especially, on the offensive side, good plate discipline."

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by traderumor

But the scouting approach would have yielded a better end result, which would have been spend a 1st round pick on the player most likely to make it to the major leagues, which would not have been Brown.

I'm curious how you back up this assertion.

Nearly everything that was said about Brown was also said about Kevin Youkilis. Scouts weren't big on his skill set, didn't like his body type, and didn't think he could play defense at the major league level.

Scouts or Stats, most prospects don't reach the majors. The minor leagues are chocked full of amazing athletes who never figure out how to play baseball very well. I would agree that one of the basic outcomes of the stats based approach is to find guys with high floors. I would also agree that scouting is necessary to to find guys with high ceilings.

But to mischaracterize Moneyball as a method of player evaluation that uses a formula to make draft picks and to say that it's crown jewel was a failure and thus dismiss the book is overly simplistic nonsense. If this is the way the phrase moneyball is being used, then I agree, people should move on.

[lollipopcurve]

And it occurs to me that, since you read the book for the first time just a year ago, you may be taking some of the successes from it for granted. That Chad Bradford and Scott Hatteberg would continue to have successful major league careers only seems like a "gimme" with the hindsight that they, in fact, have. The success of Kevin Youkilis makes a pretty good case that's obscured by hindsight, too.

We're talking about the draft here. But you're right -- there was a lot in the As approach (the development of which began before Beane) that was ahead of its time. It's like anything new that people learn -- they tend to overgeneralize it. In this case, I think the As thought they could apply their statistical expertise in player evaluation beyond the major leagues and thereby gain an advantage in the amateur market. It didn't work out that way.

[M2]

Originally Posted by traderumor

I'm not sure I understand that logic. I really wasn't saying the scouting approach was superior, but in this case that type of input would have been helpful. Who is to say they had to draft a catcher there? And why would they have arrived at the same conclusion as the Royals scouts given the hundreds of candidates to be selected? I must be missing something.

I was commenting more on approach. A different one wouldn't necessarily have netted them any better results and quite possibly it could have been worse. Donachie would have been considered a solid pick at #35 that season by the scouting folks.

Though in actuality, Brown was taken in an enormous dead spot in the draft. In the 29 picks between Matt Cain and Dave Bush that season, only Mark Teahen has done much in the majors with only Joey Votto remaining as a highly-regarded prospect. The nominal best player available was Jason Neighborall, who rode the Boras express to nowhere. Not making a bad pick there would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I'm curious how you back up this assertion.

Nearly everything that was said about Brown was also said about Kevin Youkilis. Scouts weren't big on his skill set, didn't like his body type, and didn't think he could play defense at the major league level.

Scouts or Stats, most prospects don't reach the majors. The minor leagues are chocked full of amazing athletes who never figure out how to play baseball very well. I would agree that one of the basic outcomes of the stats based approach is to find guys with high floors. I would also agree that scouting is necessary to to find guys with high ceilings.

But to mischaracterize Moneyball as a method of player evaluation that uses a formula to make draft picks and to say that it's crown jewel was a failure and thus dismiss the book is overly simplistic nonsense. If this is the way the phrase moneyball is being used, then I agree, people should move on.

Because Brown just retired never making the majors, perhaps. Plus, I was taking what jojo was giving, that the scout would not have picked Brown. Now, go show me where I dismissed the entire idea. I didn't even agree with the sentiments of the author. Geesh, quit being so defensive over one of many methods for putting together a franchise.

BTW, speaking of crown jewels, how is bringing up Youkilis as a single example any different than what the author of this article has done with Moneyball?

[lollipopcurve]

Concerning Brown, the As were much closer to accurately projecting Brown than the traditional scout crowd was.

Not if the scouting crew dismissed him based on his bad body -- ultimately it was shown his body would not hold up -- and, relatedly, his suspect defense.

I thought you were big on defense, jojo.

[lollipopcurve]

Though in actuality, Brown was taken in an enormous dead spot in the draft. In the 29 picks between Matt Cain and Dave Bush that season, only Mark Teahen has done much in the majors with only Joey Votto remaining as a highly-regarded prospect.

Nice pick there by the Reds, eh? Perhaps if the As had opened their eyes to the high schools ranks, they could have had him too.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by traderumor

But the scouting approach would have yielded a better end result, which would have been spend a 1st round pick on the player most likely to make it to the major leagues, which would not have been Brown.

Brown actually played in the majors.

It's begging the question that traditional scouting could've produced a better result.

Originally Posted by traderumor

Besides being faint praise, I don't think the goal of scouting or statistically based predictions is to project the minor league career, esp. with a first round pick.

Once again, the original point wasn't that the end game is simply to predict who will have a better minor league career........ Concerning Brown, the As were much closer to accurately projecting Brown than the traditional scout crowd was. That's a point that has huge potential ramifications and really Brown's career seems to be validation of the point Moneyball was arguing at the time of it's first print rather than a feather in the scouting-only cap.

The goal of scouting should be to accurately project player potential. Few scouts would've suggested a draft pick should have even been spent on Brown let alone that Brown would get major league playing time. I'm not sure I'd consider that a case of "scouts" being right and the As being wrong. Scouts were wrong about Brown.