Too Many Rounds of the Draft?
Brain
(and the proposal to reduce it to 38 in the last labor agreement) from
a basically unlimited length (w/ the Yankees record of 100 draftees in
1996), it is still too much. And this contributes to the so-called
"failure" of too many prospects (injuries aside). The reasoning is
that the whole purpose of the draft is to select players capable of
being on a major league roster, not mentioning actual success.
However, because of the extensive minor-league farm system that
currently rules the game, it is unlikely that the rounds can be
reduced further, because teams still want to stock their affiliated
minor-league teams with players at least good enough to bring fans in
those cities.
The reason why the current system seems so unpredicable in assessing
talent, whereas it is as somewhat likely that a player selected in X-1
round will be as successful as in X round in getting to the majors, is
because there are so few roster spots for every person drafted each
year. Because of the draft is so lengthy, the process encourages the
quantity over quality. Meaning there is an accompanying high failure
rate inherent in the system. And it gives too many prospects a false
sense of future success.
Example:
Let us say that a Team X drafts 45 picks (out of a possible 50) a year
over 3 years (looking forward). It signs 30 of them per year to minor
league contracts. Let us also say that out of the 25 man regular
playing roster during that time it experiences a turnover rate wherein
the number of Y1 players decreases to 21 in Y2, 16 in Y3, 12 in Y4.
Let us also say that it fills those gaps with free agents (and draft
holdovers) numbering 2, 5, and 9, in Y2, Y3, and Y4, respectively
(including free agent holdovers). That leaves the total remaining
openings numbering just 10 new roster spots (However, excluding draft
holdovers).
So, the (simplified) success percentage of a drafted prospect (meaning
getting on the roster) is 11.1% (10/90). This number is naturally
much higher due to the nature of moving prospects in and out of the
roster during the course of a season. However, for the duration of 1
full year, the 11.1% success rate reflects the dismal nature of the
current process.
Contrast this with the NFL. Football has a playing roster limit of 53
slots. The draft is limited to 7 rounds. Let us say that over the
course of the same 3 years (looking forward) Team A drafts 21
prospects (excluding free agent rookies). Let us say it signs 19 of
them (given that they have already expired their college options).
Team A experiences a similar percentage turnover rate as basball Team
X: decreasing from 53 in Y1 to 42 in Y2, to 34 in Y3, 25 in Y4. Free
agent fills and draft holdovers number 6 in Y2, 13 in Y3, 23 in Y4.
Total new roster openings number 16 over that time.
Therefore the football success rate for prospects is 84.2% (16/19).
The NBA has similar success rate because its draft is limited to just
2 rounds with a roster size of 11(?) slots.
What baseball could do is cut its draft in proportion to the size of
its roster as compared with the NFL. So, instead of 50 rounds, it
could be cut to 4 rounds. That way teams could concentrate their
scouting resources on fewer players and either save money because of
the fewer rounds or give more money to the players actually selected
in the shortened draft. Then the success rate of Team X would rise to
83.3% (10/12) assuming it signs each drafted player.
However, you might say that many star players that have been low picks
(like Mike Piazza) would not have made the impact on baseball that
they did/do. That is true, but in most selective processes, one
cannot know the potential success of a person never drafted/hired. By
culling the draft to much fewer rounds, it will force teams to focus
their resources on only the most likely candidates.
Ciao.
Deep Structure Mosey
like:
>The reason why the current system seems so unpredicable in assessing
>talent, whereas it is as somewhat likely that a player selected in X-1
>round will be as successful as in X round in getting to the majors, is
>because there are so few roster spots for every person drafted each
>year. Because of the draft is so lengthy, the process encourages the
>quantity over quality. Meaning there is an accompanying high failure
>rate inherent in the system. And it gives too many prospects a false
>sense of future success.
The reasn baseball drafts are so "long" are two fold.
1. The drafting of high school players. NFL doesn't do it at all, NBA does it,
some. (What, two a year or so?)
2. The use of farm systems. NFL is now using the arena league and Europe league
as farms, NBA has I think a europe league.
3. The skillsets are far more complicated in baseball. In basketball if you can
it a 20 foot jumper in college the hoop doesn't change, the defense changes a
bit, the offense remains about the same. In football catching a pass is catching
a pass (though the defender is tougher), etc.
In baseball, a college or HS fastball is nothing like an MLB fastball. Much less
sliders, curves, etc. The skillset of a HS player can be entirely different an
nowhere near MLB ready.
It has nothing to do with "opportunity" the huge farm systems that the MLB has
is to allow the cream to rise. It is (or so it seems) much, much easier to scout
football and basketball. "If the lineman big? Is he fast? Will he stay big and
fast?" Are much easier questions than "will the player adjust to the curve? and
"Can this guy work a hitter?"
The reason teams want to decrease the rounds in the draft is fewer rounds mean
fewer bonuses. Even at the "low" 10k a pick for a guy in the 40th round, 10
rounds is an extra 100k. Now, that said most teams *don't* sign more than a
handful of players past round 25 because they generally take HS players who
believe with 4 more years they can move up in the draft (and I'd guess the
majority are correct).
The players want fewer players drafted because it is in the long run less
compitition for MLB jobs.
>What baseball could do is cut its draft in proportion to the size of
>its roster as compared with the NFL. So, instead of 50 rounds, it
>could be cut to 4 rounds.
And literally hundreds of players would never get a chance or worse all go to
the "large market" teams after they were Ammy Free Agents. I hae no idea what
the real number is, but I'd guess about 75% of MLB players and 50% of All-Star
caliber players are drafted after the 4th round.
Just an out of the blue example, in 1999 the 9th round producrd Mark Ellis,
Steve Kent and Brian Sprecht. Three guys with MLB experience, and also about a
10% success rate for that round.
The 10th round produced Marlon Byrd and Bobby Crosby (along wigth Ben
Hendrickson who will get MLB time in his career, but that is something i only
know as a Brewer fan). So not quite 10% that round and year.
That way teams could concentrate their
>scouting resources on fewer players and either save money because of
>the fewer rounds or give more money to the players actually selected
>in the shortened draft. Then the success rate of Team X would rise to
>83.3% (10/12) assuming it signs each drafted player.
And assuming every player they draft is MLB ready. In the 4th round of 1999 only
what, four or six guys are MLB types (Thurston, Mench, Journell, Reid).
Hell, the first round that year has only heard from Beckett, Munson, Zito,
Sheets, Myers, Howington, Jennings, Ginter, Ainsworth, Jerome Williams, Bynum
and Fossum. That includes the supplimental first round. These are supposed to be
the "all teams would love to have them" guys, the ones ho are likely All-Stars
or at least everyday regulars. Four years later only about 40% of them are in
the majors.
Reducing the rounds in the draft isn't going to fix that.
>However, you might say that many star players that have been low picks
>(like Mike Piazza) would not have made the impact on baseball that
>they did/do. That is true, but in most selective processes, one
>cannot know the potential success of a person never drafted/hired.
So you eliminate the chance?
By
>culling the draft to much fewer rounds, it will force teams to focus
>their resources on only the most likely candidates.
Yeah, because htey are pulling names out of a hat now.
Do you know anything about minor league baseball?
John Mosey |..X..|....|Brew-o-meter
Exalted Grand Puba: http://www.fantasybaseballnews.com/
"...you look at slugging percentage and on-base percentage. I have a hard time
with that. I have a really hard time with that. I might be wrong, but I have a
hard time with it." .232/.277/.296 player and Twins manager Ron Gardenhire
C Nick Beaudrot
wrote:
: On 9 Jun 2003 11:31:39 -0700 brians...@hotmail.com said some stupid crap
: like:
:
: >The reason why the current system seems so unpredicable in assessing
: >talent, whereas it is as somewhat likely that a player selected in X-1
: >round will be as successful as in X round in getting to the majors, is
: >because there are so few roster spots for every person drafted each
: >year. Because of the draft is so lengthy, the process encourages the
: >quantity over quality. Meaning there is an accompanying high failure
: >rate inherent in the system. And it gives too many prospects a false
: >sense of future success.
:
: The reasn baseball drafts are so "long" are two fold.
:
: 1. The drafting of high school players. NFL doesn't do it at all, NBA
: does it, some. (What, two a year or so?)
Last year there was only 1 (Stoudamire). The year before there were four
or five (Brown, Chandler, Curry, I'm missing one). It seems to have
stabilized around 2 per year though. However a number of first round
picks are college freshmen and sophomores -- at least 2 of the first 10
picks this year will be freshmen (Carmelo Anthony and Chris Bosh).
: 2. The use of farm systems. NFL is now using the arena league and
: Europe league as farms, NBA has I think a europe league.
The Europe league players are usually already on an NFL team's practice
squad, so they stand some small chance of making the team already.
There are minor leagues in basketball, but I don't believe those players
are bound to a particular team, and those players, when called up,
usually are signed to 10-day contracts.
:
: 3. The skillsets are far more complicated in baseball. In basketball
: if you can it a 20 foot jumper in college the hoop doesn't change,
: the defense changes a bit, the offense remains about the same. In
: football catching a pass is catching a pass (though the defender is
: tougher), etc.
:
: In baseball, a college or HS fastball is nothing like an MLB
: fastball. Much less sliders, curves, etc. The skillset of a HS player
: can be entirely different an nowhere near MLB ready.
And this is not true for football? If that were the case shouldn't the
Redskins have trounced everyone last year?
And for basketball, wouldn't coaches like Leonard Hamilton, Rick Pitino,
and Tim Floyd not totally suck when they moved to the NBA?
The jump from college to the pros is substantial in all 3 sports. It's
probably bigger in baseball than
And the skill set of the HS players going pro in basketball is not
necessarily on par with NBA veterans usually. Most of them don't have
jump shots to speak of until they've been in the NBA a while. And it's
not clear they care enough to play defense.
: Even at the "low" 10k a pick for a guy in the 40th round, 10 rounds
: is an extra 100k. Now, that said most teams *don't* sign more than a
: handful of players past round 25 because they generally take HS
: players who believe with 4 more years they can move up in the draft
: (and I'd guess the majority are correct).
:
: The players want fewer players drafted because it is in the long run
: less compitition for MLB jobs.
I thought the players wanted to decrease the number of rounds in the
draft, to let amateurs who are so low as to be almost not a cost to the
organization have some freedom in picking their place of work. (Fehr is
quoted as such in one of Baseball America's interviews; I can't seem to
dig it up).
And why would it mean less competition? Law of Averages? Wouldn't some
of the diamonds in the rough go play in the northern league or
something?
Cheers,
Nick
--
All that stuff they write in Baseball America--that's bullshit. You can
play. That's all that matters. You can play. You think Babe Ruth was a
stud? Hell no, he was a fat piece of shit.
-Nick Swisher
Eric Opperman
>
> On 9 Jun 2003 12:17:02 -0700, Deep Structure Mosey <jo...@mosey.combat>
> wrote:
> : On 9 Jun 2003 11:31:39 -0700 brians...@hotmail.com said some stupid crap
> : like:
> :
> : >The reason why the current system seems so unpredicable in assessing
> : >talent, whereas it is as somewhat likely that a player selected in X-1
> : >round will be as successful as in X round in getting to the majors, is
> : >because there are so few roster spots for every person drafted each
> : >year. Because of the draft is so lengthy, the process encourages the
> : >quantity over quality. Meaning there is an accompanying high failure
> : >rate inherent in the system. And it gives too many prospects a false
> : >sense of future success.
> :
> : The reasn baseball drafts are so "long" are two fold.
> :
> : 1. The drafting of high school players. NFL doesn't do it at all, NBA
> : does it, some. (What, two a year or so?)
>
> Last year there was only 1 (Stoudamire). The year before there were four
> or five (Brown, Chandler, Curry, I'm missing one). It seems to have
> stabilized around 2 per year though. However a number of first round
> picks are college freshmen and sophomores -- at least 2 of the first 10
> picks this year will be freshmen (Carmelo Anthony and Chris Bosh).
DeSagna Diop is the one you're forgetting...all four of them went in the
top seven picks.
> : 2. The use of farm systems. NFL is now using the arena league and
> : Europe league as farms, NBA has I think a europe league.
>
> There are minor leagues in basketball, but I don't believe those players
> are bound to a particular team, and those players, when called up,
> usually are signed to 10-day contracts.
There are no pro basketball teams affiliated with higher-level pro
basketball teams. The NBDL is affiliated with the NBA, but only on a
league-to-league level, not a team-to-team level.
> :
> : 3. The skillsets are far more complicated in baseball. In basketball
> : if you can it a 20 foot jumper in college the hoop doesn't change,
> : the defense changes a bit, the offense remains about the same. In
> : football catching a pass is catching a pass (though the defender is
> : tougher), etc.
> :
> : In baseball, a college or HS fastball is nothing like an MLB
> : fastball. Much less sliders, curves, etc. The skillset of a HS player
> : can be entirely different an nowhere near MLB ready.
>
> And this is not true for football? If that were the case shouldn't the
> Redskins have trounced everyone last year?
Why? They didn't have the best players coming up from college or
anything. Spurrier is a great offensive mind, but there's only so much
you can do with mediocre talent.
> And for basketball, wouldn't coaches like Leonard Hamilton, Rick Pitino,
> and Tim Floyd not totally suck when they moved to the NBA?
Not necessarily...they are more egocentric than the NBA game allows
coaches to be. It's not their X's and O's that kept them from being
successful, it was their inability to get the players in the right type
of system. It's easier in college, where the coach is the team and can
easily run off anybody who doesn't want to do it his way. Calipari and
Pitino especially just couldn't deal with that aspect of the pro game.
In the pros, the players are the team, the coach is pretty easy to
replace.
--
Thanks for your time,
Eric Opperman
"Daddy, tell the guys to keep their eyes on the ball. They're missing
the ball too much." -- Former Giants bat boy Darren Baker, son of Cubs
manager Dusty Baker
Deep Structure Mosey
>: 3. The skillsets are far more complicated in baseball. In basketball
>: if you can it a 20 foot jumper in college the hoop doesn't change,
>: the defense changes a bit, the offense remains about the same. In
>: football catching a pass is catching a pass (though the defender is
>: tougher), etc.
>:
>: In baseball, a college or HS fastball is nothing like an MLB
>: fastball. Much less sliders, curves, etc. The skillset of a HS player
>: can be entirely different an nowhere near MLB ready.
>
>And this is not true for football? If that were the case shouldn't the
>Redskins have trounced everyone last year? I have no idea what argument you are
>making here.
I have no idea. The Redskins are a football team, right?
>And for basketball, wouldn't coaches like Leonard Hamilton, Rick Pitino,
>and Tim Floyd not totally suck when they moved to the NBA?
Are we drafting coaches? Can Pitino make a jump shot?
>The jump from college to the pros is substantial in all 3 sports. It's
>probably bigger in baseball than
If it was substantial then college kids coming in would be entirely overwhelmed.
Guys like Mark Prior who can come in and actually play MLB ball after less than
a year are once a decade. As someone else showed, in football and basketball it
is around 80%.
>And the skill set of the HS players going pro in basketball is not
>necessarily on par with NBA veterans usually. Most of them don't have
>jump shots to speak of until they've been in the NBA a while. And it's
>not clear they care enough to play defense.
But they can "hang" no problem. They aren't being cut left and right, or
entirely embarrassing themselves. Do you think any of the players drafted last
week could even make a 25th man right now?
>: The players want fewer players drafted because it is in the long run
>: less compitition for MLB jobs.
>
>I thought the players wanted to decrease the number of rounds in the
>draft, to let amateurs who are so low as to be almost not a cost to the
>organization have some freedom in picking their place of work. (Fehr is
>quoted as such in one of Baseball America's interviews; I can't seem to
>dig it up).
That's not a bad line. It could be that too, or so they say, but more than
likely the players don't really care a lot how many rounds there are.
>And why would it mean less competition? Law of Averages? Wouldn't some
>of the diamonds in the rough go play in the northern league or
>something?
They could, but more than likely they wouldn't play at all.
Alan S. Wales
--
"When you argue with a fool be sure he is not similarly occupied."
Craig Richardson
<jo...@mosey.combat> wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 21:32:19 +0000 (UTC) C said some stupid crap like:
>>The jump from college to the pros is substantial in all 3 sports. It's
>>probably bigger in baseball than
>
>If it was substantial then college kids coming in would be entirely overwhelmed.
>Guys like Mark Prior who can come in and actually play MLB ball after less than
>a year are once a decade. As someone else showed, in football and basketball it
>is around 80%.
I'm beginning to wonder if part of the problem might be that college
programs are lousy prep for the top level of the baseball pyramid.
In football, basketball, and soccer, a 23-yo with the requisite skills
can pretty much be expected to step in, if not at his full potential,
at least without embarrassing himself. In baseball, a college player
is still looking at a probably severe adjustment period.
I'm not married to the idea, it was just something that struck me -
the success rate of ballplayers with college experience moving
straight to the top seems ROM the same as kids in the other sports
without college experience.
--Craig
--
Managing the Devil Rays is something like competing on "Iron Chef",
and having Chairman Kaga reveal a huge ziggurat of lint.
Gary Huckabay, Baseball Prospectus Online, August 21, 2002
Dvd Avins
news:mssbevsd2vs5nu1hv...@4ax.com...
> I'm beginning to wonder if part of the problem might be that college
> programs are lousy prep for the top level of the baseball pyramid.
Perhaps part. But the big thing IMO is that baseball is less aerobic than
any other sport that gets watched other than golf, and has fewer
career-damaging injuries than almost all of them. As an athlete goes through
his 20s, his short-term endurance decreases, his reaction time stays about
the same, and his strength and consistency increases. So baseball has a very
late peak age. The difference between the age when players get drafted and
the age when they will be at their best makes projection more difficult.