What do you think the problem is, TCS? Do you think they are drafting the wrong players or that scouts are being too critical? I would guess that the guys in later rounds have even worse scouting reports.
Yahoo surmised the Cardinals' pick was need based because he was projected as a supplemental or second round pick. Right. I'm sure they were thinking hey, we're weak up the middle, better solve that problem by taking an 18-year-old middle infielder straight out of high school. Forget the best available talent in the draft, because how else could we possibly get a decent middle infielder? I have to admit that this was a headscratcher for me as a Cardinals fan. The draftee is obviously not going to be ready when Eckstein's contract is up (at the end of this year), and I guess I think the Cardinals wasted an opportunity to get either someone who could move fast and help soon or take a shot on the top HS pitcher in the draft with the highest projected ceiling (Porcello). Time was, the Cardinals were willing to deal with Boras and big bonus demands (J.D. Drew, Rick Ankiel), but I guess not so much now. Terms like "below average," "questionable instincts," "middle of the rotation," and "No. 8 hitter" do not belong in assessments of first round picks, in my opinion. Granted we don't know the sources of these comments, and my comments are obviously conditional on the validity of these reports. Some of these terms are problematic, but others aren't. I don't really get into tracking prospects and player development, but major league talent is very valuable even further down the food chain (like middle- to back-of-the-rotation pitchers). It depends how you define these things, but there are probably no more than ten true number one pitchers in baseball right now, and that's being generous. (Yes, every team has a no. 1, but Gil Meche is not the same as Johan Santana.) If you look at the percentages of players that actually make it to the majors (including first round draft picks) and where they end up in terms of contributions, it's really a crap shoot. Some teams (like the Cardinals apparently) would rather take a guy who projects to be a no. 2 hitter with 10-15 HR power, decent defense and OBP but is considered fairly safe to at least hit those development milestones than take a shot with a high school pitcher who might be the next Chris Carpenter or might be out of baseball in three years if he can't get his control under ... em ... control. I don't pretend to understand it all, but I'm a lot more sympathetic to shooting for a player who can provide some contribution at the Major League level, even if it's not superstar performance. There just aren't that many potential clean-up hitters, staff aces, etc. available. Or the tools and resources just don't exist to see them at present (as with Piazza and Pujols, among many others).
I think you are wrong: the likelihood of ever seeing a superstar is so low that you'd be out of the scouting business long before you saw one if you went around being fair. You might well be right, I don't know the scouting system well enough to know how it works, but intuitively I would think it's a "publish or perish" situation where, yes, if you go too long without finding a superstar you do find yourself out of the business. As for the crappy reviews you've pasted, I guess some teams could have seen the guy on a different day. If these guys are getting signed in the first round (emphasis on "in the first round") because they went 4 for 4 on a Wednesday, then we're back to my theory that teams aren't spending any time at all on this draft. Or seen something else in him. Maybe his mom was hot? What do you think the problem is, TCS? See above. I think teams are tanking the amateur draft and their scouts are taking long vacations in Santo Domingo and Caracas. Of course, maybe it's closer to Holden's point -- teams are willing to drop a little in pure talent to keep from dealing with the Borases of the world. And holden: to just reply briefly, I'm not saying the guys who are going in the first round shouldn't be drafted at all. But do you think that any of the top 30 amateur baseball players in all of the US and Canada could have flaws as glaring and fundamental as those described here, to be seen by anybody who has spent some real time with them?
And holden: to just reply briefly, I'm not saying the guys who are going in the first round shouldn't be drafted at all. But do you think that any of the top 30 amateur baseball players in all of the US and Canada could have flaws as glaring and fundamental as those described here, to be seen by anybody who has spent some real time with them? If the player is fairly projectable and has skills in other areas, most of the flaws you listed one could live with. "Below average defensively" sounds to me like Jason Giambi. Knowing what we know about Giambi's career, would he be considered a first round talent? I think so. "No. 3-type starter" -- Mike Mussina perhaps? Maybe more of a 2 at his prime, so let's say Jamie Moyer or Javier Vazquez or someone like that. Worth a first-round pick? I think so. "His defensive ability behind the plate is a question mark." Mike Piazza, anyone? "Projects as a No. 8 hitter in a big league line-up" -- Miguel Cairo? Okay, got me on that one. But the point is, there are very few major leaguers that you could look at and not find one or more significant flaws. But they're still very valuable. Hall of Famers, of course not. But worthy of a first round pick, I think so.
TCS, you're operating under the assumption of perfect information, that all correct knowledge about all baseball players in the US is available to all teams at all times (and that all actors are rational). The reality is it's much clumsier and different teams have different needs (as well as different valuation systems-- what would the 2002 Oakland draft have looked like if you just read the MLB scouting bureau reports?). The other thing is, as holden suggests, being able to find someone good enough to hit #8 in the majors in 4-5 years in the draft is a win. How many kids will get drafted this year? How many of them will see 100 MLB ABs?
Perception and scouts' biases still play a role. Check out Baseball Prospectus' comments on Rounds 6-10: "The pick that stood out in the eighth round, without question, was Adam Mills going to the Red Sox. Mills led the nation with a 1.01 ERA on the season with Charlotte, and while he also had good strikeout numbers, he fell hard in the draft. Mills is a small, right-handed pitcher that throws from 85-88 mph."
Mike Mussina was one of the top 5 or 6 pitchers in the American League while with the Orioles. If you draft a guy and you think his ceiling is as a #3 hitter or #1 pitcher and he becomes a #8 hitter or a #3 pitcher, I say you have a win. If you draft a guy and you say his ceiling when you draft him is a #8 hitter or a #3 pitcher, I say in three years you have a pretty good vice-president of a small insurance agency in Topeka. Again, I recognize the need to fill the bottom part of your roster with quality guys, but going into the first round with an eye on the bottom of your roster, given the size of the pool, gives me the impression you're not looking very hard. If Yahoo's review had a negative comment on everyone, then I would let the comments go as measurements relative to the average first round pick, but that doesn't seem to be the case. First round picks should have mega-tools - drafting poor defensive catchers because you're hoping it's Mike Piazza seems like a terrible strategy. On edit: yerfatma, I understand your comments that the scouting process is subjective, but for anybody to see a first round pick as "below average" in any skills or lacking in instinct in the game... I dunno, could anybody be that much of an outlier on these guys? It's not like saying, "not as good as everyone says he is."
On edit: yerfatma, I understand your comments that the scouting process is subjective, but for anybody to see a first round pick as "below average" in any skills or lacking in instinct in the game... I dunno, could anybody be that much of an outlier on these guys? It's not like saying, "not as good as everyone says he is." I don't know too much about scouting, but I think it's pretty common knowledge that there are five main tools for position players -- hitting for average, hitting for power, fielding ability, speed, and arm strength. A true five tool player is very, very rare. I think A-Rod is a five-tool player and was considered to be such coming out of high school. But almost every other player, even elite talents, are simply average or below average in at least one of the five tools. Prince Fielder when drafted was known to be below average for speed (and maybe even for -- oh the irony -- fielding), but was still a first-round draft pick. He'll be an All-Star this year and probably finish in the top ten of the MVP vote. I think having mega-tools (or plus-plus as the scouts would say) at 2-3 of the five tools would probably be considered more than adequate for a first round talent.
The description of Adam Mills is rather intriguing. "Small, right-handed pitcher" might mean almost anything when it comes to ability. Save for the fact that he was left-handed, the description could apply to Bobby Shantz. He did pretty darn well in his career.
