SB Nation User Blog: OldProspects

1997 Draft

OldProspects — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:30:10 -0000

After I did this for the 1998 Draft, somebody wondered if maybe that year was unusual, and suggested that the 1997 one was considered to be significantly stronger. After having done the 1997 one too, I can say with some certainty I will never do another one. As it happens, the '98 draft was significantly stronger than the '97, both with greater star talent and more depth, though 23 teams managed to find a player of some value (in contrast to 20 in 1998). Very few teams managed to find even one player who would be a star, and with the exception of the Blue Jays who managed to steal not only Vernon Wells, but Michael Young in the 5th round, and Orlando Hudson in the 43rd nobody got 2. The theme of this is clear: it's very, very difficult to get real major leaguers from the draft because prospects and prospecting is so uncertain.

Blue Jays: Michael Young (5), Vernon Wells (1:5), Orlando Hudson (43), Mark Hendrickson (20)

Astros: Lance Berkman (1:16). Tim Redding (20)

A's: Tim Hudson (6)

Pirates: Mike Gonzalez (30)

Phillies: Derrick Turnbow (5), Randy Wolf (2) Johnny Estrada (17)

Rockies: Aaron Cook (2), Chone Figgins (4)

Angels: Troy Glaus (1:3) Scot Shields (38), Matt Wise (6)

Cardinals: Rick Ankiel (2), Adam Kennedy (1:20)

Diamondbacks: Jack Cust (1:30), Alex Cintron (36)

Reds: Scott Williamson (9)

Cubs: Jon Garland (1:10) Scott Downs (3)

Twins: Michael Cuddyer (1:9), Matt LeCroy (1:50), J.C. Romero (21)

Orioles: Jerry Hairston (11), Jayson Werth (1:22)

Atlanta Braves: Horacio Ramirez (5), Danny Wright (46)

Mariners: Joel Piniero (12)

Giants: Scott Linabrink (2)

Devil Rays: Toby Hall (9)

Royals: Jeremy Affeldt (3)

Red Sox: David Eckstein (19), Travis Harper (3)

Pirates: John Grabow (3)

Mets: Jason Phillips (24)

Rangers: Mike Lamb (7)

Marlins: Ross Gload (13)

1998 Draft

OldProspects — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:17:04 -0000

Kneejerk predictions about this year's draft might be more fun, but perspective can be interesting too. I looked at the 1998 draft and tried to get a sense of which teams gained the most, or lost the most, from their picks.

That draft was most memorable for the J.D. Drew drama, who would finally sign with the Cardinals after rejecting the Phillies in the previous year. Despite the hub-hub, what's most startling is how difficult it is for a team to get anybody who impacts their major league team from the draft. I tried to list all of the players who were signed who would either start or be a significant pitcher for at least 2 or more years at the major league level. Even with considering such players like Joe Beimel as significant (4.38 ERA over 443 major league IP over 8 major league seasons), a total of 10 teams still got absolutely no significant player over the entire draft.

Even in a draft that included such talents as J.D. Drew and Pat Burrell, it is even harder for them to get a star after the 1st round. It is nearly impossible for a team to not only find a major league player in a late round, but then to sign him. The Chicago White Sox get double credit for not only finding and securing any major leaguer in the 38th round, but Mark Buehrle. To give a sense of how difficult this is, the next future major leaguer to have any impact who was signed by the team who drafted were Mike Koplove and Tim Spooneybarger, who both provided two solid years of relief after having been drafted by the Diamondbacks and Braves respectively in the 29th round. (In Spooneybarger's defense, he might have had an even greater impact had he not needed Tommy John's surgery at a pretty young age)

The teams are listed in the order of what I think were the best drafts. The players are listed in order of what I think were the best picks. The numbers in parenthesies refer to which round they were chosen. If they were in the 1st round, they get two numbers to denote with which pick.

A's: Mark Mulder (1:2) Eric Byrnes (8), Gerald Laird (2)

Reds: Adam Dunn (2), B.J. Ryan (17) Austin Kearns (1:7)

White Sox: Mark Buehrle (38) Josh Fogg (3), Aaron Rowand (1:35), Kip Wells (1:16)

Rockies: Matt Holliday (7), Juan Pierre (13)

Cardinals: J.D. Drew (1:5) Jack Wilson (9)

Indians: C.C. Sabathia (1:20)

Phillies: Pat Burrell (1:1), Nick Punto (21) Geoff Geary (15), Jason Michaels (4)

Astros: Brad Lidge (1:17) John Buck (7)

Rangers: Carlos Pena (1:10)

Brewers: Bill Hall (6)

The Cubs got Corey Patterson (1:3), Eric Hinske (17), Ohman (8)

The Devil Rays got Aubrey Huff (5), Brandon Backe (18), Joe Kennedy (8)

Red Sox: Mike Maroth (3), Adam Everett (1:12)

Tigers: Brandon Inge (2), Jeff Weaver (1:14)

Blue Jays: Felipe Lopez (1:8), Jay Gibbons (14)

Expos: Brad Wilkerson (1:33)

Dodgers: David Ross (7), Scott Proctor (5)

Braves: Tim Spooneybarger (29)

Diamondbacks: Mike Kopolove (29)

Pirates: Joe Beimel (18).

Kevin Slowey

OldProspects — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:17:06 -0000

Kevin Slowey, with his only good stuff and terrific control in Minnesota, seemed like an easy comparison for former Twins pitcher Brad Radke. His minor league numbers, however, were a cut above Radke's, and now he seems to be putting together some very unusual lines that are probably still better than the predecessor.

Though Slowey was older than Radke had been in the minors, the difference in their production there was noticeable. Radke showed in the minor leagues terrific control (2.04 BB/9) and a decent strikeout ability (6.99 K/9) which led to an excellent K/BB (3.4) and a very solid ERA (3.21).

Where Radke was good, Slowey was extraordinary. Somehow, Slowey improved on Radke's control (only 1.27 BB/9) and combined this with an excellent strikeout ratio (8.85 K/9) leading to a truly astounding 7 K/BB and a 1.94 ERA over his minor league years.

Over the last two years, with injuries and a late start, Slowey has pitched almost a full season in the majors. His control has been sensational (1.49 BB/9), already at the level that Radke reached towards the end of his career, and significantly better than he had been at the start of it. As some expected, his strikeout ratio dropped when he faced the better professional hitters, and Slowey has only struck out 6.39 batters per 9 innings this year, still giving him a terrific 4.2 K/BB. Slowey's WHIP this year of 1.11 has been terrific, and he would certainly be among the best pitchers in the league if it wasn't for his awful homerun rate. Though he hadn't faced too much of these troubles in the minors, major leaguers have been sending his pitches regularly over the fence, which has brought his ERA up to an only decent 4.00 this year. Slowey's combination of terrific control and terrible homerun rate has given him the unusual distinction of having given up over his major league career more home runs than walks.

Radke also gave up more than his share of homeruns, which kept him from being a truly excellent pitcher. Slowey, though, seems like he could be better. In only one season in Radke's career did he match Slowey's strikout rate, and in that year he won 20 games with a 3.87 ERA. Slowey has the chance to do that regularly.

As and Pitchers

OldProspects — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:23:43 -0000

My brother and I are in the same fantasy baseball league, and we occasionally send each other overly long comments about baseball and fantasy baseball. I think this recent e-mail might be of some interest to other people:

I think the As are onto something quite interesting in regards to pitching. It's of some use to our league but also for general interest.

Let's start from the beginning. At the start of the decade, the As had 4 elite young starters who were deemed irreplaceable: Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, Tim Hudson and Rich Harden. Since then, they have lost all of them, receiving prospects in exchange for 3 of them. Though the team is currently mediocre, they have maybe the deepest collection of young pitchers in the majors and should be a major force within the next year or two. One of the major reasons this happened was because of their deals of these pitchers.

After 2004, they traded Mulder for Daric Barton, Dan Haren and Kiki Calero. Mulder would have one more excellent year for the Cardinals at age 28 before becoming a nonentity. Barton was a very highly regarded prospect that now appears to be a decent 1B. Calero was a solid reliever for a few years. Dan Haren was a mid-level pitching prospect who became a top major league starter and eventually brought in a haul of his own, as will be discussed later.

The Hudson deal went significantly less well for the As. They received in return Dan Meyer, a highly regarded pitching prospect who never really made the majors, Juan Cruz, a former pitching prospect who has become a solid member of the Diamondbacks' bullpen, and Charles Thomas, a crappy minor league outfielder. Despite some drama, Tim Hudson has continued to be an excellent starter for the Braves.

Zito was allowed to leave as a free agent.

Beane flipped Dan Haren before the start of this year for a package of 6 prospects. The premier names were Carlos Gonzalez, a solid outfield prospect and Brett Anderson, a potential #1 starter. 1B prospect Chris Carter and OF prospect Aaron Cunningham were also considered helpful, and added on were minor pitching prospects Greg Smith and Dana Eveland. Gonzalez and Anderson have done as expected. Chris Carter is having an unusually good year in the minors. Aaron Cunningham remains a potential 3rd or 4th outfielder. Smith and Eveland, we will discuss later.

Finally and most recently, the As traded Rich Harden for reasonably good young pitcher Sean Gallagher, and a few decent hitting prospects.

In general, the As appear to have done terrifically from all of this. Of the 4 starters who were considered untouchable, two of them turned into disasters (Mulder and Zito), one is still excellent (Hudson) and Harden is Harden. In exchange, they recieved 4 years of Dan Haren, and Greg Smith, Dana Eveland and Sean Gallagher, Daric Barton, one outstanding pitching prospect, as well as a whole slew of good hitting prospects. Considering they effectively only gave up Hudson and Harden (and one terrific Mulder year), this is pretty damn good return. It's even better when one considers the salaries they avoided paying.

Some people have suspected that the As knew something about these players. They think that maybe they knew Mulder or Zito were due to decline, or that they were simply superlative scouts. I disagree. I think they are based off of a few shrewd insights on the part of the As.

Firstly: giving up the stars. Trading away elite 28 year old pitchers for prospects is not nearly as risky as it seems - it's actually a terrifically smart thing to do. Pitchers are always uncertain entities, but dealing away a 28 year old top pitcher is like giving up a gun in Russian Roulette that has already been fired 6 times. All of these starters (with the exception of Harden) had picture-perfect careers - no injuries, plenty of success from an early age - while with the As. The chances that that would continue until their mid-30s are rather low. A 50% failure rate for this type of pitchers isn't, I don't think, evidence of good As luck - it's evidence of shrewd logic.

The second major insight the As have had is that there is a major divide in how we judge minor league pitching prospects from major league pitchers. We rate prospects by potential and major leaguers by performance. This means that we rate a minor league who can be a #1 starter significantly higher than we do one with the potential to be a #3 starter without considering their minor league performance. On the face of it, this seems eminently reasonable. A potential #1 starter is a terrifically valuable thing, especially when one considers that even if he doesn't reach his potential, he's still be a solid #3 starter. A potential #3 starter would have to do very well simply to equal that. If he doesn't meet expectations (a common occurence for pitching prospects) then he is of even less value.

Except this doesn't quite mean what we think it means. An average major league starter is actually an immensely valuable thing especially if he is 23 or 24 and makes the league minimum. If you can get somebody like that, then you can make your team terrifically stronger. Consider the "add-ons" from the most recent Dan Haren deal: The surprising thing is that neither Dana Eveland nor Greg Smith have beat expectations. They're doing exactly what a moderately optimistic observer would have expected. Greg Smith was a very good minor league pitcher with a 3.27 ERA, and a 7.76 K/9 who was expected to be a a #4 starter. Though his first months on the As have been unusually strong (3.43 ERA, 6.04 K/9), there is every reason to think that he will settle down as an average starter with a 4.00 ERA or so. Dana Eveland was also projected to be a #4 starter, despite his 2.63 minor league ERA and his K/9 of 9. He has also done relatively well in the majors (3.49 ERA, 6.7 K/9). They were good minor league pitchers with limited potential who have become decent (and perhaps better than decent) major league pitchers. What is exciting about this deal isn't that they're having strong years, but even if they become simply average major league starters, the As will have gained alot. He'll have gotten for Dan Haren, in addition to two top prospects, two (low-salaried) Joe Blantons (major league ERA 4.25). And a Joe Blanton is an enormously valuable thing.

(I'm tempted to guess that this isn't the first time Beane has done this. Dan Haren himself might be an example of this, considered simply a good pitching prospect, and in whose first two years with the As had ERAs of 3.73 and 4.12. His last year and a half have been significantly better, but I don't think Haren was ever considered to be a dominant pitcher. Barry Zito was also considered an over-draft because he was not percieved to have the potential to be a #1 starter. We tend to think of potential #1 starters as people with the potential to be greats, while major league aces are usually just very good pitchers who get ERAs of say 3.30, rather than 3.90.)

Now obviously there remain significant risks with this type of pitcher. Eveland and Smith turned out very well: it is equally likely that they (like Dan Meyer), would have slipped down and become not even #5 starters rather than the #3s that they are. As a rule, one would rather get top pitching prospects than marginal ones, like Beane did get, a la Brett Anderson. Yet even this isn't quite true. Brett Anderson is a terrific pitching prospect who is doing excellently, but the As got him before his 20 year old season in A+ ball. An awful lot of top pitching prospects collapse, either because of injury or other reasons, between 20 and 22 or 23. Not only are these marginal pitching prospects cheaper because of their lower potentials, but they can also be gotten older. A 23 year old pitching prospect who has already done well in AAA may be a significantly safer bet than even the best 20 year old prospect in A ball.

Beane and the As seem to be working from both ends. He's collected some of the top young pitching prospects in the game (Anderson, Trevor Cahill, Fautino de los Santos, and others) but he's mixing them up with a large quantity of decent pitchers who are still, because of the risky nature of major league pitchers, of tremendous value: Greg Smith, Dana Eveland.

Considering this is already way too long, I'll resist the temptation to discuss further connotations

Collin Cowgill

OldProspects — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:39:55 -0000

Cowgill, a 22 year old drafted in the 5th round, has been absolutely battering A- ball. In 64 atbats, he has 11 home runs. His BB:K is a respectable 9:16, and he's managed to put up an 1190 OPS (not that hard when you have an ISOP of .547 - no, that isn't a typo) despite batting only .266 (startlingly enough, his BABIP is .162).

Does anybody know anything more about him? Could he be a good majorleaguer?

Wade Leblanc

OldProspects — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:11:36 -0000

Though he doesn't have terrific stuff, he always managed to get results, striking out nearly a person per inning in A+ and AA last year at age 23 while walking only 36 people over a total of 149 IP. In his first ten or so starts in AAA this year, he got demolished, however, suggesting that the scouts' doubts were valid. Recently, however, Leblanc has pitched terrifically. In his last 5 starts, he has struck out 39 people in 29 innings, walking 10 (including 9 strikeouts and only 1 walk and 1ER in 7 innings today). He still has a 6.15 ERA on the year, but do you think he'll be brought up to the majors soon? What sort of pitcher do you think he'll be?

Historical statistics

OldProspects — Mon, 19 May 2008 19:40:18 -0000

Like maybe others here, I started following baseball when people like Bill James were only beginning to be influential, and before the days of some these more modern statistics. This meant that when I looked at players like Ted Williams or Joe Dimaggio, the two best players of the 1940s, I was normally looking at their triple crown stats. Recently, I re-looked at some of these older players paying particular attention to what we now know are the more important statistics, including walks and strikeouts and homers. Here is what I found for those two people. I also calculated some BABIPs for fun.

Joe Dimaggio looks even better - one of the only players in history to hit almost as many homers as strikeouts (361 to 369) over his career, despite having an extremely high batting average (.325 over his career), one wonders why it was lower than other players'. We don't have line drive percentage data for these players (or at least I don't) but his BABIP over his career was .304. In his best year, 1939, at age 24, he batted .381/.446/.671 (OPS+ 184), it was partially because his BABIP rose to .354 (though hitting 30 homers and striking out only 20 times in 462 at bats didn't hurt)

Ted Williams needed a bit more luck to get his .400 batting average. At age 22 in 1941, he batted .406/.551/.735 (OPS+ of 235!!!). His numbers were relatively similar to Dimaggio's, with 37 homers and only 27 strikeouts in 456 at bats (though he added 147 walks to Dimaggio's 52), but he managed the extra 25 batting average points by having a BABIP of .378. Over his career, in 7706 ABs he had a disturbing 2021 walks while striking out only 709 times (just under 3-1). His .329 career BABIP helped him get a .344 career batting average

OT: Grad School

OldProspects — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 04:38:21 -0000

I noticed in another diary that about 5 or 6 people mentioned that they were or had been in grad school. Though considering both the recent phenomena of people very well educated in the academic sense entering the top tiers of baseball general management, and the longer tradition of very educated people delving into thinking about sports, and particularly baseball (David Halbertsam, Gay Talese, etc, all wrote major books on the sport), I probably shouldn't have been surprised, but I was anyway.

And considering I'm now about to apply for grad school (in history), I was even more curious. So how many people here are actually in, or were in grad school? Which fields are you in? And, considering the previous discussion about the poverty of being a grad student (and the decisions I myself am going to have to make), are you still happy you went?