Should Dustin Ackley have been the first overall pick last June?At Diamond Futures, we have gotten fairly comfortable with our understanding of a particular prospect, once they reach approximately 250 professional At Bats, or 90 professional Innings Pitched. Those are the thresholds, that we have discovered, that begin to paint a picture of the characteristics a player exhibits, and is large enough of a sample size to begin to remove the ‘randomness’. But what about young players that have not yet reached that level? One of the most common questions that we receive when we do our rankings is ‘How do we determine the appropriate slot for the previous year’s draft picks, when they barely have any professional experience?’ While we would be the first to tell you that it is often more art than science, we do tend to approach this as ‘quantitatively’ as we do everything else here at Diamond Futures.
Essentially we look at three things. The first is our pre-draft rankings. Every June, we compile ratings on approximately 200 High School Players and 300 College Players. These comprise our starting point. The second thing we look at is the player’s performance and reports from the late summer season, the Arizona Fall League, and Fall Instructionals. Where we have data, we calculate Performance scores just as we do on all other players. The final thing we look at, is what we call our ‘comparative player report’. For every newly drafted player that we feel merits ‘prospect’ consideration, we produce a report that examines a given player against our database of previously drafted players. What we do is look at seven or eight variables: Draft Position, Age at Signing, Defensive Position, Handedness, Hometown or College, Height, Body Mass Index and, if available, debut performance data. We then run this information through an algorithm that we have developed to determine the 50 most comparable players that have been drafted in the last thirty years. We then look at how that comparative group of players performed during their careers. We then quantitatively attempt to produce a metric that gives us an idea of an individual player’s floor, a player’s ceiling and an expected career value. What I thought I would do is share the summary results for the first twenty-five picks in this past June’s draft.
For every player, I have listed a) the three most similar players; b) the percentage from that the player’s comp group ‘Washed Out’ (defined as not producing at least 1.0 Wins Above Replacement over his career); c) the percentage of players from that comp group that achieved ‘Star’ status (defined as producing at least 20.0 Wins Above Replacement over his career); and finally d) the average career WAR for that player’s comp group.
2009 Amateur Draft Comparable Players Summary Report
1) Stephen Strasburg, RHP, WSN
Comps: 1) Mike Moore; 2) Andy Benes; 3) Mark Prior
Washout = 34%; Star = 29%; Expected Career WAR = 13.2
2) Dustin Ackley, CF/2B, SEA
Comps: 1) Darrin Erstad; 2) J.D. Drew; 3) Will Clark
Washout = 15%; Star = 46%; Expected Career WAR = 27.6
3) Donovan Tate, OF, SDP
Comps: 1) Brad Komminsk; 2) Cameron Maybin; 3) Jay Schroeder
Washout = 45%; Star = 19%; Expected Career WAR = 8.3
4) Tony Sanchez, C, PIT
Comps: 1) Scott Hemond; 2) Jeff Clement; 3) John Russell
Washout = 39%; Star = 14%; Expected Career WAR = 8.6
5) Mat Hobgood, RHP, BAL
Comps: 1) Wade Townsend; 2) Matt White; 3) Jaret Wright
Washout = 44%; Star = 10%; Expected Career WAR = 6.5
6) Zack Wheeler, RHP, SFG
Comps: 1) Homer Bailey; 2) Clint Everts; 3) Zack Greinke
Washout = 48%; Star = 17%; Expected Career WAR = 9.6
7) Mike Minor, LHP, ATL
Comps: 1) Jim Abott; 2) Barry Zito; 3) Paul Maholm
Washout = 25%; Star = 15%; Expected Career WAR = 9.1
8) Mike Leake, RHP, CIN
Comps: 1) Brad Brink; 2) Kevin Appier; 3) Ron Darling
Washout = 52%; Star = 19%; Expected Career WAR = 8.8
9) Jacob Turner, RHP, DET
Comps: 1) Matt Wheatland; 2) Jon Garland; 3) Homer Bailey
Washout = 42%; Star = 13%; Expected Career WAR = 7.6
10) Drew Storen, RP, WSN
Comps: 1) Brad Lidge; 2) Max Scherzer; 3) Chad Cordero
Washout = 43%; Star = 9%; Expected Career WAR = 5.9
11) Tyler Matzek, LHP, COL
Comps: 1) Clayton Kershaw; 2) Mike Stodolka; 3) John Danks
Washout = 46%; Star = 18%; Expected Career WAR = 9.4
12) Aaron Crow, RHP, KCR
Comps: 1) Ron Darling; 2) Derek Wallace; 3) Max Scherzer
Washout = 25%; Star = 18%; Expected Career WAR = 9.0
13) Grant Green, SS, OAK
Comps: 1) Nomar Garciaparra; 2) Adam Everett; 3) Monty Farris
Washout = 33%; Star = 18%; Expected Career WAR = 11.1
14) Matt Purke (did not sign)
15) Alex White, RHP, CLE
Comps: 1) Lance Broadway; 2) Kenny Baugh; 3) Jeff Weaver
Washout = 53%; Star = 7%; Expected Career WAR = 5.3
16) Bobby Borchering, 3B, ARZ
Comps: 1) Drew Denson; 2) Derek Lee; 3) Ian Stewart
Washout = 30%; Star = 24%; Expected Career WAR = 10.9
17) A.J. Pollock, OF, ARZ
Comps: 1) Brian N. Anderson; 2) Eric Christopherson; 3) Tim Pyznarski
Washout = 43%; Star = 9%; Expected Career WAR = 5.2
18) Chad James, LHP, FLA
Comps: 1) Scott Elbert; 2) Aaron Thompson; 3) Brian Bohanon
Washout = 59%; Star = 13%; Expected Career WAR = 6.5
19) Shelby Miller, RHP, STL
Comps: 1) Ron Robinson; 2) Mike Jones; 3) Jeff Allison
Washout = 63%; Star = 4%; Expected Career WAR = 4.3
20) Chad Jenkins, RHP, TOR
Comps: 1) Jay Powell; 2) John Burke; 3) Scott Sanders
Washout = 38%; Star = 16%; Expected Career WAR = 8.8
21) Jiovanni Mier, SS, HOU
Comps: 1) Trevor Plouffe; 2) Brandon Wood; 3) Benji Gil
Washout = 48%; Star = 6%; Expected Career WAR = 4.6
22) Kyle Gibson, RHP, MIN
Comps: 1) Jeff Weaver; 2) Alan Benes; 3) Kip Wells
Washout = 25%; Star = 12%; Expected Career WAR = 9.0
23) Jared Mitchell, CF, CHA
Comps: 1) Bubba Crosby; 2) Jacoby Ellsbury; 3) John-Ford Griffin
Washout = 40%; Star = 16%; Expected Career WAR = 7.7
24) Randall Grichuck, OF, LAA
Comps: 1) John Gibbons; 2) Rondell White; 3) Corey Jenkins
Washout = 49%; Star = 24%; Expected Career WAR = 7.8
25) Mike Trout, CF, LAA
Comps: 1) Terry Carr; 2) Rondell White; 3) Shannon Stewart
Washout = 52%; Star = 23%; Expected Career WAR = 7.1
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment