Amateur Draft
The MLB Amateur Draft is next Tuesday and Wednesday. The Mariners have the fifth overall selection in the draft. To this point, we’ve spent very little time covering the draft, with the exception of the Andrew Miller article and discussion I wrote a few months ago.
Part of the reduced draft coverage was because I’ve been extremely busy the last few months, but it’s also due to the fact that absolutely no one knows what’s going to happen on Tuesday. Seriously, nobody has any idea. Everything that has been written the past few months could be, and probably will be, thrown out the window by the time the draft rolls around. Stuff I’m writing now could be invalid by the time you read it. There’s just no certainty in this draft at all, and so I’ve avoided speculating about the different possibilities.
Now that we’re only a few days away, though, here’s a look into what could transpire in the first five picks on Tuesday, and what that might mean for the Mariners.
#1: Kansas City Royals
While some have speculated that Dayton Moore’s hiring as the GM means that they’ll take Andrew Miller #1 overall, that conclusion is based on a flawed premise – Moore will have no say in the Royals draft. He won’t officially become GM until June 8th, and he will remain with the Braves through that day. Muzzy Jackson and Daric Ladnier will run the draft for Kansas City, meaning the uncertainty following that pick remains.
The Royals, like everyone else, believe Andrew Miller is the best player in this draft, but aren’t convinced he’s that much better than the other arms, and they’re trying to work out a predraft deal with someone. It could be Tim Lincecum, though that’s unlikely. Luke Hochevar is another name that has been floated, but if you’re looking for a predraft deal, a Scott Boras client probably isn’t your best bet. At this point, literally no one knows what Kansas City is going to do. My best guess is they cut a pre-draft deal with a safe pick after years of getting burned by high-risk draftees.
Dave’s WAG: Brandon Morrow, RHP, Cal
#2: Colorado Rockies
The Rockies have been linked to two names almost exclusively the past few months; Andrew Miller and third baseman Evan Longoria. While nothing is set in stone, this appears to be the easiest pick to project. Miller would fit in perfectly with what the Rockies are trying to do, and he’s the consensus top talent in the draft. It’s highly unlikely he gets past Colorado if KC passes on him. If the Royals tab Miller, they turn to Longoria with an eye on trying him as a second baseman.
Dave’s WAG: Andrew Miller, LHP, North Carolina
#3: Tampa Bay Devil Rays
While it’s been easy to pick on Tampa Bay, they’ve drafted extremly well the past few years, and are now a very well run club, under the eyes of Andrew Friedman and Gerry Hunsicker. They’re going to make a good pick. They’ve been tied to a whole host of names, but the one that makes the most sense, given the teams needs and their current management team, is RHP Brad Lincoln. He’s polished, he’s effective with good stuff and command, and he needs little projection. He’s a perfect fit for the Rays.
Dave’s WAG: Brad Lincoln, RHP, Houston
#4: Pittsburgh Pirates
Like KC, no one has a good feel for where Pittsburgh wants to go. They’ve been tied to Kyle Drabek, mostly due to his father’s success in that city, but they also have a long history of taking college pitching and passing on high-ceiling talent in favor of minimizing risk. This is the organization that took Bryan Bullington over B.J. Upton, after all. Lincoln would be their dream player, and if he goes, they’re probably not happy. Lincecum, Hochevar, and Scherzer are the top arms remaining if the top three goes as I’m guessing, but all are higher risk prospects than Pittssburgh likes. Greg Reynolds, however, fits the mold of what the Pirates are after, even if he’s a big reach at #4; he throws strikes, went to Stanford, and has projection. If they continue to go for lower risk college arms, I think Reynolds is the guy.
Dave’s WAG: Greg Reynolds, RHP, Stanford
#5: Seattle Mariners
The M’s are going to draft a college arm, there’s no doubt about that. The only question is which one. With Miller and Lincoln unlikely to slide to #5, the M’s will probably be picking from the Lincecum/Hochevar/Scherzer/Morrow group. They’ve been tied to Hochevar quite a bit, but no one knows how much of that is real or just a smokescreen.
While Bavasi has a history of preferring high-reward players, Bob Fontaine is running the draft, and he’s a bit more conservative by nature. Fontaine’s also a big proponant of pitcher’s body types, and Lincecum doesn’t fit the mold of what he generally prefers. I don’t see the M’s going for the UW star, but instead picking between Scherzer or Hochevar, unless Morrow falls.
Dave’s WAG: Max Scherzer, RHP, Missouri
Now, keep in mind, all of this is heavily subject to change. It’s normal for one of the consensus top talents to fall due to late concerns about signability (Mark Teixeira, Stephen Drew, Jered Weaver, Luke Hochevar, etc…). It would be weird if something didn’t happen in the next four days that shook up the top of the draft.
We’ll find out more in the next few days, and we’ll keep you up to date with what we’re hearing. But, the main thing to keep in mind about all the draft rumors floating around right now is that no one has any idea what’s actually going to happen on Tuesday.
Could we draft a new manager? Please? Pretty please?
A few years ago, with the team in this kind of funk, BoMel had his contract extended. Perhaps the Mariners should tell Grover that if he doesn’t resign, they’ll extend his contract, and force him to spend an extra year with team.
it’s been entertaining to listen to the pre-draft discussions on mlb radio, as their mantra has been the same as Dave’s… nobody knows.
I’m kinda hoping that the M’s draft Eva Longoria. I’ll bet she would sell a few tickets.
I’m looking for a little scouting/player development insight… Scherzer has started and closed. Are teams generally projecting him as one or the other, and if so, which one? Also, do teams generally look at young pitchers for talent and then let the chips fall to see what their roll will be? Or do they say, “That guy’s a closer. We need a closer,” and then draft him? There’s probably examples of both, but which philosophy seems to work best?
How good is Hochevar? I’ve heard from some he has the highest ceiling than anyone in the draft (Miller included). I would imagine he wouldn’t come cheap given the Boras factor, but I would also think he has lost a large part of his negotiation leverage already sitting out one year. Does anyone know how he’s pitching in the independent league?
Like everyone else, I have the non-sexual man-crush on Miller but have accepted he’ll be gone by #5. I haven’t seen Lincecum or the other “wild cards” pitch. I kinda like the conservative college pitcher with a solid pitchers frame approach towards this first round pick.
Lincecum may be going to the Royals. His family (not Tim, but Mom, Dad and cousins) came into my store yesterday and, although I was unfortunately upstairs in the office at the time, my co-worker said that they sounded pretty sure that Tim was going #1 overall. Apparently, they said, “Just trust us.” Now…normally I would just chalk this up to a family being excited for their son, but remember who Tim’s adviser is…his dad!
Could a pre-draft deal be in the works?
Dave, thanks for the “predictions”. How would you rank the top 5-10 prospects, balancing reward and risk and ignoring team situation of who actually owns those spots. I know you’ve said Miller is #1, if he were already drafted who would be your second choice and so on.
That list made, would any of these guys move down due to signability risk? To me, you want the best available player, but drafting player A who’s marginally better than player B isn’t worth it if A is going to cost a lot more of show up a lot later, if at all.
If Hochevar is available and the player the M’s want him I don’t think “the Boras factor” will be a problem. Bavasi and Boras have a history of having a pretty good relationship. Beltre is a Boras client . . . maybe Boras owes us a little break.
wonder if Moore will have some impact on the draft after all, even if not officially… from the Atlanta paper: “The Royals, who have lost 210 games the past two seasons, have the top pick in the draft Tuesday. Royals assistant general manager Muzzy Jackson will be in charge of the Royals until Moore arrives. Royals scouting director Deric Ladnier worked with Moore while with the Braves.”
So Dave I’ve been waiting for something to do with the draft so I could ask you this question.
How good exactly is Fontaine? I’ve heard he is good, but really how good is he? Is he the best scouting director in MLB, top 5, top 10? Just curious what you think about him personally. Thanks.
This helps confirm Dave’s “no one knows” assesment. His info doesn’t have Lincecum going in the top 5 and your inside info suggests he will go #1.
Of course, we don’t really know what the conversations have been with KC and the Lincecum family. They could be talking to three or four prospects trying to determine who they can get signed and all “dad” hears is the Royals are talking to them. Can you announce signings in MLB before the draft like you can in the NFL if you have the #1 pick, or do you just have a verbal agreement?
I dont know much about the draft or the Mariner’s minor league system right now, but i’ve always had the feeling that the farm system was lacking in real position prospects, why is there such a need at pitcher?
by the way, isn’t Jack Cust still in the minors?
I’m looking for a little scouting/player development insight… Scherzer has started and closed. Are teams generally projecting him as one or the other, and if so, which one? Also, do teams generally look at young pitchers for talent and then let the chips fall to see what their roll will be? Or do they say, “That guy’s a closer. We need a closer,†and then draft him? There’s probably examples of both, but which philosophy seems to work best?
Teams want starting pitchers. You almost never see a team convert a college starter into a reliever right away. Even when they draft college relievers, you’ll see teams try them as starters (Dave Bush, Jon Papelbon, Craig Hansen, etc…) until they prove they can’t start anymore. Scherzer will be drafted as a starter and given every chance to succeed as a starter. If he struggles, he may end up in the bullpen. But teams want starters.
How good is Hochevar? I’ve heard from some he has the highest ceiling than anyone in the draft (Miller included). I would imagine he wouldn’t come cheap given the Boras factor, but I would also think he has lost a large part of his negotiation leverage already sitting out one year. Does anyone know how he’s pitching in the independent league?
There’s no way Hochevar has a higher ceiling than Miller. Andrew Miller is, by far, the best prospect in this draft. It’s not close.
I’m not a huge Hochevar guy. He’s got solid velo and projectability, but there’s issues with his command, mechanics, and secondary pitches. The lost year of development isn’t a bonus, either.
Dave, thanks for the “predictionsâ€Â. How would you rank the top 5-10 prospects, balancing reward and risk and ignoring team situation of who actually owns those spots. I know you’ve said Miller is #1, if he were already drafted who would be your second choice and so on.
1. Miller
2. Lincoln
3. Morrow
4. Scherzer
5. Snider
6. Hochevar
7. Longoria
8. Bard
9. Kershaw
10. Lincecum
I’m not a big Lincecum guy, obviously. Just too many risks. I’m not a proponant of trying to hit a lottery ticket with a top pick. It’s mroe important to get a good player when you have a high pick.
In the end, I think Travis Snider’s going to be the best hitter in this draft. He’s getting undersold a bit, I believe. Kid can hit.
wonder if Moore will have some impact on the draft after all, even if not officially…
No, he won’t.
How good exactly is Fontaine? I’ve heard he is good, but really how good is he? Is he the best scouting director in MLB, top 5, top 10? Just curious what you think about him personally.
He’s darn good. I don’t want to rank them, but I’d put him in the elite group with Logan White, Jack Zduriencik, Mike Radcliff, and Roy Clark. These guys are all really good, and Fontaine’s right there with any of them.
“How good exactly is Fontaine? I’ve heard he is good, but really how good is he? Is he the best scouting director in MLB, top 5, top 10? Just curious what you think about him personally. Thanks.”
While I too would still like to hear what Dave says about that, Jim Callis of BA recently asked all of the scouting directors who was the best. 28 responded and 17 of them chose Mike Radcliff of the Twins.
Tim Wilken of the Cubs and Roy Clark of the Braves (who played in the M’s system for four years in the early 80s, topping out at AAA) were the only others to receive multiple votes.
5 others received one vote apiece…
Bob Fontaine
Duane Shaffer (White Sox)
Stan Meek (Marlins)
Logan White (Dodgers)
& Eric Kubota (A’s)
So, it’s safe to say that Fontaine is in the top 10, probably even the top 5.
I’d vote for whoever saw Liriano at instructional league and asked for him in the Pierzynski deal….
I just hope the M’s just go for the guy who is best bet to be in the rotation by next year and has solid #1,#2, or #3 starter potential. They need an immediate contributor not a project. No high risk-high reward guys here. Make the safe pick and get on with it.
I wouldn’t put a ton a stock in the Lincecum thing. The Royals are obviously going to try and get a pre-draft deal done, and they’re likely talking to a lot of players trying to guage what it will cost to sign each of them so that they can decide if it’s worth it to pass up Miller. He’s certainly of the 4 I can see them taking (Miller, Hoch, Lincoln the other 3), but I doubt he’s their top choice and he’s not going to be far cheaper than the other 3.
Hochevar is an easy sign. We’ve known for a year what he wants. 4M. The second you offer him 4M, he’ll sign. You can negogiate for awhile and try and get it down to like 3.5M based on his year off, but really, you can have him signed the day of is you hand him 4M.
Might want to temper your expectations a bit there, lee. It’s very rare for a draft pick to get to the majors in less than a year. Despite what you might be told, college baseball isn’t that close to the majors. Whoever they draft is going to need some time in the minors learning how to pitch to wood bats and refine their game.
Last year, the top five pitchers drafted were Ricky Romero, Mike Pelfrey, Wade Townsand, Lance Broadway, and Cesar Carillo. As you can tell, none are in the majors yet.
With the possible exception of Lincoln, whose pretty darn polished, I doubt you’ll see whoever the M’s pick pitching for the M’s before September of ‘07, and maybe not until 2008.
“Make the safe pick and get on with it.”
What’s the safe pick? Seriously. Miller and Lincoln are the “safe” picks, but they’re not hitting 5.
Lincecum/Hochevar/Scherzer/Morrow all have issues.
Dave, most other sources have claimed that Hochevar and Lincecum could pitch in the majors this year if signed early enough. TL especially (though in the pen).
Well, they could pitch in the majors on Wednesday if they signed early enough. Doesn’t mean they would pitch well, or that it would be a good idea.
Lincecum, especially, is nowhere near ready for the majors. His command is awful. Awful.
FWIW, during the discussion of Kansas City’s pick on mlb, the general eta for any of the pitchers mentioned was 2 years…
Miller, Lincoln, and Morrow could easily be challenging for a rotation spot coming out of ST in 2008. So I’d call that a year and a half.
Dave, a lot of the red flags I see associated with Lincecum involve not only his command and his mechanics, but his high pitch counts  he routinely threw 125-145 pitches an outing for the UW. Do you see that as a potential problem down the road, and do you know if the other top college pitchers in the draft have been better protected?
Lincecum’s crazy workloads are part of his risk package, yes. He’s been worked harder than pretty much any of the other top arms in this year’s draft, though Joba Chamberlain had some high pitch counts for Nebraska earlier this year too.
And yes, Lincecum’s pitch counts are a problem. I know everyone likes to talk about his unique delivery and how he puts less stress on his arm, but they’re all just hoping, honestly. They’re choosing to believe that Lincecum is the exception to the rule, and that’s a foolish way to spend a top 5 draft pick.
Also, re: Lincecum
He reportedly doesn’t ice his arm after starts, but has said that he never feels sore…
There’s a chance that Lincecum might be a freak of nature, a guy who has a perfect delivery for his body, whose muscles don’t deteriorate from throwing a baseball, and will have a long, injury free career.
There’s also a chance that if you buy stock in Krispy Kreme, the new management team is going to revitalize the company, America will go on an all-donut diet, and you’ll become a rich man very quickly.
But if you put every drop of your 401(K) into Krispy Kreme, you’re a fool. And spending the fifth pick of the draft on a guy whose best shot at success is being a historical anomaly isn’t a whole lot smarter.
OK, draft rant time.
I HATE HATE HATE HATE the fact that signability is such a huge factor in the draft. The sole purported reason for the draft is to help distrbute some of the best new talant to the clubs that need it most. (Never mind maintaining MLB’s monopoly over US talent).
KC is, by far, the worst team in the league right now. As such, to the extent that the draft can help a team, they should get the best player – subject, of course, to their ability to decide who the best is. Not “who the best is _that they can sign cheaply_”. The fact that they, alopng with every other recent top picker, are dithering about lesser talents because of signability just demeans the whole idea of the draft.
I don’t understand why the MLB players union doesn’t try to negotiate a cap or other slotting mechanism. I can’t believe that MLB players whining about $1-2 million (or even the $300k minimum-wage guys) are happy to see an unproven kid get $4+ million. Sure, you need to give them something, especially if they are giving up a college degree, but I can’t see why it’d have to be multiple millions of dollars. A couple hundred thousand for first rounders, maybe even $1 million for the top pick. But choosing who you sign so you can save on the bonus? Uggh.
/rant
The reason for the draft is to hold down salaries, and baseball is moving, quietly, towards slotting. It’s been long and fairly subtle, so you can be excused for missing it, and it’s not there yet, but it’s quite nearly there.
Draftees aren’t represented by the union and, unlike basketball or football, draftees don’t join-on-drafting. The union is entirely willing to concede their rights — and has — because they think it leaves more money for their members.
Dave, do you see any sleepers in the draft that the Mariners might be shrewd enough to pick up on in later rounds … guys with top-round ability but whose stock has dropped because of injury concerns, or character issues, or signability problems, or lack of first-rate D-1 exposure? Are there some potentially overlook-able players whom you’re keeping a particular eye on?
In other words, is there an Albert Pujols out there? Or a pitching equivalent?
I HATE HATE HATE HATE the fact that signability is such a huge factor in the draft. The sole purported reason for the draft is to help distrbute some of the best new talant to the clubs that need it most. (Never mind maintaining MLB’s monopoly over US talent).
Do you also hate free agency, where bad teams routinely have to pay more to attract players than good teams?
KC is, by far, the worst team in the league right now. As such, to the extent that the draft can help a team, they should get the best player – subject, of course, to their ability to decide who the best is. Not “who the best is _that they can sign cheaply_â€Â. The fact that they, alopng with every other recent top picker, are dithering about lesser talents because of signability just demeans the whole idea of the draft.
It’s called cost/benefit analysis. The Royals just happen to suck at it. That doesn’t mean we need to put a system in place that prevents them from sucking at it so badly.
I don’t understand why the MLB players union doesn’t try to negotiate a cap or other slotting mechanism. I can’t believe that MLB players whining about $1-2 million (or even the $300k minimum-wage guys) are happy to see an unproven kid get $4+ million. Sure, you need to give them something, especially if they are giving up a college degree, but I can’t see why it’d have to be multiple millions of dollars. A couple hundred thousand for first rounders, maybe even $1 million for the top pick. But choosing who you sign so you can save on the bonus? Uggh.
So, you’re in favor of Andrew Miller being told that he can’t have more than $1 million so that players like Julio Mateo and Gil Meche can earn more in arbitration? Seriously?
The draft, and the entire way the system is setup to give teams rights on a player for the first 9 years of their professional life, already screws young players. Adding a more communistic approach to draft salaries isn’t going to make things better.
Or to add on to Jim’s question, a Varvaro or Uhlmansiek?
I haven’t actually seen Lincecum pitch, but is the problem with his delivery just the ergonomic incorrectness? Is his delivery a novelty, especially a kind of novelty that MLB hitters can adjust to over time?
I’m thinking of how Takatsu was a lights-out reliever for most of his first season, but by the first couple of months of season two it was clear that everyone had seen the tapes and adapted. At that point, Takatsu was a replacement-level pitcher and no longer of value.
Again, I haven’t seen Lincecum pitch, but funky deliveries always worry me, because you can hide bad talent behind the veneer of a funky delivery.
Don’t get me wrong Dave – I’m not big on Lincecum either. In fact, he scares the crap out of me and I’m hoping that a team takes him before the M’s pick, so they don’t have to worry about choosing between the local kid and a “safer” pick.
Miller won’t be there – so I’m hoping for Morrow.
Hochevar holding out leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Also – what kind of leverage can he possibly have? If a team lowballs him, what’s he going to do – sit out ANOTHER year? Yeah right…
I haven’t actually seen Lincecum pitch, but is the problem with his delivery just the ergonomic incorrectness? Is his delivery a novelty, especially a kind of novelty that MLB hitters can adjust to over time?
No – Lincecum has crazy, lights out stuff. His fastball is 95-98, and he maintains his velocity late in games. His curveball has some serious drop, and he throws it with power.
He’s nothing like Takatsu, really. He’s more like Kerry Wood, but 5 inches shorter, 100 pounds lighter, and with worse mechanics.
Another question: Do you have any sense, given the M’s front office’s sensitivity to its fan base, that Howard Lincoln or somebody might tell the draft war-room folks to pick Lincecum if he’s available? Might political concerns override good sense?
In other words, is there an Albert Pujols out there? Or a pitching equivalent?
Well, I’m not sure we’ll ever see anything like Pujols again. Perhaps one of the top 5 hitters of all time being a 13th round pick out of junior college? Just craziness.
And, while I’m sure there are some bargain guys who will fall, I’m just not educated enough on this year’s draft class to know who they are. So, I’m pleading ignorance. Sorry.
Another question: Do you have any sense, given the M’s front office’s sensitivity to its fan base, that Howard Lincoln or somebody might tell the draft war-room folks to pick Lincecum if he’s available? Might political concerns override good sense?
I can’t imagine Bob Fontaine taking orders on who to draft from anyone. Adolf Hitler could raise from the dead, walk through the wall, put a gun to his head, and Fontaine would still draft whoever he wanted.
No – Lincecum has crazy, lights out stuff.
Then how fixable is his delivery? It is worth it to draft him in the first round, then tell him you’re gutting his mechanics and starting over and expect that you won’t progress out of AA until your pitching is mechanically sound? Seems like that’s reasonable for a high school draft pick, but not for a college junior/senior.
I really wish I could get worked up about the draft but I just can’t get into it. It really seems like such a waste. Guys rarely seem to pan out and even then only after a few years. Unless you luck out and draft John Olerud it’s all such a crap shoot.
Personally I wish we’d take all high reward guys and hope that some of them pan out. The minor leagues seem to have such a huge attrition rate anyway that we might as well hope for someone really outstanding after it’s all said and done.
Damn I love this site because of articles like this. Insightful blogs like USSM are few and far between.
Rock on gentlemen!
Why would you draft Tim Lincecum with the fifth overall pick and then completely overhaul his mechanics? You do that and you don’t have Tim Lincecum anymore, you have some random guy whose ability you can’t predict because you don’t know what he looks like yet.
Right. If you take Lincecum, you’re taking him on what he is, not on what you think you can make him.
I’d be okay with taking Lincecum somewhere in the 20-30 range, because the expected value of a pick that low is a lot lower than a pick in the top 5. In the top 5, you really should be able to get a good player without too much effort. Giving up the expected production of a top 5 pick to reach for a little extra star potential isn’t worth it.
I really wish I could get worked up about the draft but I just can’t get into it. It really seems like such a waste. Guys rarely seem to pan out and even then only after a few years. Unless you luck out and draft John Olerud it’s all such a crap shoot.
You really think that John Olerud is the pinnacle of draft success? Really?
I can’t imagine Bob Fontaine taking orders on who to draft from anyone. Adolf Hitler could raise from the dead, walk through the wall, put a gun to his head, and Fontaine would still draft whoever he wanted.
Oh? Does he think he’s bigger than the organization? He’s definitely gone if and when Bavasi goes.
Great opportunity to get a solid player with the 5th pick.
Have the M’s given up other picks (2nd, 3rd, or 4th round) because of questionable free agent signings.
I think I remember 2 years ago the M’s lost some of their picks and I hope that is minimized this year.
There is plenty of talent in rounds 2-10…..RIGHT?
I don’t think Olerud is the pinacle of draft success, I’m just pulling him out (off the top of my head) as an example of a guy who went straight to the majors (and even then probably could have used a some seasoning in the minors).
Obviously I’d rather see us snag another Griffey or A-Rod than Olerud, but that’s not what I was saying.
I mean I really do appreciate the breakdown of the draft. I love knowing that we have talent and are going to get talent but in a way it sucks knowing that we have these guys and watching them peter out or just never make it, you know?
I guess that’s baseball.
No, they haven’t lost any picks this year. Bavasi made a point of signing people for whom he wouldn’t have to lose draft choices.
If Fontaine doesn’t take orders from anyone, I want him as the next GM! Take that Howard!
FWIW, Chuck Armstrong was raving about Fontaine on KOMO last week…
I was trying to find the numbers that get thrown around about the percentage of players that actualy make it to the big leagues:
“Since the draft has been in its current form (starting in 1966) only 5% of all players have ever played at least one game in the big leagues. Of the 5% that made it to the big leagues only 6% of those 5% managed to stay 4 years. (or the equal of a college career). Of all the first round draft selections since 1966 only 48% have ever played in the bigs. Or in other words 52% of all first round draft picks did not make it to the majors…”
and
“Actually only 5 to 6 percent of drafted players ever play a day in the major leagues and about 40 percent of the first round draft picks never make it either.”
and some guy named Dave Cameron (discussing high school vs college) wrote a few years back that: “Jim Callis did a study for Baseball America covering the draft from 1990-1997. This study includes 2,115 players who signed in the first ten rounds of those drafts. There were 100 more college players selected, and they reached the major leagues at a 39 percent rate. Their high school counterparts reached the majors at only a 28 percent rate. However, as Jim shows in the subscriber-only column that accompanies the study, nearly all of that difference comes from replacement level players who fill part-time roles or only stick around the major leagues for a short time. The difference between high school and college players who become regular major-league starters is half a percent (8.8 for college, 8.4 for high school). High school draftees have grown into more above-average players and more stars than their college counterparts over those seven years.”
Oh? Does he think he’s bigger than the organization? He’s definitely gone if and when Bavasi goes.
It has nothing to do with being bigger than the organization. Fontaine was hired to run the draft – that is his job. That’s what a scouting director does. If the CEO, who knows nothing about the prospects or the guys being evaluated, tried to take Fontaine’s responsibilities away from him for PR purposes, Fontaine would walk away.
And yes, if Bavasi goes, Fontaine goes. They’re really good friends, and extremely loyal to each other.
I’m kinda hoping that the M’s draft Eva Longoria. I’ll bet she would sell a few tickets.
Nice. It only took 20 minutes for that joke to happen.
#52: At least we avoided a “wouldn’t it be nice to meet her at third base” joke.
Dave, Derek, thanks for the responses. I agree that MLB is using the draft as a tool to control costs and limit young players. But it is, to some extent, supposed to be about re-distributing talent. Or else why would the picks be in reverse-success order? And the fact that signability and bonuses can matter more than talent is an awful byproduct of the current system.
I don’t “also hate” free agency. There are two ways (aside from trades) to acquire US talent – free agency and the draft. Free agency allows teams to spend whatever it takes on the open market. That obviously gets very expensive, but teams can do the cost/benefit to decide how much to spend. Some teams, like the Yankees, can spend whatever it takes, for any number of positions. Some will build from within, and then use FA to add one or two bug pieces. Then, there are teams like the A’s, that use free agency as a tool to gain more draft picks, etc. But you’re right – bad teams are at a disadvantage when it comes to FA.
Which is why the draft needs to be an equalizer. Sure, an astute cost-benefit approach *should* dictate KC taking the best talent, because that $4 million will easily repay itself many times over on a good pick. But for some teams, that short-term $2M can seem like an awfully big hurdle.
Look, FA is already market-driven. As it should be. That favors the rich teams. Allowing the draft to become market-driven (ie, through signability-driven pre-draft deals, etc.), takes away the equalizer, and leads to all-Yankee All Star teams.
As for Mateo and Meche making more in arbitration by limiting Miller… I don’t mean it that way, so sorry if I was not clear. My point was that I don’t understand why the Major-league players union is “allowing” (or at least not complaining about) so much money going to unproven kids. The more teams spend on draft bonuses, the less then can spend on the Major-leaguers. So, yes, I guess that some of that trickles down (up?) to the Meches and Mateos, but I’m still surpised that MLBPA doesn’t want that extra $5-10M per team freed up for the Majors.
DMZ: “The union is entirely willing to concede their rights  and has  because they think it leaves more money for their members.” That’s kind of my point, but opposite. I don’t see how paying $4M to draftees leaves more money for the MLBPA members.
I’m not advocating communism here. There are two systems – FA for teams that can/will spend the money, and the draft for teams that can’t/won’t. Each benefits a different type of club. The best teams will prevail by combining the optimal strategies of both. But, by allowing both to become market-driven, you cut the legs out of half the system, and severly limit the teams needing an equalizer.
It has nothing to do with being bigger than the organization. Fontaine was hired to run the draft – that is his job. That’s what a scouting director does. If the CEO, who knows nothing about the prospects or the guys being evaluated, tried to take Fontaine’s responsibilities away from him for PR purposes, Fontaine would walk away.
I realize that. On the other hand, the folks above Bavasi hired him to run the ball club, but they seem to make him do moves for primarily PR purposes while not knowing as much about the players as he does. PR is important, but you can get that by winning ball games.
And yes, if Bavasi goes, Fontaine goes. They’re really good friends, and extremely loyal to each other.
Oh, realize that, too….
Hmm, communist baseball, that could be interesting. What would happen if the players owned the tools of ignorance (as well as the bases, bats, and ballparks)? Would there be a dictatorship of the utility infielder?
At the very least, it begs for a Jeff post.
It’s interesting that Lincecum has settled in so low. Everything I heard up to about a month ago was that he was consensus top 2-3, and more likely than not a #1.
It strikes me how often this kind of things happen in drafts. . where one guy will ride favored status for a long time, and then about a month before the draft everybody starts getting cold feet and making warning sounds. Bush in the NFL draft, for example. 3 weeks before the draft it was ‘You’re an idiot if you don’t take Bush’. Then 2 weeks it was ‘There are a few legitimate #1s in this draft’.
I wonder how much of this is the increased research done before the draft (meaning it’s legitimate concerns) and how much of it is distrust of consensus (meaning it’s not so much). It’d be interesting to track guys whose stock dropped out of consensus #1 or top 5 status or whatever before drafts and see how they turn out. . whether the cold feet were justified.
Personally, I think it’d be great to see Lincecum in Everett. The whole thing’s a crapshoot anyway, so the slight joy that comes from seeing a local guy with nasty stuff and a funky delivery is enough to put him over the top in my mind.
Dave, Derek, thanks for the responses. I agree that MLB is using the draft as a tool to control costs and limit young players. But it is, to some extent, supposed to be about re-distributing talent. Or else why would the picks be in reverse-success order? And the fact that signability and bonuses can matter more than talent is an awful byproduct of the current system.
Signability and bonuses don’t matter more than talent. Otherwise, you’d see 5th year seniors with no leverage who have to sign for $5,000 going in the first round. It’s a mix, though. Signability matters in the cost/benefit analysis, but talent is still what’s being selected. The Royals are just deciding whether they want 95% of the talent (in their eyes) at 50% of the cost. That’s a legitimate business decision, and one they should be allowed to make.
Which is why the draft needs to be an equalizer. Sure, an astute cost-benefit approach *should* dictate KC taking the best talent, because that $4 million will easily repay itself many times over on a good pick. But for some teams, that short-term $2M can seem like an awfully big hurdle.
There’s not a team in baseball that can’t afford to give $2 million to a guy like Andrew Miller.
Look, FA is already market-driven. As it should be. That favors the rich teams. Allowing the draft to become market-driven (ie, through signability-driven pre-draft deals, etc.), takes away the equalizer, and leads to all-Yankee All Star teams.
Except we haven’t seen that at all. Name the last great talent to fall to the Yankees in the draft because of signability concerns. The hard-sign guys have recently been selected by Arizona (Drew and J. Upton), Tampa (B.J. Upton), Anaheim (Weaver), and Texas (Teixeira). We’re not seeing the Yankees and Red Sox pilfering great talents because no other teams can afford them. You’re arguing against a hypothetical that isn’t true.
I’m not advocating communism here. There are two systems – FA for teams that can/will spend the money, and the draft for teams that can’t/won’t. Each benefits a different type of club. The best teams will prevail by combining the optimal strategies of both. But, by allowing both to become market-driven, you cut the legs out of half the system, and severly limit the teams needing an equalizer.
Why should we have a system that rewards teams that won’t spend money? Shouldn’t owners who are reeping massive revenue sharing checks and refusing to invest it in the ballclub have to pay for their transgressions? I’m not in favor of any system that encourages owners to not invest in their teams.
Put simply, these kids who are being drafted have earned the money. There’s no reason to not pay them with the goal being to redistribute their bonuses to other, lesser players.
#56: Hmm, communist baseball, that could be interesting. What would happen if the players owned the tools of ignorance (as well as the bases, bats, and ballparks)? Would there be a dictatorship of the utility infielder?
Baseball Cube lists six guys with the last name “Bourgeois”. When one of those guys turns professional, is represented by an agent of the bourgeoisie?
A “Communistic” approach? Institutionally limiting the percentage of corporate profits that workers can access is a “communistic” approach?!
C’mon Dave, you’re better than that.
It’s a bourgeois town, it’s a bourgeois town,
Got the bourgeois blues, gonna spread the news all around
In the home of the brave, land of the free
I don’t want to be mistreated by no bourgeoisie
#52 – It was right there for the taking. I couldn’t help myself when I saw the name Evan Longoria.
My take on the draft is the same for all drafts, just draft the best player available. Don’t draft Lincecum because he might sell a few more tickets, but because you think he is the best player avaiable. Baseball in particular is a crapshoot, and is well documented as such. In spite of the attendance drop, the M’s should be in a position to meet most contract demands, and appear to be able to work with even the most stubborn agents when it comes to money. I can’t pretend to know who these players are, but if Fontaine has a good reputation on drafting, then I feel comfortable just sitting back and waiting.
57 –
Lincecum has bounced around so much it’s not even funny. A month in, and he had moved all the way UP to the 3rd round. Then, a couple of teams might ‘reach’ for him 15-25. All of the sudden, he was top ten, then top 5. All that happened over a period of like 8 weeks.
He was *never* the #1 purely on talent/projectability/risk – Miller’s always been #1. So I don’t think Lincecum’s really slipping as much as settling right where I kind of think he should be. From all I’ve heard, I think it’d be a shock if he were still around at 5, and I think the odds are overwhelming that he goes 3rd-7th or so.
It’s Miller that’s been the Reggie Bush of this draft, and just like the NFL, it’s possible that KC goes another direction to save some money/get a better return per dollar invested. But Lincecum has really never been a better prospect – he was just talked about at #1 because KC may not want to pay Miller what Miller’s agent wants.
If Linecum is the 2nd or 3rd best college pitcher in the draft, then I say draft him. To hell with “pitcher body.†That philosophy has been laid to waste in recent years thanks to Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, Tim Hudson, Scott Kazmir, Jeremy Bonderman, Scot Shields, etc . . .
The only reason pitcher body should be an issue with the Mariners is when you consider the vast number of pitcher bodies the organization has ground to dust over the past 10 years or so. Their ignorance in the ways of teaching and monitoring should be the only reason they pass on Linecum . . . and in that case, they might as well just throw ability out the window and draft the biggest, fattest guy they get their hands on. Does C.C. Sabathia have any siblings? Oh wait, Seabass is hurt all the time too . . .
Dave, you’re right. In the long-run, there isn’t a team out there that can’t afford $2M for Andrew Miller. Choosing otherwise, particularly when all teams are owned by Billionaires, is pound-foolish. But when you have teams with $30-40M MLB payrolls, the short-term savings can be awfully attractive. Especially since draft picks are x% likely never to play in the majors.
And, you’re right that draft picks usually don’t fall all the way down to the Yankees or Red Sox due to signability.
But they do fall. Luke Hochevar himself went 40th last year, in the supplemental round, because of his signability. I’m no draft extpert, but Baseball Examiner called him a candidate for the top pick, but there was the Boras effect. Sure, any team could have had him… if they wanted to pay the $4M. That’s a free market at work.
And, while I’m as happy as anyone to rag on Peter Gammons’s “rumors”, here was his take last year: “The idea of the draft is to give the weaker teams a shot at the best talent. But there is no slot money, so teams often have to pass on the best player and go for the best signable player (Pittsburgh selected Bryan Bullington over B.J. Upton in 2002; Tampa Bay passed on Mark Teixeira to take Dewon Brazelton in 2001).” So, yes, Texas (a team that is not afraid to spend money) grabbed Teixeira, but only after he slipped.
In my world, teams’ success in the draft should stem from their ability to evaluate prospects for talent. Skill and acumen replace money as the driving factor for success. Who’s the best prospect, not who’s the most affordable.
I’m not saying we should reward teams that won’t spend money. What I’m saying is that Free Agency and the Draft are separate tools, and should address separate avenues of acquiring players. By making them both market-driven, we are limiting teams’ paths to gaining prospects.
For instance, let’s assume BadTeamA really does want to get better. But they’ve been losing for years, and so don’t have much cash to spend. So, they take a few years, and build through the draft. They start playing better. They draw more fans. Now, they CAN invest. Right now, the “have-nots” are in a vicious cycle – they can’t spend their way out of the cellar, and they (believe they) can’t draft their way either.
You want teams to re-invest their revenue sharing? So do I. Give the losers some talent. At some point, they’ll start improving. And then, I think, you’d see pressure from the fans to add (invest) the missing pieces. Just look at the pre/post 90’s Mariners. After a legacy of losing, they drafted a core of Griffey and Alex. Success followed. They eventually became a “big revenue” team, one which is now sporting a top-tier payroll. And which, with better baseball leadership, would be perennial contenders.
Give KC their chance to pick 3 great players, without worrying about cost. If they’re smart enough, those players will create the core of a successful franchise. Which then spurs fan interest and investment. It becomes a virtuous cycle.
There’s not a team in baseball that can’t afford to give $2 million to a guy like Andrew Miller.
Right, when Joe Mauer signed a few years back, his bonus was something like $5M, which would have made him the 3rd or 4th highest paid player on the Twins at the time, but I doubt they even batted an eyelash when they made their offer. If anything, organizations with less money to spend should devote a larger percentage of their payroll towards the draft, since it’s more economical than overpaying for scraps off the free agent market after the big boys (Yanks, Red Sox, Angels, etc.) get the top free agents.
Perhaps one of the top 5 hitters of all time being a 13th round pick out of junior college? Just craziness.
Well, Edgar was an undrafted free agent. Jose Canseco was a 15th round pick. It does happen.
I would point out that Bavasi (Dodgers) and Fontaine (White Sox) worked in different organizations after Bavasi was fired in Anaheim- so you could at least TRY and retain him with “Gee, Bob, we like the work you’ve done, and of course if Bill gets another GM job or you can both be in the same organization we wouldn’t dream of stopping you from joining him, but if you like scouting and you might not get to work with Bill again right away, why not stay with us for a while?”
#56: It’s been tried, twice. Not recently, of course.
“In 1884, they tried to form their own league, the Union Association. Many players left their teams for the freedom of the Union Association, but the league lasted only one season. The teams lost too much money to attempt a second season. Another attempt was made in 1890, when the Players League was formed. Most of the best players from the American Association and National League joined, but like its predecessor, the Players League went bankrupt after one season. The competition and loss of players forced the American Association to fold, too, with four of its best teams joining the National League. “
Your thought is right but you’re exactly wrong. A free-market draft gives all teams opportunity. A slotted draft hurts good teams and all drafted players.
Let’s say the draft today is abolished, and (as we saw with the Travis Lee debacle) teams with money rush in to sign the top talent for huge, huge sums of money. Then teams with less money, like the A’s and whoever, or those with different priorities, sign the guys they like on their budgets.
Soon, the market corrects. We’ve seen this in international markets where the draft isn’t applicable. The Yankees and Red Sox don’t sign every Dominican kid. The success of many teams in many different non-draft markets is the biggest argument to abolish the draft in order to help smaller teams: creativity and innovation are rewarded, players make good but not great money, and everyone wins.
The draft isn’t about evening the playing field, and quoting Gammons doesn’t change that.
Or take this another way, accepting your premise that the draft blah blah blah. You’re the Royals, and you have $3m to spend on the draft. You think the top n talents won’t sign for less than $10m each. You find someone who’ll agree to take $3m even if they’re picked at #1– the #5 guy. The #1 talent guy drops to, say, #5.
You’ve now essentially traded your pick to the guy with the #5 for no compensation. Why not allow the Royals to shop that pick around and get their guy later?
Slotting has the same problem. If you’ve got the #1 pick and the #1 pick is supposed to get $5m but you don’t think there’s a $5m player out there, then you’re screwed (well, you pick a guy you know won’t sign and take the compensation pick the next year).
The draft is not, and has never been, intended to provide a talent-leveling mechanism for teams. That’s how it’s sold.
I have seen some Lincecum highlights on TV and the video on pitchsmarter, but never in a live game.
Some say he has great mechanics, others say horrible. The only thing that people can agree on is that he is small in stature for a major league pitcher.
The high pitch counts are concerning whether or not he has had a sore arm afterwards.
My question is does he have the kind of stuff that will benefit him with the switch to hitters with wood bats.
Also, for the pitchers with the physical specs, they are not sure bets either.
I don’t understand. If the draft isn’t in some measure about evening the playing field, why is it done in reverse order of finish?
Can someone explain why body type is so important to scouts? Or height? Why such a prejudice against guys under 6 feet tall?
Which is the same thing said about 5 or 6 Cy Young contenders coming out of Oakland and Houston.
argh. Groz just went off on Locke for his belief that Gillick ‘destroyed’ the Ms farm system– Groz feeling that Gillick’s job as general manager was solely to win, and thus he had no responsibility for the team’s farm system or for the draft– just to win. He then was looking at Mariner drafts (the caller mentioned no one coming out of the Ms farm system ever) and for some reason didn’t look at a draft more recent than ‘99….
#73– yah, lucky for Moyer he was 6′1″ when he was drafted.
#68: During the 1994-95 major league strike, a proposed players league made it all the way to a press conference featuring none other Curt Flood. The proposed structure of the league was more of a profit-sharing arrangement than outright ownership by the players. The settlement of the strike, of course, instantly scuttled plans for the new league.
Striking NFL players in 1982 briefly played organized games (which TBS broadcasted) before the NFL obtained an injunction prohibiting the players from participating while still under contract to NFL teams.
Jim, imho size for scouts is the easiest thing to rate. This is found in virtually every sport. Sam Mills and Lofa Tatupu are considered too small for linebackers, so are devalued by scouts. Reggie Evans is 6′7″, Dennis Rodman was slight of build, and were not drafted high. I believe there were big questions about Roy Oswalt due to his size. Doug Flutie wasn’t tall enough to be a QB. All of these players had big questions about size, and were not rated very high by people. I think for scouts and decision makers, it just feels better to miss on a physical specimen. But I’m sure there are other legitimate concerns that size will match durability. Just my two cents on the matter.
But why does height matter for a pitcher? A pitcher isn’t physically defending against another player, nor jostling for position on a loose ball.
Jim:
A few reasons as I understand them why scouts think height is important for pitchers (anyone feel free to correct me if I get any of the particulars wrong).
First is the idea that it’s harder to pick up the ball when it’s released on more of a downward plane. That’s why raising or lowering the mound has an effect on overall league performance, and it’s why scouts prefer taller pitchers.
Second is projectable velocity. The taller the player, the longer the arms, the more leverage they’re able to put on the ball, the faster the ball goes. That’s why tall pitchers are often said to have a “projectable” frame. The idea is they already can hit X mph on the gun before bulking up, and tall pitchers are likely to bump up their velo. to a greater degree than shorter pitchers.
Third is the idea of a frame supporting wear and tear. No idea if this one’s legit or not – it would be an interesting study (pitcher height vs. injury) if it hasn’t already happened. The more compact the frame, the more muscle action is required to achieve peak velocity. I’m not sure I buy this one, but I’ve heard people talk about it so I thought I’d include it.
FWIW, Tom Gordon said in an interview a few weeks ago on Rome that he hs spent his whole career fighting GM’s and managers who assumed he couldn’t pitch because he was small. You’d think after 18 years he would be past that.
#78 – Height matters for pitchers due to the plane the ball travels from his release point to the strike zone. The more tilt a pitch has, the tougher it is to hit it squarely with a round-surfaced object, such as a bat. The very reason the mound was lowered prior to the 1969 season was to increase offense by flattening the plane of pitched balls. It worked.
That being said, filthy stuff can easily overcome a lack of height. That’s what cut-fastballs and two-seamers are for.
Well, I guess I’m just idealistic then. I believe the draft SHOULD be about giving the weaker teams a chance to get better players, so they have a chance to build from within.
Are there other ways? Sure. You mentioned international scouting, and I agree that that is a great avenue. Teams that put out the international effort have done a great job of landing top talent for great value.
I like the idea of trading picks. I think slotting works, as long as the dollar amounts are small enough not to “penalize” a team for coming in last. ie, “Congratulations, you suck, so now you have to pay $5M for a draft pick” But $1M for the top pick? Seems reasonable to me.
Derek argues for creativity and innovation. I agree. I also add in ability to evaluate talent, which I do not think is inconsistent with the others.
Maybe the draft is not supposed to be a talent-leveling mechanism. If that’s the case, then abolish it, and let Derek’s free-market scneario play out.
But for now, under the existing system, the draft exists, and is ripe for abuse. Weak teams don’t want to pay the bonuses, but they can’t trade their picks, so the don’t get the best value for their picks. As Derek said, you essentially trade your #1 for a #5, but without the compensation. Allow trades, lower/slot the bonuses, whatever. But, within the context of a draft, make it work.
Except that the context of a draft — the very draft itself — is not designed to make things more competitive. It exists to be a limitation on player acquisition costs.
If you wanted to make baseball truly competitive, every year, you would choose an entirely different mechanism: say, every year, every team is dissolved and then players are drafted by teams in reverse order of finish.
That’s not the draft. Trying to argue that the draft should do a better job suppressing player salaries on the pretext of competitiveness is a little nonsensical. You’re arguing, in essence, that teams should me able to make more money at the expense of amateur players.
Another factor with a tall pitcher is release point. With longer legs and arm, after taking his stride and completing the arm rotation, a tall pitcher’s release point may be two feet closer to home feet. That’s the same as adding about 3 or 4 mph of velocity.
Add in the greater downward plane of the pitch, and tall pitchers have some substantial advantages over shorter pitchers.
That’s not to say that shorter guys can’t be good pitchers, but there will be fewer of them.
It comes down to confusion and disagreement about who exactly is competing in MLB’s competitive environment and which of the various playing fields is supposed to be leveled.
The players get a level playing field on the literal field, because they’re all playing under the same rules of play, and so the best players should win out. Managers don’t get a level playing field, because they’re provided with widely disparate levels of talent on their rosters (which is why it’s really hard to evaluate managers). GMs don’t get a level playing field, because they have widely disparate payroll numbers to work under. Owners get a levelish playing field (assuming the richer ones don’t run at a loss for extended periods of time), because they all have access to the same tactics to generate revenue. On the other hand, they have disparate markets to do it in (although there’s been good argument that size of market is way overrated in predicting team revenue).
There are tactics all over the place to level some of those fields. Revenue sharing is there to level it for owners. The amateur draft order is (weakly) there to level it for GMs. But it’s all half-assed and kind of a mess. If you really wanted a level playing field for owners, you’d have heavier rev sharing (like in the NFL). If you really wanted to level it for GMs, you’d have a salary cap.
I get tired of people arguing for plan X or strategy B for ‘leveling the field’ when they’re not even sure which field they’re trying to level. Do they want all franchises to compete with the same revenue? See who can do the best with the same level of talent? What exactly is the competition here?
“Second is projectable velocity. The taller the player, the longer the arms, the more leverage they’re able to put on the ball, the faster the ball goes. That’s why tall pitchers are often said to have a “projectable†frame. The idea is they already can hit X mph on the gun before bulking up, and tall pitchers are likely to bump up their velo. to a greater degree than shorter pitchers.”
More importantly, the longer the arms and legs the closer they actually are to home plate when they release the ball. Remember, everyone starts at 60′6″, they don’t all release it there. A Randy Johnson can release the ball ~a foot closer to the plate than someone 6′0″. That extra foot means the ball appears to travel faster since the ball is continually slowing down once the pitcher releases it. I don’t have the figures in front of me, but IIRC, it can mean 1-3 mph difference in speed.
That being said, TL has the filthiest stuff in the draft, without doubt. The only questions that should be asked about him concern: his command and his long term durability.
Actually, shorter arms = more leverage (think – arm wrestling). Longer arms = greater velocity because, in a spinning circle, a point on a circumference travels faster than a point near the center. The further from the axis of rotation the hand gets, the higher the theoretical hand speed.
Which is why Walter Johnson is said to have thrown a hundred miles an hour with a lackadaisical motion. . big, lanky arms. Possibly apocryphal.
so how do they explain pitchers like Billy Koch, Billy Wagner & Lincicum and their velocity?
Theoretical hand speed is a function of arm length. Actual arm speed is a function of mechanics which sequence energy transfers from the legs through the trunk and into the hands. If taller players had better mechanics, they could always outthrow a smaller player. However, skill is skill is skill.
Another factor, of course, is the ratio of fast twitch muscle fibers you are both born with and how you develop them….
Good point about release point affecting velocity – totally forgot about that one. I remember Will Carroll writing at one point that each foot added to the release point is equivalent to about +3mph of increased velocity.
the higher release point wouldn’t explain the velocity of short pitchers … hmm.
speaking of pitchers, Curto says Appier has retired– according to Brundage, he announced his retirment on the mound when Brundage went out to pull him last night…. Danny Wright has come up from extended spring training, to replace him in the bullpen.
And yes, if Bavasi goes, Fontaine goes. They’re really good friends, and extremely loyal to each other.
So were Bob Engle and Pat Gillick, going back to the Toronto days. Engle is still here and Pat wanted him in Philly. From what I read in the paper at the time of Pat’s departure, Gillick wasn’t allowed to take any staff with him per Armstrong. Why would this be different for Bavasi-Fontaine under the same team president?
msb – I think a simpler way of saying the same thing is that for a short pitcher to match a taller pitcher in velocity, they have to put more force behind the ball. Taller pitchers just have inherent advantages with regards to angular momentum, etc.
One thing that is very important is how fast the initial rotation around the center of axis. Ichiro is a great example of how a smaller guy can spin very quickly, where a less athletic tall guy could never get that rotation speed
I’m a little dubious on the geometric explanations for velocity. I obviously defer to people who’ve spent a lot more time looking at mechanics than I have, but I don’t think a normal pitching motion can look anything like an arc. If it did, you’d either release it late straight down into the dirt (I’d draw a picture here if I could draw in ascii), or you’d release it early enough for the tangent to go toward the plate, in which case the arc is too short for rotational velocity to matter and the whole ‘release closer to the plate’ thing has nothing to do with arm length. . it’s leg length that extends the step (although the two are admittedly correlated)
Speaking of first-round draft picks … Jeff Heaverlo just struck out Doyle. Ugh.
So were Bob Engle and Pat Gillick, going back to the Toronto days. Engle is still here and Pat wanted him in Philly. From what I read in the paper at the time of Pat’s departure, Gillick wasn’t allowed to take any staff with him per Armstrong. Why would this be different for Bavasi-Fontaine under the same team president?
Different contracts could have different results.
And, I think Gillick left on his own, instead of being shoved out..that might make a difference.
A release point closer to the plate has nothing to do with velocity itself, but rather the “perception of velocity”. Be careful not to mix angular momentum with the simple definition of speed, which is how much time it takes to cover a given distance. A ball released closer to the plate with an identical velocity to a ball released further from the plate will get there sooner, but since it takes less time to get there, the reaction time of the hitter is reducedd, and the effective velocity is increased. The art of deception is studied hard for this same effect, but mastered by few.
As pointed out in elswhere in this blog (recent thread?), a lot of pitchers get “figured out” and their effective velocity is greatly reduced because of it.
#99: A release point closer to the plate has nothing to do with velocity itself, but rather the “perception of velocityâ€Â.
I didn’t mean to say the closer release point resulted increased the velocity, though looking back at my post I can see where someone might think I was heading in that direction.
I was referring to perceived velocity. A release point 2 feet closer to home plate reduces the hitters reaction time by a bit over 3%, which has the same effect as adding 3 mph to a fastball delivered from the further release point.
Gillick worked for the M’s when he was hired by Philadelphia. As a stipulation to let him take the Philly job, they didn’t allow him to pilfer the organization. If they fired Bavasi, there would be no such stipulation. Also, Fontaine is pretty loyal, and it’s not likely he would want to work for a club that just fired his friend.
Also, large framed (both tall and girthy) pitchers have historically had longer careers than short ones. Even Nate Silver’s PECOTA system thinks height is important. It’s not just scouts being stupid – body type does matter. It doesn’t mean its a deal breaker, as you can have a good pitcher without ideal body size, but all things being equal, you want the 6′6 guy over the 5′10 guy.
Speaking of shorter guys having good velo, I read (Will Carroll, I believe) that velocity is directly related to the speed of one’s hip rotation. He said that a pitching motion is pretty similar to a tennis serve and that Andy Roddick would have a hell of a fastball…
Sports drafts are just sports welfare.
As far as pitching mechanics go, obviously the baseball doesn’t travel in a pure arc, but each portion of the pitchers body (arm, forearm, wrist, fingers) that is longer allows the ball to travel faster tangentially with the same rotational velocity of the joint. Add that to the closer release point, and greater downward angle of the pitch, and taller pitchers definitely have an advantage.
Of course, I wonder if the greater length of their arms might actually put more strain on their joints/muscles in some circumstances, since there’s more torque on their joints.
Also (and I could be wrong on this), pitchers with longer fingers tend to get more movement on their pitches (I remember reading somewhere that Pedro has freakishly long fingers).
103 – Pedro does have freakishly long fingers, and you are right about long, flexible fingers relating to pitch movement. It’s not the only determining factor, but it works for all the reasons you mentioned in reference to rotational velocity of the joint (wrist) and the distance between the wrist and the actual release point at the tips of his fingers. The extra distance between Pedro’s wrist and the tips of his fingers, in addition to extra surface coverage of the ball and laces allows him to increase the rate of spin on breaking pitches, cutters, and two-seamers.
Think also of the height/long finger combo in reference to Randy Johnson’s slider when he was at his peak. The amount of movement he created with that pitch was almost surreal.
I believe the main (and perhaps the only) disatvantage to being a long and lanky pitcher is in regards to repeatable mechanics. The same minor mechanical flaw in two pitchers will be slightly more exaggerated in the one who has more room between his joints*. And the more “off” a pitcher is mechanically, the greater his chance of doing physical damage to his joints and tendons. Add the greater energy transfer generated by the typical tall pitcher and you can see why shorter pitchers have a better track record of health.
*You can compare it to a golf swing from the tee box. The PGA Tour consists mostly of a) tall, lanky guys (6′1″-6′5″) who excel at distance and b) short guys (5′6″-5′10″) who excel at control. There aren’t a lot of 6′ guys on the tour, which is odd when you consider 6′ is a pretty average height.
#103: Also (and I could be wrong on this), pitchers with longer fingers tend to get more movement on their pitches (I remember reading somewhere that Pedro has freakishly long fingers).
That seems as though it would be another area where you get more speed with the same rotational velocity. Longer fingere means the ball is farther away from the wrist, so with longer you should be able to impart more spin to the ball from the same wrist action.
One further issue on velocity, in kinesiological studies with tennis players, it was identified that players with greater power on their serves had significantly greater arcs of rotation in their rearward shoulder revolution at the start of their motion. Said another way, their shoulder joints flexed further back and toward their spine as they swung. Hip rotation is surely very important, too, I don’t mean to brush that off. It’s highly probable that the same is true for pitchers, and is part of the explanation for why some guys with smaller frames still get excellent velocity: their shoulders rotate back and open better than typical pitchers, large or small.
Re: smaller power pitchers, there’s the case of Steve Dalkowski to take warning by. Widely held to be the hardest thrower of his time (the ’60s IIRC), he wasn’t 5′10. He was also so incredibly wild that he never had a big league career. (He was also severely alcoholic which factored into that, but.)
And really what concerns me most about Lincecum is the terrible lack of control. Injury risk aside, and it’s hard to evaluate since he’s an outlier, he’s useless now, stuff or no. Whoever d(r)afts him is betting the pick that his control can be refined to the point where he’ll be effective in the Bigs. Like Dave, I’d rather make that bet in the bottom of the 1st round than at the top, and would really rather not make it at all. I mean, you could probably pick up J. Affeldt from the Royals for a lot less, his upside and downsides are comparable to Tim’s, and Affeldt has major league experience now, too. Why spend a pick for that??