With interest in trying to determine where the best and brightest players come from, I wrote a story last winter analyzing the best 100 hitters and pitchers based on OPS and ERA, and broke down the levels from which those players were originally procured. You may visit that story by following this link:

http://www.brewerfan.net/ViewArticle.do?articleId=198

While I think I found some common trends that could be followed in building a Major-League franchise from the bottom up, the one part about the story that bothered me was the true success rate of draftees, more specifically, those drafted in the first-round. I did determine that the largest portion of talented players in all of baseball were procured from the first-round of the MLB draft, but that only confirmed that the best players for the most part were being drafted where they should be. I would imagine that if you broke down the best and brightest players from the NFL you would find that more good players come from the first-round, with the talent dwindling as you moved down the individual rounds of the draft.

I also determined in that story that more successful positional players had been drafted from the first round than pitchers, and that the difference between high school pitchers and college pitchers wasn’t as great as I thought. I also learned that the gap between college and high school hitters was greater than I thought, in a way defying a general theme that you should draft college pitchers and high school hitters.

But in that study I was looking at the players that were already in the big-leagues. I didn’t look at it from the other way around, meaning, what were the success rates of players drafted in the first-round as a whole and based on which level they were drafted from (high school versus college), and which positions typically have had a greater level of success?

Others have conducted similar studies, but rarely do we see the actual numbers. I wanted to make sure I had a solid control group to work from, and with the draft I had to make sure that the players involved had ample time to progress into the players they are projected to become. Due to this, I focused on the 1990s, breaking down the players that were drafted in the first-round from 1990-1999. There are still several players drafted in 2000 that have a chance of becoming productive big-league players, including the Milwaukee Brewers’ David Krynzel, even if that window of opportunity seems to be closing quickly. Most to all of the players drafted in the 1990s have established themselves enough to figure out how successful they rate compared to their peers.

Because I wanted to set some kind of level to gauge the different levels of success a player may enjoy, I also had to come up with a way to grade players. At first I thought of a 0-5 scale, but I wanted to avoid giving any player a zero, and I also wanted a broader scope relative to baseball. Since we’re talking about scouting here, I decided to adopt the 2-8 scouting scale. Here is how the grades were given out:

2: A player that has not been productive above the A-ball level. This is a player fans would call a complete bust.
3. A player that has had some success above A-ball, and possibly even a cup of coffee at the big-league level, but never took advantage of the opportunities at the upper levels.
4. A player that enjoyed success at AAA, and had a few opportunities to play at the big-league level, but never stuck.
5. A player that stuck with a big-league team for two to three years, possibly a little longer, even as a reserve. This could also include a long-time “AAAA” type of player in that they have value, but are largely interchangeable.
6. A player that either was considered a starter for a couple of years, had a long career as a reserve, role player, specialist, relief pitcher, etc.
7. An everyday player for at least five to six years, possibly an All-Star two to three years and one of the best at their respective positions for a couple of years.
8. A superstar, a perennial All-Star and one of the best at their respective positions for an extended period of time.

I’m not going to include the letter grades of each player from the first-round of each draft from 1990-1999 in this story, as that would be far too much information to provide. I have that information available in an Excel spreadsheet if you’re interested in viewing it. Another reason as to why I am not including it is because I don’t want to get into a debate about how I ranked the players, but I can assure you a great deal of time went into grading each drafted player. Keep in mind that these rankings are based on the end result of the player’s career, not on expectations such as having higher expectations for being drafted earlier in the first-round (such as Chad Green, who according to my ranking grades as laid out above garnered a “4,” as opposed to the “2” most disappointed Brewers fans would likely give him).

When I break down the players by position, it should also be noted that the grades will be given to the position where the player was originally drafted, not where the player eventually ended up. For instance, Michael Barrett may currently be a catcher, but he was originally drafted as a shortstop. Again, this is to determine if there is a difference between drafting a shortstop versus an outfielder or some other position even if a positional change may be involved down the road.

I’m going to start with the average grade of a first-round pick from the drafts of the 1990s. What would your guess be, and are your expectations for first-round draft picks too high?

I think most people’s expectations are a lot higher for a first-round pick, but according to my study, the average first-round pick doesn’t even turn out to be a mediocre big-leaguer. Now, does that mean the draft is a crap-shoot? I would emphatically argue no, because that indicates that you would do just as well pulling a name blindly from a hat than you would investing millions of dollars into one’s scouting department. Teams that skimp on scouting and player development are never successful. And keep in mind that based on the results of my player procurement feature, the biggest group of successful hitters and pitchers comes from the first round. However, given the results some teams scrutinize taking certain players from certain levels based on their success rate given the amount of money the individual teams are investing into these unproven commodities. Also, I would imagine that if you broke down the success of first-round picks from the NFL you would be relatively surprised by just how successful those players were on a whole despite having a greater immediate impact on their respective teams.

The next thing that interested me was draft placement. I had a pretty good feeling that you’re more likely to end up with a better player the higher you drafted in the first round, but I wanted to be able to prove that so I could safely point to that assumption as fact. Below is a table breaking down the average ranking based on slot value versus the number of signed players at each spot (keep in mind that throughout this exercise that I am not counting players that did not sign, and that the years in which expansion teams were added increased the number of slots in the draft):

Slot indicates the slot value, total is the total number of points the players at that slot received, No. indicates the number of players represented and Avg. is the average grade of the player at the respective slot. The tables that follow will use a similar format.

Similar to the assumption that first-round draft picks are more likely to pan out down the road, the higher pick you own should give you a better chance at drafting a better player. Thus this truly gives the worst teams from the year before the best opportunity to select the best players available.

Ok, but what about the high school versus college debate? In this table I break down the number of picks from each level, the sum of their grades and the average of those grades (“HS” stands for high school while “D1” represents the college draftees; first-round players drafted and signed from junior colleges were not added to either side):

Five more high schoolers were drafted in the 90s, yet overall they graded lower on average than their college counterparts. That’s not a surprise, however, while it was already believed that you’re more likely to get a big-league player from the college level, there is still a debate as to the likelihood of finding a superstar from the two different levels. In the next chart, I will break down the high school and college levels by the number of players that were given their respective grades:

Not too many college players completely burned out with no success at the upper levels, but that is somewhat expected of college draftees since they are considered relatively polished and typically begin their careers at a higher level. The list does start to even out as you move up the grades, as more collegians garnered a “4” grade than high schoolers, which somewhat evens out the incredibly high numbers of “2’s” that the prep players received. Regardless of how you look at a first-round pick not making it to the big leagues, a ranking of a “4” essentially might as well be the same as a “2,” although a player with a grade of “4” may have the added benefit of perceived trade value in a team’s farm system.

The real rankings come in the players that receive a “6,” “7” or “8.” The next table breaks down the percentage of college high school draftees that failed to become mediocre big-leaguers versus their college counterparts (graded 2-4), followed by the ratios of the prep and college players that were graded to be better than a mediocre big-leaguer (graded 6-8):

As you can see, of all of the draftees taken out of the high school ranks, there was a 52.6% chance that they would never have even a marginal impact at the big-league level while they had a 34.3% chance of being productive, long-term big-leaguers. The college draftees only had a 43.2% of burning out and a 39.4% of succeeding long-term. Even if the percentage of succeeding between the high-school players and the college players is relatively close, the percentage between burning out and succeeding is significantly less for a college draftee.

Keep in mind, this study is only done on the first-rounders, and only in the 1990s for that matter. Conducting studies on different rounds and different decades may produce completely different results, but I do think it’s safe to say that it is a much safer gamble to take a college player than a high school one.

Next, I’m going to break down the success rates by position, to see if any one position is significantly worse/better than any other:

Based on this chart the way to go is catchers and third basemen, but the total number of players represented is so small it’s hard to rely on this data. Contrary to my prior belief, left-handed pitchers actually have the worst success rate of any player followed by shortstops.

Are those ratios effected greatly from the high school or college levels?:

The only edge the high school hitters have over the college hitters is at third base, and some of the splits aren’t even close (although there may be discriminating sample sizes involved). While the average grade for a high school left-hander is the lowest represented by far, the college lefties also did not grade as well as I thought they would have. While I have heard before that prep outfielders typically don’t do well in the long run, high school shortstops have an even worse track record.

It should be noted though that if you follow these trends religiously you’re going to miss out on four of the five high school players that garnered a grade of “8” in my study in Chipper Jones (SS), Derek Jeter (SS), Alex Rodriguez (SS) and Manny Ramirez (OF). Eric Chavez (3B) is the only one that reflects the study results, although his “8” is the biggest reason why the limited number of prep third basemen have the edge over the limited number of collegiate third basemen represented.

Speaking of the third basemen, I did want to make one note concerning some of the positional players that may not have been represented well on the lists as provided above. Just because there are small numbers being shown that doesn’t mean their relative averages should just be tossed aside. Players like first basemen and third basemen, when good enough to be drafted in the first round, may be very well worth it since they are usually graded more for their pure hitting skills than their potential and tool-set. This may be the reason their averages as shown above are higher than the other players represented on the list. As for catchers, I had previously believed that they were the one position that typically was the most risky. Based on the averages, that simply is not the case, and in fact quite the opposite.

There are endless explanations why the certain players from the certain levels end up where they do. The college versus high school debate to me is as simple as college players being more experienced, proven and having more polish. The college athlete has a couple of years under his belt and many also point to the fact that college pitchers are three years past three very serious years when it comes to the health of a young arm. Prep shortstops and outfielders may not have as much success as other positional prospects since those players are often taken for their pure potential, or tools, and not necessarily based on whether or not they can play the game, and most importantly, hit.

I usually stay in the middle of the prep vs. college debates, and I almost always prefer the college players when everything else is considered even. That much has been confirmed, but after this study I may just start to lean towards the college players in the first round learning not only how much more likely you are to find a future Major League Baseball player, but how less likely they are to burn out quickly. With millions of dollars on the line, it makes sense to play the odds wisely.

Patrick Ebert is affiliated with both Perfect Game USA and Brewerfan.net, and can be contacted via email at pebert@brewerfan.net.