Draft Efficiency

by WiHaloFan on Nov 15, 2008 6:21 AM PST

Okay, I know the Hot Stove is finally heating up, but I have a question not related to Teixeira, or Manny, or Sabathia...

I went back through each teams' draft from 1992 - 2002 to see how many draft picks each team had, and of those picks, how many players actually made it to the majors (with any team). Here's what I found:

Oakland	15.6%	San Diego	10.2%
St. Louis	12.0%	Houston	10.2%
Boston	12.0%	Colorado	9.7%
Arizona	11.5%	LA Angels	9.6%
Texas	11.5%	Toronto	9.5%
San Francisco	11.3%	Detroit	9.4%
Kansas City	11.1%	NY Mets	9.4%
Baltimore	11.0%	Seattle	9.3%
Tampa Bay	10.8%	Philadelphia	8.9%
Minnesota	10.6%	LA Dodgers	8.9%
Chicago Sox	10.6%	Cincinnati	8.9%
Washington	10.6%	Florida	8.8%
Atlanta	10.5%	NY Yankees	8.7%
Chicago Cubs	10.5%	Milwaukee	8.1%
Pittsburgh	10.3%	Cleveland	7.9%

I had two questions;

Oakland had the most picks pan out, is that because they drafted better, or is it because they had the biggest need for cheap talent?
Should a team draft the best player available, or the player that fits the team's need?

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan and may or may not be a reflection of human evolution, divine enlightenment or nine cans into a 12-pack.

1 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

this info says a lot about the number of players, but not much of the quality of players. With Cleveland at the bottom, how much weight can be given for developing Manny, CC, Peralta, Hafner, Carmona, etc. ?

A case can be made for all teams, just wanted to bring the question light about the stars or significant contributors to the team rather than just the number of players who have made it to the big leagues.

www.13stoploss.com

by feNOMINAL on Nov 15, 2008 9:39 AM PST 0 recs

btw

good stuff, thanks for the time and info that went into your post.

www.13stoploss.com

by feNOMINAL on Nov 15, 2008 9:39 AM PST up 0 recs

Always Always.........

draft the best player available.

I think you have to also take into consideration how many of the top teams on your list actually won during that time period. After all those that did not win had higher picks in each round allowing them a better chance at getting it right through the draft.

Oakland – 4 playoff appearances, 7 seasons below .500 (5 seasons of 3rd place or lower )
St. Louis – 4 playoff appearances, 4 seasons below .500 (7 seasons of 3rd place or lower )
Boston – 3 playoff appearances, 4 seasons below .500 (5 seasons of 3rd place or lower)
Arizona – early organizational drafts got chances to play early in the history of the club and again and late
Texas – 3 playoff appearances, 6 seasons below .500 (6 seasons of 3rd place or lower)
San Francisco – 3 playoff appearances, 6 seasons below .500 (3 seasons of 3rd place or lower)
Kansas City – 0 playoff appearances, 10 seasons below .500 (9 seasons of 3rd place or lower)
Baltimore – 2 playoff appearances, 6 seasons below .500 (8 seasons of 3rd place or lower)
Tampa Bay – 0 playoff appearances, 5 seasons below .500 (5 seasons of last place)
Minnesota – 1 playoff appearances, 8 seasons below .500 (8 seasons of 3rd place or lower)

Thats your top ten list right there and if you look at it there is a lot of higher picks that these teams have had a chance to make. KC has done well at times with drafts but has not been able to keep the talent (Damon,Beltran) Milw has been awful with their picks.

If you look at Cleveland which is last on the list
Cleveland – 6 playoff appearances (more then anyone in the top ten) 4 seasons below .500 (ties with St. Louis/Boston) 3 seasons of 3rd place or lower ties SF

Willie Mays Aikens is FREeeeeeeee

by Angel Aviator on Nov 15, 2008 11:05 AM PST 0 recs

excellent point

plus, there must be a way to mathematically factor in how many of the picks “stuck” at the ML level and how many were filler on the big club because of a weak farm system.

The numbers skew toward Oakland but I can assume that they are looser in trading established players and calling up draft picks from the farm.

Meanwhile good clubs during this time period (Cleveland especially) are taking care of business on the big league club so their prospects just stay in the minors.

by Rev Halofan on Nov 15, 2008 11:42 AM PST 0 recs

Also, the As let so many type A FAs leave

they must have had a shitload of comp picks

Mr Moreno,
Please re-sign Tex.
Sincerely yours,
Halo fans everywhere

by anaheim angels on Nov 15, 2008 1:28 PM PST up 0 recs

that wouldn't change a %

"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra

by Cheezombie on Nov 16, 2008 10:39 AM PST up 0 recs

yea it would

because they get another pick of someone more likely to make the majors.

Mr Moreno,
Please re-sign Tex.
Sincerely yours,
Halo fans everywhere

by anaheim angels on Nov 16, 2008 7:55 PM PST up 0 recs

Much of this is due to the Sandy Alderson era

Beane’s been drafting too low to make much of a difference in his own draft. The only way to get young, good players is to ~~steal them from other teams~~ trade for them.

Witty .sig goes here.

by scareduck on Nov 17, 2008 3:11 PM PST up 0 recs

I think the other reason Oakland is near the top is that for some time Beane was drafting a lot of low-risk hitters

and avoiding higher risk players (HS pitchers) in the first few rounds. I’d assume that significantly contributed to their overall “made the majors rate” as well.

The other really interesting (and not that surprising) thing is that 27 of the 30 teams fell between ~9 and ~12% of draft hits

by seattlebruin on Nov 18, 2008 9:42 AM PST up 0 recs

hmm

1. reach the majors as in 1 game or is their a certain amount of games. i think part of the A’s success comes from the high turnover rate of their ML roster.
2. always draft the best. there’s no garantee of success with a draft.

by HALO_86 on Nov 15, 2008 1:55 PM PST 0 recs

One thing that REALLY needs to be considered

Is the number of draft picks that each team picked. The A’s running on a shoe string budget for a long time have not taken nearly the number of picks of other teams.

This would skew the data a considerable amount in the favor of the A’s since the extra 10-15 picks that the A’s don’t make have little to no chance of actually making the bigs but are taken to fill out Minor League rosters.

BA’s site wasn’t too helpful for someone w/o a subscription with some dead links.

But what I found :

The last 2 years both the Angels and A’s took 50 picks, but in 2006 the Angels went until round 50 the A’s stopped at 41. In 2005 the Angels took 50 and the A’s only went 38 rounds deep. BA had some dead links for the Angels in 03 and 04 and required a subscription past that but the A’s only took 40 in each of those years.

So for 2005 for example assuming the Angels don’t have a player reach the bigs after their 38’th round pick, the A’s START WITH like a 24% gain on them.

by MH252525 on Nov 16, 2008 11:20 AM PST 0 recs

You're right

So I went back and looked at the number of players to make it to the majors regardless of the number of picks:
Oakland 75 LA Dodgers 57
Boston 64 NY Yankees 56
Kansas City 64 Toronto 55
St. Louis 64 LA Angels 55
Tampa Bay 63 Seattle 55
Atlanta 63 Pittsburgh 55
Texas 62 NY Mets 54
Chicago Cubs 62 Florida 54
San Francisco 62 Colorado 54
Chicago Sox 61 San Diego 52
Minnesota 61 Detroit 50
Arizona 60 Cincinnati 47
Baltimore 59 Philadelphia 46
Houston 58 Milwaukee 46
Washington 57 Cleveland 45

I think the was the main reason for my first question, did Oakland do a better job drafting or did they just promote players because they were cheap (or they had a need)?

I was uncool before uncool was cool.

by WiHaloFan on Nov 17, 2008 5:24 AM PST up 0 recs

That didn't format too well

but you can still get the jist of it.

I was uncool before uncool was cool.

by WiHaloFan on Nov 17, 2008 5:25 AM PST up 0 recs

Thanks for the raw data

I personally think the A’s have done a good job of drafting over the years because even a first round pick isn’t a sure thing to reach the bigs, but I’d also think their differential isn’t quite as big as it should be. When it comes to FA’s the A’s are almost always on the draft pick side. They have traded for players that they knew they would get draft picks for. Remember how the A’s fans got so pissy when the A’s signed Mike Magnante away from the Angels and they didn’t realize he was worth a draft pick. That was hysterical.

by MH252525 on Nov 17, 2008 6:48 AM PST up 0 recs

You said they made the show

and you also mention that some made it with other clubs. I am wondering if you counted players that were drafted out of High School, but did not sign until after their college years were over.

Troy Glaus was a 2nd rounder by SD out of HS if I remember right

Todd Helton who was also a 2nd rounder by the Padres out of HS

Prior who the Yanks made a million $$$ offer to before he decided to go to Vandy only later to transfer to USC and become the Cubs 1st round pick

Barry Zito was a Mariner draft in like the 46 round out of HS but went to Santa Barbra before transferring to Pierce JC and becoming a Ranger draft then turning down that $$$ to attend USC

I could go on and on but thats just a few, and I might be wrong on the round some of them were chosen in but, it is awful hard to rate the picks because of some many variables that have been mentioned. Hell Tex is also one of those guys.

One thing is for sure though…….Angels won a World Series with a lot of home grown talent on the roster and a few plug ins

Willie Mays Aikens is FREeeeeeeee

by Angel Aviator on Nov 16, 2008 10:46 PM PST 0 recs

It counted for both teams who drafted them

If a player didn’t sign and was drafted again in another draft, he counted for both teams, San Deigo also got credit for drafting a player who made it to the majors (Glaus).

I was uncool before uncool was cool.

by WiHaloFan on Nov 17, 2008 5:11 AM PST up 0 recs

Oh, and also...

This year a lot was made of Tampa’s and Philly’s amount of home-grown talent getting them to the WS. The Angels’ roster was made up of 68% of players they drafted or signed as non-drafted free agents, while Tampa had 41% and Philadelphia had 40%.

I was uncool before uncool was cool.

by WiHaloFan on Nov 17, 2008 5:54 AM PST 0 recs