These questions concern an off-the-clock draft still going on in a progressive league.  It is a single season progressive and the upcoming year is 1964. 

Having an early pick I took Tommy John to go along with Jim Kaat whom I already had obtained through a trade, so I had a couple of good starters for years to come. 

But an opportunity to trade for the 12th pick overall came up and I traded for it. I took Willie Horton. Not the greatest player I will grant you, but a power hitting outfielder for many years to come - as a DH he has an amazing  1979 with Seattle. 

But looking over the fantastic progressive league draft database organized by crazystengel (thanks so much on behalf of us all crazystengel !) and updated by all the great players here who post drafts from every year, I saw that on the examples of 1964 drafts that are posted at least, Jim Ray Hart always comes well ahead of Horton. 

Now this may just be a case of teams needing a 3B instead of an OF (I needed both outfielders and a third-baseman, and a second baseman...the list could go on, 4 retired starters on a team I just took over). But if we assume that there is no pressing need for one over the other, is there any reason that Hart is preferred by a good margin to Horton ?

He hits more homers for a few years, but really, though he plays till 1974 he is pretty spent after 1968. Horton has good full time years through 1969 and then 300 to 500 PA years all through the 70s, without a significant falling off in his hitting. True, he is a terrible fielder, and I am not wild about playing a D-/D- outfielder, but he wouldn't be the first. I once saw a fly ball hit Reggie Jackson on the top of his head.  I think he won that game with a HR. 

So is there any other intrinsic reason for consistent preference for a player like Hart over one like Horton ? People wanting to win in the next few years, not build long-term (which is the priority for me with this team). Or maybe just small sample size -. there are only a couple of 1964 drafts on the database so far.


Second question: Hal Lanier got drafted early this time. But I noticed that he is well into the second round, and sometimes after 2B like Dick Green or Bobby Knoop in other 1964 drafts. Again, what is the downside that I am missing to having Lanier? Presumably the fellow owner in this league that took him early thought as I did - good infield choice for the first round in that year. 

Horton and Hart are of comparable value in my opinion.

The biggest differences I see are:

1. Hart can play 3b which is WAY more valuable than OF.
2. Horton doesn't really have any All Star Quality seasons other than 1965 and 1968.   His other good seasons are all in the 400 PA range which makes him a platoon guy, and as a right handed hitting, average defense OF isn't special.  Those guys are a dime a dozen.  He is a complementary piece, not a guy you can build a round.
3. Hart is  All-Star quality right off the bat from  65 to 67 and still solid in 1968.

If I needed a 3b, I wouldn't hesitate to take Hart over Horton.  If  I didn't I probably would take one of the next set of pitchers (Blass, McLain, Wise, Stottlemeyer) that should still be available over an OF like Horton.




 

Are you sure that wasn't Jose Canseco who got hit in the head?

Let's just say that Oakland needed better OF fielding coaches for a long while there. 

I agree with Tjoe. In progs, I guess it all depends on your longer term needs, and what you can foresee being available in the future. But I can see many players being more valuable to the winning effort than Willie Horton. And, I believe you are both correct about players using their heads.

Thank all of you for the insights. I understand the process of evaluating players in progressives better. I am still happy with my choice: I didn't really give enough info, but the team needed almost everything: ALL four IF positions (Held, with 400 PA was the closest thing to a full-time IF, though to be fair with a good number of HRs), had no major starter for more than three years, and after a trade that landed me a long-term starter and got me a 1B for years, had no OF for more than three years. It needed a power hitter. 

I got Tommy John and now Horton. I use 1968 or 69 as cutoff dates - I want players who go past that date because the team won't be really competitive in a serious way for a few years. Hart is really good but only till 68. And if I need an OF with 200-300 PA to go in tandem with Horton that is easier to find. 

So we'll see how badly I have chosen. Though I have seen some posts in the past saying Horton performs very well in progressives. 

With John, Kaat, LeMaster and Ellsworth, I have a rotation now for some years,s and two guys that go for decades, so I wasn't looking for more pitching.  And now 1B and OF are partly covered. More to do. But thanks for the insights and even the criticisms, which are always useful.