Scouting has improved...based on what?

Players are still drafted that won't pan out and some still slip to later rounds that end up being better than teams' 1st rounders. Scouting is subjective and as long as that remains the case, drafting will continue to be what it is due to human error

And I would love to have the careers that Posada and Petitte had whether it was coming to an end soon or not. WS rings, all-stars and future debate as to whether I belong in the HOF or not...yeah, not bad

Quote: Originally posted by soxfan121 on 2/17/2010uh, I hate to be the one who points this out, but the players drafted late are all on the back-9 of their careers. Scouting, in the past 10 years, has improved to the the point that the late round pick - that ISN'T about Scott Boras and signability - superstar is mostly a myth.

To those who complain they "don't even see the top 10 players" - you do. Every player is on your list. What differs is whether you have his ratings. And saying you can "pick up a magazine and know the top 10"....well, you people just don't recall the history of blown top 10 picks. So....it's a choice.

Should everyone see ratings on every player, with the increased risk that there's one or two HORRENDOUS stinklogs in the pool or the current system of hiding some ratings and making fuzzy others, but basically GUARANTEEING a first round pick is gonna be good?

the first paragraph is just ridiculous

extraordinary statements require evidence, please provide some

regarding scouting improving in the last 10 years

this is just looking through the last few rookies of the year

Geovany Soto - 11th round
Andrew Bailey - 6th round
Ryan Howard - 5th round
Jason Bay - 22nd round

Tommy Hanson who was the runner up this in the NL ROTY and the future star pitcher was drafted in the 22nd round

scouting may have gotten a little better over the past few years, but it is far from the much surer thing that the HBD draft is

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Tommy Hanson was a sign and follow, that doesn't really prove anything...

the point is in real life plenty of ML players come after the 3rd round of the draft, in HBD this doesn't happen and the draft is far too predictable...you've provided nothing but anecdotes that show anything to the contrary

statistically Piazza, Bay and Posada are huge outliers, yes. In HBD though they would not just be outliers, even making a Major League team in HBD as a 23rd round pick would be more unexpected than a 23rd pick becoming a superstar in RL.

Quote: Originally posted by schuyler101 on 2/17/2010Tommy Hanson was a sign and follow, that doesn't really prove anything...

the point is in real life plenty of ML players come after the 3rd round of the draft, in HBD this doesn't happen and the draft is far too predictable...you've provided nothing but anecdotes that show anything to the contrary

statistically Piazza, Bay and Posada are huge outliers, yes. In HBD though they would not just be outliers, even making a Major League team in HBD as a 23rd round pick would be more unexpected than a 23rd pick becoming a superstar in RL.

1. No, you missed the point. Again. Hanson was told by teams he'd be drafted "in the top 10" but wasn't because of HIS MONETARY DEMANDS. That he subsequently was drafted in the 22nd round and the was signed as a draft and follow completely rebutts him as a data point on the "stars drafted late" side of the ledger. Guy was a known, acknowledged star talent who wasn't drafted because of MONETARY DEMANDS AND SIGNABILITY. Which is why a primo talent, like Hanson, was available in the 22nd round.

2. No, the point isn't that "plenty of MLB players" are drafted after the 3rd round - the evidence, anecdotal or otherwise doesn't support it. Look back at the lists provided by firemanrob and jwalsh of the DET and NYY draft results. Aside from the OLD GUYS, everyone's from the 3rd round or earlier. Or they are IFA. Which kinda undermines the point you "anecdotally" tried to rebutt with your list that includes Hanson and Ryan Howard.

No, the point is that, AGAIN, signability affects the MLB draft far more than any other factor. And if a player drafted after the 3rd round is a "superstar", it's MOST LIKELY because he was a signability issue, or character/makeup issue...not because MLB scouts didn't see the talent.

I'm not gonna bother posting the Baseball America studies that demonstrate, statistically, that 1st round picks pan out half the time or that the vast majority of those who "make it" are drafted in the first 3 rounds. These are facts, and anecdotally, you should look things up before you deride them because they don't SOUND right to you. The data is out there -educate thyself.

Ok I think I am educated...

Ryan Howard - 5th Rnd

Shane Victorino - 6th Rnd

The only point to be made here is that HBD is much more straight-forward. You have no shot (other than DitRs) to make the ML if drafted after round 3. In MLB, it happens with regularity that picks in rounds 4+ can make it. In HBD, 1st round picks are a sure thing for those that aren't completely tarded up. In MLB, they may or may not work out.

I think most would agree that in HBD, a top 10 pick should be ready within 5 seasons for the ML. Out of the 2004 draft, 5 of 10 are in the minors. The only notable player from that top 10 is Justin Verlander.

The point was never that late round picks pan out more than rounds 1-3. Again, the point is that in HBD you know what you are getting. The projections are there for everyone to see. In MLB, teams have to evaluate players and those projections are based on "opinions" which is why players are early first round for some teams and maybe 2nd or 3rd for others. In HBD that just isn't the case

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.