Pending a lobotomy, the top two picks of the upcoming NASBL Rookie/Free Agent draft are set in stone. Thus, the guessing and real fun begins with the #3 pick.
The Burlington Free Press caught up with Vermont Fighting Sioux GM Justin Rabidoux during a recent all you can eat luncheon at Moe's.
When asked the million dollar question, Rabidoux shrugged his shoulders, attempting to reveal neither his intent nor his thoughts.
However, he did point to a recent study his office commissioned. The VFS number crunchers took a look at all draft data dating back to 1998 (years 2005 and 2002 are gone into cyber-abyss apparently) and evaluated the careers of the players drafted #3 and #4 overall. Rabidoux apparently thinks any combo of the three players he's
considering are likely go in the #3 and #4 slots of the draft.The resulting 22 players were then assigned a score ranging from 1 (Bust) to 5 (HOFer, Borderline HOFer, elite at their position for 2-4 years) and then sorted as either a pitcher or a hitter.
The players are:
2010 - Elvis Andrus, Pablo Sandoval
2009 - Evan Longoria, Matt Garza
2008 - BJ Upton, Dustin Pedroria
2007 - Justin Verlander, Matt Cain
2006 - Ryan Howard, Scott Kazmir
2005 - No data
2004 - Jose Reyes, Hank Blalock
2003 - Austin Kearns, Eric Hinske
2002 - No data
2001 - Pat Burrell, Fernando Vina
2000 - Carlos Beltran, Tim Hudson
1999 - Todd Helton, Ben Grieve
1998 - Scott Rolen, Vlad Gurrero
Categories -
1 - Bust
2 - Short, underwhelming career - didn't realize potential
3 - Average production, decent career length
4 - Very good career, all-star caliber player
5 - Hall of Fame type player - elite for multiple years
Young players such as Andrus have their value based on a combination of production to date as well as expected production - they may end up in a different category before their career's over, this represents a best guess.
Results (pitchers shown in bold)
1 - Austin Kearns, Eric Hinske, Ben Grieve
2 - Hank Blalock, Pat Burrell, Fernando Vina
3 - Pablo Sandoval, Matt Garza, BJ Upton, Scott Kazmir
4 - Elvis Andrus, Dustin Pedroria, Justin Verlander, Matt Cain, Ryan Howard, Jose Reyes, Tim Hudson, Scott Rolen
5 - Evan Longoria, Carlos Beltran, Todd Helton, Vlad Gurrero
Obviously opinions can vary on the results, but the main point was to determine if there's a evidenced history of highly drafted pitchers not panning out. As far as I can tell, the range is somewhere between Kazmir on the low end (three quality seasons, a few ... others) and Verlander (strong candidate to end up in Category 5 before all's said and done.
What's interesting when looking at the hitters that haven't panned out, is they all fit a similar mold. They mostly play the power positions (corner IF/OF - can't explain how Vina ended up on this list, so I won't try). Middle IFers/CFers have fared better over time.
So what does this tell us, other than to ignore results comprised from a small sample? It tells us that in the NASBL, pitchers drafted high have a decent chance of succeeding.
Wait, I thought the title of this article included the phrase There's No Such Thing As A Pitching Prospect. Correct, it did. But perhaps NASBL's player eligibility requirements (100 IP for starters) act to filter out and separate hurlers who are merely prospects from those that have some level of demonstrated success.
Whether he truly doesn't know, or hasn't mad
e up his waffling mind yet, Rabidoux did not state if he was swayed by the findings of his study. Surely he must have an opinion on it. Surely?
8 comments:
My first thoughts are:
-Wait, there's an all you can eat luncheon at Moes?!
-I like the 5-category rating system. It's like hurricanes, only backwards. Hurricane Hinske in real life, for example, would be a Category 5 disaster that wiped out an entire city for a decade.
-Ben Grieve at #4? Really?
With the #4 pick hopefully the Roadkill Scouting Dept can get back to the glory days when they drafted the #5 rated players Beltran, Vlad & Helton.
Just happy that we don't have the #3 pick as Roadkill Nation would certainly be 2nd & 3rd guessing that pick...after drinking the Boros kool-aid with the Wieters pick last year.
I remember Grieve was a huge prospect back when he first came up. What I forgot was that he actually on the ROY that year and that Oakland picked him second overall in the 2004 draft; so you almost can't blame the person who did that.
It was nice to read this post after I have been spending hours working on different draft options...
Wow...after some more quick research he was the #1 prospect coming into that season after he hit .350 between AA and AAA with 30 homers and 130 RBI's! Talk about a bust...wonder if someone was shooting something into his thigh for him...
Nice article, but there is one basic premise that I would challenge. Are you sure that the first two picks are cast in stone?
I would say yes. May be different teams but the same two picks.
As the GM who drafted Matt Cain fourth overall in 2007, I think you're being a little overenthusiastic when you call him a "4". For his career, he's ten games under .500 (49-59), has a career ERA of 5.24 and has allowed over 30 homers in each of his four years. True, he has talent and potential but right now, he's a "3" at best.
Love all the dialogue.
I looked at those Ben Grieve minor league numbers - incredible. Certainly can't blame people for thinking he'd produce at the MLB level.
Sitting with the #3 pick I'd be more than happy if my basic premise is proven false; I'll gladly take one of the two players we're all talking about.
Re: Cain. Agree where he is today is closer to a '3'. But I tried to project out the rest of his career, and one's W-L record doesn't always tell the story. Even MLB Cy Young voters now support that truth. It's true his ERA could be more impressive, but I think it'll get there. If not, it will be the first time I'm wrong (in the last 3 minutes).
Post a Comment