The draft: Old vs. Young High School Hitters
I think it's a good idea to shift our attention to topics other than whether the Astros will be moved to the AL. Rany Jazayerli at Baseball Prospectus recently wrote a series of articles contending that MLB teams' drafting/scouting practices do not adequately account for the difference in age between old and young high school hitters. I don't know if he is right, but if he is on to something, Astros fans should be particularly interested in what he has to say. After all, the Astros will have to the top pick in 2012; and the 2012 draft, in general, may be one of the most important in team history. B-Pro published part I and part II of the series. The article has some critics, and you can see some skepticism in the comments at Baseball Think Factory.
Jazayerli studied two large samples of drafted high school hitters and concluded that only a few months difference in the age of the players when they were drafted resulted in a significant difference in career performance relative to expectations. (The point of comparison is the career performance expected for players selected at that level in the draft.) You can read the articles to get a more detailed description of the methodology. The study divided the 17 to 19 year old age range into very young, young, average, old, and very old. (18 years 201 days old is "very old" in the study, which seems humorous to those of us who are actually old.) Rather than attempt to summarize his conclusions, I will excerpt some quotes.
Let me repeat that: a team that drafted one of the five youngest high school hitters selected among the top 100 picks could expect MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH VALUE from him as a team that selected one of the five oldest high school hitters. And that’s not a small sample size fluke; that’s a result derived from 32 years of the draft, looking at 160 players from both camps...Young high school hitters are simply much more likely to develop into stars, particularly players who weren’t elite picks...This is, all modesty aside, quite possibly the most impressive and significant finding of my career. When it comes to the drafting of high school hitters, even slight differences in age matter. At least when it comes to high school hitters, young draft picks are a MASSIVE market inefficiency.
Examples of some of the youngest players of the draft in particular years: Ken Griffey Jr., Ricky Henderson, George Brett, Alex Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield, Derek Jeter, Jimmy Rollins, and Jason Kendall. More quotes from the article:
According to the data, it appears that the importance of a draft pick’s age has, in fact, changed over time… but not in the direction you’d expect: the advantage enjoyed by young players increased dramatically from 1997 to 2003. The average return from the youngest 20 percent of draft picks during this span was more than triple the return of the oldest 20 percent... If a player who might look like a third-round pick on talent alone happens to be a full year younger than his draft class, he ought to be considered a late-first-round pick....The conclusion is clear: at least as recently as 2003, the baseball industry as a whole massively underrated the importance of age in drafting high school hitters and massively undervalued high school hitters who still needed their parents’ permission to sign their contract.
I haven't attempted to evaluate the ages of all of the high school hitters drafted by the Astros in the last few years. But the Astros have used first round picks in 2009 and 2010 on high school position players. Jio Miers would fit in the "old player" category set out in the article. Delino Deshields, Jr. is a "young player," according to the article's criteria. The implication of the study is that the DDJ has better odds than Miers, in terms of future career performance.
How does this affect possible high school hitters who could be taken with the first pick in 2012? Nick Williams and Trey Williams are two high school hitters which have been mentioned at TCB. Nick Williams will be an older high school player on draft day (based on the article's criteria), and Trey Williams will be an average age high school player. Trey is about six months younger than Nick. The implication of the article is that if both players are ranked as approximately equal on draft day, Trey Williams should be favored.
As I said, I'm still thinking about the conclusions of the article, and I'm not certain how much weight to give them. That's why I welcome your thoughts.
13 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting stuff. My takeaway from this is that “all other things being equal”, you take the younger player, which is something we’ve known forever. The problem that limits the value of this analysis is that all other things are almost never equal. There are so many other factors when evaluating the difference between Nick and Trey Williams that odds are this analysis is very unlikely to add value as the deciding factor.
That’s true. I think the author feels that he has proven that teams place insufficient weight on the age difference in situations where the younger player is judged below the level of the older player (i.e., all else not equal). That’s where I’m not sure if he is right. He is saying that the age of the younger player might be worth 10 slot positions in the first round or moving a third rounder up to the first round. I used the Nick and Trey Williams as “equal in talent” example, because I’m more comfortable applying the age difference as the balancing factor if everything else is equal. It’s harder to know how to apply it in less equal situations.
He only discusses the draft, and doesn’t mention Latin signings. We sometimes wonder why teams can place such big dollar differences on a 16 year old vs. a 18 year old. And his study probably tells us why that is so important.
Also, he only looked at H.S. players. What about college players? Should the same premium be applied to a college player who is 6 months younger than average for a junior (or whatever college level)?
by clack on Oct 19, 2011 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I guess if you were going to boil drafting down to pure science, this would come into play. As part of a formula incorporating ht, wt, bat speed, arm velocity, foot speed, character rating, etc., the author is probably on to somethign that age relative to grade level may be underrated.
by Snake Diggity on Oct 19, 2011 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions
I read Rany's articles
And I thought they were really interesting, though I think he might have overstated the possible impact. I obviously have done no research on the subject, but here are the questions that popped into my mind:
1. I wonder if this doesn’t suffer from “small sample”. A super-young player isn’t going to be drafted unless he’s already seen as a stud. If he weren’t seen as a stud, he would go to college or something. So just by that, won’t the “youngest high draft picks” already be the cream of their particular crop?
2. I’m looking forward to see if the same reasoning applies to pitchers.
3. His research doesn’t show that drafting as young of a player as possible necessarily improves your chance at getting a superstar. The Rays took 18-year old Tim Beckham with the first pick in 2008, and he’s been garbage. Hosmer, Chisenhall, Posey, and Weeks were all taken after Bekcham, and who would take Beckham over any of those guys now? In reality, talent and aptitude should rise to the top.
4. I also wonder about college players, latin players, etc.
I thought the articles were fascinating, but I didn’t see that any definitive conclusions could be drawin…yet. There are just too many stones left unturned.
Let me comment on some of your points:
(1) I think Rany would contend that he has a large sample, given the lengthy periods examined. That said, I think there is some selection bias. As someone at BBTF said, Griffey was the No. 1 pick; how is it possible to say that he was undervalued? In answer to your point, I think Rany realizes that the players have to be seen as studs in order to be drafted in the upper rounds. I think Rany’s issue is whether they should have been drafted higher because of their age. My problem with his argument is that it’s hard to prove that teams’ undervalued young players.
(3) Beckham falls in the “older” high school player category, which means (to author’s way of thinking) that he was overrated when he was selected. Several of the players you included from 2008 who are older than Beckham were college players. Rany purposely left out college players, in essense saying that it is harder to compare the age issue if both high school and college players are included. I don’t know if that is a satisfactory explanation. But I suppose the point is that college players are farther along in development and more is known about them, such that there is a lessor range of under or over rating them. As I read Rany’s study, I kept thinking about other studies which show that college hitters are the most reliable players who can be drafted (i.e., most likely to reach the major leagues). Because the most rapid part of the development process has already occurred for college players, it may be that we have a better handle on whether they can make it to the majors, but also have less upside to project.
by clack on Oct 19, 2011 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Over the last couple of years, I have sometimes compared the development of Jio Miers and Tim Beckham, since they were both first round high school shortstop picks. And there is some similarity in age at day of draft. Miers was 9 months past his 18th birthday, and Beckham was 6 months past his 18th birthday, which made Miers “very old” and Beckham “old,” based on the article’s criteria.
by clack on Oct 19, 2011 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
You’re right about #3, I just picked some names that I knew were older. I was trying to make a larger point though that moving guys up on your talent board simply based on age is counterproductive when you are bypassing players with clearly superior talent.
As you say, selection bias. I just am not sure that definitive conclusions can be drawn because the pool of players that Rany looked at are a very, very, very small percentage of all players drafted overall.
1) A player already has to be noticably talented to be drafted that young in the first place
2) In an already relatively small pool (percentage wise), guys like Griffey are going to throw off the curve every time. I wonder what the research would show if it threw away once-in-a-lifetime talent like Griffey and A-Rod from the selection? I suspect the results would be far less impressive. Isn’t discarding outliers a common practice among statisticians? It seems to me that this is glorifying outliers instead.
Nice article, and a different look at age in the draft for high school players. It is nice to get away from the constant realignment talks the Astros drown in right now.
Like you I would also wonder about if the difference in age would apply for college players. My guess is it still would because like SD stated above if all else is equal when comparing two college players then it would still make sense to take the younger of the two players.
On a side note, I know that most people frown upon taking a pitcher at number 1 overall, but given the Astros lack of ace upside guys in their system (Cosart aside), I would almost rather them take a pitcher at number one if the best player available is between a pitcher and position player and not easy to distinguish between the two. Maybe that’s Mark Appellate, who knows. I have also been intrigued by what I’ve been reading about this Giolito (pardon the spelling if its wrong) guy. If it came down to him and Appellate then would it be more valuable to take him instead of Appel according to the study because he is the younger of the two.
by conroestro on Oct 19, 2011 12:28 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Very interesting article. 6 months is a huge difference in age for kids that age. I know when I was in high school, a kid on my team was exactly a year older than me. He towered over me then, but now, we are the same size. He also had another year of experience over me. If a guy like Mier is the oldest kid on the field, maybe his skill set is being over valued a little bit.
I think this boils down to performance relative to competition as it correlates to age of the competition.
There should be no avg age of a league that is more consistent than HS ball. So a guy that is close to 19 should be looked at much differently than a guy barely over 17. It makes sense on paper. This is where the traditional scout has to make a judgment on projecting kids that may in his eyes look like the same age. As a whole I think that this would be very hard. I think this is a great example of a theory that may never be honed into an absolute science.
I tend to not want to give this much thought as a primary factor because it seems like the results of drafting high round HS hitters is very difficult to begin with. But I have not had time to do anything more than glance the article.
My first mistake was assuming you knew what I was talking about.
Good article
I’m really happy that we strayed from the “move to the AL” talk.
This really gets me thinking. I’m a big fan of taking a bat in the first round. In 2009-10, I was really unimpressed with our first round selections. I think of position players as two halves, half hitter and half defender. Both halves are equally important but the hit half IMO really needs to be solid. If the bat works a team can find you a place on the field. With Mier and DDJ it looks like the team went more parts defender and less parts hitter, with a chance that each of them equal out to 50/50 players. Neither of those picks, who are still young enough to breakout, have wowed anybody with their bats and warranted a 1st round pick. I’m thinking we go with a more sure thing this year in a college pitcher, but like I said, I’m a fan of taking a bat in the 1st round.
by Its Gonna Happen on Oct 19, 2011 3:06 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
I wish..
Our FO would read this and follow it. Pay for the younger higher upside guys.
Last draft was quite a bit of older college low ceiling players.
Hopefully Wade and Heck are both kicked to the curb and we get someone who will follow this thinking.
-And yes, I’m aware I’m one of the only ones on here who doesn’t like Heck.
by YohannDookeyblue on Oct 22, 2011 10:56 PM CDT reply actions
oswalt, thome, clee...2012...
from a die hard astro fan….lets sign oswalt… 8 or 9 mil for 2 yrs…sign thome…for l yr…about 4mil…have him platoon with clee at 1b….and dh…i guess we will be in the al….so we would have hernandez, lf…shepherd in cf…bogusevic in rf..or bourgeois pareles at 3b barmes at ss…downs at 2b…catching???? oswalt as closer…or sosa in bullpen and oswalt starting…make a run at championship mike


























