What do these players have in common
by tharr on Jul 1, 2011 1:41 AM CDT
Email
Print
Geovanny Soto, Luis Montanez, Buck Coats, Corey Patterson and Jose Molina.
Answer: These are the only position players drafted out of high school by the Cubs who were played ML ball and are still active in baseball. Since 1991, or in the past 20 drafts, the team has signed hundreds of players and we have had only 2 HS draftee position players who have accounted for anything of value to the team. Does this inability to transform high school hitters into legitimate major league players indict the organization's coaching staff? It seems so.
Further evidence. Currently the 4 top minor league affiliates on the Cubs have a total of 23 players with an OBP of .350 or higher. Of these, 18 are either college or JC draftees. That seems to validate that the colleges are much better at preparing their athletes than for a big league future than the Cubs.
Josh Vitters, Brian Harvey, Luis Montanez, Corey Patterson, Earl Cunningham, Derrick May, Jackie Davidson, Shawon Dunston, Vance Lovelace, Herm Segelke, Brian Rosinske, Scot Thompson and Terry Hughes were 1st round position player picks for the Cubs coming from a HS dating back to 1965. That's not an enviable record for a struggling franchise. Are we doing a poor job of selecting players or is our coaching inferior to other organizations. Perhaps it's a combination. However, it should be a priority in restructuring the team as we move into the future. Obviously it hasn't been since Jim Hendry became the baseball guy for the Cubs.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
88 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hmmm.....
I’d be curious how other teams compare before I would decide the Cubs are deficient. Drafting high school kids has to be a crapshoot, especialy position players. I’ll always remember Larry Monroe, a pitcher for Forest View High School in Arlington Heights. We went to the same school and he was two years ahead of me. Monroe was lights out as a pitcher and was drafted number one by Bill Veeck and the White Sox in 1974. He was can’t miss. Veeck even rushed him to the majors right after he was signed as a publicity stunt. Unfortunately, despite pitching a no hitter for Appleton, Larry missed. He was done after a few years but somehow ended up in the Sox front office.
IIRC, Ryne Sandberg wasn’t much of a high school player, nor was Chase Utley. Mike Piazza was drafted in the 62nd round out of high school as a favor to his Dad, a friend of Tom Lasorda in Pennsylvania. I don’t have access to stats across the board, but my gut tells me the Cubs can’t be the worst at this.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
You are mixing up a few things here
I agree with you on the Cubs young players and plate discipline. I can’t believe spray hitters like Campana and Barney have such poor plate discipline. If they would take a few walks they could likely build a solid major league career. Barney came out of college too.
On the HS players, while the Cubs are bad I’m sure all other teams fail more frequently with high pick HS players than college players. College players are older and have a lot more experience and history to evaluate. HS players play against such bad competition that they are hard to evaluate. That said the Cubs need to continue to take HS players. Unless a team has a very high draft pick, you won’t get superstar players out of college. The HS players are usually the high risk/high reward.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
This... and that's the reason in the past Wilken has gone with college bats and arms first
Because it’s more of a proven commodity. HS arms and bats will always be a bigger risk/reward. Honestly, the Cubs have been very bad at developing that talent, but it seems like things slowly might be turning around. Wilken picking HS bats and arms throughout this draft means that he sees a LOT of promise and the farm is in a good enough shape to take a few risks to get that truly ELITE prospect.
I've poited out the poor results in the Cubs organization.
On the HS players, while the Cubs are bad I’m sure all other teams fail more frequently with high pick HS players than college players
Can you provide any evidence? Otherwise your comment isn’t anyhting more than a gut feeling. Hendry has them all the time and look where that’s gotten us.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Rather than just single out the Cubs...
…. as having a failing in this area, maybe you should also research how other teams fare with high schoolers.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
And rather than suggesting anything I wrote was inaccurate
perhaps you should show us some evidence that the Cubs aren’t doing a poor job turning HS position players. If you want to have a gut feeling that we’re doing a decent jog with these kids, so be it. But my research clearly shows a record of poor results. My presentation was intended to suggest we’d be better served by sticking with college position players rather than hoping we’d catch lightening in a swinging jug by using a high draft choice on a HS hitter. I’d be glad to see any evidence to the contrary.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
It's your thread, your theory, you do the damn research...
… but wait, I just spent the last hour or so doing just that. You know what? Every single thing I found, in numbers too numerous to list, said drafting high school v. college is a crapshoot. There is no solid data to suggest concentrating on either one. No team at any time has had consistent success developing one or the other. To single out the Cubs as being poor at it is an indictment of them being ordinary at it, nothing more. it is not an indictment of any deficiency on theor part.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
In case you overlooked the obvious
I did considerable research in presenting factual data supporting my allegation that the Cubs have done very poorly turning HS athletes into credible major league talent. Your response presented nothing but an assertion. Tell us what HS players we drafted that have had an impact on the organization. Soto. Perhaps you can name the others.
My proof is results based. Where is yours?
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Perhaps you missed MY point
NO team has had considerable success at developing high school position players. The Cubs are no different at it than any other team. Would they like to be better at it? Sure. But it is hardy an “indictment” of any sort, which implies aberrant behavior or results.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Silence.
I’m siding with BC on this one. The cubs have done poorly, but without knowing relative to other teams….there’s no such thing as a franchise who pumps out hs players and I can’t imagine there’s one that’s good at it….NAYBE the recent dodgers, but they always go hs players and the only ones of significance are kershaw, billingsley, kemp, loney, and Dewitt, aka the vile one.
by SenorGato on Jul 2, 2011 5:52 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
If that's your point
then it needs validation. If the results of the Cubs were the results of all other teams, there would be no one drafting HS athletes in the high rounds. Consider the Cubs experience over many years and many draftees. If you knew as a GM that the odds were stacked that high against you, you’d be a fool to waste a high pick on them.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Thats not true at all.
HS players often are considered the highest upside guys in the draft. They are not without risk. College players carry risk too.
by SenorGato on Jul 2, 2011 10:56 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
What isn't true?
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
That other teams would pass on hs players if they were as bad as the cubs.
The MLB draft is far more complex than that and HS players are where teams look for projection an upside.
by SenorGato on Jul 3, 2011 11:55 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
That would explain our stellar record
Hey, we screwed up more times than I care to admit so let’s try it again. Now that’s smart thinking.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
My God man,
As I’ve said already- this is YOUR TOPIC, YOUR THREAD. If you want validation, YOU do the research. You can’t come on here and say the Cubs have done poorly drafting HS position players unless you can tell us how other teams have done.What I’m telling you as well as other people are saying, is that the Cubs have not done appreciably worse aginst other teams.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Stop claiming that I said things that I didn't
Show me where i said we did a worse job than another team. I said we were doing a lousy job with HS position players. You’re the one who got on a soapbox and alleged we were just like every other team. Then you insisted I prove we were worse than other teams by researching other team’s results.
I did the presentation on the Cubs because they were the only team I was interested in reviewing. If you want to make a comparison, be my guest. But even if every other team in baseball has a terrible record, it does nothing to dispel my allegation. In fact, it would only provide further evidence that HS draftees aren’t worth a high draft choice.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Well now....
…let’s try this- I don’t think anyone is arguing with you, certainly not me, that the Cubs don’t develop many HS players. But why single them out for it if you’re not going to compare them to other teams? It’s a pointless exercise. No team does a consistently good job, so why single out the Cubs here?
And see, when you do something like this, pointing out a Cub deficiency, given the general tenor of BCB towards the Cubs, Hendry, etc., most of us here will naturally assume it’s to show how they lag behind everyone else in yet another facet of the game. But here, they don’t. The reaction to hearing all this is generally “Yeah, so what, no one does a great job at it and no one ever has.”
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
The point here is that you can't define "lousy" based on one team alone
Take this example: the New York Yankees spend ALL THAT MONEY and their players can’t even get on base 35% of the time! What a load of bums!
Not even 35%! That doesn’t sound great, considering those guys are earning, like, trillions of dollars. Of course, you’d probably recognise that a team OBA of .350 is actually excellent (in fact as of today the Red Sox lead MLB at exactly .350: the Yankees are second on .344), but you can only do that because you’ve got a frame of reference that allows you to compare it across other teams.
You’re saying “the Cubs produce hardly any position players out of HS, and that’s lousy”. The first part seems fair enough; but who’s to say if that rate of success is lousy or not? Maybe it’s right around the league average success rate. Maybe it’s better than average. Is it still “lousy” then?
by Limey Cub Fan Jay on Jul 3, 2011 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Can I put an order in for more posters who
think like this? Logically and such…
by SenorGato on Jul 3, 2011 3:39 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Can you honestly suggest
that the addition of one 11th round pick in over 20 years drafting is anything other than lousy? Knowing that, would you continue to use high draft choices on players with similar backgrounds. Currently only 2 out of 23 minor league players who have exhibited .350 OBP were HS draftees. And neither of them are the high upside type with only 1 HR each.
With that statistical evidence, given the choice, would you choose a HS guy over a college player in the upper rounds?
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Okay, an actual comparison
The Cubs against the Cardinals. If I had limitless time, I’d maybe include the rest of the NL Central; but I don’t, so the Cards will have to do. Note before we start: I have not said that you’re wrong: I’ve said that you haven’t provided enough data to establish your argument either way.
This is based entirely on baseball-reference.com. I’ve excluded your “still in baseball today” condition, which seems nonsensical to me. We’re looking back twenty years. Why exclude a successful career simply because a guy retired a couple of years ago? In practice, this change actually hurts the Cubs, because all they get back is David Kelton, while the Cardinals get to include Dmitri Young.
Position players drafted from HS, 1991-2010:
Cubs 203, Cardinals 132
Played in MLB (at all, even once, but EXCLUDING players who did not sign and were later redrafted by another club)
Cubs 6, Cardinals 16
Total WAR of players in MLB (not all of it for the drafting club):
Cubs 18.7, Cardinals 41.2
So, up to here it’s Cards all the way. They draft fewer players, but to much greater effect. However, that isn’t the whole story. On average, the Cardinals have drafted HS players much higher than the Cubs have. In the first ten rounds, the Cards have used 38 picks, the Cubs 32. Make that the first four rounds and it’s Cards 27, Cubs 18. Make that the first round and it’s 8-4 Cards (and one of the Cubs is Vitters, who might still make it).
In contrast, the Cubs have used 76 picks on HS players in the 40th round or later, against 43 by the Cardinals (none of those 119 ever reached the majors). The lowest round that has produced a major leaguer in this time period is the 22nd (Jose Leon in 1994). The Cubs have used 130 picks after that on HS players – almost twice as many as the Cardinals (67). None of those players reached the majors (apart from a handful who didn’t sign out of HS and were redrafted later).
So there’s a pretty big difference in philosophy there: the Cubs have tended to draft large numbers of HS players in the very late rounds, presumably in the expectation that nearly all of them will accept college offers instead. The Cards don’t really do that on the same scale. What they DO do, though, is consistently commit high picks to this kind of player. The Cubs don’t do that very often. I’d say that the Cards are, overall, more successful at bringing these players through, but they’re working with better material to begin with. Maybe the truth is that the Cubs should draft more, not fewer, of this kind of player.
by Limey Cub Fan Jay on Jul 3, 2011 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Nice post - informative
If you do desire to take the time – please do the NL Central is a post of its own.
"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry
"Cubs win....what a lucky break!!" ---Harry
Yes, thanks....
…. and here it is again- one can’t assign descriptive term such as “lousy” without giving it some context. Lousy compared to what?
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
A very thorough presentation
and very welcome. In looking at more data I ran across an incredible study done by Rany Jazayerli, one the the founders of Baseball Prospectus. The study was in 12 parts and covered the draft from 1992-1999. Here are the essential rules he proposed after the study. link
It seems the fairest measure of success is WAR. And the fact that total WAR is only 18.7 out of over 200 players seems to validate our systems low success rate with them. But, you right, it does have a dependency on where they were drafted. As the study points out, value drops significantly after the 1st pick.
In the end, I’m still of the opinion that we’re better off drafting college guys. Until I see players like Vitters actually produce at Wrigley, I’m not convinced we do a capable job training them. The lack of plate discipline is pervasive among our prospects.
Look at the study if you have time. It makes a good job of comparing the value of college versus HS athlete. Add to that our failure to add much value to players in the system, I’d generally prefer to leave the job of raising our draftees to colleges.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Wait, what??
It’s a fact that less players drafted out of high school progress to the majors compared to college players that are drafted.
Did I suggest otherwise?
We just used 2 very high draft picks on HS hitters. Given our track record, perhaps that’s a poor choice.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Everyone here complains about lack of high upside elite talent in our farm...
How the hell do you think you get that when you’ve drafted 16 and beyond for the past 7 years, with 2011 and 2007 being an obvious exception? I’ll give you a hint, you’re not likely to find that elite superstar from a college player beyond the top half of the first round. If they do come from there, it’s because they went way above their perceived ceilings.
In high school bats, it’s possible to catch those kids as they’re starting to develop where people have to base their ability purely on projection. It’s much more likely to see that elite talent in a HS kid late in the first than a college player. Guess what though, with all that added potential comes all that added bust possibility.
Sometimes the people of BCB really just want to have their cake and eat it too.
Not so
The people at BCB want excellence. Instead, they’ve had to endure years and years of poor organizational management. As I pointed out, we’ve drafted numerous HS athletes, including high 1st rounders, with disastrous results. That speaks volumes for the low skills of our training of the young athletes.
Of course we need high upside draftees. But our performance heretofore indicates we haven’t done a decent job cultivating that growth. Clearly we don’t stress plate patience. Tell us what we’ve done to change that.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Ya know, you post a lot of useless information because you're comparing 1 team to your opinion.
Unless you’re willing to do the work to actually research the Cubs vs. other teams, you basically just did this report to compare the Cubs to what you think the Cubs should be. It’s pointless.
Obviously you have some difficulty understanding
cause and effect. It seems that over perhaps 200 HS draft choices over the past 20 some years has produced only 1 quality starter, Soto. And he was chosen in the 11th round. If you can’t see the horrendous results that the Cubs have had over the years, it would be pointless to waste any more time trying to educate you.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Fans of the Phillies, Braves, and Yankees seem to have their cake and eat it too.
And their cake is way tastier than ours.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
You miss my point entirely...
Those teams have a great team because they take risks on players that have turned out for them.
It seems that Cubs fans want to draft proven players that have a huge ceiling and a low floor. Those players don’t exist, and if they did they wouldn’t last past pick #1.
Gut feeling?
You know better than that. High Schoolers are more of a risk. Yes the Cubs fail and I don’t want to defend anything about their drafting/minor league development but all teams do fail more with high pick High Schoolers.
I grabbed a sample team, the San Diego Padres. Due to losing FA’s they have lots of picks. Here are their first recent round HS picks prior to 2007:
- 2007: Drew Cumberland (not sure where he is as he hasn’t appeared in any minor league games in 2011).
- 2006: Kyler Burke (Cubs fans know him).
- 2004: Matt Bush (First pick overall and a complete disaster.)
- 1999: Mark Phillips, Vince Faison, Gerik Baxter, Nick Trzesniak (who?)
- 1008: Sean Burroughs (finally a major leaguer)
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
Burroughs is back in the minor leagues now.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
He just got called up again
It’s in this morning’s LA Times.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
That was quick.
Thanks for the update.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Look
even if the Pads also have a poor record, it doesn’t justify the Cubs terrible results. And if their results do suggest that HS athletes are a bad bet, then why are we wasting high draft picks on low probability players?
The point is, we have a lousy record of developing HS athletes. That’s a fact. So why should we waste high picks on finding that needle in a haystack? Finally, how can we suggest our organizational has sufficient skills to compete for championships if our performance has been negligent in the past. Just what have we done to improve our results moving forward?
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
I agree with most of your points.
The Cubs have been terrible at drafting and developing. I don’t disagree that something needs to be done but they have to continue to draft high schoolers.
What first round college hitters have they recently drafted that have made a significant impact at the major league level? Tyler Colvin looks like a 4th outfielder and Josh Donaldson looks like a career backup. The Cubs aren’t winning with a team of those type players. Hopefully Ryan Flaherty will develop into something more.
The problem has been the whole strategy but the answer can’t be skip high schoolers.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
As a GM
if I knew my system was so remiss in bringing along HS hitters, I’d be a fool to waste a high draft and expect different results. As I pointed out, 23 of our minor league players have a OBP over .350. Only two are HS guys, Cerda and Watkins and each of them have only 1 HR. Those are hardly high upside players.
Why then should we waste a high draft choice on a system that isn’t working? It just makes absolutely no sense to me.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
I'd suggest
You just don’t have enough info to draw that conclusion,especially vis a vis other teams.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Granted that I haven't sampled other teams
However, if I had a business that was constantly losing money on a certain product, it wouldn’t matter what other stores experience was with that product. I would simply stop buying that product and stick to other products that were making me money.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Baseball isn't an ordinary business.
You should know that. It still would be useful to compare it to other teams and what they’ve done.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
If you want to make the comparison
be my guest. I never claimed we were better or worse than other teams. I did claim we were lousy. Do you dispute that? If you agree, does it make sense to waste our top two picks, one of them #9 on guys we have never been able to turn into quality starters. Soto has been the only quality one and he went in the 11th round.
If you do think we have done a good job with HS athletes, provide some evidence. And while baseball isn’t an ordinary business, ultimately they are all about results.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Actually you made an assumption.
You are assuming that the Cubs have done poorly based on your expectations.
I am not saying you are right or wrong, but we do not know how bad, mediocre, average, or whatever they are at developing these players. We cannot know the answer without knowing the success rates of other MLB teams.
Are you suggesting
that the success rate of the Cubs in this area is acceptable to you? One 11th round draftee over 20+ years has had a decent career. Can any Cub fan honestly consider that worthwhile?
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
I do not find it acceptable,
but all things need proper context. In this case that context is a comparison to the rest of MLB.
I believe the cubs need to get better and I think they will, but these things take time.
Thanks for the link
While it doesn’t differentiate between hitters and pitchers, if we assume the same % success rates, it reveals a deep problem in bringing along hitters who don’t have a foundation built by quality college coaching.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
OK but playing that game
how are the Cubs going to win with Tyler Colvin and Josh Donaldson? They were their recent first round college picks. Maybe they should never draft position players since they all suck. Problem solved.
Yes, there has been and still are issues but they can’t skip all high schoolers. You can’t win with a team of Darwin Barneys and Tyler Colvins. You stick with all college players that is what you will likely get unless you consistently have top 5 picks.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
Colvin and Barney
give us a much better chance to win over Harvey and Cunningham. Can you honestly tell us you’re pleased with high HS picks the Cubs have made over the years? And I never said we should grab only college players. The international players seem to be improving our minor league results.
My purpose was to show that we have had a terrible success rate turn HS players into credible major league stars. And I’m not against adding HS guys in later rounds. But until we exhibit better results, it’s a very bad bet to use our top choices on prospects that historically been busts. I’d take 100 Barneys and Colvins over the failures that never got close to making it to Wrigley.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Development process
The Cubs need to develop a organization-wide philosophy for developing players that stresses the most important skills that lead to big league success (ie. plate discipline for hitters/control, missing bats, and groundball rates for pitchers). Granted, every player possesses a unique skill set and requires a somewhat individualized approach, but they need to stress these things as an organization. In general, the team must draft players who fit their organizational philosophy, and then hire coaches/instructors throughout the minor league system who are on board with the philosophy.
Another thing the Cubs system struggles with is promoting players. For high school draftees, they almost always need a full year at each level before being promoted. Josh Vitters is a prime example of overly aggressive promotions. After only 288 PA in A-ball in 2009 (with a 2.4% BB rate), he was promoted to A+ and struggled mightily. Then in 2010, after spending a total of 316 PA in A+, he was bumped up to AA again was stretched far beyond his skill level. The Rays are an example of a system who patiently promotes prospects almost always one level per year, allowing their prospects to solidify their skills at each level before moving up. In addition to the on-field benefits of this approach, it has to help young players mature as adults by having more consistency in their lives (living in the same town for a full season rather moving all over the country throughout the year).
by FTLOTC on Jul 1, 2011 1:32 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
excellent post
unfortunately the Cubs organizational philosophy (if they even have one) is to swing at balls and make contact and nibble corners and pitch for strikeouts. I’d love to get a GM in here that values OBP and pitching to contact. It’ll never happen while Hendry is GM, he doesn’t value plate discipline for hitters/control, missing bats, and groundball rates for pitchers.
You want to indict an organization's coaching staff for 20 years failed high schoolers?
Who exactly do you want to indict? Do you really think that the Cubs coaching staff from 1991 is the same bunch of guys as 2011? Or the scouts? Or the director of scouting? Or the GM?
Staffs change over the years.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
This is a very good question
I hope the new ownership is asking why the organizational philosophy of the Cubs has produced so poorly.
Just looking at first round picks alone here’s what randomly selected other teams have produced from high schoolers since 1991:
KC:
Johnny Damon
Jimmy Gobble
Zack Greinke
Billy Butler
Mike Moustakas
Eric Hosmer
Boston (highly focused on college players in drafts):
Scott Hatteberg
Trot Nixon
Chris Reitsma
Michael Bowden
Casey Kelly (Included bc he was the key in getting AGon)
St. Louis:
Dmitri Young
Chris Duncan
Daric Barton
Colby Rasmus
Pit:
Jason Kendall
Sean Burnett
Neil Walker
Andrew McCutchen
LAD:
Darren Dreifort
Jason Repko
James Loney
Chad Billingsley
Scott Elbert
Blake DeWitt
Clayton Kershaw
Chris Withrow
Colorado (college heavy):
Jamie Wright
Jayson Nix
Ian Stewart
Det:
Trever Miller
Cameron Maybin
Rick Porcello
LAA (college heavy):
Casey Kotchman
Jeff Mathis
Brandon Wood
Hank Conger
TB (no drafts until 1996):
Josh Hamilton
Rocco Baldelli
BJ Upton
Delmon Young
New York Yankees:
Derek Jeter
Phil Hughes
Chicago Cubs:
Kerry Wood
John Garland
Corey Patterson
Lou Montanez
I guess it’s hard to say for sure but the Cubs don’t come out looking very good. It looks like some organizations just do it better than others, and it seems that most teams have produced as many decent position players from high school from their first round alone as the Cubs have produced from their entire drafts classes (assuming the OP is correct in his list).
"Playoffs?!" -Jim Mora
by Castro Por Presidente on Jul 5, 2011 11:59 AM CDT reply actions
I'd say the Cubs stack up against most teams on your list
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Since this discussion is about HS hitters
are you suggesting Patterson and Montanez with a combined WAR 3.2 while playing for the Cubs stack up with other teams? Neither one of them even played in an All Star game.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
You may want to take off your blinders and actually look at the other names on the list...
Yeah, not a lot of all-stars on there. It’s not like every other team has developed 10 all stars while the Cubs have none. This list goes exactly to prove my point that you’ve crucified the Cubs draft without actually bothering to look at other teams. You can’t compare them to what you THINK is a good number, you need to do more research.
It seems ironic
that you feel impelled to criticize me for lack of adequate research when you’ve done none. As I said before, you’re opinions are nothing more than gut feeling. You want someone else to prove your feelings are misplaced. You’ve brought nothing to this debate but a whiny attitude. As such, here is no need to continue with you. You’re mind is made up so the facts are irrelevant.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
The funny thing is, I didn't make a fanpost based on my gut feelings.
Also, I haven’t brought any feelings to this post, I’ve simply criticized you for using yours to claim the Cubs are bad at bringing up HS talent, when it has been proven above they are not far behind most other teams if at all.
Let’s try this again, since I know it’s been said here before, I’ll make it real big for you to help you read it better: NO ONE NEEDS TO PROVE ANYTHING HERE BUT YOU, THIS IS YOUR “PROJECT.” Jesus, how do some people make claims and think they don’t need to back them up? People are poking holes through your crap and you’re just telling THEM to do your reserach. No, we don’t need to prove a damn thing.
One All Star appearance in twenty year by a HS hitter
and that is insufficient proof? I realize logic may not be your strong suit, but your lack of acceptance is beyond comprehension. You can shout all you want but if that is acceptable to you, there doesn’t seem to be much help for you.
You want to claim it was proven above we’re not far behind other teams, but exactly where is that proof. You want to claim a list of some HS players on other teams is proof? You do know that’s not a comprehensive list of all HS players on other teams and the list includes pitchers along with the hitters.
Take a look at this study of the comparison of drafted link. It clearly shows that HS and college draftees have similar success rates. If you accept that, you must acknowledge our abysmal failure equates to lousy performance.
Finally, you have not disproved anything but your failure to be rational.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
I don't ever remember saying I thought the Cubs were doing a good job bringing up HS talent...
My entire point is you’re making a claim without being able to back your claim up with further research. It makes you look stupid because you can’t prove your claim in anyway other than saying “if you think this one thing I found is at an acceptable level you’re stupid!” You may very well be right, but you need to do more to find out whether you are or not.
In these situations you need a control, not just a variable and a gut feeling. I sincerely hope you don’t do work on any kind of theories in the professional world.
Also, outside of a handful of random points that article does not show that they HS and College players have similar success rates… you’re talking about multiple percent variables in most cases, which over such a large sample size is significant.
I'd rather appear stupid
that prove it with childish refusals to accept factual data. If you’d like to compare careers, no problem. My data wasn’t sufficient for your limited grasp of reality. Matt Garrioch’s column wasn’t acceptable because of outside random points. His study included all draft choices in a number of rounds over 20 years and you have the petulant claim that because the graphs aren’t identical, a conclusion isn’t available. There was also a study from a founding editor of Baseball Prospectus that came to the same conclusion.
You seem to be in a distinct minority who refuse to accept truth when you don’t want to say uncle. So be it. As long as you refuse to accept that the Cubs do not meet the success level of other teams with their high school, you’re obviously close minded to facts.
For the levels All time great plus superstar plus Occasional All Satr plus Starter-Solid regular here are the cumulative numbers for a few rounds.
!st 35%
Supp 12%
2nd 11%
3rd 11%
4th 5%
5th 5%
How are we doing by comparison?
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?
I’m done, it’s like talking to a wall….
You know
I feel the same way. I post actual numbers and you refuse to acknowledge the validity of them. You wanted a comparison to all teams success and I posted them. Then you claim I can’t comprehend. Ridiculous. No sense going any further.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Oh for crying out loud
You simply cannot give a descriptive term such as “lousy” to anything without giving whatever it is you’re trying to assess some context. You cannot just look at the Cubs here, call them lousy, and not show how they rate against any other team. It’s like saying Ted Williams had a horrible 1941 because he failed 6 out of every 10 times at the plate. Because shit, he couldn’t even succeed even half the time.
What’s irrational here is your utter failure to admit this simple fact.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Perhaps you need to understand
that only a fool who had no knowledge of baseball would claim a .400 BA was lousy. The same applies to someone that refused to accept that a team with only 1 All Star appearance player from a large group of draftees equals lousy. FYI, there are a number of links dealing with success rates that are available for comparison. Can you name any other baseball team who has gone 20 years with only a WAR so abysmally low for their draftees? Until then, your failure to accept facts betrays your bias to an obvious fact.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
You're hopeless
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
You know...
… it’s possible for the two of you to discuss this issue without insults.
Please stop doing that. Thank you.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
It's your thread.
It doesn’t require research from lugz.
At least it shouldn't.
You got very offended by others simply stating the facts…which is you can’t say the Cubs are worse at something than everyone else without actually showing what everyone else did too.
This is only hilarious because I've stated I'm not even to disagree with his point...
I’m simply saying you can’t make that claim without doing the proper research, and if he wants to be taken seriously he needs to compile more data.
What happened to the days when people had to back up claims with data? Simply saying, “if you think this is okay then you’re an idiot!” doesn’t do a damn thing. How are we supposed to know what is okay or not okay without a reference point? Ugh… seriously sometimes I just don’t get it.
now who is being condescending
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 7, 2011 7:52 AM CDT up reply actions
How in the world was that condescending?
I did not call him any names – I simply pointed out that the list does not hold the information that he is claiming it does.
Telling someone to take off blinders is hardly condescending.
You're in the middle of a BCB argument.
Enjoy. Prepare to hear about your tone and how something you are way more than…Yeah I’ll just stfu.
I get it now
when someone else says it you think it is condescending, but when you do it, it’s okay. Thanks for clarifying that.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 7, 2011 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions
Wha... I don't even.
What in the world are you even talking about??
hypocrites usually don't
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 7, 2011 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm assuming you're bitter about me calling you out for being condescending to Josh in another post...
You may want to wait until I’m actually condescending to try and lash out at me. Enjoy holding your grudge, hope you can get over it some day.
Three examples of condescension by you in just the last 48 hours
1. “Let’s try this again, since I know it’s been said here before, I’ll make it real big for you to help you read it better …”
2. “You may want to take off your blinders and actually look at the other names on the list…”
3. “Reading comprehension isn’t your strong point, is it?”
All excellent examples of condescension.
In conclusion, quoting you one last time: “I’m done, it’s like talking to a wall….”
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jul 7, 2011 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions
LMAO, It's nice that you've decided to spend so much time on me, I'm flattered really.
I am not and have not called out one of the more respected posters here as you did.
Second of all, I have never said that I am any better than anyone else here. If at any point in time, you feel my condensation is out of line, feel free to call me out on it as I did to you. I assure you if you do I’ll either apologize for being out of line or point out why I believe you’re incorrect. I guarantee you I wont write your name down to try and get back at you while searching through all of your posts.
Really though, completely flattered, I hope you’re having a better day now that you got that all off of your chest.
It would be interesting to see a complete list of say, the top 10 rounds
I have a feeling the Cubs would look worse the more rounds you include since the above list is supposedly complete for the Cubs for all rounds.
But I don’t have the time to look it up, so all I’ve got is a feeling.
"Playoffs?!" -Jim Mora
by Castro Por Presidente on Jul 7, 2011 11:06 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm saying......
Many players from that list above aren’t appreciably better.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
reply fail
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bleed Cubbie Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
