If ever you google something MLB and a baseball-reference link pops up, you're all set
http://www.baseball-reference.com/d...junreg&overall_pick=2&query_type=overall_pick
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
MLB Thread 2015
- Thread starter mezzrow
- Start date
- Status
If ever you google something MLB and a baseball-reference link pops up, you're all set
http://www.baseball-reference.com/d...junreg&overall_pick=2&query_type=overall_pick
Depending on how much you nerd, read this; doesn't answer the question, but interesting.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/tht-live/analyzing-the-mlb-draft-using-war/
Interesting. I wouldn't have expected high school pitchers WAR to exceed that of the college pitchers. That runs counter to the Moneyball hypothesis
Didn't notice that; it's only 8-years of data, so wonder if a few outliers affect the data. This related piece shows college pitchers outperforming HS pitchers (but I don't know what WAB is). These also ignore later rounds, but I suppose that wouldn't change the mean numbers (should see a steady dropoff).
Separately, is WAR a zero-sum metric? If so, would think pitchers and batters average out over all data.
I think it's a nonzero situation. The defined replacement level is maintained at 0, so that's why you see some negative figures in the table
Sorry, I mean across all pitchers and batters is it zero sum (i.e., Σ pitcher WAR = Σ batter WAR.) If not, that either solves the age-old question (are pitchers or batters more valuable?), or maybe instead shows some bias in the metric.
I have a feeling it would skew a bit towards the batters but I'll have to look at the formulas. Ultimately, they are using two different formulas for pitchers and batters so I would imagine there to be some skew. And, if I recall correctly different sources use different formulas to calculate WAR
A Rod was a #1 pick, no?
Yes, though it remains to be seen if his lot get in
I guess WAR is baseball's unified theory; if every instance is a pitching/batting/fielding success or failure, makes me wonder how these balance. In the short term (i.e., no-hitter) there's regularly no balance, so no need for there to be balance in a single season either I suppose.
Yeah. He was so incredible when he first came up...much like Bonds...no need for it. They'd have been HOFer's without it.
Some great memories in that for me!
Gave me goosebumps that...RIP Niehaus.
barneygumble
Player Valuation: £60m
I absolutely loved Mike Piazza! He's my first baseballing hero as a young lad growing up, and I had to pleasure of seeing Piazza and Griffey Jr. both play. Not many non-yanks can say that.
That moment he hit the Homer straight after 9/11, is without doubt the clincher to why he's going in to Cooperstown as a Met!
That moment he hit the Homer straight after 9/11, is without doubt the clincher to why he's going in to Cooperstown as a Met!
Looking at the voting, if you count Piazza and Bagwell as PED-suspects, the numbers are increasing. I think we'll see something definite when A-Rod is eligible. A-Rod is still several years away, isn't he. Seems these guys will get sorted out sooner rather than later. The cutoff is 75% for election.
Questionable guys:
Jeff Bagwell (surely goes in next year?): 41%, 56%, 59%, 54%, 55%, 71%
Mike Piazza: 57%, 62%, 69%, 83%
The PED guys:
Roger Clemens: 37%, 35%, 37%, 45%
Barry Bonds: 36%, 34%, 36%, 44%
Mark McGwire: 23%, 23%, 21%, 19%, 19%, 16%, 10%, 12%
Rafael Palmeiro:11%, 12%, 12%, 4%
Sammy Sosa: 8%, 7%, 6%, 7%
Questionable guys:
Jeff Bagwell (surely goes in next year?): 41%, 56%, 59%, 54%, 55%, 71%
Mike Piazza: 57%, 62%, 69%, 83%
The PED guys:
Roger Clemens: 37%, 35%, 37%, 45%
Barry Bonds: 36%, 34%, 36%, 44%
Mark McGwire: 23%, 23%, 21%, 19%, 19%, 16%, 10%, 12%
Rafael Palmeiro:11%, 12%, 12%, 4%
Sammy Sosa: 8%, 7%, 6%, 7%
- Status