Draft Effectiveness

Wednesday, June 17 2020 @ 12:32 AM EDT

Contributed by: John Northey

With the first ever 5 round draft done I've been wondering how effective are those later rounds that cost MLB a lot every year. Are those rounds really useful?

Given how baseball works, you need at least 5 years, ideally 10, to judge a draft so lets dig into 2010 (all are 27 or older now)
Round # then how many with 30/20/10 WAR and how many reached the majors.  All data via BR.  I generally view 10 WAR as a strong player (Ricky Romero has alternated between 9.9 and 10.1 depending on latest updates to bWAR so he is the divider, at 20 relievers get considered for the HOF, 50 for all others).  WAR is a blunt tool, but useful for this purpose.
  1. 4 with 30+ bWAR, 4 more with 10+, 32 of 50 reached the majors. (all but 1 of those who reached the majors did sign, that one has negative WAR)
  2. 1 with 30+ bWAR, 0 more with 10+, 18 of 32 reached the majors. (all signed who reached)
  3. 1 with 10+ bWAR, 13 of 33 reached the majors. (just 1 didn't sign, had just 1 WAR)
  4. 2 with 10+ bWAR, 12 of 30 reached the majors (all rounds now have 30 picks, 1 who reached DNS just 1.9 WAR)
  5. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 10 reached the majors
  6. 1 with 10+ bWAR, 14 reached the majors (one with 10+ DNS)
  7. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 6 reached the majors
  8. 2 with 10+ bWAR, 7 reached the majors
  9. 1 with 30+ bWAR, 1 more with 10+ bWAR, 10 reached the majors
  10. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 6 reached the majors (net of -0.2 WAR so pretty much a useless round)
  11. 1 with 10+ bWAR, 9 reached the majors
  12. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 5 reached the majors
  13. 1 with 10+ bWAR, 6 reached the majors
  14. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 2 reached the majors
  15. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 4 reached the majors - all with negative WAR
  16. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 3 reached the majors
  17. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 5 reached the majors
  18. 1 with 10+ bWAR, 1 reached the majors (Kris Bryant who didn't sign with the Jays sadly - oh if only eh?)
  19. 1 with 10+ bWAR, 5 reached the majors (4 of the 5 didn't sign, but the 10+ guy did - Adam Eaton)
  20. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 4 reached the majors
  21. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 7 reached the majors
  22. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 1 reached the majors (negative WAR in 12 games)
  23. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 3 reached the majors (2 with 8+ WAR, but just 1 signed at this time)
  24. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 8 reached the majors
  25. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 3 reached the majors
  26. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 5 reached the majors
  27. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 3 reached the majors
  28. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 1 reached the majors (negative WAR in just 35 games)
  29. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 2 reached the majors
  30. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 4 reached the majors
  31. 2 with 10+ bWAR, 5 reached the majors (2 are Kevin Kiermaier who signed, and Aaron Judge who sadly didn't sign with the A's)
  32. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 1 reached the majors (117 games)
  33. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 2 reached the majors (neither signed, so the first true washout round)
  34. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 1 reached the majors (again a DNS with 0.0 WAR in 32 games 60 PA)
  35. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 4 reached the majors (1 did sign and has 1.1 WAR - the Jays Danny Barnes)
  36. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 2 reached the majors (both negative WAR, just 1 signed)
  37. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 1 reached the majors (Chad Green who DNS with the Jays)
  38. No one made the majors from this group
  39. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 4 reached the majors (all negative WAR, just 1 signed)
  40. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 3 reached the majors (none signed at the time)
  41. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 4 reached the majors
  42. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 1 reached the majors (0 WAR in 1 game, DNS at the time)
  43. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 4 reached the majors (none signed at the time)
  44. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 1 reached the majors (DNS and negative WAR anyways)
  45. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 1 reached the majors (DNS)
  46. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 4 reached the majors
  47. No one made the majors from this group
  48. 0 with 10+ bWAR, 1 reached the majors(DNS and negative WAR anyways)
  49. No one made the majors from this group
  50. No one made the majors from this group
Note: 2011 also had 50 rounds, 2012 was down to 40 which is where it stayed until this year.

So a quick check there and you can see no one drafted or signed from round 32 on got to 10 WAR - so not even the 'what the heck, lets see if he will sign' guys drafted that late have done anything of note.  Complete flop round (0 reaching who signed) happened 13 times, from round 33 to 50 (13 of the last 18).

Just 6 players (out of 1,200 drafted) with 10+ WAR from rounds 11 to the end.  Just 4 in rounds 6-10 (cut this year 150 drafted), 8 in rounds 1-5 (out of 175 drafted).  This includes guys who didn't sign like Bryant thus generous to the 11th and beyond rounds as every 10+er drafted in the first 10 rounds did sign.

I suspect I'd get similar results for other years.  A quick check of 2015: 10+ WAR from rounds 11-40 = 0, in fact none are over 1.2 I think after running through them all quickly.  David Fletcher is the best for rounds 6-10 at 6.8 WAR (no one else over 3).  In fact Paul DeJong in the 4th was the last picked who reached 10 WAR so far.    In fact, DeJong and Alex Bregman are the only guys from that draft over 10 WAR so far, with Andrew Benintendi  at 9.9  The Jays only one to reach is Travis Bergen.

Going back further instead to 2005 (most would be retired by now - an 18 year old then is 33 now).  Round 1: 15 with 10+ WAR (including Romero) - 3 over 40 WAR (so a shot at the HOF).  Round 2: 2 with 20+ WAR, Round 3: 1 with 40 WAR (Brett Gardner) , Round 4: 1 with 10+ WAR, Round 5: 0 with 10+ WAR; Rounds 6-10:  7 with 10+ WAR (2 DNS); Rounds 11 and beyond: 15 with 10+ WAR (12 DNS) (28th round latest who signed - Sergio Romo; last to not sign 50th round #1496 overall Buster Posey) so just 3 who signed who got 10+ WAR after round 10.

So that gives a pretty good image I'd say between those 3 drafts - the real talent is all in the early round (1-3) some solid guys still there for 4-10 but after 10 it is slim pickings.  Yeah, the odd HOF'er shows up (1988 Mike Piazza round 62) but it is very rare and those guys probably would've signed for the $20k price MLB is giving out now.  So the $125k they were handing out like candy to draft picks after round #11 is pretty much wasted money.  Guys with under 10 WAR are spare parts.  Rounds #6-10 cost just shy of $30 million in 2019 (factoring in maximum bonus and 5% overage allowed - many signed for less so that cash could be used on picks #1-5 or for someone lower).  The Jays in 2019 spent $2,047,000 minimum on rounds 11 and beyond (that we know of via 2019 Blue Jays MLB Draft Signing Table - Bluebird Banter).  In 2013 they spent $830k to sign Rowdy Tellez and $700k on Jake Brentz (part of the trade to get Mark Lowe in 2015).  In 2015 they spent $500k to sign Reggie Pruitt who hasn't got past A+ yet or had an OPS over 705 as an OF, $200k to sign Christian Williams who reached AA last year but at 1B and just a 661 OPS last year (no bonus info for most that year or years before).  In 2016 Travis Hosterman got $400k (8 games in 2016 and that was it) $200 for Chavez Young who reached A+ last year and had some PA in spring this year.  2017 saw Patrick (P.K.) Morris get $206,500, no late rounders getting more than $125 in 2018.2019 saw Michael Dominguez get $197,500, and J-C Masson get $297,500.  So lots spent on late rounds but only Tellez has done anything so far with Chavez Young as high as #15 on prospect lists last winter and Brentz being part of a trade.

The more I dig the smarter MLB seems to me to cut the draft down more and more, with smaller bonuses for non-drafted guys.  I'd be shocked if they didn't do an international draft after the next CBA with strong limits for both drafts.  Heck, even a merged draft is possible (making it just one draft worldwide with 10 rounds, must be 18 or older to be drafted, just $20-$50k max if you aren't drafted).  I can easily see the players agreeing to that.  Only Tellez has provided the Jays any real value or has shown potential value outside of Young (might still) and Brentz (a piece of a trade, not the key piece I'm sure).  For current major leaguers the weaker the minors is the longer their careers could be - a bit selfish but that is kind of the point of a union - to protect those who are working today first - not to ensure those who might work there someday get more money today.

7 comments


https://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20200617003205170