By the way, am I the *only* person for whom those columns don't line up?

The columns line up just fine, Craig.

So, this Weaver fellow is, like, good, eh?

Jim Burt, who the Jays drafted in round 35 but didn't sign last year, is 51st on Craig's list. I suspect he'll go a lot higher this year, especially given that he's one of the few seniors that rank that high.

And IIRC correctly, he's the son of former NY Giants nose tackle Jim Burt.

Craig, these stats are helpful. The only caution is the small size of the 2004 sample. The top 3 hitters- Lowrie, Jones and Suzuki, have had years that are out of context with their prior careers. This might mean that they've developed tremendously, or it might be a fluke. Alex Gordon looks like a heckuva player, but he's a sophomore.

The top 3 hitters- Lowrie, Jones and Suzuki, have had years that are out of context with their prior careers.

I sort of look at college players the same as minor league players that repeat levels. They should show improvements, and sometimes substantial improvements (as they physically mature) as their competition is more or less the same each year. I noticed a spike in SLG% in a lot of the players from previous years.

Draft is 10 days away!

BA chat at 1 pm today.

Terrific study Craig. I can't imagine how much work must be involved.

More and more I am thinking the Jays should draft Kurt Suzuki.
He is not only third on this list as a hitter, Baseball America has him ranked as the third best defensive player in the draft, regardless of position. He is also a bit younger than most juniors. He does not turn 21 until October. He is in fact younger than draft eligible sophomore Eddy Martinez-Esteve who turns 21 in July. Hopefully this indicates that the improvement he made this year is simply age related gains in ability rather than a fluke.

Maybe they can land him with pick #32?? He is likely to be taken in the sandwhich round.

http://www.battersbox.ca/archives/00001795.shtml
Andy, COMN and scroll down to posts 68-71 for a discussion Craig and I had about Suzuki. Craig obtained opposition SB% data (from where, I'm not sure, yea Craig), and it looks to us like Powell and Iannetta are the primo defensive catchers in the draft.

Landon Powell looks like a very good catcher. He and Suzuki both have good defensive reputations. They also fit with the Jays philosopy of aquiring patient hitters.

BA gives them the following ratings in their best tools article.
Powell: Best arm (all positions) 3; Best Power hitter 5
Suzuki: Best defence (all positions) 3; Best Strike-Zone judgement 1

Powell has the longer and more impressive track record as a hitter, but it looks like Suzuki may have caught up to him this year.

I prefer Suzuki primarily because he is 19 months younger than Powell.

Suzuki DoB October 4 1983
Powell DoB March 19 1982

I think Suzuki is probably the second best college position player prospect available in this year's draft (behind Stephen Drew). I doubt very much he'll be taken by the time the Jays select, but they have Cash and Quiroz so it's probably not a good fit.

The columns line up for me in Internet Explorer, but not in Mozilla.

It's true that catcher does not represent a positional need for the Jays, but I think their first concern has to be getting a good player first and worry about rebalancing between positions later.

I like J.P.'s strategy of getting a position player in the 1st round since their development is more predictable than that of pitchers. Drafting pitchers in lower rounds where expectations of success are lower means their unpredictability can work for you rather than against you as is liable to be the case in the 1st round.

Also all the really obvious choices at pitcher are likely to be gone by the 16th spot. There will still be interesting pitchers available but no one who stands out from pitchers who will be available as a sandwich pick or in the 2nd round.

Stephen Drew will ceartainly be gone. Suzuki is the only other position player (college) that I can think of who would be worth the 16th pick.

Suzuki, though, has quite a lot of his offensive value in his batting average. I'm always leery of BA-heavy players at the college level, because the aluminum bats with the big sweet spot make it easier to hit for a high average.

We'll see. I think he'll make an excellent pick for someone. His age difference vis-a-vis Powell (good catch, Andy) makes him the #1 catcher in the draft, I think.

Stephen Drew will ceartainly be gone. Suzuki is the only other position player (college) that I can think of who would be worth the 16th pick.

It wouldn't shock me to see the Jays take either Putnam or Ferris with their first pick.

Spencer Fordin has a good preview of the Jays' draft strategy.

http://sports.fullerton.edu/baseball/2004/stats/teamcume.htm
COMN for Suzuki's updated statistics to May 24. There is a lot to like. In addition to the power and the walks, he has struck out only 23 times in over 200 ABs.

It is true that if his arm is not good enough to make it as a catcher, there is a good chance that his bat will carry him at some other position.

Craig, excellent work, it will be interesting to follow along with these lists on draft day. One suggestion: the hitters list would be more useful if AB or PA were included.

Suzuki, though, has quite a lot of his offensive value in his batting average. I'm always leery of BA-heavy players at the college level, because the aluminum bats with the big sweet spot make it easier to hit for a high average.

Are there any studies that show which stats at the college level translate well to major league success and which don't? I'd guess hitters who put up good K/BB ratios and have some extra-base power do quite well in the minors/majors, but I really have no idea.

I really, really, really wish they'd get rid of aluminum bats at the college level (really). It's just a matter of time before some pitcher gets killed by a line drive, and I think hitters would be better off having more wood bat experience. Throwing inside fastballs against hitters using metal sucks because hitters can just bloop hits into the outfield off of their thumbs.

Jonny, they are. AB are the 4th column, which I've mislabelled.

Are there any studies that show which stats at the college level translate well to major league success and which don't? I'd guess hitters who put up good K/BB ratios and have some extra-base power do quite well in the minors/majors, but I really have no idea.

This is a project of mine that I will be giving serious attention to over the next 3 months.

One of the reasons teams scout the summer leagues so heavily is to see how hitters fare with wooden bats. I think the colleges should revert to wooden bats as well. When I first started reading Craig's study I too wondered how some of these hitters would grade out with wooden bats. BA in some of their scouting reports on college hitters will point out that their lack of bat speed may not play so well in pro ball. BA has yet to go over California based prospects so there is no report on Suzuki there yet. In my humble opinion, please don't take him with either 16 or 32.

AB are the 4th column, which I've mislabelled.

Perfect.

I really, really, really wish they'd get rid of aluminum bats at the college level (really). It's just a matter of time before some pitcher gets killed by a line drive

Spoken like a pitcher... In seriousness, does a line drive by a college hitter using an aluminum bat move faster than a line drive by a major league hitter using a wooden bat?

According to the mlb Blue Jay draft story (reference in the minor league thread), the Jays will choose a pitcher in round 1.

Spoken like a pitcher... In seriousness, does a line drive by a college hitter using an aluminum bat move faster than a line drive by a major league hitter using a wooden bat?

Yeah, I guess my prejudices are showing. :)

I would guess that they'd move a lot quicker. I've hit some pretty smoking line-drives with a metal bat before, and I'm just a skinny guy with no bat speed. But I don't think there's much out there other than anecdotal evidence.

I also wish they'd make a rule for pro ball that the width of the handle of the bat be larger. I think a pitcher is going to get seriously hurt one day from a flying bathead from a broken bat. But again, my prejudices are showing.

Hmm....Didnt JP say that last year?? If he does decide, I can see Josh Fields as a very nice fit, great OBP, lots of walks, and power potential.

In Fordin's article it said that Fields' tools besides his bat were marginal. Don't we already have that playing @ 3rd base and should we not shoot a little higher. I know Hinske was rookie of the year but his defense is suspect at times. There is no perfect pick but I think Fields has gotten ink this year because the position portion of the draft is so weak.

Fields numbers look decent, and he has not been focused on baseball as well. He could turn out well, if they go with a pitcher, in the 1st round, they might take a positional player with #32. They also have two 3rd rounders.

Baseball America in their assessment of Oklahoma based draft picks thinks that Fields could be an all-star 3rd baseman. His defense is raw but they feel it wiil improve with a 100% commitment to baseball.

Bits from BA profile.

Josh Fields, 3b

Fields is no slouch and more of a sure thing at the plate (then BJ). Fields should hit for average and power (though his homers are down from 12 in 2003 to six through mid-May), and he's patient enough to take walks when he's pitched around. He moves well, has good hands and a strong, accurate arm. It's easy to project Fields as an all-star third baseman, which is why he'll go in the middle of the first round.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2787
Are there any studies that show which stats at the college level translate well to major league success and which don't?

There was an article at Baseball Prospectus by Boyd Nation about a month ago, which attempted to look at what characteristics carry over from college to the low minors. Not surprisingly, walks and strikeouts had the highest correlation.

COMN for the article (premium article).

As usual in this type of article, BP doesn't discuss the relative importance of each stat to run-scoring. It is entirely possible that batting average is superior to walk rate as a predictor of future run production, even though the year-on-year correlation is lower.

Uniform number would probably have a pretty good year-on-year correlation, but I don't think that means a great deal.

I'm not arguing with the strategy of drafting guys who understand the strike zone, just with the idea that it's the most (or only) important chracteristic of a hitter.

check out Rutgers duo of hitters Badger and Frazier. Frazier is highly regarded, but Badger, second baseman (who led the big east in walks (and is Rutgers all time walk leader)) isnt even expected to go in the first six rounds. Some team is going to be lucky to get him if he really goes that late.

Badger is a Toronto Blue Jay. He was signed last week as a fifth-year senior free agent. The article on the Rutgers website suggested he was headed for Auburn.

Apparently Badger has a shot at being named an Academic All-American. He's already graduated (major in finance and a minor in philosophy).

Along with Matt Vanderbosch of Oral Roberts, I'd call Badger one of the two best leadoff men in the NCAA this past year.

By the way, Vanderbosch actually hits third. But he's a leadoff type.