After I posted the first installment of this draft series, a reader wrote:  "Is there any way that you could break down the first round? I would imagine that a significant amount of the difference between the first and second round occurs in the top 5 picks or so. There seem to be a handful of 'sure things' each year which, though they don't always pan out, usually at least appear in the majors. If you take out the top 5 or so picks, is the first round better than all the other rounds?"

It was a good question, so I spent a few extra days reorganizing the data and decided to go a bit beyond the basic comparison suggested (i.e. first five picks compared to the remainder of the first round) so that we could look at each selection of the first round of the draft...well, up to the 31st pick anyway.

The First Round, Pick-by-Pick

Table 1 breaks down each choice--through the 2002 draft--by the categories that I used in my first series on the draft, which ran about three years ago.  As modified from the inaugural article, written in early 2001:

Position Players Typology:

• Star players:  no strict criteria (like Potter Stewart, we'll know it when we see it); Orioles examples:  Cal Ripken, Eddie Murray

• Starting players:  not quite stars, but good enough to start at the big league level for more than a few years...and typically a lot longer than that; Orioles examples:  Rich Dauer, Al Bumbry

• Journeymen:  a career, but not as a starter for more than a few years; Orioles examples:  Terry Crowley, Wayne Krenchicki

• Cup of coffee types:  guys who just barely reached the big leagues at all; Orioles examples:  Drungo Hazewood, Pete Stanicek

Pitchers Typology:

• Star pitchers, either starter or reliever; Orioles examples:  Mike Mussina, Gregg Olson

• Contributors; not stars, but solid starters or relievers for more than just a few seasons; Orioles examples:  Mike Boddicker, John Habyan

• Journeymen (more or less the same as the position player version); Orioles examples:  Jeff Ballard, Mike Oquist

• Cup of coffee types (see above); Orioles examples:  Allan Ramirez, Gordie Dillard

TABLE 1:  FIRST ROUND PICKS, BY DRAFT SLOT, 1965-2002

It should be noted that, over time, if we were to restrain the analysis to those players drafted through the 2002 season, the data in the table would shift somewhat to the right...and, probably within 12-15 years, would essentially be "final."  As things stand, some players represented in the "Never Played MLB" category will reach the bigs, and some of the cup of coffee types will move to a higher category, and so forth.  However, there's little reason to presume that the relative distribution--that is, the comparison between the different selection numbers--would markedly change.

What can we glean from Table 1?

It is a tremendous advantage to have one of the top four picks in the first round of the amateur draft.  Of the #1 picks in the draft--that is, the first players chosen each year--only two, to date, will not reach the big leagues:  Steve Chilcott, the Mets' #1 pick in 1966 and Brien Taylor, the Yankees' #1 choice in 1991.  The other four players represented in the relevant cell of the table were all selected in 1999 or later...in fact, one of them (Joe Maurer, the Twins top pick in 2001) has reached the bigs...but he hadn't as of the end of the 2002 season and so, for the consistency of presentation, he's regarded as "not having played" at the major league level.  The odds are excellent that all four of the other players will, at some point, reach the majors.  (Josh Hamilton, the Devil Rays' #1 selection in 1999 keeps getting in trouble and probably has the worst chance, but I wouldn't put it past even him to make it to the major leagues in time.)  

Number two choices aren't quite as likely to reach the big leagues, but they're not that far off...only four #2 picks, through the 2002 season, will definitely never play big league ball...in fact, the number is exactly four, because the fifth player in that cell--B.J. Upton--is now playing big league ball.  Only five #3 picks won't make it and the number ticks up to seven for #4 picks, but from that point on, things start to jump.  Fully 13 #5 picks, for instance, have washed out completely.  That drops to six certain washouts at #6, but bounces back up to ten at #7 and 11 at #8.  By pick #9, the washout number reaches 14.

Regardless of actual success reaching the big leagues, the focus ought to be on the ability to generate "regular" and "star" players...because, after all, if a player reaches the big leagues but doesn't contribute meaningfully, what difference does it really make?

The odds of developing at least a "regular" player--after accounting for the fact that things probably aren't settled for a minority of choices--is roughly 60% with a pick from 1-4.  "Star" player development is low regardless of the choice; the odds are better with the very highest draft picks (13 of the 29 first round selections listed as "stars" here were chosen 1-4), but they're never particularly good.  As you can see, as you move down the list the odds of developing a "regular or better" player drop off markedly, though not in a purely linear fashion.  For reasons unbeknownst to me, fifth selections have been particularly horrible through the years and seventh choices have been even worse.

After the fourth choice in the first round--for the remainder of the first round--the odds of selecting a player who turns into at least a regular are in the range of 20-25%.  Pretty sobering, no?

(Note:  In the earlier presentation, 31 first round players were designated as stars; two of those players were chosen in the secondary phase of the draft, which is not part of this particular analysis.)

Supplemental Draft Picks

If the "conventional" part of the first round (after the first four picks) isn't bad enough, consider supplemental picks.  Picks added to the end of the first round have been around, in one form or another, since 1982 and are currently used--heavily, I might add--to "compensate" teams who have lost free agent players classified (at least) as relatively high level performers.  It took some doing, but I separated as many of the supplemental picks as I could (this is almost certainly not 100% accurate, but then what is?  I do regard it as close enough to draw some meaningful conclusions) from the "standard" ones and classify them as was the case Table 1.

TABLE 2:  SUPPLEMENTAL PICKS

Again, while the same caveat about rightward movement in Table 1 applies here, it's a pretty grim picture that is painted.  At best, a team has a 10-15% chance of developing a "regular" (note that there hasn't been a single true star selected with a supplemental pick) with a compensatory choice--something to consider when weighing the advantages of choosing a draft pick as compensation for a would-be free agent player.

How the Orioles Stack Up, Historically

So where do the Orioles fall, in terms of overall drafting prowess?  

The biggest problem that the Orioles have had with the draft, historically, is very few 1-4 selections.  Through 2002, the Orioles had, in 38 drafts, had exactly four picks in the first four; two turned out to be "regulars," one is a journeyman and the fourth is still in the early stages of development (Adam Loewen, the fourth pick in 2002):  Ben McDonald (the team's only #1 choice ever) and Gregg Olson (4th in 1988) are the "regulars" and Jeffrey Hammonds (fourth in 1992) is the journeyman.  It should be noted that all three of the classified players (i.e. excluding Loewen) had their careers significantly impacted by injury.

So, if the Orioles drafted more or less as one could expect (though not hope--note the absence of a single star in the group of top four picks in Orioles history) with the few top four picks they've had, how have they done with later choices?

The Orioles, through 2002, had only three other top 10 picks and the only one to reach the big leagues (Mark Smith, selected ninth in 1991) was a journeyman.  Beyond that, the franchise has scored a few successes with later first round choices, including five regulars (Don Hood, 17th choice in 1969), Bobby Grich (borderline star, selected 19th in 1967), Jay Powell (19th in 1993), Rich Dauer (24th in 1974) and Pete Harnisch (27th in 1987), as well as a major coup with one star--Mike Mussina (20th in 1990).  

Overall, however, it can't be considered a particularly successful endeavor for the franchise...nor a particularly unsuccessful one.  Through 2002, the Orioles had received 47 first round choices (including supplemental picks), and while many of them haven't been of the high round variety, the club has scored as follows:  28 (roughly 60%) haven't reached the big leagues; four (about 9%) fall into the cup of coffee category; seven (about 15%) are classified as journeymen; another seven (15%) are regulars; and one (2%) receives star billing.  That means that nearly 85% of the Orioles first round picks over the years have been, essentially insignificant in a contribution sense and only one falls into the category of those having long, extremely productive careers.  The comparable category numbers for all of baseball over the same span of time:  45% never made the bigs, 15% cup of coffee, 18% journeymen, 19% regulars, 2% stars.  Given that the Orioles have had, overall, very few high picks, I'd say that the overall Baltimore numbers aren't too far off from what one would expect from the average team.  So, the Orioles have, essentially, been an average franchise in terms of first round drafting with below average materials (i.e. draft picks to work with).

But that's a mosaic of the team's first round drafting performance over the entire history of the draft.  What about lately?  We'll take a look at that in part two. 

Next:  Part II:  The 1999 Draft -- A Golden Opportunity Missed?

DeMacio & The Draft:  Part I - Why the Top Rounds of the Draft Are the Key

Return to Birds in the Belfry home page