When your team is in a rebuilding mode, it is completely understandable that casual interest in prospects and draft selections can climb to obsession level for some people. It just makes sense that when you are unsatistfied with the performance on the field, a lot of thought goes into who might be coming in to fill some positions and increase production. Of course, when looking at Free Agents, there is a lot of data available, so decisions can be made with some sense of security about future production. But, with prospects and draft picks, the world is a lot cloudier, and while there is much discussion of specific names each year, I've never seen a 'general overview' of what one can expect from draft picks.

Lucky for us today, there is a growing cache of on-line resources, so we can look back and see all the names in every draft going back for decades. To educate myself, (mostly), I went back to examine some drafts, to try and get a feel for exactly what the "odds" are for success/failure when the draft comes around each year.

I started by examining the entire first round for various years from the past to get a feel for subsequent results. It is EASY to see from first round draft picks, that the success-rate of ML scouts at the drafting stage is LUCKY to break 25%. Three out of 4 FIRST ROUND draft picks either never reach the majors at all, or they get a cup of coffee or a brief stint as bench-filler.

Okay, maybe using the entire first round is too wide a group - after all, some clubs are just horrid at drafting/developing. So, what if we look only at the top 10 from 3 classes, (to get us the top 30 specs), over a 3-year period. Remember, this is the CREAM of the CREAM. If you're a top 10 pick, it's pretty much guaranteed that you were at least near the top of everyone's draft board. To be fair, you need to go back far enough to ensure that all these picks had enough time to prove themselves, (or not).

'87 - '89 -- (thought it would be neat to start with the Griffey class). Here are the results:

====================

Out of the TOP 10 drafted each year from 1987-1989, AT LEAST 4 players either never even made the show, or if they did, really had no business getting there. That's a 40% result of complete and utter failure. Out of the 30 players, only 2 could be considered legit Hall of Fame players, (Griffey and Thomas). Outside of those two, you've got roughtly two 'good' careers per draft class: McDowell and Appier in 1987 -- Benes and Ventura in '88 and Charles Johnson in 1989.

You could maybe throw in Abbott from '88 as a pretty good carreer.

In the end - what are the percentages?

Abject failure = 40%
Forgettable career = 33%
Good career = 20%
Hall of Fame = 7%

===================================

Another potential examination - I have heard the phrase a "4-per-year" talent. Well, let's go to the tape and see what the results are for the top 4 draft picks over a 10 year period. We'll assume that even 17-year-old "4-per-year" talents should make the bigs within 5 years of the draft. Let's add an extra 7 years of actual ML experience, so we'll scan the drafts from '85 thru '94.

====================

That's 40 candidates - the top 4 of 10 drafts. The assessment?

Abject failure = 7 (17.5%)
Forgettable career = 17 (42.5%)
Good career = 13 (32.5%)
Hall of Fame = 3 (7.5%)

I'm sure that some arguments could be made about where the dividing line between forgettable career and good career should be drawn. But, I tried to be generally positive about my rankings. In the end, the incontrovertible result is that, dealing with JUST the top 4 picks each year, you are TWICE as likely that said player will never make the majors at all as to the likelihood that he'll become a Hall of Famer.

The point here is that the stock 'perception' is that if a player is a top 10 (or top 5) spec, that he is DESTINED to become a major leaguer, with a 'perceived' downside that he 'only' manages to become average. The reality is that the top draft picks are (as a group) twice as likely to never make the majors at all as they are to become stars.

And, they are more likely to have ho-hum, 'journeyman' (or worse) careers in the bigs than they are to have actual sustained production in a starting role.

The key point is that before one can really understand something, one has to understand the foundation point. Getting info that says Triunfel is 80% more likely to become a Hall of Famer than ... Tillman, (for example), could be valuable info. But, to fairly assess the situation, one needs to know the reality that there is a (for arguments sake), 40% chance Truinfel will never reach the majors - and a 42% that Tillman won't.

The reason that top specs are NOT traded one-for-one with existing productive major leaguers is because the baseball people already understand the reality - that 'talent' assessment is simply not as important as raw numbers. You don't win the trade-for-specs war by getting *THE* juicy spec. You win it numerically, by assembling 8,10,12 top specs, and counting that the numbers will eventually net you a gem or two.

When Adam Jones, (et al), were traded for Bedard, there was wailing and gnashing of teeth about losing Jones. The general take was that he "might" become something special. The reality is that he's FAR more likely to become David Delucci or Emil Brown than he is to become Andruw Jones, (the one from 5 years ago).

The scouts can also make completely bonehead assessments in the opposite direction. Albert Pujols, perhaps the greatest player of the current generation, was drafted in 13th round. How is it that 401 players were selected ahead of him? Because projecting baseball production for prospects is incredibly hard - and incredibly inaccurate. And unless one understand how poor the ability for the most learned scouts and organizations actually are -- then one cannot begin to appreciate the vast expanse of doubt and uncertainty associated with every draft or every trade involving prospects.

One dreams of drafting AROD and Griffey. But, you're more likely to get Mark Merchant or Brien Taylor. Of course, there are always the "once-in-a-lifetime" guy that is so good that EVERYONE understands they really can't miss. How can you distinguish between the hype and the true unique gems? Well, these select few will end up on the cover of Sports Illustrated before they've had their first major league experience -- you know, like Brad Komminsk.