Here's the second part of the 2002 draft comparison I started the other day, looking at the success rates of players in the NBA and NHL drafts. See that post for an explanation of what I'm trying to accomplish and a discussion of some of the limiting factors of this type of analysis. The format is almost the same, but the ratings are tweaked slightly to allow for the differences in each sport; full explanations are below. I've also included the ratings as a column in the actual spreadsheets to make it easier to see how players performed relative to their draft position. I have an analysis of the differences between leagues at the end of the post as well.
NBA:
[Table from Wikipedia]
System:
5 – All-star (at least one all-star game selection)
4 – Solid (played in 60 or more games last season)
3 – Marginal (played in the NBA last season)
2 – One-off (played at least 100 career NBA games)
1 – Bust (played less than 100 games)
Ratings:
5 – Ming, Butler, Stoudemire: three players, 10.7 per cent of all 28 picks.
4 - Nene, Wilcox, Prince, Salmons: four players, 14.3 per cent of all picks.
3 – Jeffries, Ely, Jones, Dixon, Dunleavy, Rush, Krstic, Gooden: eight players, 28.6 per cent of all picks.
2 – Tskitishvili, Wagner, Nachbar, Haislip, Welsch, Woods, Jacobsen, Dickau: eight players, 28.6 per cent of all picks.
1 – Jay Williams, Borchardt, Humphrey, Frank Williams, Jeffries: five players, 17.9 per cent of all picks.
Notes: The NBA draft is limited to two rounds, so every player taken in the first round got at least some time in the league; thus, the one-off standard is set higher than in any of the other leagues, where just making the big show bumps you from a 1 to a 2. Also, some players play considerable amounts of games but relatively few minutes, inflating their ranking by this method, while others play a lot of minutes but few games thanks to injury, reducing their ranking. The classic examples here are Stoudemire, Wilcox and Jeffries. Stoudemire only played 53 games last season before he was injured, but racked up 1948 minutes; if not for his previous All-Star nod, he would have been a three in this system. Jeffries played 1310 minutes in 56 games before an injury, so he's a three that easily could have been a four. By contrast, Wilcox played 62 games but only recorded 1049 minutes, so he's a four who probably deserves to be a three. The team situation of each player also comes into play; a good player on a terrific team may get less time than a bad player on a lousy team. As pointed out earlier, this isn't intended as an absolute evaluation of any one player, but rather an attempt to measure how these draft picks stack up against those found in other sports.
On specific players: Dunleavy was injured last year and only played in 18 games. Jay Williams, the #2 overall pick, only played in 2003. Tskitishvili hasn’t played since 2006 and Wagner's out of league since 2007. Haislip hasn’t played since 2005; he only played nine games in his last season and 79 in his career. Nachbar was in the league and playing 60+ games until 2008, but went to Europe; he may return this year. Humphrey and Frank Williams haven’t played since 2005, Woods hasn’t played since 2006 and Jacobsen played in 2008 but not last year. Rush played only 25 games last year, while Dickau went to Europe last year but played 67 games in 2008.
NHL:
[Table from Wikipedia]
System:
5 – All-star (at least one all-star game selection)
4 – Solid (played in 60 or more games last season)
3 – Marginal (played in the NHL last season)
2 – One-off (played in the NHL at some point)
1 – Bust (never played in the NHL)
Ratings:
5: Nash, Bouwmeester: two players, 6.7 per cent of all 30 picks
4: Pitkanen, Upshall, Lupul, Bouchard, Nystrom, Ballard, Eminger, Semin, Gordon, Grebeshkov, Paille, Babchuk, Eager, Steen, Ward, Slater: 17 players, 56.7 per cent of all picks
3: Lehtonen, Higgins, Bergenheim: three players, 10.0 per cent of all picks
2: Taticek, Klepis, Johansson, Toivonen: four players, 13.3 per cent of all picks
1: Niinimaki, Koreis, Vagner, Morris: four players, 13.3 per cent of all picks
Notes: As with the other leagues, some players could easily move between categories. Higgins played 57 games last season, but played 82 the year before, so he could be a four instead of a three. Johannson only played one career game (with the Washington Capitals in 2006), so he could easily be a one instead of a two. Slater notched exactly 60 games last year and has bounced up and down, so he could certainly drop from a four to a three.
Overall comparison:
There's some pretty revealing data here. From 2002, the NFL teams were by far the best at drafting future superstars. The NHL teams were the best at drafting all-star and solid players, though, with 63 per cent of their picks falling into categories five and four compared to 50 per cent in the NFL, 46.6 per cent in MLB and a horrible 25.0 per cent in the NBA. The strength of those NHL numbers may be thanks to the comprehensive junior hockey system; most of the players drafted in the first round have already been competing at a high level for several years, and there isn't as much difference between the junior game and the NHL one as there is between the college and professional games in football and basketball. Not every junior stud becomes an NHL star, but most of them are good enough to hang on to a spot somewhere in the league.
The NBA numbers are quite surprising, actually; there are only two rounds of the draft, so it's not like there's a massive amount of picks competing for spots the way there are in the other leagues. Despite that, an incredible amount of their players still turned out to be marginal at best and complete busts at worst. Part of that may be thanks to the considerable differences between the college and professional styles of play. Another part of that is the time frame we're looking at here; this draft saw a lot of European players without a great deal of high-level experience drafted early on, mostly because of their size and potential. In recent years, there appears to have been a bit of a shift away from that philosophy, perhaps thanks to the large amount of busts from drafts like the 2002 one.
Questions? Thoughts on what it all means, or different ways to evaluate the drafts? As mentioned, this is just a starting point, so leave your ideas on how to improve it here in the comments, or e-mail me at andrew_bucholtz [at] hotmail.com!
Showing posts with label draft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label draft. Show all posts
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Comparing the MLB and NFL drafts
Inspired by a Twitter suggestion from Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus, I figured it would be interesting to compare the washout rate of first-round prospects across the four major North American sports. Carroll suggested 2004 as a year, so I started there, but the baseball evaluation was difficult, as several of those prospects are just beginning to crack the league. Thus, I went back a couple years further to the 2002 draft. It's a nice distance, as prospects' status is usually pretty well set after seven years. This MLB draft also has the added appeal of being featured by Michael Lewis in Moneyball. Here's the first part of the comparison, looking at the MLB and NFL first-round drafts; I'll have the second half, looking at the NBA and NHL, up tomorrow.
First, a note on the evaluation system used. I was looking for a simple way to compare prospects across sports, so I went with a five-point scale. Under this system, players ranked as a five are presumed to be among the best in the league at their position, while players ranked as a four are labeled as regular starters, threes are marginal players who were still in the league last season, twos are busts and ones are the worst busts.
In order to figure out who slots in where, I tried to come up with a system that could be relatively comparable across positions and sports. Obviously, single stats like on-base percentage or rushing yards won't work for this. However, all of these leagues do have stats for how many games a player was involved in and if they were selected to play in the league's all-star game. Thus, I was able to create a system that can be applied across sports with only minimal tweaking. The specific criteria for each sport are listed before that sport's table. This clearly isn't going to be a perfect system, and there are other variables such as team quality that aren't taken into consideration here; a starter on a poor team might be worse than a prospect or backup at a better team The seven years of distance does help with this, though, as teams have usually traded players who could start somewhere else by this point. This also doesn't account for injuries, as it made the most sense to base this on last year's stats; however, I have included some notes on certain players who might have fit into a higher category if not for injury or other circumstances. This is intended just as an overall look at the differences between the drafts, though, not an absolute evaluation of any of these players. Moreover, limiting this to one year means it may not be applicable generally; it's more of an attempt to try and get a handle on the differences between the leagues. Ratings and notes are after the tables:
[Table from Wikipedia]
System:
5 = All-star (appeared in at least one all-star game)
4 = Solid (in league, played in 2/3 of games or more last season for everyday players, pitched 40 or more innings for pitchers)
3 = Marginal (played in at least one game in the big leagues last season)
2 = One-off (made it to the big leagues at least once, not in league last year)
1 = Bust (never played in the big leagues as of last year)
Ratings:
5 = Fielder, Saunders, Kazmir, Hamels: four players, 13.3 per cent of all 30 draft picks
4 = Upton, Greinke, Francis, Hermida, Greene, Swisher, Loney, Span, Guthrie, Francoeur, Blanton, Cain: 12 players, 33.3 per cent
3 = Bullington, Loewen, Moore, Ring: four players, 13.3 per cent
2 = Meyer, Adams: two players, 6.67 per cent
1 = Gruler, Everts, Brownlie, McCurdy, Santos, Grigsby, Fritz, Mayberry: eight players, 26.7 per cent
Notes: Grienke and Swisher could potentially crack the all-star ranks; Upton might as well if he returns to previous form. Loewen (who I went to high school with) was decent, but struggled with control; he was badly hurt last year and had to give up pitching, but is now trying to come back as an everyday player in Toronto's system. Bullington, the number-one pick overall (largely thanks to his low contract demands), is now a Blue Jays' reliever. Francoeur started off well, but has been horrible lately and might fall down to marginal status if his slide continues. Mayberry made his MLB debut this season with the Phillies.
NFL:
Draft:
[Table from Wikipedia]
System:
5 = All-star (at least one Pro Bowl selection)
4= Solid (started 2/3 or more of team's regular-season games last year)
3 = Marginal (started at one point in time, played in the league last year)
2 = One-off (started more than five games in their career, didn't play last year)
1 = Bust (started less than five games in their career)
Rankings:
5 = Peppers, Williams, Henderson, Freeney, Shockey, Haynesworth, Walker, Reed, Sheppard: nine players, 28.1 per cent of all 32 picks,
4 = Jammer, McKinnie, Jones, Buchanon, Graham, Thomas, Colombo: seven players, 21.9 per cent of all picks
3 = Carr, Sims, Stallworth, Duckett, Lelie, Harris, Grant, Stevens, Simmons, Thomas, Ramsey: 11 players, 34.4 per cent of all picks
2 = Harrington, Williams, Green: three players, 8.8 per cent of all picks
1 = Bryant, Rumph: two players, 6.3 per cent of all picks
Notes: Jones is not expected to start this year. Williams has been out of the league for a couple of seasons, but is trying to get back in, as is Bryant. Stallworth played in 11 games last year, but only started seven and is facing legal trouble. Grant started all of the Saints' first eight games last year and then was injured; he could easily move up to a four with a healthy season. Sheppard is a two-time Pro Bowler from 2004 and 2006, but only started three games last year. Colombo is also a metal guitarist. Simmons started the Steelers' first four games last season and then got hurt, but was released in the off-season. He has not yet found a new team.
How the leagues stack up:
As you can see from the above table, the NFL first-round draftees from 2002 were much more successful. Only 6.3 per cent of all the NFL first-round draftees examined ranked as ones, compared to 26.7 per cent of all MLB first-round draftees. That's even more impressive when you consider that even the NFL player considered the biggest bust by these metrics (Wendell Bryant) played in 29 career games and started nine; the 26.7 per cent of MLB players ranked as ones never played in the big leagues. Moreover, 28.7 per cent of NFL first-rounders from 2002 earned at least one Pro Bowl nod prior to this year, while only 13.3 per cent of MLB first-rounders from that year made the All-Star game.
That doesn't mean that NFL teams are necessarily inherently better at evaluating talent, though. NFL picks have several other factors working in their favour. For one thing, NFL players are selected out of college, not high school, so GMs already have a good idea of how they perform against tough competition; some MLB picks are taken out of the college ranks, but many are chosen straight from high school.
Moreover, the NFL draft is limited to seven rounds while the MLB draft goes 50 rounds; the sheer numbers of players selected means that first-round picks face much stiffer competition for roster spots. The extensive minor league system in baseball and the longer expected development time means that many top picks will never see the big leagues, while a first-round pick in the NFL is all but guaranteed to at least play in the league (which is why the evaluation of what's considered a class-two and class-one bust in each league is offset in my system). Still, the success/failure rates do make for an interesting read. What will perhaps be more illuminating to look at is how the NHL and NBA compare to the NFL, as the development systems and the numbers of players selected are more similar to those found in football. I'll have a post with the NHL and NBA numbers tomorrow.
First, a note on the evaluation system used. I was looking for a simple way to compare prospects across sports, so I went with a five-point scale. Under this system, players ranked as a five are presumed to be among the best in the league at their position, while players ranked as a four are labeled as regular starters, threes are marginal players who were still in the league last season, twos are busts and ones are the worst busts.
In order to figure out who slots in where, I tried to come up with a system that could be relatively comparable across positions and sports. Obviously, single stats like on-base percentage or rushing yards won't work for this. However, all of these leagues do have stats for how many games a player was involved in and if they were selected to play in the league's all-star game. Thus, I was able to create a system that can be applied across sports with only minimal tweaking. The specific criteria for each sport are listed before that sport's table. This clearly isn't going to be a perfect system, and there are other variables such as team quality that aren't taken into consideration here; a starter on a poor team might be worse than a prospect or backup at a better team The seven years of distance does help with this, though, as teams have usually traded players who could start somewhere else by this point. This also doesn't account for injuries, as it made the most sense to base this on last year's stats; however, I have included some notes on certain players who might have fit into a higher category if not for injury or other circumstances. This is intended just as an overall look at the differences between the drafts, though, not an absolute evaluation of any of these players. Moreover, limiting this to one year means it may not be applicable generally; it's more of an attempt to try and get a handle on the differences between the leagues. Ratings and notes are after the tables:
[Table from Wikipedia]
System:
5 = All-star (appeared in at least one all-star game)
4 = Solid (in league, played in 2/3 of games or more last season for everyday players, pitched 40 or more innings for pitchers)
3 = Marginal (played in at least one game in the big leagues last season)
2 = One-off (made it to the big leagues at least once, not in league last year)
1 = Bust (never played in the big leagues as of last year)
Ratings:
5 = Fielder, Saunders, Kazmir, Hamels: four players, 13.3 per cent of all 30 draft picks
4 = Upton, Greinke, Francis, Hermida, Greene, Swisher, Loney, Span, Guthrie, Francoeur, Blanton, Cain: 12 players, 33.3 per cent
3 = Bullington, Loewen, Moore, Ring: four players, 13.3 per cent
2 = Meyer, Adams: two players, 6.67 per cent
1 = Gruler, Everts, Brownlie, McCurdy, Santos, Grigsby, Fritz, Mayberry: eight players, 26.7 per cent
Notes: Grienke and Swisher could potentially crack the all-star ranks; Upton might as well if he returns to previous form. Loewen (who I went to high school with) was decent, but struggled with control; he was badly hurt last year and had to give up pitching, but is now trying to come back as an everyday player in Toronto's system. Bullington, the number-one pick overall (largely thanks to his low contract demands), is now a Blue Jays' reliever. Francoeur started off well, but has been horrible lately and might fall down to marginal status if his slide continues. Mayberry made his MLB debut this season with the Phillies.
NFL:
Draft:
[Table from Wikipedia]
System:
5 = All-star (at least one Pro Bowl selection)
4= Solid (started 2/3 or more of team's regular-season games last year)
3 = Marginal (started at one point in time, played in the league last year)
2 = One-off (started more than five games in their career, didn't play last year)
1 = Bust (started less than five games in their career)
Rankings:
5 = Peppers, Williams, Henderson, Freeney, Shockey, Haynesworth, Walker, Reed, Sheppard: nine players, 28.1 per cent of all 32 picks,
4 = Jammer, McKinnie, Jones, Buchanon, Graham, Thomas, Colombo: seven players, 21.9 per cent of all picks
3 = Carr, Sims, Stallworth, Duckett, Lelie, Harris, Grant, Stevens, Simmons, Thomas, Ramsey: 11 players, 34.4 per cent of all picks
2 = Harrington, Williams, Green: three players, 8.8 per cent of all picks
1 = Bryant, Rumph: two players, 6.3 per cent of all picks
Notes: Jones is not expected to start this year. Williams has been out of the league for a couple of seasons, but is trying to get back in, as is Bryant. Stallworth played in 11 games last year, but only started seven and is facing legal trouble. Grant started all of the Saints' first eight games last year and then was injured; he could easily move up to a four with a healthy season. Sheppard is a two-time Pro Bowler from 2004 and 2006, but only started three games last year. Colombo is also a metal guitarist. Simmons started the Steelers' first four games last season and then got hurt, but was released in the off-season. He has not yet found a new team.
How the leagues stack up:
As you can see from the above table, the NFL first-round draftees from 2002 were much more successful. Only 6.3 per cent of all the NFL first-round draftees examined ranked as ones, compared to 26.7 per cent of all MLB first-round draftees. That's even more impressive when you consider that even the NFL player considered the biggest bust by these metrics (Wendell Bryant) played in 29 career games and started nine; the 26.7 per cent of MLB players ranked as ones never played in the big leagues. Moreover, 28.7 per cent of NFL first-rounders from 2002 earned at least one Pro Bowl nod prior to this year, while only 13.3 per cent of MLB first-rounders from that year made the All-Star game.
That doesn't mean that NFL teams are necessarily inherently better at evaluating talent, though. NFL picks have several other factors working in their favour. For one thing, NFL players are selected out of college, not high school, so GMs already have a good idea of how they perform against tough competition; some MLB picks are taken out of the college ranks, but many are chosen straight from high school.
Moreover, the NFL draft is limited to seven rounds while the MLB draft goes 50 rounds; the sheer numbers of players selected means that first-round picks face much stiffer competition for roster spots. The extensive minor league system in baseball and the longer expected development time means that many top picks will never see the big leagues, while a first-round pick in the NFL is all but guaranteed to at least play in the league (which is why the evaluation of what's considered a class-two and class-one bust in each league is offset in my system). Still, the success/failure rates do make for an interesting read. What will perhaps be more illuminating to look at is how the NHL and NBA compare to the NFL, as the development systems and the numbers of players selected are more similar to those found in football. I'll have a post with the NHL and NBA numbers tomorrow.
Monday, January 05, 2009
The fall of Southampton, the Leafs and Senators, and the power of relegation
Yesterday morning saw Manchester United see off Southampton rather easily [ESPN Soccernet] in the third round of the F.A. Cup. They were helped by the sending off of Saints' striker Matt Paterson in the first half and a questionable penalty call, but the class divide between the two teams was still striking. United started two players who have barely seen any first-team action this season(Jonathan Evans and Danny Welback) as well as several others whose minutes have been limited of late (John O'Shea, Nani and Gary Neville), and the Red Devils also brought on rarely-used Darron Gibson and Rodrigo Possebon as substitutes, but these lesser lights still had little trouble with the Saints.
It's interesting how quickly things change in soccer. Southampton has a long history of good, if not great proportions; they won the FA Cup in 1976 (reasonably recent by English soccer standards) and they reached Division I for the second time in 1978 and stayed there until 1992, when they became founding members of the Premiership. The Saints were a solid Premiership club for over a decade; they often flirted with relegation, but they were able to stay in the top flight continuously until 2005 when they finally went down to the Championship. Since then, though, their history has taken a turn for the worse. They were in danger of being relegated to League One in their first season in the Championship and only survived thanks to a good run of form late on in the season. The next season, they managed to earn a playoff spot and a chance at again reaching the heights of the Premiership, but fell to Derby County on penalties. Things only got worse in 2007-08, with the club forced to sell off stars like Gareth Bale and Kenwyne Jones to pay the bills; they only escaped relegation to League One with a narrow final-day victory over Sheffield United. Their struggles have continued this year, and they're currently 23rd out of the 24 teams in the Championship, once again staring into the abyss of relegation.
What's interesting to take away from the tale of Southampton and the many other clubs in similar predicaments is how such a thing would never be permitted to happen in North American sports. In North America, our sports figures believe in rewarding mediocrity. Finish last in a season in the NFL, NBA or NHL? Your prize is not a drop to a lower-tier league with all of the associated loss of revenues, but instead the best shot at the first overall draft pick. In fact, your club is much better off if you lose horribly for a long period of time; this way, you can stockpile high draft picks and then get good all of a sudden. Clubs that try to compete year-in and year-out often never quite get over the top, but they aren't bad enough to earn high draft picks and rebuild that way (and they have to keep trading their own picks for the pieces needed to get them into the playoffs).
A great case in point comes from examining the Ottawa Senators and Toronto Maple Leafs of the 1990s and early 2000s. Ottawa was appallingly bad [hockey-reference.com]for most of those early years (they didn't win more than 18 games until the 1996-97 season, their fifth year in the league), while Toronto was in the playoffs for all four of those years, reaching the conference finals twice and losing in the first round twice.
Now, take a look at the teams' first draft picks over those years (thanks again to hockey-reference.com]. In 1992, the Senators had the second overall pick (Alexei Yashin, who played 850 NHL games and put up 781 points). Toronto had the eighth pick and took Brandon Convery, who only played 72 NHL games. In 1993, the Senators had the first overall pick (Alexandre Daigle, 327 points in 616 games); the Leafs picked 12th and took Kenny Jonsson (defenceman, 267 points in 686 games). 1994 saw Ottawa draft Radek Bonk (still active, 478 points in 924 games) third overall, while the Leafs took Eric Fichaud (goalie, .897 save percentage and 3.16 GAA in 95 games) 16th overall. 1995 saw Ottawa draft first overall again and take Bryan Berard (defenceman, 323 points in 619 games), while Toronto picked 15th and chose Jeff Ware (defenceman, one point in 21 games). In 1996, Ottawa again went first overall and took Chris Phillips (still-active defenceman, 184 points in 721 games). Toronto didn't pick until the second round, and took Marek Posmyk (three points in 19 games) 36th overall. Even though most of the players Ottawa took didn't perform quite up to expectations, they all still had long NHL careers and were reasonably productive. By contrast, most of those Leafs' picks are quite forgettable.
It's interesting to watch what happened afterwards. Starting in 1997, Ottawa made the playoffs each year and advanced to the Stanley Cup Final in 2007. Toronto missed the playoffs in 1997 and 1998, then returned for a six-year stretch, but hasn't been back since 2004. The Leafs beat Ottawa in the playoffs frequently, but the Senators were the more consistent team over time, helped by their high draft picks and the players they got in return for them. Both teams now appear to be in trouble again, and their lack of high draft picks in recent years certainly won't help.
This isn't intended as a comprehensive study of the Leafs and the Senators or the draft, as there are many other variables that play into hockey success. The draft is largely a crapshoot, and many of the players Ottawa snagged in the later rounds (such as Daniel Alfredsson) proved more valuable to them in the long run. The drafting skill of the team executives also makes a big difference, and so does the ability of their player development staff. My point is merely that the lack of a relegation system in North American sports and the practice of rewarding bad teams with high draft picks gives them an advantage. In every one of the drafts studied above, the Senators didn't wind up with the best player available; however, the players they did take proved to be much better than those the Leafs chose later on. Even famous busts like Daigle still had reasonable NHL careers, while the Leafs' only first pick of any note whatsoever in that span was Jonsson, a good-but-not-great defenceman. Part of that has to go on the head of the team's executives, but at least part of it is due to the disadvantages posed by actually trying to compete every year. Even the worst high-first round picks will usually be at least serviceable players, while many late-first round picks will barely crack the big leagues. This is what leads to the whole mentality of it being better to lose for a while to wind up better off in the long run (see "Tank for Tavares" [Pension Plan Puppets]). Unfortunately, that idea works under the current system. Especially if your team doesn't make the playoffs, it's far better to finish dead last than just outside of the postseason picture. High draft position doesn't guarantee success, but it certainly helps.
The question is how can fans be expected to enjoy that? No one wants to see their team lose, and especially not for years on end. Moreover, if the overarching strategy is the highest pick possible, that would necessitate fans rooting against their own team. It also leads to the possibility of teams deliberately losing to enhance their draft position. This has been explored many times, but most persuasively by Michael McCann of Sports Law Blog, who wrote a couple of great posts several years ago about the phenomenon of tanking and how it applies to the NBA in particular. He even quotes an article from the Boston Herald's Mark Cofman that had former Boston Celtics coach and GM M.L. Carr saying he purposefully lost games to give the team a better draft position. There's a large amount of compelling evidence to support these ideas.
However, the bigger question isn't if tanking is actually going on. It's why we persist in maintaining a professional sports system where tanking would give you an advantage. The lottery system helps to some degree, as the last-place team is no longer assured the first pick, but there's still a reward for being the worst; you have a better chance at drafting first overall than anyone else. There's rewards for getting into the playoffs, but narrowly missing them or losing in the first round every time will hurt you more in the long run than several atrocious years.
Moreover, the North American system means that every sport has a wide variety of meaningless games each year. Baseball is the worst in this way due to its long schedule and low number of playoff spots, as almost half the teams can be all but eliminated from playoff contention by June, but hockey and basketball are almost as bad. Sure, the games are still worth watching for hardcore fans of the team, as they can check out the development of prospects or just enjoy the atmosphere, but for the rest of us, there's little reason to care about a game with no implications whatsoever for the postseason (and particularly one that your team might be better off losing to get a higher draft pick).
Compare that to the system used in soccer, where promotion and relegation makes almost every game matter. The vast financial difference between the Premiership and the Championship (or Serie A and Serie B in Italy, or the top two leagues in pretty much any European country) means that there's a huge incentive to stay up. Relegation battles usually go down to the last matchday of the season, and they're frequently more exciting than the title race (which is sometimes decided weeks in advance). Most importantly, there's something for every team to compete for, and a legitimate incentive to win. The top teams duke it out for the title and the Champions League spots, while others battle for places in the UEFA Cup and still others fight just to stay up. Winning helps every single team, and there are tremendous rewards for success and high prices for failure. Overall, my feeling is that this system produces a much more exciting and watchable product with its rewards for success rather than the encouragement of failure found in North American sports.
That doesn't mean the European system is perfect, though. It's the sports equivalent of capitalism to the socialism found in North American models via revenue sharing, salary caps and the draft (curious how the political trends of both continents are reversed in sport), and like in politics, both philosophies have their own severe flaws. In the European system, you get a wealthy elite populated by the likes of Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal, and a lower class of clubs that can't hope to compete on even terms. The absence of a draft means that finding talent is divided by who can afford the biggest network of scouts and training academies, which gives the elites a tremendous edge. Even when lower clubs develop star talent, those players usually leave within a couple of seasons for the vast wealth found at the Big Four. There is little parity and not a great deal of competitive balance.
Still, on the whole, I'd take the European system. Even if winning the overall title is out of range for many of the smaller clubs, there's still plenty for them to aim for; the bevy of different competitions means there's room for them to claim trophies here and there (such as Portsmouth's FA Cup triumph and Tottenham's Carling Cup victory). Also, if one of the lower teams gets an owner willing to open the checkbook, they can rise to the upper echelon if they play their cards right (see Chelsea, nobodies until Abramovich took over). Moreover, almost every game matters, and the struggle to see who stays in the top league is always interesting. There's plenty of excitement around the lower echelon clubs, which is far from the case in the North American model, and when the lower teams do make a run, it's because of shrewd management and player development, not an edge in draft position granted for being the worst of the worst. The good survive while the mismanaged fall quickly, and off-field mistakes can be just as damning as poor on-field play (see Leeds United). Imagine if the mismanaged hangers-on like the Phoenix Coyotes were allowed to undergo such a fate!
Unfortunately, we won't see relegation in North American sports any time soon. None of the current owners would want to take a chance on having their team sent down to the minor leagues. The current model works very well for them; even if you're epically bad, you likely won't be bad for long (see last year's Boston Celtics). The downside of this is that we'll continue to see meaningless games and teams rewarded for poor play, which will likely lead to purposeful tanking if it hasn't already. Meanwhile, for those who want to see teams survive on their own merits, your only recourse is to cast your eyes eastward over the Atlantic to where losing actually matters.
It's interesting how quickly things change in soccer. Southampton has a long history of good, if not great proportions; they won the FA Cup in 1976 (reasonably recent by English soccer standards) and they reached Division I for the second time in 1978 and stayed there until 1992, when they became founding members of the Premiership. The Saints were a solid Premiership club for over a decade; they often flirted with relegation, but they were able to stay in the top flight continuously until 2005 when they finally went down to the Championship. Since then, though, their history has taken a turn for the worse. They were in danger of being relegated to League One in their first season in the Championship and only survived thanks to a good run of form late on in the season. The next season, they managed to earn a playoff spot and a chance at again reaching the heights of the Premiership, but fell to Derby County on penalties. Things only got worse in 2007-08, with the club forced to sell off stars like Gareth Bale and Kenwyne Jones to pay the bills; they only escaped relegation to League One with a narrow final-day victory over Sheffield United. Their struggles have continued this year, and they're currently 23rd out of the 24 teams in the Championship, once again staring into the abyss of relegation.
What's interesting to take away from the tale of Southampton and the many other clubs in similar predicaments is how such a thing would never be permitted to happen in North American sports. In North America, our sports figures believe in rewarding mediocrity. Finish last in a season in the NFL, NBA or NHL? Your prize is not a drop to a lower-tier league with all of the associated loss of revenues, but instead the best shot at the first overall draft pick. In fact, your club is much better off if you lose horribly for a long period of time; this way, you can stockpile high draft picks and then get good all of a sudden. Clubs that try to compete year-in and year-out often never quite get over the top, but they aren't bad enough to earn high draft picks and rebuild that way (and they have to keep trading their own picks for the pieces needed to get them into the playoffs).
A great case in point comes from examining the Ottawa Senators and Toronto Maple Leafs of the 1990s and early 2000s. Ottawa was appallingly bad [hockey-reference.com]for most of those early years (they didn't win more than 18 games until the 1996-97 season, their fifth year in the league), while Toronto was in the playoffs for all four of those years, reaching the conference finals twice and losing in the first round twice.
Now, take a look at the teams' first draft picks over those years (thanks again to hockey-reference.com]. In 1992, the Senators had the second overall pick (Alexei Yashin, who played 850 NHL games and put up 781 points). Toronto had the eighth pick and took Brandon Convery, who only played 72 NHL games. In 1993, the Senators had the first overall pick (Alexandre Daigle, 327 points in 616 games); the Leafs picked 12th and took Kenny Jonsson (defenceman, 267 points in 686 games). 1994 saw Ottawa draft Radek Bonk (still active, 478 points in 924 games) third overall, while the Leafs took Eric Fichaud (goalie, .897 save percentage and 3.16 GAA in 95 games) 16th overall. 1995 saw Ottawa draft first overall again and take Bryan Berard (defenceman, 323 points in 619 games), while Toronto picked 15th and chose Jeff Ware (defenceman, one point in 21 games). In 1996, Ottawa again went first overall and took Chris Phillips (still-active defenceman, 184 points in 721 games). Toronto didn't pick until the second round, and took Marek Posmyk (three points in 19 games) 36th overall. Even though most of the players Ottawa took didn't perform quite up to expectations, they all still had long NHL careers and were reasonably productive. By contrast, most of those Leafs' picks are quite forgettable.
It's interesting to watch what happened afterwards. Starting in 1997, Ottawa made the playoffs each year and advanced to the Stanley Cup Final in 2007. Toronto missed the playoffs in 1997 and 1998, then returned for a six-year stretch, but hasn't been back since 2004. The Leafs beat Ottawa in the playoffs frequently, but the Senators were the more consistent team over time, helped by their high draft picks and the players they got in return for them. Both teams now appear to be in trouble again, and their lack of high draft picks in recent years certainly won't help.
This isn't intended as a comprehensive study of the Leafs and the Senators or the draft, as there are many other variables that play into hockey success. The draft is largely a crapshoot, and many of the players Ottawa snagged in the later rounds (such as Daniel Alfredsson) proved more valuable to them in the long run. The drafting skill of the team executives also makes a big difference, and so does the ability of their player development staff. My point is merely that the lack of a relegation system in North American sports and the practice of rewarding bad teams with high draft picks gives them an advantage. In every one of the drafts studied above, the Senators didn't wind up with the best player available; however, the players they did take proved to be much better than those the Leafs chose later on. Even famous busts like Daigle still had reasonable NHL careers, while the Leafs' only first pick of any note whatsoever in that span was Jonsson, a good-but-not-great defenceman. Part of that has to go on the head of the team's executives, but at least part of it is due to the disadvantages posed by actually trying to compete every year. Even the worst high-first round picks will usually be at least serviceable players, while many late-first round picks will barely crack the big leagues. This is what leads to the whole mentality of it being better to lose for a while to wind up better off in the long run (see "Tank for Tavares" [Pension Plan Puppets]). Unfortunately, that idea works under the current system. Especially if your team doesn't make the playoffs, it's far better to finish dead last than just outside of the postseason picture. High draft position doesn't guarantee success, but it certainly helps.
The question is how can fans be expected to enjoy that? No one wants to see their team lose, and especially not for years on end. Moreover, if the overarching strategy is the highest pick possible, that would necessitate fans rooting against their own team. It also leads to the possibility of teams deliberately losing to enhance their draft position. This has been explored many times, but most persuasively by Michael McCann of Sports Law Blog, who wrote a couple of great posts several years ago about the phenomenon of tanking and how it applies to the NBA in particular. He even quotes an article from the Boston Herald's Mark Cofman that had former Boston Celtics coach and GM M.L. Carr saying he purposefully lost games to give the team a better draft position. There's a large amount of compelling evidence to support these ideas.
However, the bigger question isn't if tanking is actually going on. It's why we persist in maintaining a professional sports system where tanking would give you an advantage. The lottery system helps to some degree, as the last-place team is no longer assured the first pick, but there's still a reward for being the worst; you have a better chance at drafting first overall than anyone else. There's rewards for getting into the playoffs, but narrowly missing them or losing in the first round every time will hurt you more in the long run than several atrocious years.
Moreover, the North American system means that every sport has a wide variety of meaningless games each year. Baseball is the worst in this way due to its long schedule and low number of playoff spots, as almost half the teams can be all but eliminated from playoff contention by June, but hockey and basketball are almost as bad. Sure, the games are still worth watching for hardcore fans of the team, as they can check out the development of prospects or just enjoy the atmosphere, but for the rest of us, there's little reason to care about a game with no implications whatsoever for the postseason (and particularly one that your team might be better off losing to get a higher draft pick).
Compare that to the system used in soccer, where promotion and relegation makes almost every game matter. The vast financial difference between the Premiership and the Championship (or Serie A and Serie B in Italy, or the top two leagues in pretty much any European country) means that there's a huge incentive to stay up. Relegation battles usually go down to the last matchday of the season, and they're frequently more exciting than the title race (which is sometimes decided weeks in advance). Most importantly, there's something for every team to compete for, and a legitimate incentive to win. The top teams duke it out for the title and the Champions League spots, while others battle for places in the UEFA Cup and still others fight just to stay up. Winning helps every single team, and there are tremendous rewards for success and high prices for failure. Overall, my feeling is that this system produces a much more exciting and watchable product with its rewards for success rather than the encouragement of failure found in North American sports.
That doesn't mean the European system is perfect, though. It's the sports equivalent of capitalism to the socialism found in North American models via revenue sharing, salary caps and the draft (curious how the political trends of both continents are reversed in sport), and like in politics, both philosophies have their own severe flaws. In the European system, you get a wealthy elite populated by the likes of Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal, and a lower class of clubs that can't hope to compete on even terms. The absence of a draft means that finding talent is divided by who can afford the biggest network of scouts and training academies, which gives the elites a tremendous edge. Even when lower clubs develop star talent, those players usually leave within a couple of seasons for the vast wealth found at the Big Four. There is little parity and not a great deal of competitive balance.
Still, on the whole, I'd take the European system. Even if winning the overall title is out of range for many of the smaller clubs, there's still plenty for them to aim for; the bevy of different competitions means there's room for them to claim trophies here and there (such as Portsmouth's FA Cup triumph and Tottenham's Carling Cup victory). Also, if one of the lower teams gets an owner willing to open the checkbook, they can rise to the upper echelon if they play their cards right (see Chelsea, nobodies until Abramovich took over). Moreover, almost every game matters, and the struggle to see who stays in the top league is always interesting. There's plenty of excitement around the lower echelon clubs, which is far from the case in the North American model, and when the lower teams do make a run, it's because of shrewd management and player development, not an edge in draft position granted for being the worst of the worst. The good survive while the mismanaged fall quickly, and off-field mistakes can be just as damning as poor on-field play (see Leeds United). Imagine if the mismanaged hangers-on like the Phoenix Coyotes were allowed to undergo such a fate!
Unfortunately, we won't see relegation in North American sports any time soon. None of the current owners would want to take a chance on having their team sent down to the minor leagues. The current model works very well for them; even if you're epically bad, you likely won't be bad for long (see last year's Boston Celtics). The downside of this is that we'll continue to see meaningless games and teams rewarded for poor play, which will likely lead to purposeful tanking if it hasn't already. Meanwhile, for those who want to see teams survive on their own merits, your only recourse is to cast your eyes eastward over the Atlantic to where losing actually matters.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Lawrie taken 16th overall
Langley baseball star Brett Lawrie, recently the primary subject of a feature in this space, was picked 16th overall [TSN] by the Milwaukee Brewers in this afternoon's Major League Baseball First-Year Player Draft. That's the highest a Canadian position player has ever been taken: the previous record was 27th overall, established by Kevin Nicholson, a shortstop from Surrey, B.C. who went to the San Diego Padres in 1997. Only six Canadians have ever been taken in the first round: the others are my old high-school acquaintance Adam Loewen (pitcher, fourth overall to the Baltimore Orioles in 2002), Jeff Francis (pitcher, ninth overall to the Colorado Rockies in 2002), Phillipe Aumont (pitcher, 11th overall to the Seattle Mariners in 2007) and Scott Thorman (infielder, 30th overall to the Atlanta Braves in 2000). Lawrie's been getting some very high praise: here's a sampling of it.
- Shi Davidi, The Canadian Press
"Scouts rave about his raw power and some believe he may be the most advanced hitter at age 18 in the country's history. But it's the intangibles that really seem to set him apart, what one described as "the ridiculous fearlessness" he shows on the field and a relentless competitive drive to dominate.
"You could put this kid in a stadium with 50,000 people and tell him he's facing Josh Beckett tomorrow and he'd smile and think, 'I'm going to get Josh Beckett,"' said one executive who has watched Lawrie play extensively. "At this point he probably won't but he'll go up there, not be intimidated, take his swings and look good doing it. He's got no fear. Period."
Added another scout from a team thinking of drafting Lawrie: "He's consistently hit at a high level the past three years. He's definitely got good raw power and the ability to make consistent contact. His bat is very advanced."
So advanced, in fact, that he's being considered for Canada's Olympic roster.
- Jeremy Sandler, National Post:
[F]ew prospects draw favourable comparisons to such former big-league MVPs as Larry Walker and Justin Morneau.
"Larry was by far the best player that had ever walked into the [BCPL]," [Langley Blaze coach Doug] Mathieson said. "Larry was a true five-tool player and I'd say Brett is the next Larry Walker.
"Justin Morneau was a dominant player in our league, he hit more home runs, but he wasn't the all-around athlete that Brett was."
Though [Toronto Blue Jays' director of Canadian scouting Kevin] Briand never saw Walker play, he said Lawrie is as good a player he has seen in 20 years of scouting in Canada.
"His performance in the past year-and-a-half is right up there with the Justin Morneaus," said Briand. "He has just stood out." (square brackets mine)
- Terry Bell, Vancouver Province:
"Yeah. Just a little Canadian guy playing his game. Try selling that one to Kansas City Royals pitchers Luke Hochevar and Kyle Davies. Lawrie faced both of them when the Blaze did their annual tour in Arizona in March.
'They brought out Kyle Davies and Luke Hochevar to pitch against us and Brett hit doubles against both of them,' said Blaze coach Doug Mathieson.
'Kyle was throwing 90-91 m.p.h. His first pitch was a fastball. Brett took it for a ball. The second pitch was a changeup and Brett hit it off the wall. Davies kind of looked around and said, 'Excuse me.'
'Then, about the fourth inning they brought out Hochevar. First pitch fastball, bang, right off the centre-field wall. The next pitch he stole third.'
Hochevar's in the Royals rotation. Davies is in the minors after going 7-15 with Atlanta and the Royals in 2007."
-Rob Iracane, on Walkoff Walk's liveblog of the draft:
"16. Milwaukee Brewers - Brett Lawrie C, Canadia: Raw pull power and a cannon from behind the plate. He has quickness but needs to work on advanced catching skills like blocking and farting on the umpire. Our friend from the North was interviewed by Marc Hulet. Kid's probably sorry to not be drafted by the Blue Jays, thus subjecting his salary to the weak US dollar. Four catchers in the top 16!"
- Summary from Lawrie's MLB.com Draft Report:
"Scouting Canadian players can sometimes be difficult because of the lack of opportunity to see them. But scouts know all about Lawrie and his plus power potential, something he's been able to show off while playing for the Langley Blaze in British Columbia. What they don't know is where he can play, though he's shown the tools -- raw though they may be -- to handle being a catcher. It may take a while, but putting that bat behind the plate could one day make him a premium player."
Very impressive praise. Sure, we'll have to wait and see how he develops, particularly on the catching end, but Russell Martin's been doing all right there, and he only switched to the position after junior college. A catcher who can smack the ball the way Lawrie can? That's got to have people salivating over memories of Mike Piazza. Getting that kind of hitting and power with even decent defense behind the plate is a great combination.
An interesting tidbit is that Lawrie's sister Danielle pitches on the Canadian softball team and will be competing for gold in Beijing this summer, along with teammate Lauren Bay-Regula (Jason Bay's sister). Men's baseball obviously gets far more attention than women's softball, but as someone who worked as a softball umpire for five years and handled some of the highest-level minor ball, I can tell you that those players are incredibly talented as well. This neat anecdote from Bell's story shows that the baseball skills run in the family:
"Danielle won't be in Langley today. She's in Oklahoma City with Team Canada but she has a deal with her coach so she can see the draft on ESPN.
'It is exciting,' she said Tuesday when asked about her brother's rise. 'I've been kind of following it here and there. I've been busy but my dad keeps me updated. I went on the [Baseball Canada] website to follow how he was doing in the Dominican.'
And just like her Team Canada teammate Lauren Bay-Regula and her brother Jason Bay of the Pittsburgh Pirates, the Lawries get asked that one question ... who'd win if they faced off?
'We've never tested that out,' she said. 'He'd catch for me at home and I'd joke around and say, 'Oh, you wouldn't be able to hit it.' But I know that kid has crazy bat speed so I think he'd be able to get a fly ball on a couple. But he ain't hittin' them outta the park, that's for sure.'
'I think I could give her a run for her money,' Brett said with a laugh.
So dad gets the final word.
'She'd put one right under his chin and then try to break his back with a change-up,' Russ laughed. 'I know her. They have a great rivalry.'
Not to mention great futures."
One more note: it sounds like Lawrie was all set to go even higher, according to Bob Elliott's sources. As Elliott wrote this morning, "Canadian infielder Brett Lawrie will go seventh overall this afternoon in Major League Baseball's annual draft of high-schoolers and collegians.
Barring a last-minute change, the Cincinnati Reds are set to select the Langley, B.C., native if the draft falls the way they want it to. " Instead, the Reds took first baseman Yonder Alonso, who's also seen primarily as a hitter.
From MLB's draft report on Alonso: It can be quite a debate over which college first baseman should go first on Draft day. Alonso is a hitter, period, with a great approach and power, especially the other way right now. Defensively, he's no great shakes, but it's that bat that teams will dream about putting in the middle of their lineup to produce plenty of runs in the future.
I'm guessing what must have happened here is the Reds were looking for a pure hitter and had Alonso ranked above Lawrie, but were sure he'd be taken before the draft got to their slot. Some people had him above seventh in mock drafts, some just below. Thus, when he fell to them, they must have decided to jump that way and leave Lawrie. However, Baseball America's John Manuel thought it was unusual: he was expecting them to take shortstop Gordon Beckham, who went to the White Sox with the next pick.
"Not so fast my friend.
Gordon Beckham is NOT going to Cincinnati. The Reds took Yonder Alonso in something of a surprise, but Alonso is a heck of a hitter. He’s short to the ball, quick through the zone and has a polished approach. This really is the first case where a team took a college first baseman and decided he was just too good to ignore, no matter that they have a young first baseman in Joey Votto. But Votto has played left field in the past and some scouts believe he actually could be better defensively in left field. Alonso might be part of a post-Adam Dunn team in Cincinnati and should go off in the Great American Ballpark. Now the big question is for the White Sox — Smoak or Gordon Beckham?
You can bet the Brewers are happy Elliott's prediction didn't come true: according to Jim Callis' mock draft at Baseball America, he was the guy they wanted all along, but they weren't sure he'd still be available. As Callis writes, "The Brewers would love Lawrie and until last night didn't think he had much of a chance to last 16 picks. If he doesn't, they'll have to react to whomever falls, possibly Wallace and more likely Friedrich. Milwaukee had been rumored to be interested in a college reliever to help shore up its big league bullpen, but that's not a priority here." He also correctly predicted the Brewers taking Lawrie. As Manuel wrote on the Baseball America draft blog, Lawrie could be a bit of a steal even, considering the resources the Brewers put into Canadian scouting.
When’s the last time we got the Brewers right? But here, we did, with the Brewers making Lawrie the top-drafted Canadian hitter ever. No one scouts Canada as aggressively as the Brewers and they’ve seen Lawrie well against their team in extended spring training. So if Lawrie can catch, and hit like scouts think he can, he could be a tremendous value at 16.
Update: Gary Ahuja and John Gordon at the Langley Times have some excellent related content, including this main piece, a short piece on Brett and Danielle, and a video interview.
- Shi Davidi, The Canadian Press
"Scouts rave about his raw power and some believe he may be the most advanced hitter at age 18 in the country's history. But it's the intangibles that really seem to set him apart, what one described as "the ridiculous fearlessness" he shows on the field and a relentless competitive drive to dominate.
"You could put this kid in a stadium with 50,000 people and tell him he's facing Josh Beckett tomorrow and he'd smile and think, 'I'm going to get Josh Beckett,"' said one executive who has watched Lawrie play extensively. "At this point he probably won't but he'll go up there, not be intimidated, take his swings and look good doing it. He's got no fear. Period."
Added another scout from a team thinking of drafting Lawrie: "He's consistently hit at a high level the past three years. He's definitely got good raw power and the ability to make consistent contact. His bat is very advanced."
So advanced, in fact, that he's being considered for Canada's Olympic roster.
- Jeremy Sandler, National Post:
[F]ew prospects draw favourable comparisons to such former big-league MVPs as Larry Walker and Justin Morneau.
"Larry was by far the best player that had ever walked into the [BCPL]," [Langley Blaze coach Doug] Mathieson said. "Larry was a true five-tool player and I'd say Brett is the next Larry Walker.
"Justin Morneau was a dominant player in our league, he hit more home runs, but he wasn't the all-around athlete that Brett was."
Though [Toronto Blue Jays' director of Canadian scouting Kevin] Briand never saw Walker play, he said Lawrie is as good a player he has seen in 20 years of scouting in Canada.
"His performance in the past year-and-a-half is right up there with the Justin Morneaus," said Briand. "He has just stood out." (square brackets mine)
- Terry Bell, Vancouver Province:
"Yeah. Just a little Canadian guy playing his game. Try selling that one to Kansas City Royals pitchers Luke Hochevar and Kyle Davies. Lawrie faced both of them when the Blaze did their annual tour in Arizona in March.
'They brought out Kyle Davies and Luke Hochevar to pitch against us and Brett hit doubles against both of them,' said Blaze coach Doug Mathieson.
'Kyle was throwing 90-91 m.p.h. His first pitch was a fastball. Brett took it for a ball. The second pitch was a changeup and Brett hit it off the wall. Davies kind of looked around and said, 'Excuse me.'
'Then, about the fourth inning they brought out Hochevar. First pitch fastball, bang, right off the centre-field wall. The next pitch he stole third.'
Hochevar's in the Royals rotation. Davies is in the minors after going 7-15 with Atlanta and the Royals in 2007."
-Rob Iracane, on Walkoff Walk's liveblog of the draft:
"16. Milwaukee Brewers - Brett Lawrie C, Canadia: Raw pull power and a cannon from behind the plate. He has quickness but needs to work on advanced catching skills like blocking and farting on the umpire. Our friend from the North was interviewed by Marc Hulet. Kid's probably sorry to not be drafted by the Blue Jays, thus subjecting his salary to the weak US dollar. Four catchers in the top 16!"
- Summary from Lawrie's MLB.com Draft Report:
"Scouting Canadian players can sometimes be difficult because of the lack of opportunity to see them. But scouts know all about Lawrie and his plus power potential, something he's been able to show off while playing for the Langley Blaze in British Columbia. What they don't know is where he can play, though he's shown the tools -- raw though they may be -- to handle being a catcher. It may take a while, but putting that bat behind the plate could one day make him a premium player."
Very impressive praise. Sure, we'll have to wait and see how he develops, particularly on the catching end, but Russell Martin's been doing all right there, and he only switched to the position after junior college. A catcher who can smack the ball the way Lawrie can? That's got to have people salivating over memories of Mike Piazza. Getting that kind of hitting and power with even decent defense behind the plate is a great combination.
An interesting tidbit is that Lawrie's sister Danielle pitches on the Canadian softball team and will be competing for gold in Beijing this summer, along with teammate Lauren Bay-Regula (Jason Bay's sister). Men's baseball obviously gets far more attention than women's softball, but as someone who worked as a softball umpire for five years and handled some of the highest-level minor ball, I can tell you that those players are incredibly talented as well. This neat anecdote from Bell's story shows that the baseball skills run in the family:
"Danielle won't be in Langley today. She's in Oklahoma City with Team Canada but she has a deal with her coach so she can see the draft on ESPN.
'It is exciting,' she said Tuesday when asked about her brother's rise. 'I've been kind of following it here and there. I've been busy but my dad keeps me updated. I went on the [Baseball Canada] website to follow how he was doing in the Dominican.'
And just like her Team Canada teammate Lauren Bay-Regula and her brother Jason Bay of the Pittsburgh Pirates, the Lawries get asked that one question ... who'd win if they faced off?
'We've never tested that out,' she said. 'He'd catch for me at home and I'd joke around and say, 'Oh, you wouldn't be able to hit it.' But I know that kid has crazy bat speed so I think he'd be able to get a fly ball on a couple. But he ain't hittin' them outta the park, that's for sure.'
'I think I could give her a run for her money,' Brett said with a laugh.
So dad gets the final word.
'She'd put one right under his chin and then try to break his back with a change-up,' Russ laughed. 'I know her. They have a great rivalry.'
Not to mention great futures."
One more note: it sounds like Lawrie was all set to go even higher, according to Bob Elliott's sources. As Elliott wrote this morning, "Canadian infielder Brett Lawrie will go seventh overall this afternoon in Major League Baseball's annual draft of high-schoolers and collegians.
Barring a last-minute change, the Cincinnati Reds are set to select the Langley, B.C., native if the draft falls the way they want it to. " Instead, the Reds took first baseman Yonder Alonso, who's also seen primarily as a hitter.
From MLB's draft report on Alonso: It can be quite a debate over which college first baseman should go first on Draft day. Alonso is a hitter, period, with a great approach and power, especially the other way right now. Defensively, he's no great shakes, but it's that bat that teams will dream about putting in the middle of their lineup to produce plenty of runs in the future.
I'm guessing what must have happened here is the Reds were looking for a pure hitter and had Alonso ranked above Lawrie, but were sure he'd be taken before the draft got to their slot. Some people had him above seventh in mock drafts, some just below. Thus, when he fell to them, they must have decided to jump that way and leave Lawrie. However, Baseball America's John Manuel thought it was unusual: he was expecting them to take shortstop Gordon Beckham, who went to the White Sox with the next pick.
"Not so fast my friend.
Gordon Beckham is NOT going to Cincinnati. The Reds took Yonder Alonso in something of a surprise, but Alonso is a heck of a hitter. He’s short to the ball, quick through the zone and has a polished approach. This really is the first case where a team took a college first baseman and decided he was just too good to ignore, no matter that they have a young first baseman in Joey Votto. But Votto has played left field in the past and some scouts believe he actually could be better defensively in left field. Alonso might be part of a post-Adam Dunn team in Cincinnati and should go off in the Great American Ballpark. Now the big question is for the White Sox — Smoak or Gordon Beckham?
You can bet the Brewers are happy Elliott's prediction didn't come true: according to Jim Callis' mock draft at Baseball America, he was the guy they wanted all along, but they weren't sure he'd still be available. As Callis writes, "The Brewers would love Lawrie and until last night didn't think he had much of a chance to last 16 picks. If he doesn't, they'll have to react to whomever falls, possibly Wallace and more likely Friedrich. Milwaukee had been rumored to be interested in a college reliever to help shore up its big league bullpen, but that's not a priority here." He also correctly predicted the Brewers taking Lawrie. As Manuel wrote on the Baseball America draft blog, Lawrie could be a bit of a steal even, considering the resources the Brewers put into Canadian scouting.
When’s the last time we got the Brewers right? But here, we did, with the Brewers making Lawrie the top-drafted Canadian hitter ever. No one scouts Canada as aggressively as the Brewers and they’ve seen Lawrie well against their team in extended spring training. So if Lawrie can catch, and hit like scouts think he can, he could be a tremendous value at 16.
Update: Gary Ahuja and John Gordon at the Langley Times have some excellent related content, including this main piece, a short piece on Brett and Danielle, and a video interview.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
