Steve-o wrote:Bobbleheadrusty wrote:I would say that in each year most of those players were just as hyped (remembering that the internet as a tool for this sort of forum is still very new). Bush for example.
My recollection on Bush was that the only team that really loved him was his hometown team, SD. I think the general scouting consensus was that he was an overdraft. In fact, even in 2004, I think he was widely regarded as the worst #1 ever taken.Bobbleheadrusty wrote:So out of 20 players I count 8 who are/were worth their pick. If you give Hamilton a pass and assume the last three all develop (a stretch) you are looking at a 60% success rate.
I seem to remember a Jim Callis Ask BA column about the success of first round and first overall picks. I wish I could find it (I think I read it 6 mo to a year ago), but the conclusions were pretty obvious. Players selected in the first round were more likely to make it to the majors and contribute and players selected first overall were even more likely to be successful. You poo-poo a 60% success rate (and frankly I disagree with you assessment and method on some of those guys), but compare that to the success rate of the lower spots in the draft. I'm sure you'll find that the first spot succeeds at a much higher rate.
I'm not saying that first overall picks aren't successful when compared to lower picks (they are). I'm saying the first HS hitter taken has a pretty low success rate for a 30M contract, especially when you consider that this kid will have only 2 years of high school education and will probably take 3-4 years to even consider being ML ready.