Royals Review: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: RSL Soapbox for Real Salt Lake Fans!

Sabermetric Brown and the Case of the 2007 Draft

As far as towns go, the town of Mudville was not particularly notable.  It didn't have any great museums, or interesting landmarks, or natural features that would make it stand out from dozens of other small towns in America.

So, it is not what Mudville offered, so much as who was living there, that made it such an interesting place to visit.   You see, Mudville was the home of Sabermetric Brown, a sneaker-wearing, baseball enthusiast who had a knack for solving mysteries.  More so than any adult in town, or anyone else for that matter, you could count on Sabermetric to get to the bottom of any type of mind-boggler. The remarkable thing was that he was only ten years old!

Sabermetric's father was Mr. Brown, a journalist who covered major league baseball.  Mr. Brown was proud of his writing skills and analytic ability, and had a loyal group of readers who enjoyed reading his weekly column.   But every now and then, Mr. Brown would come across a story or  topic that he couldn't quite understand.   That's when he'd turn to Sabermetric for help.

One particular evening, Mr. Brown was sitting at his desk in the study, rubbing his forehead, when Sabermetric and Mrs. Brown entered the room.  

"Oh, Sabermetric, I'm glad you're here," Mr. Brown stated. "I came across a story that`s got me puzzled."

"This doesn't have to do with the HGH scandal, does it?" Sabermetric said.  "Because we solved that last week."


This doesn't have to do with the HGH scandal, does it?

Mr.  Brown shook his head.  "No, fortunately, that's over and done with.  Unless Congress can come up with another $36 million, that is."

Mr. Brown pointed at an article on his computer monitor.  It was from Baseball Prospectus, a website Mr. Brown frequented often for interesting facts and story ideas.

"I can't figure it out.  They're reviewing each team's minor league system," Mr. Brown furrowed his brow. "I thought the Royals were improving, but according to this they've dropped 13 spots!"

Mrs. Brown put her hand on her hips.  "Oh, Harold, you know that they graduated both Gordon and Butler to the majors.  A drop was only natural."

Mr. Brown looked up at Mrs. Brown in bewilderment.  "That's what I thought at first, too.  But teams graduate players all the time.   Not to mention that the Royals dropped more than both Seattle and the Tigers, two teams that traded away half their farm this offseason."

"Wow, that really is queer," Mrs. Brown blurted. "What could it mean?"

"Oh, it's not so odd when you think about it," Sabermetric said.  "In fact, it seems pretty obvious."

The two looked at Sabermetric in amazement.   Sabermetric had solved the riddle again.

WHAT DID SABERMETRIC KNOW THAT HAS PARENTS DID NOT?

Star-divide

"It's simple logic," Sabermetric explained to his family. "If you want your farm system to rate high, you have to draft well."

Sabermetric took the mouse from his father, and navigated to the Baseball Cube website.

"The Royals did something unique last year," Sabermetric continued.  "See if you can guess what it is."

Both Mr. and Mrs. Brown peered over Sabermetric's shoulder at the website.  Mr. Brown shook his head again.

"Beats me, Sabermetric," he said. "I'm stumped."

"There's something peculiar about their draft strategy," said Sabermetric.  Based on his parent's expressions, he could tell that they still didn't understand.

"Okay, I'll give you a hint." Sabermetric scrolled down to a certain part of the webpage. "There's two things of note here."

Sabermetric leaned back in his chair so his parents could get a better look.

"The first is that you'll notice nobody that they drafted played above Rookie Ball last year."

"Hmm, is that unusual?" asked Mrs. Brown.

"Only if you look at every other team in the majors." Sabermetric smiled slyly.

"It's true, Margaret," Mr. Brown said. "You'll rarely see that happen."

Mrs. Brown gave Sabermetric a look. "Okay, Sabermetric, you might be onto something there.  What's the other thing we should have noticed?"

"Look at their first 10 draft picks.  Do you notice any patterns?" the young enthusiast queried.

"Well, they do all seem awfully young." Mr. Brown offered.

"Exactly!" said Sabermetric. "8 out of the 10 were drafted straight out of high school."

"What's so special about that?" Mrs. Brown asked.

"Well," began Sabermetric. "If you look at every other team in baseball, they all used at least half of their first 10 picks on college players.  In fact, most used seven or eight."

"It's true!" exclaimed Mr. Brown. "Why, Baltimore used all 10 on Collegians!"

"Yes," Sabermetric said, "but Baltimore is stupid."

Mrs. Brown fanned her face and slumped down into a chair, overcome with emotion.

"What does it all mean?" wondered Mr. Brown. "Did the Royals blow the draft?"

"Yes and no," Sabermetric explained. "One could say they were too unconventional with their draft, relied too much on unproven talent, and now are paying for it."

"That sure sounds crummy," sulked Mr. Brown.

Sabermetric continued, "On the other hand, maybe Dayton Moore was wise enough to see that all of the other teams were drafting guys out of college, and took advantage of inefficiencies in the market, so he focused on high schoolers instead."

"So, you think maybe Dayton was looking for the next Andruw Jones?" Mr. Brown asked.

"Inefficiency in the what now?" Mrs. Brown cried. "I don't understand, dear."

"Are you sure I'm not adopted?" Sabermetric smirked.  "What I'm trying to say is that maybe the Royals made the right choice.  Maybe all the good college players were being scooped up, leaving a bunch of prime 18 year olds for the taking..."  

"Wow, that's a relief," interrupted Mr. Brown.

"...or maybe Dayton Moore is just retarded," finished Sabermetric.

"Oh, my!" gasped Mrs. Brown. "That is some mouth you have on you."

"It sure is, Sabermetric," glowered Mr. Brown. "Are you sure you're not adopted?"

Mr. Brown grabbed Sabermetric by the ear and led him to the doorway. "Up to your room, son, to think about what you just said."

"Ah, jeez," Sabermetric pleaded. "Don't you want to know if the Royals made a mistake with their draft?"

Mr. Brown looked at his son sternly. "Too late, Sabermetric. It looks like we'll just have to let the readers decide."

Poll
What do you think? Should the Royals have drafted more seniors?
Assuming you mean high school seniors, yes.
8 votes
It doesn't matter who they draft, the Royals would always rank low.
24 votes
It doesn't matter who they draft, Dayton can get talent in other ways.
9 votes
What would Bugs Meaney do?
20 votes
I don't see how drafting the elderly would have solved anything.
30 votes
Assuming you mean college seniors, yes.
16 votes

107 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs  |  Comment 42 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

My god
That is genius

by PopeSoria on Mar 1, 2008 3:29 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

I kind of like that strategy
In general, I think one needs to mix high school and college draftees.  But too many "safe" college picks end up being not so safe at all.  And I saw an article on BP last year which showed that college pitchers had the most injury problems of any type of draftee.

High school draftees, in my opinion, have the highest risk and highest reward of any draftees.  So I don't really mind the Royals drafting many of them so that maybe one or two will become genuinely good major leaguers, as opposed to drafting more "safe" picks so that a handful of them can become mediocre major leaguers.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 1, 2008 3:57 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Wow
As a fan of Encyclopedia Brown, I think you nailed it! That draft strategy was queer indeed!

I like the strategy too, although I'd be wary of going too far in going with young'uns. Like stocks, its probably best to hedge your bets and diversity the profile of draftees. While HS kids may be higher upside, there is of course higher risk. You may want to mitigate some of that risk with "safer" collegiate picks.

If I were to devise a strategy, I might go with best player available in the first round, regardless of high school or college, college in the first couple rounds afterwards (rounds 2-5), then try to lean towards high schoolers after round five or so, and even grab a few guys with "signability" issues like we did with Keaton Hayenga.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 1, 2008 5:52 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

awesome...
Diary of the Year.

by Billex Gordler on Mar 1, 2008 9:00 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Genius man
Genius

As far as general rant about the draft. This is my draft for the Royals last year. We'll see how it turns out.

Round #. Player Royals took(Player I would have taken)
1-2. Mike Moustakas(Matt Wieters-C, 5, Orioles)
2-2. Sam Runion(Sam Runion)
3-2. Dan Duffy(Dan Duffy)
4-2. Mitch Hodge(Nolan Gallagher-RHP, 11, Mariners)
5-2. Adrian Ortiz(Jeremy Hefner-RHP, 23, Padres)

2006 review
1-1. Luke Hochevar(Tim Lincecum-RHP, 10, Giants)
2-1. Jason Taylor(Josh Butler-RHP, 3, Tampa Bay)
3-1. Blake Wood(Brennan Boesch-COF, 6, Detroit)
4-1. Derrick Robinson(Bryant Thompson-RHP, 11, Arizona, though in retrospect, had I been aware of Marcus Lemon, he'd be my pick)
5-1. Jason Godin(Scott Sizemore-2B, 6, Detroit)

Let's go Royals! And Let's go Timmeh!

by playingwithfire on Mar 2, 2008 4:27 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Similar thoughts
I usually don't follow high school/college prospects enough to know much more than who will likely be drafted in the first round, but of what little I knew, I really preferred Lincecum and Wieters at #1 the last two years.  I was okay with Moustakas, but thought Hochevar was a reach.

What are you looking at for 2008?  Smoak looks pretty good, but I seem to recall there being a hitter in the Big 12 who put up near identical numbers to Alex Gordon.  Don't know much beyond that, though.

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Mar 2, 2008 5:20 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I do that yearly
I do the draft in real time, or as close to it as I can get.

2006:
1- Brad Lincoln- RHP- Houston
2- Brett Anderson- LHP- HS (Ok)
3- Stephen King- SS- HS (Fla)
4- Whit Robbins- 3B- Georgia Tech
5- Jordan Newton- C- Kentucky

2007:
1- Josh Vitters- 3B- HS (Cal)
2- Nevin Griffith- RHP- HS (Fla)
3- Kyle Blair- RHP- HS (Cal)
4- Eric Farris- 2B- Loyola Marymount
5- Michael Taylor- RF- Stanford

Blair didn't sign, so the theoretical Royals would be getting an extra pick after the third round this season and I'll factor that into my Sickels-style shadow draft this June

by JM Barten on Mar 2, 2008 11:01 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Buuut...
If i could cherry pick right now, I would take Evan Longoria (I kick myself every time b/c he was the player I liked most) in 2006 and Jason Heyward in 2007.

This year, I'm really high on Smoak and Beckham with Alvarez and Alonzo trailing close behind.

by JM Barten on Mar 2, 2008 11:05 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

still think we should take a crack
at a top of the line P like Aaron Crow before we think about bat.
Let's go Royals! And Let's go Timmeh!

by playingwithfire on Mar 2, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Why?
If there were a pitcher which was head and shoulders above the other available players, like Price or even Porcello, then I'd be with you.  But I don't think anyone is describing Crow like that.  So, if we get to #3 and there are some really good hitters and really good pitchers, I'd definitely go with the best available hitter.  The Royals organization has one good hitting prospect.  One.  We need at least a few more than that.
I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 2, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

who's our best pitching spec now?
Dan Cortes? I wouldn't call him good yet
Let's go Royals! And Let's go Timmeh!

by playingwithfire on Mar 2, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Good pitching prospects
In the very least, Hochevar and Cortes are both very good pitching prospects.  They are both top 100 (in fact both are top 65) BA prospects.  And Hochevar is top 100 according to BP with Cortes in their top 110.

In addition to them, Duffy, Wood, Pimentel and Rosa are all good pitching prospects.  They all have some realistic projection to be at least decent major league pitchers with upside potential much better than that.  Unfortunately, right now only Moustakas projects to being a good major league hitter.  I don't think you could say that about any other Royals position player.

In the Royals system, the pitching is way, way in front of the hitting.  The hitter shortage is much, much bigger than the pitcher shortage (and there really isn't much of a shortage at all).

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 2, 2008 3:18 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

NY
do you not feel that Hochevar is basically a huge bust at this point?
Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Mar 2, 2008 5:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Of course not
After one not-so-great season in the minors?  It was his first exposure to AA and AAA hitters.  He was restricted in which pitches he can throw.  And still he had pretty good strike out and walk numbers.  And yet, scouts still like his stuff and control and he's still regarded by everyone as a top 100 prospect.  How could anyone possibly describe him as any kind of bust?
I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 2, 2008 6:07 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

He was the #1 overall pick...
I am by no means ready to cut bait on Hochevar, but the #1 overall pick in a draft needs to do more than be ranked as a top 100 prospect.  Way more.

And while his BB/K stats at AA ball were excellent, his BB/K ratio at Omaha took a huge nosedive.

None of this is to say that Hochevar won't turn out to be an excellent #2/3 starter in a year or two.  And he is not a genuine bust (when I think of big time #1 pick bust, I think of someone like Matt Bush).  But the Royals passed on some serious pitching talent in the 2006 draft to take Hochevar, and that context has to be considered when evaluating Hochevar holistically.

by DarthYoshi on Mar 2, 2008 11:25 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Hochevar is a very good pitching prospect
Sure it would have been great to get more from a #1 overall pick, but the reality is that he remains a very good pitching prospect.  He is what he is and we should look at him as a pitching prospect without regard to his draft position.

And yes the Royals passed on other pitchers to get Hochevar.  Are they all better than him?  Brad Lincoln has spent most of his time on the pine with a serious injury.  Andrew Miller was very uneven in the minors before being rushed to the majors and failing.  It certainly isn't clear that he's better than Hochevar.  Everyone complains about Lincecum as if it was clear at the time that he was obviously the best pitcher in the draft.  That was anything but clear.  There's a reason that nine teams passed on him.  One of the big ones is that his size and mechanics make it unclear if he'll be able to stay as a starter and also give rise to some injury risk.

It is very easy to say "pick X was bad" a year or two after the draft because one or two players drafted later are doing better.  That always happens.  Was it a reasonable choice at the time?  Yes.  Can he still be a good player for the Royals?  Definitely.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 2, 2008 11:40 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed that Hochevar is a good prospect
...but draft choice has to be taken into account.  Having a failure like, say, Colt Griffin, hurts your organization a lot less if drafted in the later rounds because it is less likely that you lost out on a potential All-Star to get some guy who busts out--there is a relative loss involved in that.  I'm willing to bet that we'd feel way less bad about Chris Lubanski if the Royals didn't spend a #5 pick on him.  When you consistently spend first-round draft picks on players who don't pan out, your organization suffers--and I think the Royals have proved that with a number of their disastrous first-round picks.

Sure, the Royals passed on Lincoln, Miller, and Lincecum, but, for instance, they also passed on Clayton Kershaw, who has been phenomenal in minor-league ball in the Dodgers' farm system.  He was considered the top HS arm in the draft, and while we all know the risks involved in drafting HS pitchers, the Royals have proved plenty willing to take that risk in the past.  Miller's flameout I am more willing to attribute to the Tigers' complete mismanagement of his minor-league career than him being a better or worse pitcher than Hochevar.  I'd like to think that Dayton Moore would've treated Miller with much more caution.

by DarthYoshi on Mar 3, 2008 12:06 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Pitchers and draft spot
but draft choice has to be taken into account.

It only has to be taken into account when you're talking about how fans feel about a prospect.  If he's a good prospect, he's a good prospect, regardless of where he was drafted.  If he sucks, it also doesn't matter where he was drafted.  He's a good prospect, period.

I'm willing to bet that we'd feel way less bad about Chris Lubanski if the Royals didn't spend a #5 pick on him.

I couldn't care less that he was #5 pick.  He's a mediocre, prospect period.  I'd consider him a low-ceiling mediocre prospect if he were the #1 pick or a 45th round pick.

Sure, the Royals passed on Lincoln, Miller, and Lincecum, but, for instance, they also passed on Clayton Kershaw, who has been phenomenal in minor-league ball in the Dodgers' farm system.  He was considered the top HS arm in the draft, and while we all know the risks involved in drafting HS pitchers, the Royals have proved plenty willing to take that risk in the past.

How is this different from any other draft post mortem?  With every draftee, you can look at it a year or two later and say that we should have drafted another player, drafted later, who performed better, or is currently considered a better prospect.  So what?  I mean really, why should I care?  No one was seriously saying at the time that Kershaw should have been drafted #1.  No one.  There were many possible reasonable choices for that pick and the Royals made one of them.  

Miller's flameout I am more willing to attribute to the Tigers' complete mismanagement of his minor-league career than him being a better or worse pitcher than Hochevar.

Who knows?  Who knows how good he is.  Most prospects, even most top prospects, fail.  Miller might, Hochevar might, Kershaw might, Lincoln might.  Lincecum might blow out his shoulder this year and never be right again.  Remember when the next can't miss guaranteed lock pitching prospect was Edwin Jackson?  So far, he's had five seasons of unrelenting major league failure, along with three crappy AAA seasons.  The list of top pitching prospect failures is a mile long.  The jury is still out on all of the above pitchers (except for Jackson).

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 3, 2008 12:23 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

blah, subject lines, blah
"It only has to be taken into account when you're talking about how fans feel about a prospect.  If he's a good prospect, he's a good prospect, regardless of where he was drafted.  If he sucks, it also doesn't matter where he was drafted.  He's a good prospect, period."

And I quote you on the BP rankings thread: "Small market teams like the Royals can't afford for first round draft picks to fail very often."  Where you draft someone does matter, because of the intrinsic risks involved of using such a relatively valuable draft slot.

"How is this different from any other draft post mortem?  With every draftee, you can look at it a year or two later and say that we should have drafted another player, drafted later, who performed better, or is currently considered a better prospect.  So what?  I mean really, why should I care?  No one was seriously saying at the time that Kershaw should have been drafted #1.  No one.  There were many possible reasonable choices for that pick and the Royals made one of them."

Strike my mention of Kershaw in the Dodgers' minor-league system and nothing that I said was based on hindsight.  People were saying then that Kershaw was the top HS pitcher in the draft and among the top 5 pitching prospects (Brandon Morrow barely counts...even then, people were seeing him as a potential reliever rather than a starter).  He was one example of a reasonable choice the Royals missed out on, that's all I'm saying.

"Who knows?  Who knows how good he is.  Most prospects, even most top prospects, fail.  Miller might, Hochevar might, Kershaw might, Lincoln might."

Well, yeah.  But it is a lot easier to take when your 50th-round pick fails than when your #1 pick does--which was the basic point of my original post to begin with.

And again, I don't think of Hochevar as a bust.  But I don't think it is unreasonable for his stock to have gone down since the start of 2007.

by DarthYoshi on Mar 3, 2008 1:18 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Subject line
And I quote you on the BP rankings thread: "Small market teams like the Royals can't afford for first round draft picks to fail very often."  Where you draft someone does matter, because of the intrinsic risks involved of using such a relatively valuable draft slot.

Right, the Royals need first round draft picks to succeed.  If your first round draft pick turns into a good prospect, then you're doing well.  It's not like #1 overall has to be great, but #10 overall only has to be very good, while #20 overall only needs to be good.  You need first round draft picks to succeed, period.  Hochevar is still looking good.  We'll see how he progresses over the next few years to see if he stays on track.

Strike my mention of Kershaw in the Dodgers' minor-league system and nothing that I said was based on hindsight.

Yes, and what you said was, "the Royals passed on Lincoln, Miller, and Lincecum."  Yes, they did.  And the majority of commentators, "experts," etc. were saying that Miller should be the #1 overall pick.  He hasn't exactly done better than Hochevar so far, so we can't say right now that the Royals screwed up by passing on him.  Lincoln has been sidelined by injury.  Nice pass there.  Lincecum looks very good so far, but he fell to #10 because of fears that his size and delivery either wouldn't allow him to stay as a starter, or that he'd go down with injury.  Those risks are still there.  We'll see what happens.

He [Kershaw] was one example of a reasonable choice the Royals missed out on, that's all I'm saying.

Yes, the Royals passed on him.  At the time, no one suggested that the Royals should sign Kershaw.  So how does this affect the evaluation of Hochevar?  If any pitcher drafted after Hochevar is currently a higher ranked prospect than Hochevar, then it was a bad pick?  I think that's pretty silly.

Well, yeah.  But it is a lot easier to take when your 50th-round pick fails than when your #1 pick does--which was the basic point of my original post to begin with.

If your basic point is that it feels worse as a fan when a #1 overall pick fails, then I agree with you.  Thankfully Hochevar isn't failing.  It would have been great if he dominated both AA and AAA, but he didn't.  Even polished college draftees aren't usually immediately major league ready.  It is also tough to dominate when you aren't allowed to through your best secondary pitch.

And again, I don't think of Hochevar as a bust.  But I don't think it is unreasonable for his stock to have gone down since the start of 2007.

Definitely.  His stock has gone down in pretty much everyone's eyes, including mine.  The fact that he had some difficulties in the minors, even without his slider, makes his stock slide.  If he doesn't take a nice step forward this year, his stock will slide even more.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 3, 2008 3:54 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Miller pitched better than Hochevar last year
2007 Minors
Miller:  2.77 ERA, 3.39 FIP, 78 IP, 7.04 K/9, 2.88 BB/9, 0.35 HR/9, 69% GB%

Hochevar:  4.86 ERA, 4.53 FIP, 152 IP, 8.17 K/9, 2.60 BB/9, 1.42 HR/9, 40% GB%

2007 AA
Miller:   0.59 ERA, 3.36 FIP, 31 IP, 7.04 K/9, 1.47 BB/9, 0.59 HR/9, 77% GB%

Hochevar:  4.69 ERA, 4.02 FIP, 94 IP, 9.00 K/9, 2.49 BB/9, 1.24 HR/9, 40% GB%

by Gopherballs on Mar 3, 2008 1:03 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Let's look a little deeper
Most of Miller's minor league innings were in A-ball.  More than 1/3 of Hochevar's minor league innings were in the toughest hitter's league in the minors.  And I believe the Eastern League is more of a pitcher's league than the Texas League.  And when you compare the two pitchers' AA lines, you've got to like Hochevar's two more strikeouts per nine innings.  

To put it mildly, comparing Miller and Hochevar's above 2007 stats wasn't exactly comparing apples to apples.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 3, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Nope
The park factors for the Eastern and Texas Leagues are virtually identical.  

Hochevar's modest edge in strikeouts is dwarfed by Miller's extreme groundball and home run rates (which is tied directly to the groundballs).  Apples to apples, Miller beat Hochevar by 4 runs of ERA and almost 1 run of FIP.  That's a huge difference.  

by Gopherballs on Mar 3, 2008 4:23 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Miller and Hochevar
The park factors for the Eastern and Texas Leagues are virtually identical.

Ok, how do the park factors and level of competition compare between the PCL and the Florida State League.  Apples...and oranges.

Hochevar's modest edge in strikeouts

No one can seriously argue that the difference between 9 K/9 and 7 K/9 is modest.

Apples to apples, Miller beat Hochevar by 4 runs of ERA and almost 1 run of FIP.  That's a huge difference.

First, you have argued vociferously that ERA is a crappy stat and you never use it to support any argument...until now.  Why is it suddenly relevant?  When looking at a pitching prospect, I'd much rather have Hochevar's K's and BB's than Miller's.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 3, 2008 4:34 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

ERA is a crappy stat but you like to use it
So even using your crappy stat, Miller was much better than Hochevar.  Using a better stat like FIP, Miller still comes out way ahead.  

As for K rate, Hochevar K's rate fell below 7.0 to 6.83 in AAA (which translates to 5.2 K/9 at the majors).  Miller maintained his K/9 in the majors -- in fact, he improved to 7.88 K/9.  The difference between their K skills is very modest (and Miller has the better stuff).  

Miller's extreme groundball tendencies (which suppress the HR rate, Hochevar's biggest problem) makes him the better prospect.

by Gopherballs on Mar 3, 2008 4:51 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

You're stretching
But you're entitled to your opinion.

By the way, I have a feeling that taking away Hochevar's best out pitch affected his stuff and strikeout rate.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 3, 2008 4:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Crutch?
That one went over my head.
I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 3, 2008 5:27 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Draft Position
If we want to argue whether the Royals have drafted well in the last several years then we can talk about mock drafts and the other guys we should have draft.  

Truth is..I don't care where Hoch. was drafted.  Is he a prospect?  Yes, he is.  Let's argue that.  What's done is done.  

Would you rather have Zimmerman or Braun over Gordon?  The numbers would sure point to Zimmerman and/or Braun, but I'm not giving up on A-God.  I'm not ready to quit on Hoch after 1 year, either.

by Stook on Mar 3, 2008 12:43 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree
You can never have enough pitching. And its silly to draft based on the MLB team's needs. By the time our 2008 draftees come up, our situation could be totally different.

I like Crow, and not just because he's local. He throws hard and he's a polished collegiate. I don't think he's heads and tails above the rest, but I don't think anyone has really separated themselves yet.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 2, 2008 8:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Drafting need
It is silly to draft based on the MLB team's need.  But I don't think anyone is arguing that.  Is it silly to draft based on the organization's need?  Again, if there is a pitcher that is head and shoulders better than the rest of the available players, then take the pitcher.  From everything I've read, Crow certainly isn't that.  I haven't read anyone say that he's clearly better than the top position player prospects.  So, I'd definitely take one of them, unless Crow has such an amazing season that he makes himself irresistible.
I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 2, 2008 10:23 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I think the hitters are better
I think Smoak and Alvarez at this point are better prospects than Crow, so hey, I'm cool with taking either of em over Crow at this point. Smoak would look awfully nice in a Royals uni.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 2, 2008 11:20 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

And Smoak is a very cool name
I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 2, 2008 11:41 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Mock drafts
I thought I was the only nerd that did that. My shadow drafts:

2006
1 - RHP Brad Lincoln - U. of Houston (jmbarten and I were both wrong on that one! He's been hurt)
2 - RHP Stephen Wright - U. of Hawaii (suffered mono his first year, was a disappointment this year)
3 - LHP Mark Weiser - Miami U. (OH) (pretty solid thus far)
4 - RHP Jeff Manship - U. Notre Dame (had signability issues but he signed and has been awesome, he's one of the Twins top five prospects)
5 - OF Shawn Scobee - U. Nevada-Reno (terrible)

2007
1 - OF Jason Heyward - Georgia HS (I'd have taken Wieters, but I don't think the Royals were going to pay him; Heyward is a hot prospect thus far)
2 - SS Charles Culberson - Georgia HS (decent)
3 - RHP Sam Demel - Texas Christian Univ (good in low A ball, terrible in high A ball in limited innings)
4 - RHP Travis Banwart - Wichita State Univ. - (very good start)
5 - LHP Effrain Nieves - Puerto Rico HS (not very good, wild last year)

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 2, 2008 8:13 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

That's spooky
I took Manship in the 9th round. I talked myself into a pitcher, which was a dumb idea. And in relation to Andrew Miller/Lincecum I thought that Lincoln was closer to the majors, a safer pick health-wise, and because of his athleticism, had some more projection left. Oops. I haven't screwed up like that since I took Mike Aubrey.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/comments/2008/1/22/125832/157/9#9

by JM Barten on Mar 3, 2008 4:38 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

scouting guru Dayton moore
is winning with Allard's players

lets hope that doesnt continue

Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Mar 2, 2008 5:16 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Best Ever
I havn't been on in a while, but I must say this is the best diary I have red to date! Great writing!!

by trueblue on Mar 2, 2008 8:16 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Awesome!
Leroy Brown rules.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Mar 3, 2008 3:41 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

As of today
I'd go Matusz.  Big lefty, good frame, three plus secondary pitches.  So long as his coach at USD doesn't absolutely crap on his arm, I'm all for picking up a projectable college lefty.

by ajblobaum on Mar 3, 2008 5:43 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.
Start posting about the Royals »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

_41153080_gallerysanta_small
Are you good enough?
Trust_small
Denny Matthews at Plaza Library
Royalsretro_small
Royals sign P Jorge Campillo
Stash1_small
Kansas City Fails To Pick Up Option On Royals
Royalsretro_small
Royals sign P Brad Thompson
Tu_small
What would be an appropriate haul for Greinke?
Small
Shane Costa and Ryan Shealy Eras Officially End
Royalsreview_small
Predictions: Will Greinke Win the Cy Young?
Small
Saturday in the AFL
Royalsreview_small
Royals Links: DeJesus Rumors, Chunky Moose, Gold Glove Outrage, Pete Rose's Galpal, Bill Simmons, Lech Walesa and Rany's Return

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Royalsreview_small royalsreview