How the Teams Have Drafted in This Millennium
The 2017 MLB draft is going to kick off early next week. What do I know about the MLB draft? Nothing! What can I tell you about which teams are good drafters? Very little! I don’t really know what might count as my specific field of expertise, but I know some fields that definitely *aren’t*, and the draft is one of them. You and I, we’re on the same level. Unless you read about the draft a lot, in which case, you’re the smarter one here.
I can’t tell you the first thing about how the draft is going to go. I don’t know which picks might seem risky, and which picks might seem safe. The best I can do for draft-related content is analyze results. Why don’t we take a few minutes to review those? Who has drafted well? Who hasn’t? There, we can have some ideas, if we allow the numbers to be the guide.
Long story short, I made use of the vast Baseball Reference resources, and I checked out all the draft results of this millennium. So, going back to 2000. That gives us a sample of 17 consecutive drafts, not that anything from 2016 of any consequence has happened. This is the very definition of results-based analysis, but I don’t know an alternative, and so I went ahead and gathered the data and created some plots.
Two plots will be shown below. The first one will break down, by team, how many drafted and signed players have appeared in the major leagues. There’s no difference between a guy who played one game and a guy who played a thousand. It’s just about reaching the level. That plot should be easy enough to understand.
And then, for more meat, there’s a plot showing total drafted and signed WAR. A couple things to understand, here. First, I used Baseball Reference WAR instead of FanGraphs WAR, just because it was already there in the spreadsheets I built. So, that’s out of convenience, and there shouldn’t be any super large differences. Second, I mentioned this is WAR for players drafted and signed. I don’t care if those players reached the majors with some other organization. The Astros, for example, are getting all the credit here for Ben Zobrist. Zobrist was drafted by the Astros in 2004, and two years later he went to the Rays. I know that, therefore, Tampa Bay deserves some credit, but in the end, it was Houston that saw enough to make the pick. I just want to make sure you understand these points before we advance.
How should this data actually be interpreted? That gets tricky, and I don’t have any great answers. Everything is part draft pick, part player development, and part luck. In theory, a team could have drafted all the right guys, and then the organization could’ve messed them all up. That shouldn’t fall on the drafting, but it’s impossible to create separation. Think of this as just a retrospective summary. Here’s how the draft picks have worked out. Take it to mean whatever you like.
All that now being said, here’s the first plot:
Because of the way this works, more recent drafts are under-weighted. Those players just haven’t had as much time to develop and climb up the ladder. But anyway, over more than a decade and a half, the Giants have emerged as the leaders in this category. They’ve drafted and signed 95 players who’ve found their way to the major leagues. The Padres are right there at 93, and then the Cardinals are the only other team over 90. Flipping to the other side, the Mariners and Twins bring up the rear, with 57 such players apiece. The Orioles are at 58, and the Astros are at 59.
The average out of the whole sample is 71, with a standard deviation of 10 players. Much credit goes to those first three teams. But, how did all these big-league players perform? That’s what you probably care about more.
The average: 222 WAR for each team. The standard deviation: 52 WAR. But it’s the Red Sox who are far and away in the lead, at 346 WAR, with a 36-win edge over the second-place Diamondbacks. The Diamondbacks shouldn’t hang their heads or anything, and they’re led by Max Scherzer, Paul Goldschmidt, and Brandon Webb, but the Red Sox would be rightfully ecstatic. They’ve drafted and signed 12 players who’ve been worth at least 10 WAR, and they’re led by Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester, Kevin Youkilis, and Jacoby Ellsbury. Anthony Rizzo and Mookie Betts are climbing on up pretty fast. The Red Sox have identified many of the right players. They might not deserve all the credit, again, since those players then have to be developed, but good luck getting granular in that department.
And then. And then, there are the Mariners. Every Mariners fan already knew this, even if they didn’t *know* this, but the Mariners are again in last place, with a combined WAR of 140. Now, that’s close to the Orioles, who have also sucked. They’re down there at 146. But, well, it’s a funny coincidence that the Orioles are next to the Mariners, because the Mariners’ WAR leader out of these players is Adam Jones. Chris Tillman’s in fourth. The Mariners have drafted and signed four players worth at least 10 WAR, and only Kyle Seager has stuck around. (Doug Fister was traded away in his second full season.)
The Orioles have drafted six 10+ WAR players, topped by Nick Markakis and Manny Machado. Their own sob story, of course, is Jake Arrieta. The Indians have drafted just five 10+ WAR players, and one of them is Chris Archer. If I can be totally honest with you, I knew about Archer being traded by the Cubs, but I didn’t know he’d been traded by the Indians. Good pick, at least. Has a good head on his shoulders.
If you have more questions in the comments, I’m saving this spreadsheet, so hopefully I can help. In the meantime, I don’t think I have more to say. We don’t know who’s really drafted the best, independent of all the other factors. But this accounts for how the various draft picks have turned out. Congratulations to the Red Sox, who have identified some awfully good talent. Fewer congratulations to the Mariners. On the plus side for them, Chris Taylor could make this look better right quick. On the downside — yeah.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.


Obviously Fengraphs Red Sox prospect bias showing these “numbers” that make the Red Sox appear to be in first place.
On a more serious note, it looks like Trout moves the Angels about seven spots on this list.
True about the Angels, but you also got to remember that they had some pretty good picks when Eddie Bane was the Scouting director, and if you look around the league there are a fair amount of Big Leaguers drafted by them(definitely thinning out because of the Dipoto years). Also those same Red Sox that are at the top have Eddie Bane helping them with the draft, probably the reason they have been doing so well in recent years.
Jered Weaver (35) Howie Kendrick (27)
Phillies jump up in the second graph from Chase Utley (61) and Cole Hamels (44).
2009 was a pretty good draft for the Angels – other than Mike Trout, they also drafted Randall Grichuk, Garret Richards, Patrick Corbin and Tyler Skaggs.
Now what does it mean that only Richards and Skaggs remain on the team, and they had to trade back for Skaggs, I have no idea.
Is there an easy way to calculate the Drafted&Signed&Played WAR for each team? That in itself is probably not that interesting, as there are going to be really good teams that have just used their prospect capital to trade for other good players, but if we put it on a graph against the team’s winning percentage, I think we could really see some categorization of each team’s management. For example, the Red Sox would show up in the +/+ quadrant as they’ve both been able to win and develop their prospects. Obviously a team’s budget might have a big influence on this, as that’s how the Red Sox and the Dodgers have been able to keep their prospects and bring in value via free agency.
This is fun!
It would be interesting to see the same breakdown but only showing WAR accumulated during players’ first six years of service. That gets around the issue of players like Rizzo, Archer, and Arrieta inflating the totals of teams they didn’t help on the field (with the exception of Arrieta they helped in the form of returning talent, but that’s a different value).
I’m sure the work to pull this data together was substantial, so this isn’t a criticism, just a suggestion on where it might go next.
Any chance we can get the averages and standard deviations for the 2000-2007 time frame? Basically, I would like to know what is the average WAR a team gets each draft. I think the recent years still likely have too many players still acquiring WAR.
Any chance you could just save the spreadsheet as a Google sheet?
FFS, Baltimore. *facepalm*
The Bedard trade allowed them to trade places with the Mariners. Which team deserves the bigger facepalm?
Seattle must easily be the worst in terms of actual value from draft picks, since they traded away Adam Jones, Shin-soo Choo, Tillman, Fister, Mike Morse, Brad Miller, Chris Taylor for basically peanuts.
And don’t even remind us of Slocumb for Varitek and Derek Lowe, or Jose Cruz Jr for some other scrub. The M’s have quietly been one of the worst-run orgs in MLB.
I’d be curious to see the two charts combined, showing the average WAR per player to reach the majors. I didn’t look too closely, but I noticed that the Yankees, at least, appear to be bringing up a whole lot of low-WAR guys, which fits my impressions of the back ends of their bullpens from the last few years.
This is neat. Might be interesting to add average draft position. The Orioles numbers are even more damning when you consider how high they were usually drafting in the 00s.
And the inverse is true for the Red Sox, who had all this draft success without a slew of high picks.
I was thinking something similar. Efficiency with your picks is more compelling than the raw counts IMO. I wouldn’t expect the Yankees to do as well as the Rays in raw counts simply because the Yankees gave up so many “safe” picks in the first couple of rounds due to FA compensation rules.
I read the disclaimer about “drafting the right players and the organization messing them up” and immediately thought of Jack Z. Right after that were the two plots.
And then to be reminded that Adam Jones was the M’s top draftee this century….My sympathies, Mariners fans.
The Mariners also drafted the wrong players. Look at their pick in the 2005 draft, in the context of the other players taken in the first round (and in particular the 9 or so players taken after their pick)
The 9 players taken after Brandon Snyder are:
Trevor Crowe
Lance Broadway
Chris Volstad
CJ Henry
Cesar Carrillo
John Mayberry Jr
Mark Pawelek
Cliff Pennington
Aaron Thompson
That’s not exactly a murderers row, either.
#10 is Jacoby Ellsbury but since those other 9 teams passed on him it’s hard to blame the Orioles too much.
Now in 2006 they picked Billy Rowell instead of Tim Lincecum or Max Scherzer (picked immediately after). That would seem to be a bigger misfire, although the 7 after that aren’t anything to write home about either. And 2002 they selected Adam Loewen instead, and while most of the next 9 picks were busts they did pass on both Zack Greinke and Prince Fielder.
Really, the lesson here should be: Your first round pick will probably bust.
“Congratulations to the Red Sox… Fewer congratulations to the Mariners.”
Perhaps even fewer to the Padres? They look to have drafted & signed the 2nd most players, but for the 8th least amount of WAR, if one were to look at it from an efficiency POV.
Note it’s the 2nd most drafted and signed players to reach MLB. I’d say that developing the 2nd most MLBers who generate relatively few WAR could indicate:
– high floor low ceiling draft strategy (relievers?)
– a bad MLB team that needs to draw heavily from not ready AAA players
– a lot of very recent MLB graduates.
Not any way to spin this great for the Padres, but I think the WAR value alone is the more meaningful metric.
I agree, but WAR total shouldn’t stand alone. Is drafting Brett Wallace and his career (-)0.6 WAR over 1,400 PA’s better than drafting a guy who never makes it past AA? I’d argue it is. At the very least it isn’t worse.
wow – i knew Cleveland benefited greatly from being in that division, but this puts that into pretty great relief. i suppose they rode the ‘first in line at the expos fire sale’ wave for quite a while also.
also shows how well (!) JP Ricciardi’s never draft high school players strategy worked for the Jays.
A lot of trades: Lee, Sizemore, Phillips as you mentioned, also Carrasco, Kluber, Santana, and others.
Plus, they were quite awful in a number of years since 2000 and before 2013.
Before the slot system of 2012, teams were told to follow the commissioner’s office slot guidelines. The Red Sox never did. Both Rizzo and Betts got higher signing bonuses than their slots warranted. Even Lester was paid a higher signing bonus than his pick was slotted for. There is definitely more to it than this but making the decision to ignore the slots of the commissioner’s office helped set the Red Sox down this path.
Spot on.
This also explains the Phillies abysmal performance over the previous dozen years. The Phillies and those who analyze their farm will often point to someone like 1st round pick Anthony Hewitt, but the real problem is the Phillies could have picked Hewitt in the third round or even much later and just paid him the same. The Phillies owners would sooner kill their own children and grandchildren and then themselves rather than violate those guidelines.
THAT is the reason that explains how the Phillies have unfolded over the past five years. Hardball Times did an article on farm WAR for a ten year period and found the Red Sox as the best team and the Phillies as the worst.
That performance difference is 100% due to the different owners of the two teams.
Interesting point. “Who had the most drafting success” is actually a separate question from “who is the best at talent evaluation.” Signing bonus issues and inability to trade picks make each of them tough to answer.
very cool work here. Would like to see median WAR of drafted players weighted by draft position. Maybe even, as someone else mentioned, listed by scouting staff leadership/GM rather than team. Can’t imagine how much work that would be though.
Sounds like a joint project between FanGraphs and Baseball America.
Weighted by draft position would be really interesting, though I think you’d have to consider signing bonuses. In 2011, Josh Bell signed for $5M after being drafted 61st overall, which was the 5th highest signing bonus given out that year. So do you compare him to the expected value of the 61st overall pick, or the 5th?
Would love to see a top 10 list for each team so fans can lament how their team gave away so and so.
I’ve often wondered if teams would be better off just keeping all their draftees and promoting from within. Using Chris Archer as an example, the Indians traded him and 2 other nondescript prospects (nondescript at the time anyway, Archer didn’t hit top 100 lists until 2011) in 2009 for a half season of Mark DeRosa who they then traded for Chris Perez and Jess Todd. Perez gave the Indians 4.5 seasons of decent relief pitching and Todd did nothing.
So that’s Archer for 314 PA with a 799 OPS and 267 IP with a 3.33 ERA.
This would be amazing. Please make this happen. And it would give us another reason to rehash the decision to trade Syndergaard and d’Arnaud for RA Dickey.
It would be interesting to see this broken down by pitchers and hitters.
The White Sox have drafted plenty of good pitchers, but have not drafted a decent hitter since…Joe Crede? Mike Cameron? It’s been a while.
I’d like to see an article on international signings as well, to see if there is a team that is head and shoulders above the rest for scouting international talent. Perhaps that is already in the works.
Unlike the draft, international signing is heavily dependent on a team’s financial power. We probably won’t learn very much about their scouting and development acumen.
Trading picks during the draft is not done in MLB, and that makes this sort of analysis really tough. The Yankees supposedly loved Mike Trout, but with no ability to trade up, they had to sit and wait on 24 teams to pass on him. Were the Angels more *Right* about Trout than the Yankees? It’s hard to say.
Agree with this. I’ve seen draft history analyses (usually of basketball) where teams get all sorts of credit for picking guys late in the draft. My question has always been: would they have made the right pick if they had been picking higher?
Using Trout as an example: He is the best player in the 2009 draft. (Though I will note that the 2009 draft was pretty solid – Strasburg, Leake, Pollock were all 1st rounders)
Would the Angels have taken Trout if they had had the 1st pick? My guess is no way. LIke virtually every other team, they would have taken Strasburg.
Hell, the Angels didn’t even take Trout with the 24th pick.
The Angels had the 24 and 25 pick. If you had back to back picks, it is smartest to draft the better player last because then you don’t have to pay them as much.
Whether it’s revisionist history or not, there are plenty of articles out there discussing the Angels draft in 2009. I think it’s safe to say that Strasburg would have gone #1 to the Angels. However, many claim that Trout was next on their draft board. They were stunned that he fell to them.
And nobody on the Angels liked Grichuk more than Trout. There were other reasons why the draft order happened that way.
What I would find interesting is the results by round. The earlier the round the greater the expectation that the draftee will pan out. The guy in the 23nd round that becomes a star is a great story, but it does not really say much about the team’s drafting skill. If it did, they would have drafted him a lot sooner!
Whenever I’m feeling bad about my life, I like to pull up the wiki page for the 2005 draft, slowly progress towards the current year, and laugh at all the whiffs Seattle made. One of these days we’ll stop sucking!
I would love to see a follow-up in which we see, of the number of draftees and WAR they generated, how many/much were with the original drafting teams, and how many/much were with other teams.
I would also love the see, by team, WAR generated for them by draftees who had been drafted by other teams and not by them. This might serve as a measure of how savvy teams are about picking up and developing draftees from other organizations. I really believe that many draftees have the potential to be All-Stars but get stuck in organizations that don’t know how to develop them, and so their careers go nowhere. Such a follow-up might be a decent proxy for determining who those organizations are.
Total WAR is a crude measure meaning little on its own IMO . A breakdown along the lines of number of players in the 0-1.5 WAR/yr, 2-2.5, 3-4.5, 5-7, 7.5+ WAR/yr range would be helpful. Also since development is a big part of the game perhaps only crediting teams with players who were both drafted by and broke into the MLB with that team (eg Rizzo never played a single game for the Red Sox) Perhaps even limiting it to a teams 6 years of control
That said, B-Ref is hard to work with and its not a small task. This is a good starter. I’d like to see it combined with projections for players who have yet to hit the 6 yr service time limit or are still prospects (top 100) which could show the Yankees in a more positive light. Thats a lot more work of course , so I dont expect it for a free article
Any way to track executives? Like, Cardinals with Lunhow, Asteos with lunhow, etc.
I was quite surprised by the number of Blue Jays draft picks that have made the majors. I was definitely not expecting fifth, I was thinking more middle of the pack.
But then seeing how little WAR those players have generated, I guess that’s why it seems like the Jays haven’t really done a good job at drafting. I’m guessing that a good part of the reason that they had so many guys make the majors, but not really make an impact, was that JP Richardi (that spelling seems wrong, but I’m sure you know who I’m talking about) seemed to draft a lot of guys with very low ceilings. He also seemed to hate high school draft picks, who would often have higher ceilings. And, of course, he often wouldn’t go “best player available”. He didn’t draft Tulo because he already drafted Russ Adams, who was terrible. Generally, if you can play shortstop, you can play another position, if and when that player forces your hand.
I don’t miss the 2000s at all. Poor drafting, poor free agent signings, only occasional competiveness, albeit not to the point of being close to making the playoffs. AA seemed to help rejuvenate the team. And while I’d still rather have AA running the team, the Cleveland duo hasn’t really started to run things like a small market team (yet). Toronto is not a small market team, and should never be run like one. We have an entire country as our market. We own our stadium. The owners of the team own the network that broadcasts the games.
Surprised to see Atlanta so high but I guess that’s some recency bias at work. Helps to have Adam Wainwright sneak into the 2000s even though he didn’t play a single MLB game for the team.