The All-1/1 Team

[Reuben]

With the college season getting underway there's been renewed speculation about who the Astros will take for their 2nd consecutive #1/1 pick (Appel? Meadows? Frazier? Manaea?). Then last night I chanced to look up Harold Baines in my Bill James Abstract. James used that entry to look at the career value of #1 overall picks from 1965-1990. It was a bit surprising how few genuine "stars" came out of that group: just Griffey, Strawberry, Harold Baines, and Rick Monday. A lot of the best 1/1s have been drafted since 1990. Here's bb-ref's list of #1s.

And here's my little All-1/1 Team, since I had nothing better to do and for some reason wasn't tired:

C Joe Mauer He's had some injury-shortened years, but has already caught more seasons than BJ Surhoff, and is an amazing hitter.
1B Adrian Gonzalez No competition here, Baines and Ron Blomberg were both drafted as 1B but ended up mainly as DHs, and no other 1/1s made much impact at 1B. He's had 7 full seasons and they've all been great, plus 3 Gold Gloves.
2B Ummm... Jeff King? He seems to have played the most games at 2B of any #1, just 121. Tim Foli played 102 games at 2B, had a 16-year career, and Baseball Reference seems to think his defense at SS was great. Foli wins by default.
3B Chipper Jones King, Surhoff, Nevin, Bob Horner all played some 3B too, but it's clearly Larry Wayne here.
SS Alex Rodriguez If A-Rod is indeed finished, he will have played 110 more games at SS in his career than 3B. Shawon Dunston played SS longer. Several guys drafted as SS ended up elsewhere: Surhoff, King, Chipper, Justin Upton
LF Josh Hamilton I guess Jeff Burroughs won an MVP and was a pretty good hitter too. Pat Burrell could hit, too.
CF Ken Griffey Jr. Rick Monday, Darin Erstad were also pretty good in their vastly different ways.
RF Darryl Strawberry a ROY and 8 All-Star teams in his 20's, not bad. Then came the cliff. Maybe Upton or Harper will end up being better?
DH Harold Baines Though Blomberg will always be first chronologically.

SP Andy Benes I know, "Huh?" Not exactly a stud, but he hung around for 14 years, had a 155-139 career record and a 3.97 ERA. Ben McDonald was better, but for a much shorter time. Floyd Bannister, Mike Moore, Tim Belcher... Strasburg and Price will probably have better careers than all these guys, but who knows?

All in all, there've been some awful, horrible picks. I mean, Phil Nevin looks like a stroke of genius compared to the likes of Bryan Bullington, Danny Goodwin, Steve Chilcott, and of course Matt F&%$in' Bush. But it does appear that the "miss" rate has gotten a lot smaller in recent years, and the hits have been pretty big. Clearly, position players far outweigh the pitchers in star power. Maybe the Astros were on to something, not taking Appel...

[juliogotay]

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing. Yes, it looks like pitchers have a far greater fail rate which shouldn't be too surprising.

[Reuben]

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing. Yes, it looks like pitchers have a far greater fail rate which shouldn't be too surprising.

To be fair, only 15 out of the total 48 were pitchers, so they probably "washed out" at about the same rate as the position players... I'm just surprised that Andy Benes comes the closest to having had a "great career"... whereas, except for 2B, you look at the hitters and there's a lot of stars and several super-star/HOF talents.

[subnuclear]

I hadn't followed the Matt Bush story, until I was looking up why Verlander wasn't a number one pick. What a mess. I guess with the new salary system, the Astros aren't as likely to make the same mistake.

[Reuben]

I hadn't followed the Matt Bush story, until I was looking up why Verlander wasn't a number one pick. What a mess. I guess with the new salary system, the Astros aren't as likely to make the same mistake.

Well, one thing that it makes me wonder, is whether pitchers becoming All-Star/HOF-level Major Leaguers depends heavily on development, whereas position players, it perhaps depends more on talent... there's a (relatively) lot of pitchers who throw in the low-to-mid-90's when they're 17-20 years old. Some of them will lose a bit of that velocity, some of them may gain a little, some of them will improve their control, some won't, etc. The hitters who really have amazing tools- A-Rod, Griffey, Hamilton, Harper types - those tools maybe don't require as much nurturing or development, so the player-development people can just focus on refining the kid's approach, pitch recognition, game situations, etc.

So in that sense, it might be easier to spot and project the real elite-level hitting talent, compared to elite pitchers. And of course, pitchers tend to be derailed by injury more.

edit: My theory may also be complete bullshit.

[Mike S.]

Thanks, Reuben.  It's an interesting exercise, and, if nothing else, a cautionary tale.  I'm glad the Astros are (finally) adding much needed talent and depth to the organization, even if I can barely bring myself to care about the upcoming season in the softball league.  But, I also cringe realizing they're drafting 1/1 precisely for the reasons you're outlining here.

[Mr. Happy]

Tim Foli definitely could pick it at SS. Definitely a plus glove. However, he was a bit of a liability at the plate.

[astrosfan76]

I hadn't followed the Matt Bush story, until I was looking up why Verlander wasn't a number one pick. What a mess. I guess with the new salary system, the Astros aren't as likely to make the same mistake.

You could throw Mauer over Prior in the same category. Mauer has turned out much better than Bush, but the same logic was there. Whether Prior would have had a more successful career under a different manager or if he was destined to have his career derailed by injuries, is another debate. But, he was widely considered the top prospect in that year's draft.

[Jacksonian]

You could throw Mauer over Prior in the same category. Mauer has turned out much better than Bush, but the same logic was there. Whether Prior would have had a more successful career under a different manager or if he was destined to have his career derailed by injuries, is another debate. But, he was widely considered the top prospect in that year's draft.

Mauer might have been a cost pick but he was widely considered a top 2 or 3 guy in that draft.  Reports were that the Cubs were ready to take him #2 when the Twins took Prior.  Bush was not.  He wasn't even in the Padres top 3 before their owner got cheap.  It's quite possible that had he not been picked first he might not have gone in the first 15.  They were considering Stephen Drew with the #1.  Drew dropped out of the top 10.

[astrosfan76]

Mauer might have been a cost pick but he was widely considered a top 2 or 3 guy in that draft.  Reports were that the Cubs were ready to take him #2 when the Twins took Prior.  Bush was not.  He wasn't even in the Padres top 3 before their owner got cheap.  It's quite possible that had he not been picked first he might not have gone in the first 15.  They were considering Stephen Drew with the #1.  Drew dropped out of the top 10.

Okay, you could throw Teixeira into that top 2-3 mix, but still, Prior was considered the best college pitcher ever, at that point.  Picking him seemed like a no-brainer, money issues aside.  So, yeah, Bush was a less-likely #1 pick, but you're still looking at a guy who was picked because of money and geography. 

On a side note about Verlander, he wasn't a no-brainer for #1 or #2, either.  He had doubters, even in the Detroit organization.  Baseball America had Jered Weaver, Jeff Niemann, Philip Humber, and Homer Bailey rated as pitchers ahead of him at the time. 

Anyway, I'm glad that the playing field has been leveled somewhat.  Bonus demands may still play a factor, but it's to a smaller degree and you don't have players asking for $15M in guaranteed money over a 5-year contract and things like that.