A New Perspective.

are you looking for the mother lode?
no! no, my child, this is not my desire,
and then he said,

i'm digging for fire
i'm digging for fire
i'm digging for fire
i'm digging for fire

one of the most interesting parts of the beautiful construct that is major league baseball is the rule 5 draft.

now, my wonderful friends, we have been introduced to the magnificent josh hamilton story, which has magnified the importance of the rule 5 draft.

***editor's note*** in 1999, when hamilton was originally drafted, i, being 15, jumped all over his bowman chrome rookie card, purchasing it for a sum around $6. i am finally starting to see a return on that investment. ***end editor's note***

here are the rules:

any team can take a guy from another team if that guy:

isn't on the 40-man roster
has been in the minors for at least 4 years if age => 19
has been in the minors for at least 5 years if age < 19

it's important to note that the rule 5 draft, historically, hasn't normally worked; most teams are stuck with a player who eats a hole in the roster. although, it's important to note that most teams that consistently need players from the rule v draft ain't tearin' it up with the sexiest 25 man rosters known to man.

still, the rule 5 draft allows us to test the concept of immersion, which has often been considered an effective way to teach the individual. for example, it is often posited that the best way for someone to learn a language is to go to a country and pick it up. some ambitious individuals communicate the entirety of a language class in that language from the start, and let people sink or swim. in some sense, this is what major league baseball has done in the past few years.

this is more pertinent than it has been in the past, mainly because teams are getting a whole lot better at picking the individuals who swim. the reds picked well this year with hamilton, although you have to wonder what the d-rays were exactly thinking leaving him off the roster. he had always been talented and still showed the flashes, which should have been enough credibility for any former #1 pick. however, the twins' ace, johan santana, was one of the rule 5 draft stars; the nl rookie of the year, dan uggla, was from this place, and other teams have found some legitimate players. in fact, the royals' joakim soria has been good this year as well.

now, here is the relevant question: why is it that these teams fail so horrendously in the talent evaluation department? particularly damning in this category is the uggla/padres case: why was uggla left off the 40-man roster? if you want me to spell it out for you, i will refer you to the following website: specifically, to the 2004 and 2005 seasons. link. what did uggla do wrong, exactly? what suggested he couldn't hit on a big league level?

i point to the following: age.

sabermetrics has come a long way, but one of its puzzling failings in the past few years has been related to player age. i can only assume that the d-rays and the padres gave up on hamilton and uggla because of age, but many players are maturing later and later in their careers. for one thing, college players may need a few years in the minors, particularly if they are drafted in the lower rounds. this is purely a logistical issue: you aren't going to start a tenth-round pick in aaa, aa, or really even high-a. however, by the time they get to aaa they are around 25 or 26 and are frequently considered too old to be prospects. a nice example of this might be ryan howard, who had a perfectly normal progression through the minors, but took some heat for being "old" for a prospect.

i could go on with the anecdotes, but let's look at these guys for guidance: along with ryan howard, we have seen an intense resurgence from adrian gonzalez (the #1 pick in 2000), a dominant tear by jack cust (it's been a few years since he was a legit prospect), and a "blue hot" start at aaa indianapolis from the #1 pick in 2003, bryan bullington. honestly, we gave up on these guys because... we don't really know anything about future performance?

no, that can't be it, because sabermetricians have gained some degree of infallibility over the past few years. in fact, for a long time i believed sincerely that the stats told a better story than my own eyes. k/bb ratios, age-level comparisons, those were the true eyes to the soul that is baseball immortality.

to some degree, it worked for billy beane, although for beane's genius, his best players were consistently no-brainer studs: chavez, zito and mulder were all first round picks, tim hudson was picked in the second round, and tejada had all the scouts salivating from day one. in some sense, moneyball backfired most severely with jason kendall: the stats couldn't project the magnitude of kendall's flaws. kudos to beane, however, for engaging in the "we're paying him a disastrous sum and he will play" logic. i like that.

i'm not saying that moneyball doesn't work, but i'm starting to believe that scouting works just as well, if not better. at long last, put me among the purists.

I WILL OVERANALYZE NO LONGER. and i will never give up the faith.