[情報] 是否該廢除選秀?

[abc12812 ()]

http://tinyurl.com/pznofmy

All sports drafts are scams, more or less. No computer engineer right out of
Carnegie Mellon has to go straight to a job at Comcast for a predetermined
salary. Electronic Arts representatives aren't lurking the halls of
Northwestern with charts and craniometers. The concept is absurd on its face,
and just as absurd when applied to young athletes.

What makes Major League Baseball's draft, which takes place in two weeks,
especially ridiculous is that in addition to being clearly unjust, it's also
inefficient. Drafting is no exact science in basketball or football, but at
least in those sports the top amateur talents are both readily identified and
actually available. Eight of the top 10 finishers in this year's NBA Most
Valuable Player voting were top-five draft picks overall, for example, and
Marc Gasol and Tony Parker, who weren't, were both special cases.

Of the 28 players who placed in the top 10 in last year's baseball MVP voting
or top five in Cy Young voting, though, a little more than half were
first-round picks. Eight were originally signed as amateur free agents,
meaning they weren't subject to the draft at all. The draft isn't a lottery,
but it's closer than it should be given that its nominal purpose is to
distribute the best talent to the worst teams.

One sign of this randomness is the way expected returns flatten out through
the draft. This year, the Mets, who were lousy last year, have the 11th
overall pick, while the Yankees, who were very good, have the 26th. If the
draft worked as it's supposed to, you'd expect that the Mets' pick would be
substantially more valuable, based on historical data.

That isn't even close to being true, though. Players picked 11th overall
between 1965 and 2005 (those picked since haven't necessarily had an
opportunity to show what they can do in the majors) have been worth an
average of 2.93 "wins" over the course of their careers, according to
Baseball-Reference.com. Those picked 26th have been worth an average of 3.02.

The earlier picks were at least a bit more likely to make the majors—28 did
so, as opposed to 20 of those picked later—but they weren't any more likely
to be really useful. (Four of them were worth at least 15 wins in their
careers, while three of the later picks did.) The best player taken in either
spot, the great Detroit shortstop Alan Trammell, was a 26th overall pick, and
he was worth more by himself than the three best 11th picks combined. That
will change before long, given that Pittsburgh's Andrew McCutchen, who was
taken 11th, is just at the start of his prime, but still.

Even more striking than the distribution, though, is the absolute level of
talent. Three wins, a reasonable expectation for what this year's Mets and
Yankees first-rounders will do in their careers, is about the value a decent
and unexceptional player like Daniel Murphy will have in a good year. It's a
really nice hot streak, a misplaced stroke in a ledger. It makes you
appreciate just how rare high-end baseball talent is.

Most of the value of such draft picks comes from the fact that ballplayers
who aren't yet eligible for free agency are paid millions of dollars less
than they're actually worth, so that even a scrub can be a valuable asset.
The rest comes from the small chance that the pick will deliver a player like
McCutchen or Trammell. You could thus say that baseball's draft combines the
worst features of buying scratch-off lotto tickets and attending an
accounting seminar while restricting the ability of young men to choose where
they want to work into the bargain. It's a great deal if you own a ballclub;
for everyone else, not so much.

The final absurdity might be that if you wanted to spread the best talent
around, getting rid of the draft would be a decent way to do it. The eight
amateur free agents who were top MVP or Cy Young finishers last year
originally signed with eight different teams. Only two, Adrian Beltre and
Robinson Cano, signed with teams in rich markets. Allow players to work where
they'd like and some will go for the glamor teams, but some will go for the
ones where they have the best chance to play, or to the towns with the best
weather, or the ones closest to home.

Open markets in talent work just fine in technology, law and soccer, and
they'd work just as well for baseball if anyone would give them a chance.


1. 選秀像樂透 順位高低和價值沒啥關連
2. 業餘FA反而更能平均分配天分
3. 選秀給老闆壓榨小球員 老闆爽 其他人則不
4. FA給球員選擇豪門 機會多 天氣好 或離家近的誘因
5. 自由市場在其他行業運作得很好 只要有機會在棒球也一樣行

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 108.252.142.81
推 noahlin:廢了Strasburg和Harper大概不是在LA就是在NY
→ noahlin:順位高低和價值沒啥關連是球探要努力的吧
推 tonyselina:abc每日夜釣台，我才不會咬呢!
推 lovebulls:職業運動不是自由市場 第五點就不ok了吧 @@
→ uranusjr:不過 3 是事實
推 onime0704:3是事實...,看看太空人...XD。
推 dodohotdog:其他行業 畢業生找工作 也都 FA 沒有選秀啊
推 watertip:他沒提到一點  職業運動需要均衡各隊實力
→ watertip:實力不均會不好看   而選秀就是維持刺激度的保障
→ watertip:當然不是說齊頭式平等  而是要讓各隊有拉近實力的機會
推 watertip:業餘FA不會平均分配, 反而是資源集中 現行FA制度就是證據
→ watertip:其他行業不用選秀是因為不必平衡實力 強者更強沒人有意見
→ abc12812:樓上請看第二點
推 jet113102:3是事實
推 watertip:我就是針對2  他的論點是給你高選秀權也選的亂七八糟
→ watertip:所以不然用FA  但事實是，你在FA一樣會簽得亂七八糟
→ watertip:你選秀做不好 簽FA一樣會有問題  代表球團選人根本有問題
→ watertip:他又舉一些MVP 但不是高選秀順位的
→ watertip:社會上也一堆大老闆不是台大醫科畢業阿 所以聯考廢掉?
→ watertip:選秀是給你機會選 talent, 你選不好是你智障
→ watertip:至於你選的talent後來發展如何，這是造化  只有神知道
→ watertip:他用MPV或賽揚獎的人大多是FA來論證根本跳tone
推 lynked:賭客老是壓錯寶，所以要怪賭場下注法不對？
→ abc12812:文章是說從歷史看來 11順位價值比26順位還低 所以選秀
→ lynked:至於3應該要檢討的是FA制度(縮短廉價勞工時間?)不是怪選秀
→ abc12812:無法達成平均實力的目標
→ abc12812:完全沒說明星大多從FA來
→ abc12812:舉FA是說從業餘FA來的大物 和豪門簽約的只有兩位
推 JakeMcGee:我是覺得取樣也有偏差 為何只算11跟26順位的?
→ abc12812:並無大家想像中的豪門壟斷的情況
→ JakeMcGee:真要檢討選秀是不是沒補償 應該去算每個順位 而不是單舉
→ JakeMcGee:一個11跟26順位的例子(說服力不夠)
推 birdy590:1 根本就是胡扯 球員養成本來就難 前段難養後段只會更難
→ watertip:舉MVP候選人只有兩個跟豪門簽約 論證FA可有效分配talent
→ watertip:這邏輯根本讓其氣憤
→ watertip:第一 FA跟分配talent無關 跟球團財力有關
→ watertip:第二 豪門無法簽下MVP前10名 不代表無法簽下新秀前10名
推 maxspeed150:8個從自由球員市場中簽下來的人是因為他們本來就是IFA
→ maxspeed150:像King Felix或Miggy這種的 他們如果是美國人也絕對是
→ maxspeed150:首輪選秀- - 拿他們來說FA比較能找到talent根本胡扯
→ watertip:第三 高順位未必高成就這是新秀養成風險跟不確定性
→ watertip:為了避免這種不確定性所以索性廢掉選秀?? 最終爽到資方?
→ abc12812:他是說FA能"分配" 不是說FA能"找" 肥卡布可是跟馬林魚簽
推 maxspeed150:那也是他們的海外球探系統好 而且願意賭一把
→ abc12812:舉個例來說好了 年資到的FA會跟馬林魚簽嗎? 大概不太會
→ maxspeed150:這個跟一些小市場球隊賭大學明星本質上我認為沒兩樣
→ abc12812:但如果是菜鳥呢? 這考慮的因素就多了 馬林魚機會多 很
→ abc12812:可能誘因就高於豪門
推 maxspeed150:這樣的球員如果出現在選秀上還是很有機會在樂透區中選
→ abc12812:plus 肥卡布當初是超大魚 簽約金1.9M 小市場花這種錢
→ watertip:但我覺得money的誘因應該高於一切  而且高不少
→ maxspeed150:樂透區是NBA講法 換成首輪前10順位好了
→ abc12812:可不會吝嗇
→ maxspeed150:小市場花在選秀上也不會吝嗇啊
→ maxspeed150:同樣是馬林魚 Yelich的簽約金是1.7M 也不低了
→ maxspeed150:Jose Fernandez則是2M
→ abc12812:因為業餘FA所需投入資本遠小於FA 所以這方面大大降低了
→ abc12812:財力面的不均衡
→ maxspeed150:IFA要比較的對象是選秀不是自由球員的FA啊
→ abc12812:我是給上面對豪門壟斷有疑慮的解釋
→ Sparksfly:確實小於  但有錢的也可以多出
推 tigertiger:以前IFA有被NY壟斷嗎?
→ uranusjr:唬爛護航不用錢, 歐洲運動沒有人在選秀的為什麼還是這麼
→ uranusjr:好看這麼多人看, 要用選秀才能無法平衡實力不就代表某些
→ uranusjr:老闆根本不夠格和其他人競爭, 非要保護才能生存
推 nolander:好有趣
推 rex73723:洋基給了多少，寫這篇文章?
推 maikxz:歐洲足壇財務出問題的其實蠻多的耶...
→ searoar:有人考慮到小聯盟的roster filler嗎
→ searoar:歐洲足球沒有其他東西可以競爭 好唄
推 niravaabhas:如果是舉歐洲足壇要來說服這篇 我想是搞錯了...
→ niravaabhas:西甲現在根本就皇馬跟巴塞在玩 英超就那些豪門搶冠軍
→ niravaabhas:多數國家職業聯盟的冠軍幾乎都是壟斷狀態= =
→ uranusjr:冠軍壟斷又如何？其他人好像球迷也少不到哪裡去啊？靠戰
→ uranusjr:績球迷才能存活這種事情本來就不應該是正道吧
推 JakeMcGee:拿歐洲足球出來講是滿有趣的.....完全不同的怎麼比
推 maikxz:財力出問題還是被打趴啊 且會降級 收入更慘 lol
→ TsaiTao:本文論點不敢苟同，給箭頭
→ hollowland:不靠戰績球迷存活不然靠什麼..? 救濟金嗎
推 noahlin:只靠戰績養球迷海盜太空人早就不排除解散了
推 noahlin:26順位比11價值更高就是因為26這順位有錢球團比例高啊
推 zxc10969:應該看戰績,越爛的抽越多支這樣才好玩阿!!!
→ sneak: 我是給上面對豪門壟斷有 https://daxiv.com