Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysdailydose
My hometown Tigers are one of the best examples of this. Look at how bad the Tigers were for years after say 1987. as I said earlier there are only 2 players since 1978 who could be considered MLB stars in Gibby and Verlander. (And only JV since 87) There was a few major league regulars in Tony Clark and Justin Thompson and Travis Fryman.
35 years and 2 stars and 6 productive players? What is being suggested almost makes that the expected haul of one, MAYBE two drafts.
I'm by no means suggesting it is perfect, just that people tend to overestimate how many stars there are in a given draft along with players with the talent to even make the majors.
|
The problem with using any one club's draft as the barometer (even if what you say is true), is that the fact of the matter is that baseball as a collective _always_ has great players throughout it, and that those players come from somewhere. If Detroit has been a prospect desert, than someone _else_ is yielding twice as many stars as the average team.
I also suggest that you may only be looking at guys who actually yielded to Detroit's team. This would "miss" a guy like John Smoltz, who was moved from Detroit's system to Atlanta before he became a Hall of Famer. To get this design right, the game needs to look at the whole of baseball. Not one team.