I've seen a lot of these high school/college pitching comparisons done, over varying time periods by various sports writers (Neyer, Callis, etc). And all of them suffer from small samples, simply because of the nature of what they're studying, successful major league pitchers during the modern baseball era. There certainly seems to be a small advantage in drafting college pitchers, but how much of an advantage has varied widely in those various informal studies. That just reinforces my suspicion that we simply don't have enough data, that's recent enough, to make a judgment call on high school pitching as a whole. Compounding this problem is that you're dealing with a moving target. Drafting styles, "Moneyball" conceptions, ongoing advances in sports medicine, all these things are changing the way drafts are done, which can have unforeseen ripple effects on which players get chosen, and how much success is seen immediately. Statistics from 1990-1997 (aka 14-7 years ago) as seen in that study, may already be too outdated. The way I see it, as the game continues to get richer, and bonuses get bigger, there is a definite shift toward youth that's being led by the players as much as the teams. This is simple economics, we all realize it, it's the way the game is played. Let's play a little game of our own here. We'll take two imaginary pitching draft classes, one from 10 years ago (it could be any time period in the past really), and one from today, all numbers rough and hypothetical Draft Class 10 years ago ----------------------------------------- 100 high school pitchers that are "high potential" prospects, all get drafted 40 sign with teams 60 go to college, and 50 of those eventually get drafted 29 of the HS players make the bigs (~71%, which conforms with the study Callis cites) 41 of the college players make the bigs (82%, which also conforms to the study) 70 players in total from that "high potential" draft class make the bigs, a 70% success rate. Now, if you were a team that concentrated on college pitching, you'd have a larger pool of good prospects to eventually choose from. You'd have a better chance of getting more of these "blue chip" prospects, and a higher percentage of those college prospects would succeed. You'd eventually come under the impression that college pitching was the way to go. But wait, something about the game shifts, the amount of money becomes more appealing, and players are skipping college more and more... Draft Class Now ----------------------------------------- 100 high school pitchers that are "high potential" prospects, all get drafted 70 sign with teams 30 go to college, and 25 of those eventually get drafted (same drafted percentage as above) 50 of the HS players make the bigs (~71%, which conforms with the study Callis cites) 20 of the college players make the bigs (~82%, which also conforms to the study) Once again, 70 (and 70%) of the players succeed in making it to the major league level. No difference in total player pool. But all of a sudden a team that concentrates on college pitching is fighting over a much smaller pool of players. Even with the higher percentage success rate, the overall talent available has dropped significantly. Your options are narrowing, while other teams are enjoying, and competing with, the 50 HS players that do make the bigs, regardless of the higher failure rate. There are a couple caveats of course. The college pool is significantly improved by the addition of players that emerge as prospects while in college. This is offset by the shift that occurs when colleges are forced to fill their rosters using worse players than in the past, as more and more average high schoolers sign with major league teams as well. This leads to less emergence of new prospects. Also creating a shift is the fact that the best of the best, the cream of the crop if you will, of the top 100 high school players are usually the ones that sign out of high school. While the lower end of the top 100 players think they can wait for a better deal by going to college first and proving themselves a bit more. This in my estimation is what leads to the other statistics in the aforementioned study. The equalization at higher performance levels: 15 (30%) of the college RHPs were average or better at the MLB level 11 (31%) of the HS RHPs were average or better at the MLB level If the best of the best are coming into the big leagues out of high school, even with the higher attrition rate, they're going to have an equal shot at success by sheer talent alone. So while a college player may be less likely to fail due to injuries, he has a higher chance of being less skilled at the game (this obviously doesn't apply to an individual, but will begin to become apparent as an overall drafting strategy selectively picks players from college). The point of all this is, you have to face the current realities, not the past ones, and assuming things are still the same as they were may burn you. If Jack Z. is drafting high schoolers out of some sort of intrinsic sense of where the game is going, or out of some sort of heavy duty statistical analysis, it doesn't really matter. As long as he's keeping up with the market for players now, and not basing his decisions on old information. So far he's had success, let's hope that continues.