[情報] 是否該廢除選秀?

看板MLB (美國職棒/大聯盟)作者時間13年前 (2013/05/29 02:26), 編輯推噓25(25058)
留言83則, 24人參與, 7年前最新討論串1/1
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

05/29 02:34, , 1F
廢了Strasburg和Harper大概不是在LA就是在NY
05/29 02:34, 1F

05/29 02:35, , 2F
順位高低和價值沒啥關連是球探要努力的吧
05/29 02:35, 2F

05/29 02:36, , 3F
abc每日夜釣台,我才不會咬呢!
05/29 02:36, 3F

05/29 03:13, , 4F
職業運動不是自由市場 第五點就不ok了吧 @@
05/29 03:13, 4F

05/29 08:38, , 5F
不過 3 是事實
05/29 08:38, 5F

05/29 08:52, , 6F
3是事實...,看看太空人...XD。
05/29 08:52, 6F

05/29 08:59, , 7F
其他行業 畢業生找工作 也都 FA 沒有選秀啊
05/29 08:59, 7F

05/29 09:48, , 8F
他沒提到一點 職業運動需要均衡各隊實力
05/29 09:48, 8F

05/29 09:49, , 9F
實力不均會不好看 而選秀就是維持刺激度的保障
05/29 09:49, 9F

05/29 09:50, , 10F
當然不是說齊頭式平等 而是要讓各隊有拉近實力的機會
05/29 09:50, 10F

05/29 09:53, , 11F
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
05/29 09:53, 11F

05/29 09:55, , 12F
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
05/29 09:55, 12F

05/29 09:57, , 13F
樓上請看第二點
05/29 09:57, 13F

05/29 09:58, , 14F
3是事實
05/29 09:58, 14F

05/29 10:04, , 15F
我就是針對2 他的論點是給你高選秀權也選的亂七八糟
05/29 10:04, 15F

05/29 10:04, , 16F
所以不然用FA 但事實是,你在FA一樣會簽得亂七八糟
05/29 10:04, 16F

05/29 10:05, , 17F
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
05/29 10:05, 17F

05/29 10:07, , 18F
他又舉一些MVP 但不是高選秀順位的
05/29 10:07, 18F

05/29 10:07, , 19F
社會上也一堆大老闆不是台大醫科畢業阿 所以聯考廢掉?
05/29 10:07, 19F

05/29 10:09, , 20F
選秀是給你機會選 talent, 你選不好是你智障
05/29 10:09, 20F

05/29 10:10, , 21F
至於你選的talent後來發展如何,這是造化 只有神知道
05/29 10:10, 21F

05/29 10:23, , 22F
他用MPV或賽揚獎的人大多是FA來論證根本跳tone
05/29 10:23, 22F

05/29 10:24, , 23F
賭客老是壓錯寶,所以要怪賭場下注法不對?
05/29 10:24, 23F

05/29 10:27, , 24F
文章是說從歷史看來 11順位價值比26順位還低 所以選秀
05/29 10:27, 24F

05/29 10:27, , 25F
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
05/29 10:27, 25F

05/29 10:27, , 26F
無法達成平均實力的目標
05/29 10:27, 26F

05/29 10:28, , 27F
完全沒說明星大多從FA來
05/29 10:28, 27F

05/29 10:29, , 28F
舉FA是說從業餘FA來的大物 和豪門簽約的只有兩位
05/29 10:29, 28F

05/29 10:29, , 29F
我是覺得取樣也有偏差 為何只算11跟26順位的?
05/29 10:29, 29F

05/29 10:30, , 30F
並無大家想像中的豪門壟斷的情況
05/29 10:30, 30F

05/29 10:30, , 31F
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
05/29 10:30, 31F

05/29 10:31, , 32F
一個11跟26順位的例子(說服力不夠)
05/29 10:31, 32F

05/29 10:34, , 33F
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
05/29 10:34, 33F

05/29 10:48, , 34F
舉MVP候選人只有兩個跟豪門簽約 論證FA可有效分配talent
05/29 10:48, 34F

05/29 10:48, , 35F
這邏輯根本讓其氣憤
05/29 10:48, 35F

05/29 10:49, , 36F
第一 FA跟分配talent無關 跟球團財力有關
05/29 10:49, 36F

05/29 10:52, , 37F
第二 豪門無法簽下MVP前10名 不代表無法簽下新秀前10名
05/29 10:52, 37F

05/29 10:53, , 38F
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
05/29 10:53, 38F

05/29 10:53, , 39F
像King Felix或Miggy這種的 他們如果是美國人也絕對是
05/29 10:53, 39F

05/29 10:53, , 40F
首輪選秀- - 拿他們來說FA比較能找到talent根本胡扯
05/29 10:53, 40F

05/29 10:54, , 41F
第三 高順位未必高成就這是新秀養成風險跟不確定性
05/29 10:54, 41F

05/29 10:56, , 42F
為了避免這種不確定性所以索性廢掉選秀?? 最終爽到資方?
05/29 10:56, 42F

05/29 10:56, , 43F
他是說FA能"分配" 不是說FA能"找" 肥卡布可是跟馬林魚簽
05/29 10:56, 43F

05/29 10:57, , 44F
那也是他們的海外球探系統好 而且願意賭一把
05/29 10:57, 44F

05/29 10:57, , 45F
舉個例來說好了 年資到的FA會跟馬林魚簽嗎? 大概不太會
05/29 10:57, 45F

05/29 10:57, , 46F
這個跟一些小市場球隊賭大學明星本質上我認為沒兩樣
05/29 10:57, 46F

05/29 10:57, , 47F
但如果是菜鳥呢? 這考慮的因素就多了 馬林魚機會多 很
05/29 10:57, 47F

05/29 10:58, , 48F
可能誘因就高於豪門
05/29 10:58, 48F

05/29 10:59, , 49F
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
05/29 10:59, 49F

05/29 10:59, , 50F
plus 肥卡布當初是超大魚 簽約金1.9M 小市場花這種錢
05/29 10:59, 50F

05/29 10:59, , 51F
但我覺得money的誘因應該高於一切 而且高不少
05/29 10:59, 51F

05/29 10:59, , 52F
樂透區是NBA講法 換成首輪前10順位好了
05/29 10:59, 52F

05/29 10:59, , 53F
可不會吝嗇
05/29 10:59, 53F

05/29 11:00, , 54F
小市場花在選秀上也不會吝嗇啊
05/29 11:00, 54F

05/29 11:01, , 55F
同樣是馬林魚 Yelich的簽約金是1.7M 也不低了
05/29 11:01, 55F

05/29 11:01, , 56F
Jose Fernandez則是2M
05/29 11:01, 56F

05/29 11:02, , 57F
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
05/29 11:02, 57F

05/29 11:02, , 58F
財力面的不均衡
05/29 11:02, 58F

05/29 11:03, , 59F
IFA要比較的對象是選秀不是自由球員的FA啊
05/29 11:03, 59F

05/29 11:04, , 60F
我是給上面對豪門壟斷有疑慮的解釋
05/29 11:04, 60F

05/29 11:09, , 61F
確實小於 但有錢的也可以多出
05/29 11:09, 61F

05/29 11:12, , 62F
以前IFA有被NY壟斷嗎?
05/29 11:12, 62F

05/29 11:21, , 63F
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
05/29 11:21, 63F

05/29 11:21, , 64F
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
05/29 11:21, 64F

05/29 11:22, , 65F
老闆根本不夠格和其他人競爭, 非要保護才能生存
05/29 11:22, 65F

05/29 11:54, , 66F
好有趣
05/29 11:54, 66F

05/29 11:55, , 67F
洋基給了多少,寫這篇文章?
05/29 11:55, 67F

05/29 12:58, , 68F
歐洲足壇財務出問題的其實蠻多的耶...
05/29 12:58, 68F

05/29 12:59, , 69F
有人考慮到小聯盟的roster filler嗎
05/29 12:59, 69F

05/29 13:00, , 70F
歐洲足球沒有其他東西可以競爭 好唄
05/29 13:00, 70F

05/29 13:05, , 71F
如果是舉歐洲足壇要來說服這篇 我想是搞錯了...
05/29 13:05, 71F

05/29 13:06, , 72F
西甲現在根本就皇馬跟巴塞在玩 英超就那些豪門搶冠軍
05/29 13:06, 72F

05/29 13:06, , 73F
多數國家職業聯盟的冠軍幾乎都是壟斷狀態= =
05/29 13:06, 73F

05/29 14:13, , 74F
冠軍壟斷又如何?其他人好像球迷也少不到哪裡去啊?靠戰
05/29 14:13, 74F

05/29 14:13, , 75F
績球迷才能存活這種事情本來就不應該是正道吧
05/29 14:13, 75F

05/29 14:18, , 76F
拿歐洲足球出來講是滿有趣的.....完全不同的怎麼比
05/29 14:18, 76F

05/29 14:51, , 77F
財力出問題還是被打趴啊 且會降級 收入更慘 lol
05/29 14:51, 77F

05/29 18:36, , 78F
本文論點不敢苟同,給箭頭
05/29 18:36, 78F

05/29 18:43, , 79F
不靠戰績球迷存活不然靠什麼..? 救濟金嗎
05/29 18:43, 79F

05/29 19:27, , 80F
只靠戰績養球迷海盜太空人早就不排除解散了
05/29 19:27, 80F

05/29 19:29, , 81F
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
05/29 19:29, 81F

05/29 21:48, , 82F
應該看戰績,越爛的抽越多支這樣才好玩阿!!!
05/29 21:48, 82F

12/26 18:12, 7年前 , 83F
我是給上面對豪門壟斷有 https://daxiv.com
12/26 18:12, 83F
文章代碼(AID): #1HfFRkLl (MLB)
文章代碼(AID): #1HfFRkLl (MLB)