Geographic Biases in the MLB Draft

Historical data on the MLB Rule 4 draft makes it clear that the most domestic talent comes from the states of California, Texas, and Florida. This is without question. However, the purpose of this report is to examine where the best MLB talent comes from and if there are any inherent geographic biases in the way teams have drafted. Further, are there specific groups and types of players who are continually undervalued?

To begin, we divided players into six unique categories:

• Four-year college pitchers
• Junior college pitchers
• High school pitchers
• Four-year college position players
• Junior college position players
• High school position players

One note on these categories. When we say four-year college, we don’t mean the player in question had to attend all four years. We’re simply distinguishing between four-year colleges and junior colleges.

Using MLB draft data provided by Baseball-Reference, we broke down each of the above groups by state and found the total numbers of players selected, their average draft position, and whether or not they made it to the majors. From there, we calculated the percentage of players from each state that reached the majors, each state’s percent share of total drafted players across all states, and each state’s percent share of total major leaguers across all states.

The variable we will key in on is the difference between the percent share of players drafted and the percent share of major leaguers. In a world where teams draft perfectly, this difference would be zero. That is, in each state players of a certain subgroup are drafted in the same proportion that they are represented in the big leagues. Any deviation from zero represents an inefficiency.

For example, of all four-year college pitchers drafted, three percent were selected from South Carolina schools. We also find three percent when we examine South Carolina’s share of all four-year college pitchers who made the majors. Thus, South Carolina four-year pitchers have a “difference” of zero percent, and we conclude that these pitchers are being properly evaluated. On the other hand, California high school position players represented 23.3 percent of all high school position players drafted. Yet, 32.1 percent of all high school position players who were drafted and made it to the majors were from California. This whopping difference of -8.8 percent indicates that California high school position players historically have been severely undervalued.

Our first hypothesis was that MLB teams were not drafting enough players from the heavily populated baseball areas or baseball power states. To test this, we examined the differences between the percent share of players drafted and percent share of major leaguers for each state in all six subgroups. We then found the correlation between total players drafted from each state and that difference. A negative correlation would imply that a large negative difference, like the one we saw with California high school position players, is associated with a large number of draftees from that state.

As the graph shows, there is in fact a strong negative correlation between total players drafted from a given state and the difference between the state’s share of total drafted players and its share of total drafted major leaguers. The largest negative correlation (-.89) falls with high school position players, in large part due to California (though the correlation remains strong even with California removed). There could be several underlying reasons for the undervaluing of players from states with high MLB draftee numbers, including:

1. Teams overrate tools on high school position players from non-baseball power states
2. Teams underrate the value of having consistent at-bats against quality competition
3. Teams underrate the value of better hitting instruction in baseball power states
4. Teams do not want to invest too heavily in one region
5. Scouts are inefficiently allocated throughout the country

Following the conclusion that teams were not drafting enough players from baseball power states, we decided to narrow our focus to recent drafts. Was this merely a historical trend that teams had improved upon over time? To accomplish this we performed the same study, but only for players drafted between the years 2004 and 2008.

This graph shows that teams have been eliminating much of the geographic bias, particularly with junior college players and high school pitchers. However, there is still a significant amount of geographic bias in how high school position players are drafted (-.66). Over this period California high school position players also still had a significant difference of -4.8 percent.

We originally thought this bias existed primarily because of the overvaluing of the tools of high school position players from non-baseball power states. It must be considered, though, that while a plus-tools player from a non-baseball state might be less likely to make the major leagues, he may be more likely to become an impact major league player than a player with below-average tools from a baseball power state.

To look into this, we performed the same analysis, but instead of examining whether or not a player simply made it to the big leagues, we looked at whether or not they remained in The Show as a regular. This time, difference represents the percent share of players drafted from a specific state minus the percent share of MLB regulars from a specific state.

For the purpose of this study, a regular was a player who played four full seasons (150 games x four for position players and 25 appearances x four for pitchers).

When only MLB regulars are considered, the negative correlations for most of the groups sharply tilt towards zero. However, there is still a large geographic bias against baseball power states when it comes to high school position players.

Once we established this bias existed, we wanted to see what types of players from which states were specifically being over- or undervalued.

The tables below show the five most over- and undervalued types of players at each level since the creation of the draft.

Undervalued Four-Year

Position	State	# Drafted	ADP	# Making MLB	% Made It	Draft Share	MLB Share	Difference
Pos Player	CA	2027	503.0	305	15.1%	16.8%	20.1%	-3.3%
Pos Player	AZ	356	404.6	91	25.6%	3.0%	6.0%	-3.0%
Pitcher	CA	1618	506.0	278	17.2%	14.7%	16.5%	-1.8%
Pitcher	TX	840	516.6	153	18.2%	7.6%	9.1%	-1.4%
Pitcher	LA	392	525.8	76	19.4%	3.6%	4%	-0.9%

Overvalued Four-Year

Position	State	# Drafted	ADP	# Making MLB	% Made It	Draft Share	MLB Share	Difference
Pitcher	OR	157	470.4	12	7.6%	1.4%	0.7%	0.7%
Pitcher	PA	271	572.0	29	10.7%	2.5%	1.7%	0.7%
Pitcher	NY	325	563.1	37	11.4%	2.9%	2.2%	0.8%
Pos Player	NC	509	557.5	45	8.8%	4.2%	3.0%	1.3%
Pos Player	NY	319	585.0	12	3.8%	2.7%	0.8%	1.9%

Undervalued High School

Position	State	# Drafted	ADP	# Making MLB	% Made It	Draft Share	MLB Share	Difference
Pos Player	CA	2258	571.1	296	13.1%	23.3%	32.1%	-8.8%
Pitcher	CA	1478	596.5	186	12.6%	19.2%	21.3%	-2.0%
Pitcher	TX	600	620.4	83	13.8%	7.8%	9.5%	-1.7%
Pos Player	FL	1074	679.1	115	10.7%	11.1%	12.5%	-1.4%
Pitcher	LA	118	617.6	19	16.1%	1.5%	2.2%	-0.6%

Overvalued High School

Position	State	# Drafted	ADP	# Making MLB	% Made It	Draft Share	MLB Share	Difference
Pos Player	MD	122	672.1	4	3.3%	1.3%	0.4%	0.8%
Pitcher	OK	169	586.4	12	7.1%	2.2%	1.4%	0.8%
Pos Player	CO	116	855.7	3	2.6%	1.2%	0.3%	0.9%
Pos Player	NJ	231	567.2	12	5.2%	2.4%	1.3%	1.1%
Pitcher	Canada	184	888.0	11	6.0%	2.4%	1.3%	1.1%

Undervalued Junior College

Position	State	# Drafted	ADP	# Making MLB	% Made It	Draft Share	MLB Share	Difference
Pitcher	CA	1436	534.1	136	9.5%	30%	34%	-5%
Pos Player	CA	1711	486.7	131	7.7%	36.0%	40.4%	-4.5%
Pos Player	FL	745	565.3	60	8.1%	15.7%	18.5%	-2.9%
Pos Player	GA	153	501.3	17	11.1%	3.2%	5.2%	-2.0%
Pitcher	CO	45	548.9	8	17.8%	1%	2%	-1%

Overvalued Junior College

Position	State	# Drafted	ADP	# Making MLB	% Made It	Draft Share	MLB Share	Difference
Pitcher	CA	1436	534.1	136	9.5%	30%	34%	-5%
Pitcher	GA	124	540.1	4	3.2%	3%	1%	2%
Pos Player	TN	88	514.8	0	0.0%	1.8%	0.0%	1.8%
Pitcher	WA	212	540.4	9	4.3%	4%	2%	2%
Pos Player	AZ	232	567.1	9	3.9%	4.9%	2.8%	2.1%
Pos Player	WA	153	487.9	3	2.0%	3.2%	0.9%	2.3%

These tables clearly illustrate the most overvalued groups tend to come from non-baseball power states such as New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, Maryland, Colorado, and Oregon, while the undervalued groups tend to come from the baseball power states of California, Texas, and Florida. Arizona junior colleges are the one major exception to this rule.

Also notable is that teams are most efficient when drafting players from four-year colleges. The range from most overvalued to most undervalued for four-year college players was only 5.2 percent, much lower than the range for junior college players of 7.3 percent, and high school players of 9.9 percent.

We mentioned earlier that teams are getting better at eliminating the bias, but as our chart showed, there still was significant correlation between share difference and amount of players drafted from that state. The sample sizes are smaller, so there is more variability, but here are the top five most over- and undervalued types of players at each level from 2004 to 2008 (junior college is excluded because the sample size was too small).

Undervalued Four-Year

Position	State	# Drafted	ADP	# Making MLB	% Made It	Draft Share	MLB Share	Difference
Pos Player	CA	249	570.6	46	18.5%	16.3%	20.4%	-4.1%
Pos Player	AZ	35	354.9	13	37.1%	2.3%	5.8%	-3.5%
Pitcher	CA	255	546.6	51	20.0%	15.5%	18.5%	-3.1%
Pitcher	OH	41	618.2	15	36.6%	2.5%	5.5%	-3.0%
Pos Player	TN	56	576.3	12	21.4%	3.7%	5.3%	-1.7%

Overvalued Four-Year

Position	State	# Drafted	ADP	# Making MLB	% Made It	Draft Share	MLB Share	Difference
Pitcher	FL	109	674.1	15	13.8%	6.6%	5.5%	1.2%
Pitcher	OK	49	694.3	5	10.2%	3.0%	1.8%	1.2%
Pos Player	KY	25	617.6	1	4.0%	1.6%	0.4%	1.2%
Pitcher	PA	41	703.5	1	2.4%	2.5%	0.4%	2.1%
Pos Player	NY	40	805.9	0	0.0%	2.6%	0.0%	2.6%

Undervalued High School

Position	State	# Drafted	ADP	# Making MLB	% Made It	Draft Share	MLB Share	Difference
Pitcher	TX	69	667.0	17	24.6%	9.7%	15.6%	-5.9%
Pos Player	CA	149	752.8	21	14.1%	18.3%	23.1%	-4.8%
Pos Player	FL	112	729.5	16	14.3%	13.8%	17.6%	-3.8%
Pitcher	CA	117	724.0	21	18.0%	16.5%	19.3%	-2.8%
Pitcher	NJ	23	909.6	6	26.1%	3.2%	5.5%	-2.3%

Overvalued High School

Position	State	# Drafted	ADP	# Making MLB	% Made It	Draft Share	MLB Share	Difference
Pitcher	PA	13	856.5	0	0.0%	1.8%	0.0%	1.8%
Pos Player	PR	52	641.9	4	7.7%	6.4%	4.4%	2.0%
Pitcher	WA	22	872.5	1	4.6%	3.1%	0.9%	2.2%
Pitcher	OK	16	947.8	0	0.0%	2.3%	0.0%	2.3%
Pitcher	Canada	30	833.4	2	6.7%	4.2%	1.8%	2.4%

There is slightly more variation, with Florida four-year pitchers swinging the other way; however, the recent data remain fairly consistent with the overall findings. Again, the most overvalued groups tend to be northern or non-baseball power states, while the most undervalued are still year-round baseball power states.

Moving forward, it’s important to consider the nature of the amateur evaluation scene and how national showcase tournaments and events are organized with this data in mind.

For example, in the Area Code Games and East Coast Professional Showcase–two of the most prominent events on the summer circuit for high school players–individuals are selected by scouts to participate on teams based on their region, with only one team representing each region.

However, if significantly more players are drafted from regions such as Southern California, Texas, and Florida, and more of those players are likely to be major leaguers and impact major leaguers, teams would find further value if a greater percentage of participants in these events came from those regions.

In a given year, there likely are dozens of players from baseball power regions who are more talented than their counterparts from non-baseball power regions, but who lose the opportunity to compete in these events, in front of hundreds of scouts, due to the location of their home town.

If national showcase events over-represent players from non-baseball power states and leave potential draftees and MLB regulars off the roster, can these players left home at least expect to be noticed by their area scouts?

Through Baseball America’s scouting directory, we have mapped the location of most team’s area scouts versus the locations of successful and unsuccessful draftees. A dot represents the presence of a scout or player hailing from that town. Therefore, if several players are coming out of one school, it will still show up as one dot.

The concentration of players and scouts located in southern California makes it harder to interpret, but from the looks of it, scouts are well deployed throughout the country. Many scouts are prepared to watch and evaluate the volume of players in the power states, while fewer are in the non-baseball power states and regions like the Northeast.

California, Texas, and Florida are being undervalued, but it does not appear to be due to a lack of eyes on them. If teams are properly allocating their scouts, then something else must be accounting for the under-appreciation of these players.

As outlined above, it could be due to scouts underrating the value of facing quality competition and the lasting effects that has on players as they turn pro and work through the minor leagues. Perhaps it is these players’ more advanced approach and feel for the game that allows them to reach the majors at a higher rate. There is no doubt scouts take these things into account in their evaluations, making the true reason for this imbalance difficult to pin down.

Regardless, we have shown that there is a real, persistent bias in the draft that undervalues players from baseball power states and overvalues players from non-baseball power states. Though more scouts would help (we’re in favor of creating more baseball jobs), based on the distribution of scouts and players throughout the country we can begin to rule out lack of manpower as a reason for letting this talent go unidentified. It might be as simple as not wanting to lean too much on one region. Nevertheless, a shift needs to take place, as the imbalance is too large to ignore.

References and Resources

• Percent “difference” reflects (Drafted State/Total Drafted) – (Majors State/Total Majors)
• Draft data courtesy of Baseball-Reference
• Scouting locations courtesy of Baseball America