By: Austin Alexander – July 13, 2023
In a year that professional scouts will admit there was less draftable prep talent in South Carolina than years of yore, three young men managed to have their names called over the three-day event!
The more you peer into this year’s draft, the event itself took on a very different look due to drastic changes within the rules pertaining to signing players and by reducing the draft by 20 rounds over past seasons (only 5 in 2020), thus affecting who and how many guys were selected.
The longer you follow the draft, the more you think you understand it. Just the opposite is true, however. Especially the past few years! Any baseball sage will tell you it is really a crapshoot.
Many variables come into play when you sit back and look at the picks, the rounds they fell in and the names that got passed over.
One term people must understand is “signability”. Especially near the top of the draft.
In many cases, most of the players selected in the first 4-7 Rounds could be similar in ability. Maybe in the Top 15 Rounds? Conventional wisdom tells you that the first pick in the draft must be the best player and that the last pick is the whatever-the best player in the country. Not so. A player’s ‘signability’ can vault him near the top of the board; low ‘signability’ can force that player to fall through the draft entirely.
Scouts often spend as much time researching a player’s signability than they do evaluating their talent. We’ve all heard of clubs that take a kid in the top two rounds and cannot come to terms with him (for instance Kumar Rocker). Sometimes it is because the area scout has not done his due research or he should have known better than to select that player that high in the draft. But it has also happened before that a player and his family or advisor was not truthful as to their dollar figure. Sometimes a player’s “advisor” or his known desire to attend school will force his draft stock to fall, though he may be a first rounder ability-wise.
Clubs have until midnight of July 31 (up from first day of class once upon a time) to agree to terms with a draft pick. Unless the player attends a junior college, then it’s 5 days prior to the next draft. Some of the early rounders will forego the drama and sign quickly so they can begin their journey to the big leagues. Others will drag it out until the deadline in an attempt to drain every penny out of a club. Many players chosen will continue to be under the watchful eye of the organization that selected them in case they make a significant jump during the summer, in which the club may, then, offer a contract or “up the ante” in an attempt to sign the player.
Draft picks are made largely on a players present “tools” and how he “projects” down the road. Many selections will turn the heads of baseball people. More selections will blow the mind of casual fans because the layman only sees black or white, ie. base hit versus out, win versus loss.
Understand, just because a pitcher strikes out John Wimmer does not automatically vault that arm to prospect status. If a good high school pitcher beats Greenville with Taylor Rabe on the mound, it does not mean he will see his name on a draft board. When a “punching judy” flairs one into the outfield off of Aydin Palmer, that does not guarantee that he will even play past high school. If a fast runner steals two bases off of Ty Marshall, or if Walker Mitchell is outed on bunt single…it does not necessarily mean that player has a future in professional baseball! See where we are going with this?
Scouting is not a science. Players do get over-evaluated and some do get over-looked. By in large, however, these guys who scout for a living are good at what they do. VERY good, in fact! They run up tens of thousands of miles riding through the countryside away from their families looking for the next Clayton Kershaw and Mike Trout. Sure, they’ll miss on guys from time to time but they are still smarter than most of us and their eyes keener than you can imagine. Did they find the next MLB All-Star in our state in 2023? Only time will tell.
*Note: Players accounted for either played high school or college baseball in South Carolina this spring.
-2023 MLB Draft in Review-
| Selected | Day 1 (1-2 Rds) | Day 2 (3-10 Rds) | Day 3 (11-20 Rds) | Total |
| SC Players | 1 | 9 | 9 | 19 |
| College players | 1 | 9 | 7 | 17 |
| HS players | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Pitchers | 1 | 7 | 5 | 13 |
| Catchers | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Infielders | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Outfielders | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Division I | 1 | 8 | 4 | 13 |
| Division II | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Junior College | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| NAIA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 5A | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| HS 4A | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| HS 3A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 2A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 1A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SCISA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Acacdemy | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Rd | 1-10 | 11-20 |
| * | 10 | 9 |
By College (17): 6-South Carolina, 3-Clemson, 2-North Greenville, 1-Coastal Carolina, 1-College of Charleston, 1-Winthrop, 1- Wofford, 1-Florence-Darlington Tech
*Note: Players accounted for either played high school or college baseball in South Carolina this spring.
-2022 MLB Draft in Review-
| Selected | Day 1 (1-2 Rds) | Day 2 (3-10 Rds) | Day 3 (11-20 Rds) | Total |
| SC Players | 3 | 6 | 7 | 16 |
| College players | 2 | 4 | 6 | 12 |
| HS players | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Pitchers | 0 | 4 | 5 | 9 |
| Catchers | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Infielders | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
| Outfielders | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Division I | 2 | 4 | 6 | 12 |
| Division II | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Junior College | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| NAIA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 5A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 4A | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| HS 3A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 2A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 1A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SCISA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Rd | 1-10 | 11-20 |
| * | 9 | 7 |
By College (11): 6-South Carolina, 3-Clemson, 3-Coastal Carolina
*Note: Players accounted for either played high school or college baseball in South Carolina this spring.
-2021 MLB Draft in Review-
| Selected | Day 1 (1 Rd) | Day 2 (2-10 Rds) | Day 3 (11-20 Rds) | Total |
| SC Players | 0 | 13 | 11 | 24 |
| College players | 0 | 12 | 10 | 22 |
| HS players | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Pitchers | 0 | 7 | 9 | 16 |
| Catchers | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Infielders | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Outfielders | 0 | 4 | 1 | 5 |
| Division I | 0 | 11 | 10 | 21 |
| Division II | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Junior College | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| NAIA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 5A | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| HS 4A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 3A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 2A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 1A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SCISA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rd | 1-10 | 11-20 |
| * | 13 | 11 |
By College (22): 8-South Carolina, 6-Clemson, 2-Coastal Carolina, 2-USC-Upstate, 2-Wofford-2, 1-Florence-Darlington Tech, 1-Charleston Southern
*Note: Players accounted for either played high school or college baseball in South Carolina this spring.
-2019 MLB Draft in Review-
| Selected | Day 1 (1-2 Rd) | Day 2 (3-10 Rds) | Day 3 (11-40 Rds) | Total |
| SC Players | 1 | 6 | 26 | 33 |
| College players | 1 | 6 | 24 | 31 |
| HS players | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Pitchers | 0 | 5 | 13 | 18 |
| Catchers | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Infielders | 1 | 0 | 8 | 9 |
| Outfielders | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Division I | 1 | 5 | 14 | 22 |
| Division II | 0 | 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Junior College | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| NAIA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 5A | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| HS 4A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 3A | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| HS 2A | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| HS 1A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SCISA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rd | 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 |
| * | 7 | 6 | 12 | 8 |
By College: 7- Coastal Carolina, 5-Clemson, 5-South Carolina, 3-College of Charleston, 3-North Greenville, 3-USC-Aiken, 2-Winthrop, 2-Lander, 1-Florence-Darlington Tech
*Note: Players accounted for either played high school or college baseball in South Carolina this spring.
-2018 MLB Draft in Review-
| Selected | +Day 1 (1-2 Rd) | +Day 2 (3-10 Rds) | Day 3 (11-40 Rds) | Total |
| SC Players | 1 | 11 | 22 | 34 |
| College players | 1 | 10 | 20 | 31 |
| HS players | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Pitchers | 0 | 4 | 12 | 16 |
| Catchers | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Infielders | 0 | 4 | 3 | 7 |
| Outfielders | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Division I | 1 | 9 | 19 | 28 |
| Division II | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Junior College | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| NAIA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 5A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 4A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 3A | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| HS 2A | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| HS 1A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SCISA | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Rd | 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 |
| * | 11 | 9 | 9 | 4 |
By College: 10-South Carolina, 7-Clemson; 4-Coastal Carolina; 2-College Of Charleston, 2-North Greenville; 5 others with one apiece.
*Note: Players accounted for either played high school or college baseball in South Carolina this spring.
-2017 MLB Draft in Review-
| Selected | +Day 1 (1-2 Rd) | +Day 2 (3-10 Rds) | Day 3 (11-40 Rds) | Total |
| SC Players | 1 | 11 | 22 | 34 |
| College players | 1 | 10 | 20 | 31 |
| HS players | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Pitchers | 0 | 4 | 12 | 16 |
| Catchers | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Infielders | 0 | 4 | 3 | 7 |
| Outfielders | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Division I | 1 | 9 | 19 | 28 |
| Division II | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Junior College | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| NAIA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 5A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 4A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 3A | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| HS 2A | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| HS 1A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SCISA | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Rd | 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 |
| * | 11 | 9 | 9 | 4 |
By College: 10-South Carolina, 7-Clemson; 4-Coastal Carolina; 2-College Of Charleston, 2-North Greenville; 5 others with one apiece.
*Note: Players accounted for either played high school or college baseball in South Carolina this spring.
-2016 MLB Draft in Review-
| Selected | Day 1 (1-2 Rd) | Day 2 (3-10 Rds) | Day 3 (11-40 Rds) | Total |
| SC Players | 1 | 9 | 27 | 39 |
| College players | 1 | 8 | 27 | 36 |
| HS players | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Pitchers | 0 | 3 | 16 | 19 |
| Catchers | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5 |
| Infielders | 0 | 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Outfielders | 0 | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Division I | 1 | 8 | 16 | 25 |
| Division II | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| Junior College | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| NAIA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 4A | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| HS 3A | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| HS 2A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 1A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SCISA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rd | 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 |
| * | 10 | 7 | 14 | 8 |
By College: 7-South Carolina; 6-Clemson; 6-Coastal Carolina; 4-Lander; 3-Sptg Methodist; 2-College of Charleston, USC-Aiken, Wofford; Two others with one apiece.
-2015 MLB Draft in Review-
| Selected | Day 1 (1-2 Rd) | Day 2 (3-10 Rds) | Day 3 (11-40 Rds) | Total |
| SC Players | 0 | 14 | 15 | 29 |
| College players | 0 | 12 | 14 | 26 |
| HS players | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Pitchers | 0 | 7 | 10 | 17 |
| Catchers | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Infielders | 0 | 4 | 5 | 9 |
| Outfielders | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Division I | 0 | 11 | 10 | 21 |
| Division II | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Junior College | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| NAIA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 4A | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| HS 3A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 2A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 1A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SCISA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rd | 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 |
| * | 14 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
By College: 7-Clemson; 3-Citadel, College of Charleston, South Carolina; 2-USC-Aiken, Wofford; Six others with one apiece.
-2014 MLB Draft in Review-
| Selected | Day 1 (1-2 Rd) | Day 2 (3-10 Rds) | Day 3 (11-40 Rds) | Total |
| SC Players | 2 | 10 | 28 | 40 |
| College players | 1 | 10 | 27 | 38 |
| HS players | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Pitchers | 2 | 4 | 14 | 20 |
| Catchers | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Infielders | 0 | 3 | 9 | 12 |
| Outfielders | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Division I | 1 | 7 | 19 | 26 |
| Division II | 0 | 2 | 8 | 10 |
| Junior College | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| NAIA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 4A | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| HS 3A | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| HS 2A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 1A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SCISA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rd | 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 |
| * | 12 | 13 | 11 | 4 |
By College: 6-South Carolina, Clemson; 4-USC-Aiken; 3-Lander, Coastal Carolina; 2-Citadel, Spartanburg Methodist, USC-Upstate, Charleston Southern, Furman; Five others with one apiece.
-2013 MLB Draft in Review-
| Selected | Day 1 (1-2 Rd) | Day 2 (3-10 Rds) | Day 3 (11-40 Rds) | Total |
| SC Players | 2 | 8 | 18 | 28 |
| College players | 0 | 6 | 16 | 23 |
| HS players | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 |
| Pitchers | 1 | 4 | 11 | 16 |
| Catchers | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Infielders | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Outfielders | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Division I | 0 | 5 | 13 | 18 |
| Division II | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Junior College | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| NAIA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HS 4A | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| HS 3A | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| HS 2A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rd | 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 |
| * | 10 | 6 | 8 | 4 |
By College: 4-South Carolina, 3-Furman, 3-USC-Aiken, 2-Coastal Carolina, 2-Citadel, nine others with one apiece.
-2012 MLB Draft in Review-
| Selected | Day 1 (1st Rd) | Day 2 (2-15 Rds) | Day 3 (16-40 Rds) | Total |
| SC Players | 1 | 18 | 12 | 31 |
| College players | 1 | 15 | 11 | 27 |
| HS players | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Pitchers | 0 | 10 | 6 | 16 |
| Catchers | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Infielders | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 |
| Outfielders | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Division I | 1 | 12 | 6 | 19 |
| Division II | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Junior College | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| NAIA | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| HS 4A | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| HS 3A | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| HS 2A | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Rd | 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 |
| * | 15 | 8 | 5 | 3 |
By College: 7-Clemson, 5-South Carolina, 3-College of Charleston, 2-Coastal Carolina 2-Spartanburg Methodist, seven others with one apiece.
-2011 MLB Draft in Review-
| Selected | Day 1 (1st Rd) | Day 2 (2-30 Rds) | Day 3 (31-50 Rds) | Total |
| SC Players | 2 | 28 | 19 | 49 |
| College players | 1 | 23 | 13 | 37 |
| HS players | 1 | 5 | 6 | 12 |
| Pitchers | 1 | 14 | 10 | 25 |
| Catchers | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Infielders | 0 | 8 | 2 | 10 |
| Outfielders | 1 | 4 | 4 | 9 |
| Division I | 1 | 20 | 12 | 33 |
| Division II | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Junior College | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| HS 4A | 1 | 4 | 4 | 9 |
| HS 3A | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| HS 2A | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Rd | 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 | 41-50 |
| * | 10 | 11 | 9 | 7 | 12 |
By College: 11-South Carolina, 8-Clemson, 5-Coastal Carolina, 4-College of Charleston, 2-Winthrop, six others with one apiece.
-2010 MLB Draft in Review-
| Selected | Day 1 (1-3 rds) | Day 2 (4-30 rds) | Day 3 (31-50) | Total |
| SC Players | 2 | 29 | 16 | 47 |
| College players | 2 | 24 | 12 | 38 |
| HS players | 0 | 5 | 6 | 11 |
| Pitchers | 1 | 16 | 12 | 29 |
| Catchers | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Infielders | 0 | 7 | 1 | 8 |
| Outfielders | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 |
| Division I | 2 | 21 | 8 | 31 |
| Division II | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Junior College | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| HS 4A | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| HS 3A | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| HS 2A | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Rd | 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 | 41-50 |
| * | 9 | 13 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
By College: 7-Coastal Carolina, 6-Clemson; 6-South Carolina, 5-College of Charleston, 3-Citadel, 3-Francis Marion, 2-Furman, Five others with one apiece.
-2009 MLB Draft in Review-
| Selected | Day 1 (1-3 rds) | Day 2 (4-30 rds) | Day 3 (31-50) | Total |
| SC Players | 2 | 25 | 16 | 43 |
| College players | 1 | 22 | 10 | 33 |
| HS players | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 |
| Pitchers | 0 | 13 | 12 | 25 |
| Catchers | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Infielders | 2 | 7 | 5 | 14 |
| Outfielders | 0 | 4 | 3 | 7 |
| Division I | 1 | 16 | 10 | 27 |
| Division II | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Junior College | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Rd | 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 | 41-50 |
| * | 13 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 11 |
By College: 9-Clemson; 6-South Carolina, 4-College of Charleston, 4-Citadel, 2-Coastal Carolina, 2-Winthrop, 2-Newberry, 2-USC Sumter, 2; Seven others with one apiece.