Is it better to buy the bats vs buying the arms?

[Sports Guy]

Last year, there were 28 AL pitchers that pitched 180+ innings and had an ERA of under.(Millwood and James Shields just missed out on this with ERAs just over 5)

The year before that, there were 22 pitchers, with Guthrie and Pavano just barely missing out.

In 2010, there were 24 batters that had at least 500PA and an OPS of 800 or better.(with a few guys just missing out)

In 2009, there were 43 hitters who did that with several guys just missing out.

The game is changing it appears...Going to more of a pitching and defense and less big thumpers like we saw with all the PEDs.

So, my question is this....What is harder to find? Your average-ish hitter or your average-ish starter?

Is it going to be easy to find 180ish IP starters that will give you a 4.5-5 ERA vs finding the 800ish OPS guys?

In this thread, I am not talking about the top level players, whether it be positional guys or pitchers.

I am talking about the second and third tier guys...Your 3-5 starters. Your 800ish OPS CI and CO.

Should we really have a philosophy of pouring all of our resources into one but not the other?

I am not trying to downgrade the significance of pitching at all. I am just saying that I think that back of the rotation type guys are always going to be available and cheap.

[Fan4Life]

If you consider the post by Stoner in the MLB forum on the success of the top 100 prospects from an 8 year span to 2003 I believe showed that 1 in 10 pitchers in the top 100 made it to MLB and 1 in 4 position players made it. So in that vein, sounds like you should buy the pitching doesn't it?

[TheBee]

I don't think any philosophy should be inflexible and all-encompassing. I've never bought into the grow the arms and buy the bats thing as anything more than a general guding philosophy.

[baltfan]

I think the main reason for AM's belief is that pitchers are more prone to injury and tend to be less consistent than hitters. That really hasn't changed. What you are pointing out is that what we think of statistically as good for a pitcher and hitter has changed in the past few years.

[Say O!]

Philosophically, I find it hard to disagree with the mantra. From a risk management perspective, growing the arms makes the most sense. From a budgetary standpoint, buying the hitters makes the most sense as there is always affordable and available FA hitting.

The list of FA pitchers who ultimately are "worth" their contracts is far shorter than positional talent. Part of that is a supply/demand issue and injuries mid-contract. Throwing a baseball is not a natural motion and it is the true exception who can pitch effectively at peak levels for more than a few years.

I know SG limited the original question to non-elite players, but the disparity between pitching and hitting becomes even greater when looking at the elite talent. In the post-season, few teams win without an elite starter or two. Of the non-NYY or BOS teams, the others have done it with home-grown starters (Lincecum, Cain, Hamels, Verlander, Buerhle, Beckett, Willis, etc.)

[statman]

Pitchers need to be taught to pitch in a given ballpark or league...hitters can pretty much mash anywhere. I really don't think Jake Peavy can win another Cy Young as a White Sock and it has nothing to do with his recent injuries...take a pretty solid pitcher out of Petco and make him throw to DH's and you're messing with a completely different animal. Couple this uncertainty with a higher injury rate and it starts to become more clear.

For those who think the Rays will be contenders this year (SG *cough*)...it won't be because they are top 5 in any hitting category...They have a nice stockpile of young pitching and a completely homegrown rotation. Why people want to deviate from a proven plan for success in the AL East is beyond me.

[Sports Guy]

I think the main reason for AM's belief is that pitchers are more prone to injury and tend to be less consistent than hitters. That really hasn't changed. What you are pointing out is that what we think of statistically as good for a pitcher and hitter has changed in the past few years.

I don't disagree with this...Obviously, you need to have a deep stable of arms.

But you can still get several of these back of the rotation guys for 1 year deals for 5M or less.

[Sports Guy]

Pitchers need to be taught to pitch in a given ballpark or league...hitters can pretty much mash anywhere. I really don't think Jake Peavy can win another Cy Young as a White Sock and it has nothing to do with his recent injuries...take a pretty solid pitcher out of Petco and make him throw to DH's and you're messing with a completely different animal. Couple this uncertainty with a higher injury rate and it starts to become more clear.

For those who think the Rays will be contenders this year (SG *cough*)...it won't be because they are top 5 in any hitting category...They have a nice stockpile of young pitching and a completely homegrown rotation. Why people want to deviate from a proven plan for success in the AL East is beyond me.
I never said they would be contenders...I said they will be just on the outside of contention.

[tropicos]

If you consider the post by Stoner in the MLB forum on the success of the top 100 prospects from an 8 year span to 2003 I believe showed that 1 in 10 pitchers in the top 100 made it to MLB and 1 in 4 position players made it. So in that vein, sounds like you should buy the pitching doesn't it?

While it's definitely a valid argument, I don't think it's conclusive. First off, more data would be needed on whether these prospects are making it to the MLB as a regular starter or a bench player/reliever. We have to keep in mind that there are only approximately 150 available starting pitching spots in the MLB as opposed to 240 (DH not included) positional starting spots. Also, position diversity and flexibility gives positional players more avenues to take to reach the major leagues.

But let's assume that top batters do tend to make it to the MLB at a much higher success rate than top pitchers. This still does not necessarily mean that we should then buy the pitching. With top pitchers being a rare commodity, their price tag goes way up. Also, the loss of failing to develop top batters is minimized b/c there will be more top batters available in FA as opposed to top pitchers.

[Slappy]

I think part of MacPhail's thinking also is the higher bust rate of FA pitchers vs. batters. Sure, there are some Mo Vaughn's and Albert Belle's, but way more:

Mike Hamptons
Jason Schmidts
Denny Neagles
Carl Pavanos
Kei Igawas
Chan Ho Parks
Darren Dreiforts
and Barry Zitos

out there that break down and leave you with nothing. IMO. Pitching is more volatile than batting, too.

[Sports Guy]

I think part of MacPhail's thinking also is the higher bust rate of FA pitchers vs. batters. Sure, there are some Mo Vaughn's and Albert Belle's, but way more:

Mike Hamptons
Jason Schmidts
Denny Neagles
Carl Pavanos
Kei Igawas
Chan Ho Parks
Darren Dreiforts
and Barry Zitos

out there that break down and leave you with nothing. IMO. Pitching is more volatile than batting, too.
But remember, I am not talking about the TOR starters or the ones paid like it.

I am talking about your support players.

[Fan4Life]

While it's definitely a valid argument, I don't think it's conclusive. First off, more data would be needed on whether these prospects are making it to the MLB as a regular starter or a bench player/reliever. We have to keep in mind that there are only approximately 150 available starting pitching spots in the MLB as opposed to 240 (DH not included) positional starting spots. Also, position diversity and flexibility gives positional players more avenues to take to reach the major leagues.

But let's assume that top batters do tend to make it to the MLB at a much higher success rate than top pitchers. This still does not necessarily mean that we should then buy the pitching. With top pitchers being a rare commodity, their price tag goes way up. Also, the loss of failing to develop top batters is minimized b/c there will be more top batters available in FA as opposed to top pitchers.


Good points. However, if only 1 in 10 pitchers are making it, I presume that was the MLB average during that span. Our organization has been below average generally. Regardless, if you emphasize pitching in your draft selections, you need to select well else you'll have wasted draft picks AND still be buying FA pitching. (not top pitching necessarily)

[TiredofLosing20]

But remember, I am not talking about the TOR starters or the ones paid like it.

I am talking about your support players.

I dont really think he is exactly adverse to buying BOR pitcher is he? I think he will avoid the TOR guys like the plague.

If we were closer to contending, I don't know that he wouldn't have gone after a Pavano or someone like that.

It seems to me his mantra is more to do with the Sabathias and Lees of the world.

[Sports Guy]

I dont really think he is exactly adverse to buying BOR pitcher is he? I think he will avoid the TOR guys like the plague.

If we were closer to contending, I don't know that he wouldn't have gone after a Pavano or someone like that.

It seems to me his mantra is more to do with the Sabathias and Lees of the world.
Well, that may be true...but like I said, I am not talking about the premium guys.

And really, AM has never said what he means by that either. Its the same as buying the bats...We don't really know how he is defining "buying".

Does buying mean he will spend 100million? Or does buying mean Aubrey Huff contracts?

[Bradysburns]

If you consider the post by Stoner in the MLB forum on the success of the top 100 prospects from an 8 year span to 2003 I believe showed that 1 in 10 pitchers in the top 100 made it to MLB and 1 in 4 position players made it. So in that vein, sounds like you should buy the pitching doesn't it?

I always thought that. Seems like it's harder to develop pitching and get it to the majors and have it last... whereas you can generally identify durable veteran pitchers pretty easily and buy them up. Millwood would have been an example of that, while Duchscherer represents more of a "what the heck" kind of move. I'm a Duke fan... just saying.

I don't believe in grow the arms buy the bats.

[SrMeowMeow]

There's nothing wrong with buying cheap arms. MacPhail has done it many times. But multi-year contracts for pitchers are very dangerous, so if you want to avoid that, you need to grow your elite pitching.

That's the philosophy in a nutshell.

EDIT: And it's the right one, in my opinion.

[Bradysburns]

Well, that may be true...but like I said, I am not talking about the premium guys.

And really, AM has never said what he means by that either. Its the same as buying the bats...We don't really know how he is defining "buying".

Does buying mean he will spend 100million? Or does buying mean Aubrey Huff contracts?

It's funny that two guys mentioned - Lee and Sabatthia - have both factored very heavily in the playoffs the last few years.

[Winter]

I'd Rather get Pitching talent from the farm and buy bats..Sorta like they've done this year

[tropicos]

Good points. However, if only 1 in 10 pitchers are making it, I presume that was the MLB average during that span. Our organization has been below average generally. Regardless, if you emphasize pitching in your draft selections, you need to select well else you'll have wasted draft picks AND still be buying FA pitching. (not top pitching necessarily)

Agreed. We have to show above average success in drafting top pitchers (going by that data, better than 1 in 10) in order to effectuate our "buy the bats, develop the arms" philosophy and help prove it's a winning and sustainable strategy.

[NCRaven]

I think the main reason for AM's belief is that pitchers are more prone to injury and tend to be less consistent than hitters. That really hasn't changed. What you are pointing out is that what we think of statistically as good for a pitcher and hitter has changed in the past few years.


But remember, I am not talking about the TOR starters or the ones paid like it.

I am talking about your support players.

Additionally, by the time a player reaches free agency, he tends to be at the tail end of his prime career years. So signing a 30+ year old pitcher to a five year contract with large annual salaries is far more risky than signing a similar position player. Almost by definition, the Lee contract is far riskier than the Crawford contract and I think it would be if they were exactly the same age. Cliff Lee wasn't signed to a long-term free agent contract by the teams he's contributed to, so far. He just did that this off season, at age 32. I think there's an excellent chance that Phillie regrets this contract over the long-haul.

SG, understand that you're not just talking about TOR pitchers. But, I'd say that AM has seemed to be willing to "buy" back end starters with Duchscherer being the most recent example. The difference is that you're signing these guys to relatively cheap one-year deals, not long term big dollar contracts. Lower reward, but a far lower risk, as well.

My question, who has the best odds of winning a Cy Young over the next five years:

Cliff Lee,
Justin Duchscherer (0%)
or the field of Matusz, Bergesen, Arrieta, Tillman, and Britton.

Lee has some chance and cost a fortune. Duke has virtually no chance, but cost nothing. I think that there actually could be a Cy Young pitcher in the young starter group, and the combined cost over the period that they're under team control (pre-free agency) is likely to be much less than that for Lee. I guess my point is that having a stable of good young pitching prospects constantly coming through the system is cheaper and less risky than buying expensive free agent pitchers and more likely to provide a high level of productivity than buying cheap free agents.

[cb3fsu]

.800ish hitters are less expensive and less injury prone.

4.5-5 ERA guys don't help your team that much and I wouldn't want a bunch of money wrapped up in them.

This year MacPhail managed to replace nearly the entire infield, plus a DH with hitters at the value you are talking about or better without giving up much in terms of players and salary.

Adding 4 decent pitchers would have cost a ton and at least two of them would have likely gotten hurt or just been plain ineffective.

Im guessing everyone is glad AJ Burnett is a Yankee and not an Oriole right now.

[nadecir]

I saw an interesting study done recently by Scott McKinley of Royals Review on the success and failure of MLB prospects that pertained to this thread, so I thought I would bump this thread. McKinley did some fairly elaborate research in looking into how the top 100 prospects from Baseball America from 1990-2003 have fared in their careers.

Here are some key takeaways from his research:
About 70% of Baseball America top 100 prospects fail. (A player is consider a bust if he produced less than 1.5 WAR.)
Position player prospects succeed much more often than pitching prospects. Pitchers in the top 100 were busts 77.4% of the time, and position players were busts 62.9% of the time.
Position prospects were more than twice as likely to be significantly above average versus pitching prospects. (Above average players produced more than 2.5 WAR.)
Corner infield prospects and catchers are the most likely to succeed in the majors, but outfielders, third basemen and shortstops are the most likely to become stars. Second basemen and pitchers are the least likely prospects to succeed in the majors or to become stars.

McKinley rated all MLB's organizations in terms of their success of developing top prospects, and the Orioles were ranked in the bottom third of all organizations with 76.9% of our prospects who were in BA's top 100 rated as failures.

It's some good research, and it throws more fuel on the fire for the "grow the arms and buy the bats" question. Here is a link to the Royals Review article:

http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

[Sports Guy]

I saw an interesting study done recently by Scott McKinley of Royals Review on the success and failure of MLB prospects that pertained to this thread, so I thought I would bump this thread. McKinley did some fairly elaborate research in looking into how the top 100 prospects from Baseball America from 1990-2003 have fared in their careers.

Here are some key takeaways from his research:

McKinley rated all MLB's organizations in terms of their success of developing top prospects, and the Orioles were ranked in the bottom third of all organizations with 76.9% of our prospects who were in BA's top 100 rated as failures.

It's some good research, and it throws more fuel on the fire for the "grow the arms and buy the bats" question. Here is a link to the Royals Review article:

http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

Just some FYI...There is a discussion of this on the MLB board.

[Scrat1]

I definitely agree with grow the pitchers, buy the bats.

1. Due to our ballpark and our division, it's extremely difficult to convince free agent pitchers to come here. If we were the Padres, the philosophy might be swapped, where it would be more difficult to get hitters to come to Petco and therefore we could grow bats and always sign free agent pitchers looking to reestablish themselves, like Harang, as Baltimore is doing with Derrek Lee.

2. There are almost always decent hitters on the market, but even mediocre pitching (Pavano, De La Rosa) ends up getting very lucrative deals. And it would have taken even bigger deals to get Pavano and De La Rosa to Baltimore. Decent starting pitching is very hard to acquire, and even harder if you're the Baltimore Orioles in OPACY in the AL East.

[orayole]

I say grow what you can, buy what you can.

[SrMeowMeow]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but at least one guy's on the side of the angels...


I think one of the challenges and the keys in this game is you have to develop your own pitching. Signing free agents, trading for pitching, for the most part, is a real medical crap shoot, and history will show you and statistics will show you it's not a good move. So, as you can see, we've really placed an emphasis on developing our pitching, preferably...