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.