What is more valuable to a generic MLB Franchise?

[LookinUp]

I'm beginning to prepare myself for the possibility that the O's might select Matusz tomorrow. I agree with the notion that you can never have too much pitching, so I'll be ok with it even though other sexier picks may be available. But it got me to thinking. What is more valuable, a stud AA pitcher or a stud AA hitter (assume equal age andcomparable ceiling)?

You see, absent a heartfelt personal story, I'm all about considering players in an organization as assets. If I'm right, and a stud AA pitcher is generally a more valuable asset, perhaps Matusz is the perfect decision. Maybe, just maybe, this is the best way to maximize the value in the Orioles organization.

Isn't that the goal? After all, in theory, assets can be moved for other assets. So, what do you all think is more valuable?

[PlumOriole]

I feel the same way. If they pick Matusz, I'll be ok with it but I'd be a little more excited about Smoak. If Matusz is the pick it tells me they think he's the best value. My guess is their draft board goes like this:

1. Alvarez

2. T. Beckham

3. Matusz

4. Smoak

I'd have to say pitching may be the pick for best value for an organization but the thought of having Smoak and Wieters in the same line-up would be fun to watch.

[LookinUp]

I feel the same way. If they pick Matusz, I'll be ok with it but I'd be a little more excited about Smoak. If Matusz is the pick it tells me they think he's the best value. My guess is their draft board goes like this:

1. Alvarez

2. T. Beckham

3. Matusz

4. Smoak

I'd have to say pitching may be the pick for best value for an organization but the thought of having Smoak and Wieters in the same line-up would be fun to watch.

Yup. I'd prefer us to take Smoak and then target infield in the next 2 rounds if we like the talent there. I'm just trying to justify the "alternative" way of thinking that could very well be correct.

[eb45]

I selected hitter. Here's how I figure it: The game of baseball is 50% offense, 50% defense. The vast majority of that 50% offense is hitting, the rest is baserunning. Let's say 90% (45% overall). By that logic, each individual hitter impacts 5% of every game with their bat. On the defense side of the ball, pitching accounts for about 70% of a team's defense. That means 35% overall. Over a full season, a 200-inning pitcher will normally pitch about one-seventh of a team's innings. That's 5% of the value defensively. So they're equal, right? No, not right. Position players can also add value defensively or on the basepaths. With a good defensive player, as Smoak, Hosmer, or T. Beckham is, they can generally add about another 2% for a 1B or about 4% for a SS. Then you get into baserunning, which adds about half a percentage point as well. So a position player impacts the game, on average, 3% more over the course of a season. If both of them have comparable skills (i.e. they "fill" their percentage points at the same rate), then I'll take the hitter every time for that reason.

If you followed that all the way through, congratulations. I'm not sure even I did. But I tried.

Also, I agree that you can never have too much pitching, but isn't it also true that you can never have too much hitting?

[Jericho]

I voted for a AA hitter. Not because a hitter is more valuable. But because hitters have a better chance of bridging the gap to the majors. A lot of pitchers look good in AA, but have a major injury or two before becoming an effective big leaguer, if at all. It's just a hitter is safer and more likely to offer a return to the big league club.