2019 Trade Deadline Thread:

[Super]

Pretty sure sturg’s point isn’t that the system is barren of pitching, but that so far only one of those guys looks like a one or two, and the remainder look like three-to-fives or bullpen guys.

didn't say he said that. said the system was completely devoid of pitching. which it was. and that's a pretty big issue for a mid-market team.

how do you suppose a mid-market team acquire enough solid pitching to get thru multiple years of contention?

this idea that you can just sign, draft, or trade for the right guys along the way instead of trying to develop them is laughable. either way can blow up in your face equally. stockpiling young pitchers is far from an unreasonable or bad move.

[Southcack77]

didn't say he said that. said the system was completely devoid of pitching. which it was.

It was just Lucas Sims and Jason Hursh.

[Super]

It was just Lucas Sims and Jason Hursh.

hey now don't leave out Sean Gilmartin, another fantastic first round pick.

[Enscheff]

didn't say he said that. said the system was completely devoid of pitching. which it was. and that's a pretty big issue for a mid-market team.

how do you suppose a mid-market team acquire enough solid pitching to get thru multiple years of contention?

this idea that you can just sign, draft, or trade for the right guys along the way instead of trying to develop them is laughable. either way can blow up in your face equally. stockpiling young pitchers is far from an unreasonable or bad move.

Data says you're wrong. Data says the volatility of pitchers make them less valuable overall. Data says to value prospects roughly as: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-updat...ect-valuation/

Pitching prospects are still valuable, as long as their risk is factored in correctly when calculating their overall value.

[nsacpi]

Data says you're wrong. Data says the volatility of pitchers make them less valuable overall. Data says to value prospects roughly as: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-updat...ect-valuation/

Pitching prospects are still valuable, as long as their risk is factored in correctly when calculating their overall value.

Position players assigned a 70 FV go on to be more productive than pitchers assigned a 70 FV. But this covers a very small number of players.

Looking at the 65s, it looks like the pitchers go on to be more productive on average by a small amount.

Looking at the 60s, it also looks like pitchers do better by a small amount.

Then for the 55s and 50s, the hitters do better by a significant amount. A 55 pitcher is closer to a 50 hitter than a 55 hitter.

I suspect the results for the 60s and 65s are flukes due to small samples. But maybe this needs to be looked at more closely.

[Enscheff]

Position players assigned a 70 FV go on to be more productive than pitchers assigned a 70 FV. But this covers a very small number of players.

Looking at the 65s, it looks like the pitchers go on to be more productive on average by a small amount.

Looking at the 60s, it also looks like pitchers do better by a small amount.

Then for the 55s and 50s, the hitters do better by a significant amount. A 55 pitcher is closer to a 50 hitter than a 55 hitter.

I suspect the results for the 60s and 65s are flukes due to small samples. But maybe this needs to be looked at more closely.

Most prospects are 55s and 50s. These types of results are why we saw FG unilaterally shift the grading of pitchers down half a grade, and is why Soroka suddenly went from a 60 to a 55.

This shift in grading stopped this type of mismatch from happening, which was the first kind of work done to show just how much value pitchers gave up due to risk:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/valuing-...100-prospects/

This has been a gradual process to get pitchers valued roughly equal to position players. Folks who have followed along over the years have a good understanding about why pitchers have seen their overall value drop over the last 3-5 years.

[nsacpi]

a similar and maybe more intuitive rule is that any list of Top 100 players should have twice as many hitters as pitchers. Same for any draft board for the first 2 rounds of the draft.

[Super]

Data says you're wrong. Data says the volatility of pitchers make them less valuable overall. Data says to value prospects roughly as: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-updat...ect-valuation/

Pitching prospects are still valuable, as long as their risk is factored in correctly when calculating their overall value.

i don't remember making a claim as to which is the more valuable prospect overall. my sentence about stockpiling pitching has little to do with value and more to do with how much pitching is needed and how and when it's acquired, especially by a mid-market team.

again, i've yet to see anyone lay out a blueprint for a mid-market team to acquire the necessary amount of solid pitching to be competitive for more than a year. "already developed" guys are either old and risky, young and risky, or will be expensive in terms of money and/or prospects.

[Enscheff]

i don't remember making a claim as to which is the more valuable prospect overall. my sentence about stockpiling pitching has little to do with value and more to do with how much pitching is needed and how and when it's acquired, especially by a mid-market team.

again, i've yet to see anyone lay out a blueprint for a mid-market team to acquire the necessary amount of solid pitching to be competitive for more than a year. "already developed" guys are either old and risky, young and risky, or will be expensive in terms of money and/or prospects.

It is cheaper in terms of prospect capital to buy a finished product like Archer or Gausman with position prospects than it is to develop them while suffering massive pitcher attrition. Those guys are then supplemented by short term deals like the Braves just did with DK.

The Dodgers have shown the blueprint...

Invest in the most valuable prospects, period. As long as the risk inherent in being a pitcher is properly baked into the valuation, pitchers are still among the most valuable prospects...just not "stockpiling them".

[thethe]

It is cheaper in terms of prospect capital to buy a finished product like Archer or Gausman with position prospects than it is to develop them while suffering massive pitcher attrition. Those guys are then supplemented by short term deals like the Braves just did with DK.

The Dodgers have shown the blueprint...

Invest in the most valuable prospects, period. As long as the risk inherent in being a pitcher is properly baked into the valuation, pitchers are still among the most valuable prospects...just not "stockpiling them".

Dodgers have the luxury of already having one of the greatest pitchers of all time / The funds to keep that pitcher as well as the funds to make acquisitions like Ryu/Hill.

The Dodgers are clearly the best run team in baseball but they have some inherent advantages on how they can plan for a complete build.

[Super]

It is cheaper in terms of prospect capital to buy a finished product like Archer or Gausman with position prospects than it is to develop them while suffering massive pitcher attrition. Those guys are then supplemented by short term deals like the Braves just did with DK.

The Dodgers have shown the blueprint...

Invest in the most valuable prospects, period. As long as the risk inherent in being a pitcher is properly baked into the valuation, pitchers are still among the most valuable prospects...just not "stockpiling them".

buy a finished product like Archer and Gausman...are we seeing what's happening with them this year?
you better pick the exact right guys i guess. Archer also cost *a ton* in prospect capital. i'm sure the Pirates aren't thrilled, to say the least, with investing what they did in him.
the Dodgers' payroll/situation is also nothing like the Braves'.

but to your last paragraph, i think the Braves' "emphasis" on pitching during the rebuild is overblown, while other teams' "emphasis" on hitters is similarly overblown, anyway. i think they probably did often take the best player offered to them, whether in a trade or via draft. a lot of times that could have been an undervalued pitcher they liked a lot.

[Enscheff]

but to your last paragraph, i think the Braves' "emphasis" on pitching during the rebuild is overblown, while other teams' "emphasis" on hitters is similarly overblown, anyway. i think they probably did often take the best player offered to them, whether in a trade or via draft. a lot of times that could have been an undervalued pitcher they liked a lot.

I can't really disagree too strongly with this portion of your post.

I don't think the Braves targeted pitchers. I think they weren't correctly weighing the riskiness of pitchers when assigning value to players, and that caused them to overvalue pitchers by some non-trivial degree. That overvaluation led to them acquiring more arms than was probably optimal.

The Braves are very fortunate that almost all their top position prospects have hit. Have they even had a single top position prospect flop?

[Horsehide Harry]

I can't really disagree too strongly with this portion of your post.

I don't think the Braves targeted pitchers. I think they weren't correctly weighing the riskiness of pitchers when assigning value to players, and that caused them to overvalue pitchers by some non-trivial degree. That overvaluation led to them acquiring more arms than was probably optimal.

The Braves are very fortunate that almost all their top position prospects have hit. Have they even had a single top position prospect flop?

Hector Olivera (ducks)

[Super]

I can't really disagree too strongly with this portion of your post.

I don't think the Braves targeted pitchers. I think they weren't correctly weighing the riskiness of pitchers when assigning value to players, and that caused them to overvalue pitchers by some non-trivial degree. That overvaluation led to them acquiring more arms than was probably optimal.

The Braves are very fortunate that almost all their top position prospects have hit. Have they even had a single top position prospect flop?

this is a far more nuanced and seemingly accurate assessment of what happened than what is usually said around here, so bravo.

as to your question...i guess you'd have to technically throw Maitan in there, but he was gone quickly. looking back at lists, there weren't a ton in the top-10. Maitan, Olivera, Bethancourt, Davidson, Kubitza...but with those guys, especially the last two, we're getting to the point where the farm was really bad and they weren't super recent so I'll stop there.

[Carp]

I can't really disagree too strongly with this portion of your post.

I don't think the Braves targeted pitchers. I think they weren't correctly weighing the riskiness of pitchers when assigning value to players, and that caused them to overvalue pitchers by some non-trivial degree. That overvaluation led to them acquiring more arms than was probably optimal.

The Braves are very fortunate that almost all their top position prospects have hit. Have they even had a single top position prospect flop?

Honesty, our only top 100 position prospects to flop in the last 10 years or so are Maitan, Davidson, Schaffer, and Betancourt. And now that I look, I don't think Davidson ever made a top 100 list.

[Super]

how do you suppose a mid-market team acquire enough solid pitching to get thru multiple years of contention?

i'm all ears here.

[Super]

you especially have to consider where the Braves' pitching was at the time. there were like 2-3 potential big league starters. pitching was desperately needed.

[Enscheff]

you especially have to consider where the Braves' pitching was at the time. there were like 2-3 potential big league starters. pitching was desperately needed.

You are rehashing tehteh's silly comment, "if pitchers are so risky you better get a lot of them!".

I think that's a pretty good sign you're wrong...

[nsacpi]

i'm all ears here.

You do have to take some pitchers. The approach I would take is:

1) Populate your draft board for the first three rounds so that there are twice as many hitters as pitchers. Make sure that over time this results in you taking twice as many hitters as pitchers in those rounds.

2) College pitchers are a good bet in rounds 4-10. Mostly this reflects the fact that you won't find too many high ceiling types in those rounds from any demographic. So might as well go for a disproportionate number of high floor college pitchers in those rounds.

I think the above approach will leave you a little thin in pitching and any team taking it will have to compensate by acquiring major league level talent to fill in the back end of the rotation.

[Super]

I think the above approach will leave you a little thin in pitching and any team taking it will have to compensate by acquiring major league level talent to fill in the back end of the rotation.

and i think it's extremely easy to pick the wrong ones.
how many guys are reliably good year after year? a select few. now what will it cost to acquire them? how much money, how many good prospects? it'd be great if there were a crystal ball available for guys like Odorizzi, Morton, and Minor, but a lot of it is luck and guys just kind of randomly putting it together.