Prospect digest 10 prospect listing

[smootness]

Look, it's not the hardest thing in the world to trade off assets for prospects so I'm not really touting the organization as geniuses for having a top 3 farm system, but they do have a top 3 farm system and its based on a lot more than deals done with Dave Stewart.

I feel like their strategy has been relatively consistent. I think maybe the degree to which they were serious about being respectable may have changed last year. They were not particularly serious about it the first two seasons as they sold off a respectable team and the pieces of a terrible team in the first two seasons. Acquiring Kemp to me was the biggest departure from not really caring about being respectable. That was a big investment in a .500 player. Still not really sure why they did that management got nervous.

Does anybody not have the Braves as the clear #1 system?

[Southcack77]

If my goal is to win a world series and I was comfortable with my team making the postseason then its Kershaw.

Kershaw faces about 700-800 batters per year assuming 200+ innings. How many PA's does Trout get a year?

If the World Series were about to start and you offered me Kershaw or Trout, I'd probably take Kershaw.

If the season were about to start, I'd probably take Trout.

[thewupk]

How do you account for the great starting pitchers facing more batters than great hitters get PA.

Also, you can easily just walk trout to help nullify his effectiveness in a game

So a player being on base every time would nullify his effectiveness? That's silly.

[Preacher]

So a player being on base every time would nullify his effectiveness? That's silly.

Certainly doesn't nullify his effectiveness, but obviously it can limit it - the point is if there's one great hitter in a lineup you can work around that batter. You cannot do the same against a great pitcher.

[bravesfanMatt]

If the World Series were about to start and you offered me Kershaw or Trout, I'd probably take Kershaw.

If the season were about to start, I'd probably take Trout.

That was what I was saying. Over the course of 162 games, impact bats will have more value. playoffs, the games are spread out more and a pitcher can impact more games.

But as you expand the model, I would probably take 3 impact pitchers over 3 impact bats even in the regular season.

[Preacher]

That was what I was saying. Over the course of 162 games, impact bats will have more value. playoffs, the games are spread out more and a pitcher can impact more games.

But as you expand the model, I would probably take 3 impact pitchers over 3 impact bats even in the regular season.

I would take the bats in the regular season if for no other reason than pitchers get hurt so often.

Agree with you on the post-season logic though, two great pitchers can win you a playoff series.

[mqt]

How do you account for the great starting pitchers facing more batters than great hitters get PA.

Also, you can easily just walk trout to help nullify his effectiveness in a game

If you walk Trout all the time, you essentially double his team's chances of scoring a run in that inning. A player like Trout will also help you by playing defense.

[thewupk]

Certainly doesn't nullify his effectiveness, but obviously it can limit it - the point is if there's one great hitter in a lineup you can work around that batter. You cannot do the same against a great pitcher.

That is true. In a small sample the pitcher has the advantage in these scenarios. But with that being said since it is such a small sample as the talent you are facing (on both sides) is really hard to judge who is better. Anything can happen. As was mentioned above. Maddux is the best pitcher of my generation but I'm taking Smoltz in the playoffs.

[thethe]

Again, it's about the gap in players. Why would facing more batters than a hitter has PAs necessarily make pitchers more valuable?

And sure, you can walk an elite hitter. But that doesn't really negate the value of that hitter.

In terms of run production for the hitter versus run prevention of the pitcher it matters. Kershaw has more of an impact when considering the two factors. Now defense and base running needs to be included in the overall assessment.

Walking trout absolutely limits his effectiveness in key spots.

[thethe]

So a player being on base every time would nullify his effectiveness? That's silly.

Whose saying everytime? How about key spots when runners are on base?

[smootness]

In terms of run production for the hitter versus run prevention of the pitcher it matters. Kershaw has more of an impact when considering the two factors. Now defense and base running needs to be included in the overall assessment.

Walking trout absolutely limits his effectiveness in key spots.

Not necessarily. Trout still gets out nearly 60% of the time he steps to the plate. You may be removing the chance of him getting an XBH, but you are also removing that chance you get him out. Walks help score runs.

With regard to run production vs. prevention, it matters, yes. But you absolutely can not say 'Kershaw has more of an impact when considering the two factors'. That is an opinion you're stating as a fact. Pretty much any measure you will find says Trout's bat has more value than Kershaw's arm.

[Enscheff]

Any response to the fact that Kershaw faces more batters in a season than Trout has ABs? The defense certainly closes the gap to maybe even trout having more value but let's not act like this gap is large is a gap at all.

A team comes to the plate 6000-6300 times per regular season. A single batter like Trout can account for 10% of those PAs.

A team pitches ~1450 innings per regular season. A single pitcher like Kershaw pitches about 14% of those innings.

So if Kershaw pitches a higher percentage of his team's innings than Trout does his team's PAs, how can Trout be so much more valuable?

The first issue is that positions players play the field and run the bases. They add value in ways pitchers simply can't. That is the value that closes that 10% to 14% gap. It also tends to make hitters somewhat more valuable overall. Every in play out splits the credit between the pitcher and defense, and every defender is also a hitter.

The second issue is that Trout is, quite simply, one of the best players in history. He is better than Kershaw. If you exclude Trout from the conversation, pitchers put up about as many total 8+ WAR seasons as hitters do.

Going off topic a bit....

Now looking to the postseason, a team playing a 7 game series will have ~266 PAs while pitching ~63 innings. In that series, Trout can still only take ~10% of the PAs, but suddenly Kershaw can pitch 30%+ of the innings. So in the postseason, one single elite pitcher is closer to 2x more valuable than an elite position player. The limiting factor, obviously, is there is only room for a single elite pitcher to pitch in 3 games (1, 4, 7), so multiple elite pitchers have diminishing returns in a 7 game series. Your second best pitcher is only going to pitch in 2 games, which will limit his contributions to ~20%.

Take the example even more extreme, and imagine a world where MLB played once a week like the NFL. In that case, Kershaw would pitch nearly all the innings for his team, and elite pitchers would be 7-8x more valuable than elite position players. They would be as valuable (at least) to their teams and QBs are to NFL teams.

[thewupk]

Whose saying everytime? How about key spots when runners are on base?

Walking players ultimately leads to more runs unless it's an extremely poor hitter behind him. Which would not be the case in this situation.

[thethe]

A team comes to the plate 6000-6300 times per regular season. A single batter like Trout can account for 10% of those PAs.

A team pitches ~1450 innings per regular season. A single pitcher like Kershaw pitches about 14% of those innings.

So if Kershaw pitches a higher percentage of his team's innings than Trout does his team's PAs, how can Trout be so much more valuable?

The first issue is that positions players play the field and run the bases. They add value in ways pitchers simply can't. That is the value that closes that 10% to 14% gap. It also tends to make hitters somewhat more valuable overall. Every in play out splits the credit between the pitcher and defense, and every defender is also a hitter.

The second issue is that Trout is, quite simply, one of the best players in history. He is better than Kershaw. If you exclude Trout from the conversation, pitchers put up about as many total 8+ WAR seasons as hitters do.

Going off topic a bit....

Now looking to the postseason, a team playing a 7 game series will have ~266 PAs while pitching ~63 innings. In that series, Trout can still only take ~10% of the PAs, but suddenly Kershaw can pitch 30%+ of the innings. So in the postseason, one single elite pitcher is closer to 2x more valuable than an elite position player. The limiting factor, obviously, is there is only room for a single elite pitcher to pitch in 3 games (1, 4, 7), so multiple elite pitchers have diminishing returns in a 7 game series. Your second best pitcher is only going to pitch in 2 games, which will limit his contributions to ~20%.

Take the example even more extreme, and imagine a world where MLB played once a week like the NFL. In that case, Kershaw would pitch nearly all the innings for his team, and elite pitchers would be 7-8x more valuable than elite position players.

Excellent analysis. I agree overall and would lean towards making hitters slightly more valuable but it's not a no brained for the regular season. The postseason is a completely different animal.

[thethe]

Walking players ultimately leads to more runs unless it's an extremely poor hitter behind him. Which would not be the case in this situation.

I'd much rather pitch to anyone else when runners are on base.

[bravesfanMatt]

you can 'pitch' around Trout without intentionally walking him. That way you decrease the likelihood of him getting a hit but don't completely eliminate the likelihood of him getting out. This would probably reduce his effectiveness the most.

[Enscheff]

you can 'pitch' around Trout without intentionally walking him. That way you decrease the likelihood of him getting a hit but don't completely eliminate the likelihood of him getting out. This would probably reduce his effectiveness the most.

The best way to limit Trout's impact is to realize that some team is going to be paying him $50M per season after 2020 and likely won't be able to afford a good enough cast of characters around him to make the team good enough to beat you. It's the exact problem the Angels will be facing when he makes $35M starting in 2018. In fact, they are already facing that problem now with Pujols/Trout combo taking so much of their payroll.

If I were the Angels, I would face that financial reality head on, and try to trade Trout for the entire Yankees Top 5 (or more). By the time they are ready to compete again, Pujols will be off the books and they can be free of the insanity that is paying Pujols/Trout $65M per season.

[sturg33]

I would say Coppy has been the beneficiary of some luck, high draft picks, and good assets to trade. I'd give him a C+.

When you trade Heyward, Upton, Simmons, Gattis, Kimbrel, Wood, Peraza - all of whom's value was good at the time of the deal - you better stock up the system quickly.

I disagree with much of the strategy - using those assets on acquiring high risk pitchers.

I disagree with the Markakis signing - which basically just replaced the dead money of BJ

Also - if you look, 4 of our top 6 prospects were due to Wren (Albies and Acuna) or High draft/international signing (Anderson and Matian).

Looking at the trades... there were two beauties:

1. The Heyward deal - which wasn't a beauty at the time but it sure turned into one with the Miller trade

2. The Gattis deal - getting Folty & Ruiz for Gattis was tremendous value

There were some solid deals:

1. The Upton trade gave us some good assets that was worth the gamble

2. The Gohara trade - this one can still bite us but probably worth the gamble

3. The Touki deal was an interesting gamble... Paying $10M for a high risk prospect is an intriguing bet... but I would have much rather maximized value from Kimbrel if that was indeed the either/or scenario



Then - there were some really bad ones.

1. The Simmons trade was extremely questionable at the time and has resulted in a bad move

2. The Kimbrel trade was questionable at the time and has resulted in a bad move

3. The Olivera trade was baffling at the time and has resulted in a horrendous move, compounded by us now being forced to pay Kemp for another 3 years big money



To me - the bad would have whalloped the good if not for the Swanson deal - which actually saved this rebuild from being a disaster. He gets a C+ from me due to the international investing.

[smootness]

I would say Coppy has been the beneficiary of some luck, high draft picks, and good assets to trade. I'd give him a C+.

When you trade Heyward, Upton, Simmons, Gattis, Kimbrel, Wood, Peraza - all of whom's value was good at the time of the deal - you better stock up the system quickly.

I disagree with much of the strategy - using those assets on acquiring high risk pitchers.

I disagree with the Markakis signing - which basically just replaced the dead money of BJ

Also - if you look, 4 of our top 6 prospects were due to Wren (Albies and Acuna) or High draft/international signing (Anderson and Matian).

Looking at the trades... there were two beauties:

1. The Heyward deal - which wasn't a beauty at the time but it sure turned into one with the Miller trade

2. The Gattis deal - getting Folty & Ruiz for Gattis was tremendous value

There were some solid deals:

1. The Upton trade gave us some good assets that was worth the gamble

2. The Gohara trade - this one can still bite us but probably worth the gamble

3. The Touki deal was an interesting gamble... Paying $10M for a high risk prospect is an intriguing bet... but I would have much rather maximized value from Kimbrel if that was indeed the either/or scenario



Then - there were some really bad ones.

1. The Simmons trade was extremely questionable at the time and has resulted in a bad move

2. The Kimbrel trade was questionable at the time and has resulted in a bad move

3. The Olivera trade was baffling at the time and has resulted in a horrendous move, compounded by us now being forced to pay Kemp for another 3 years big money



To me - the bad would have whalloped the good if not for the Swanson deal - which actually saved this rebuild from being a disaster. He gets a C+ from me due to the international investing.

You think those bad deals trump the good deals?

The Olivera deal is mostly a wash; it looks quite a bit better now than it did at the time. So you have two bad deals, according to you - one of which resulted in a top-50 pitching prospect and Austin Riley for a RP being paid big money, and the other got us Newcomb, who is still a high-ceiling arm whose future is undetermined. If that is the 'bad' then how on earth would you try to argue it trumps the good done?

[sturg33]

You think those bad deals trump the good deals?

The Olivera deal is mostly a wash; it looks quite a bit better now than it did at the time. So you have two bad deals, according to you - one of which resulted in a top-50 pitching prospect and Austin Riley for a RP being paid big money, and the other got us Newcomb, who is still a high-ceiling arm whose future is undetermined. If that is the 'bad' then how on earth would you try to argue it trumps the good done?

No - that is not what I said. I said "the bad would have walloped the good if not for the Swanson deal"

How is the Olivera deal a wash? Because of it, we lost productive young assets and instead are paying a 1WAR player $18M a year for 3 years. I think that compounded the badness of the deal