GDT: PHILS vs BRAVES [Game 3]

[tw]980169754467061762[/tw]

How valuable does pitching become now that every team essentially holds 2 bullpens?
 
thethe said:
[tw]980169754467061762[/tw]

How valuable does pitching become now that every team essentially holds 2 bullpens?
Click to expand...

Less valuable, I'd imagine—especially if it's not top-top end.
 
thethe said:
Really? If the total population of used pitchers increase then the demand for pitchers that can pitch increases.
Click to expand...

Brothers didn't get in the game last night. Does that mean he can't pitch and is the reason he was sent to Gwinnett?? There aren't many in the Braves BP that actually "pitch" IMO.
 
thethe said:
Really? If the total population of used pitchers increase then the demand for pitchers that can pitch increases.
Click to expand...

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. If most teams are essentially using "two bullpens" now, that means there is a surplus of talented arms that aren't talented enough to stick in the rotation, or—if they are—aren't talented enough to pitch past two times through the batting order. So I think it's actually a surfeit of those kinds of arms that is driving teams to this "two bullpens" approach. The upshot might be that legitimate TOR-type pitchers who can not only stick, but provide >6 quality IP, are more valuable; but those guys were already pretty scarce/valuable anyways.
 
thethe said:
Really? If the total population of used pitchers increase then the demand for pitchers that can pitch increases.
Click to expand...

I think his point is the supply of pitchers that can be about 4.75 ERA from the bullpen (better than Rex Brothers) is high enough that the demand doesn’t change the cost
 
jpx7 said:
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. If most teams are essentially using "two bullpens" now, that means there is a surplus of talented arms that aren't talented enough to stick in the rotation, or—if they are—aren't talented enough to pitch past two times through the batting order. So I think it's actually a surfeit of those kinds of arms that is driving teams to this "two bullpens" approach. The upshot might be that legitimate TOR-type pitchers who can not only stick, but provide >6 quality IP, are more valuable; but those guys were already pretty scarce/valuable anyways.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that if the shift to convert starters to a pen role faster increase that pool on player's but ultimately you are dispersing a teams total season innings count amongst more pitchers. I just don't believe the current pool of pitchers that are being paid reflect the amount of work they are doing. And just like 7th and 8th inning guys getting more money in the last 5 years I expect it to catch up with all pen arms. Then your $ per war numbers for pitching increases which is essentially the barometer for all trade balancing discussions now.
 
thethe said:
Really? If the total population of used pitchers increase then the demand for pitchers that can pitch increases.
Click to expand...

Time for some more supply and demand lessons from tehteh! Remember when Garcia increased his trade value due to increased demand?
 
thethe said:
I'll agree that if the shift to convert starters to a pen role faster increase that pool on player's but ultimately you are dispersing a teams total season innings count amongst more pitchers. I just don't believe the current pool of pitchers that are being paid reflect the amount of work they are doing. And just like 7th and 8th inning guys getting more money in the last 5 years I expect it to catch up with all pen arms. Then your $ per war numbers for pitching increases which is essentially the barometer for all trade balancing discussions now.
Click to expand...

I think that trend is more likely to settle than continue to expand—especially if the next CBA treats the QO issue. Right now, one thing that helps non-closers do well, in terms of AAV, is that higher-end non-closers are far less likely to be offered a QO, which facilitates a clearer market for them relative to higher-end closers and starters. But one of the reasons they're less likely to see a QO offer is they're more fungible—which is a reflection both of the volatility with relief pitching (especially; and all pitching, generally), and of a surplus of arms talented enough to work high-effort through an order once, but no more. These are likewise reasons why I don't see the value of that sort of pitcher skyrocketing.

I think teams will pay more for the truly high-end starters who can limit their exposure to innings pitched by talented-with-caveats pitchers, as well as young cost-controlled position players who can lower the leverage of those innings by widening the RS/RA gap. But I don't think the "two bullpen" model is going to make, say, Max Fried a lot more valuable in the coming years; I think it's instead a reflection of there being a lot of Max Fried-types in baseball at the moment. Hell, Josh Lucas looks like he can be a pretty good middle-reliever, yet the Cardinals didn't even find space for him on their roster, and all they received in return from the As was a tall kid who might become Josh Lucas in a few years.
 
jpx7 said:
I think that trend is more likely to settle than continue to expand—especially if the next CBA treats the QO issue. Right now, one thing that helps non-closers do well, in terms of AAV, is that higher-end non-closers are far less likely to be offered a QO, which facilitates a clearer market for them relative to higher-end closers and starters. But one of the reasons they're less likely to see a QO offer is they're more fungible—which is a reflection both of the volatility with relief pitching especially, and of a surplus of arms talented enough to work high-effort through an order once, but no more; and likewise is a reason why I don't see the value of that sort of pitcher skyrocketing.

I think teams will pay more for the truly high-end starts who can limit their exposure to innings pitched by talented-with-caveats pitchers, as well as young cost-controlled position players who can lower the leverage of those innings by widening the RS/RA gap. But I don't think the "two bullpen" model is going to make, say, Max Fried a lot more valuable in the coming years; I think it's instead a reflection of there being a lot of Max Fried-types in baseball at the moment. Hell, Josh Lucas looks like he can be a pretty good middle-reliever, yet the Cardinals didn't even find space for him on their roster, and all they received in return from the As was a tall kid who might become Josh Lucas in a few years.
Click to expand...

Persuasive argument. Noted
 
thethe said:
Persuasive argument. Noted
Click to expand...

I truly wish trends in baseball were conspiring to make the previous regime's decision to rebuild through pitching seem prescient, but I just don't see it. I think the decision is just as defensible, and just as assailable, as it was at the time. There is value is having a lot of pre-arb/pre-FA pitching from one's own system, liberating budgetary resources to be sunk into position players (whether via FA or extenting), which is a smarter/safer use of limited coin; but the likelihood of being able to acquire more position-player talent by trading pitching still depends on a good number of those young pitchers hitting their upper-quintile projections.
 
Super great that we designated Akeel Morris for assignment. A relief pitcher with a plus plus changeup and decent control just doesnt fit what Chuck Hernandez is wanting to do with this staff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top