Discussion Topic: Everyday Player Versus Pitcher

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

It has often been said that a starting pitcher shouldn't be MVP as he plays one out of every five games, while an outfielder or second baseman plays all five games. However, it is arguable that a pitcher has a substantially larger enough impact in each start so as to equal the lesser batter impact in all five games.

For example, in a complete game, a pitcher will directly participate in at least 27 at bats (obviously usually more). A batter, who will get say 6 turns at bat, will participate in 30 at bats over the same 5 games. From these limited numbers at least, it isn't clear who has a larger impact over a 5 game period.

Feel free to offer opinions:

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

David,

I think it really depends on the overall makeup of the team. For instance, the LA Dodgers in the '60s depended a lot more on Sandy Koufax than Maury Wills.

But the SF Giants depend a lot more on Barry Bonds than they do on any starting pitcher.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

I guess a recent example would be a Minnesota Twins decision made a few years ago, where they had to decide between pitching Phenom prospect Mark Prior, or phenom prospect catcher Joe Mauer. Obviously took Mauer. Prior is constantly on injured reserve. Adding of course that any player is subject to injury. But when a starting pitcher goes down, for whatever reason, it really disrupts the starting rotation. To take it a bit further, would Ruth have been more valuable as a pitcher, or an outfielder? In my mind an every day player, who can contribute over many years, is much more valuable that a player who only contributes every fourth or fifth day. If you had to pick between Koufax and Mays, who would you pick ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

I wouldn't measure it in terms of at bats affected, but this way. Replacing an average pitcher with a great pitcher can, all things equal, mean up to 10 (or even more) wins. That can easily be the difference between 3rd place and the pennant. I am not sure the incremental difference between an average position player and a superstar translates into 10-12 more wins.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

difference in Bill James' calculations...?

[Archive]

Posted By: Justin

Based on how teams spend their money it would seem pitching is valued higher than everyday players on average.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

The Twins wanted Prior very badly but couldn't meet his asking price. That's when they went to Mauer. Obviously it worked out well.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Justin,

It seems like teams really want workhorses, look at Barry Zito, his prior performance really didn't warrant the contract that he got. But the guy has been a steady workhorse that eats up innings.

It makes a difference to the entire staff when somebody can do that. The relievers enter games later. You might need fewer starters in the rotation. It works out pretty well.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Justin

That's why teams are willing to pay Jeff Weaver, Vicente Padilla, AJ Burnett et al. in the 8-10 million range even though they are awful. An everyday player who has proven his mediocrity couldn't command that much.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Over paying an average pitcher, more than an average fielder, doesn't make it right. But you are right. They seem to fling big dollars at pitchers. Give me a good shortstop, over a good pitcher any time. I know it is not PC, but that's my opinion.