Relative Value

[tsherkin]

I'm sure this has been discussed but I don't know, so I'm asking.

What's more valuable? A 1.000 OPS guy who hits like 40 homers, grabs a like number of doubles and has a strong walk rate... let's say Albert Pujols last year. He was a 7.1 WAR player who managed 42 HR, 39 2B, about 14% BB (103 walks, 700 PAs) and 1.011 OPS (173 OPS+)?

Or a pitcher like Greg Maddux in 92 or 95, years in which he had a WAR (for pitchers) of 8.2 and 8.8?

My gut instinct is to say the offensive force who plays more games ends up having more value, but is that actually true?

Thoughts/comments/links to the answer, etc?

[FreeAgent]

I'm sure this has been discussed but I don't know, so I'm asking.

What's more valuable? A 1.000 OPS guy who hits like 40 homers, grabs a like number of doubles and has a strong walk rate... let's say Albert Pujols last year. He was a 7.1 WAR player who managed 42 HR, 39 2B, about 14% BB (103 walks, 700 PAs) and 1.011 OPS (173 OPS+)?

Or a pitcher like Greg Maddux in 92 or 95, years in which he had a WAR (for pitchers) of 8.2 and 8.8?

My gut instinct is to say the offensive force who plays more games ends up having more value, but is that actually true?

Thoughts/comments/links to the answer, etc?

That's what I would think as well. I'd rather have that position player playing 150 games a season than the 35 or so games that I'd have that pitcher.

[Avenger]

I'm sure this has been discussed but I don't know, so I'm asking.

What's more valuable? A 1.000 OPS guy who hits like 40 homers, grabs a like number of doubles and has a strong walk rate... let's say Albert Pujols last year. He was a 7.1 WAR player who managed 42 HR, 39 2B, about 14% BB (103 walks, 700 PAs) and 1.011 OPS (173 OPS+)?

Or a pitcher like Greg Maddux in 92 or 95, years in which he had a WAR (for pitchers) of 8.2 and 8.8?

My gut instinct is to say the offensive force who plays more games ends up having more value, but is that actually true?

Thoughts/comments/links to the answer, etc?

That's what I would think as well. I'd rather have that position player playing 150 games a season than the 35 or so games that I'd have that pitcher.

Roy Halladay 2010 opponent PA's: 993
Albert Pujols 2010 PA's : 700


now position players play defence as well as hit but the impact a starting pitcher has is underrated and you can't just measure it using the number of starts he makes.

[tsherkin]

One shouldn't think of it in terms of games played, though, that's what worries me.

A pitcher faces a lot of batters and thus a lot of scoring chances. You eat up 200+ IP and you've typically faced like 800 batters, which is > than the number of PAs even someone like Ichiro gets.

They don't do it over as many games, but they would seem to have at least a comparable level of impact in terms of how many different situations they see. They eat a lot of innings as the first line of defense against opposition batters in each of their appearances as opposed to the 4 or 5 PAs a hitter picks up each game... and when a starting pitch has a bad moment, it's a lot more dangerous than when a hitter has a long streak of difficulties and/or irrelevance.

I wonder what the stats might say. It does seem like a hitter has that opportunity to make a difference in any of 150+ games, but it also seems that a single or a double or a walk or whatever where that batter is left stranded doesn't ultimately end up doing anything except eat pitches up from a pitcher, right?

[DonYon]

I'd agree for the most part. However, the true value of starting pitchers is in playoff games. You factor that in and I think their value skyrockets.

[flatjacket1]

Roy Halladay 2010 opponent PA's: 993
Albert Pujols 2010 PA's : 700


now position players play defence as well as hit but the impact a starting pitcher has is underrated and you can't just measure it using the number of starts he makes.

I think the starting rotation is the most important part of a club, as cheap bats and small name position players can still manage well.

That being said having an ace like that on a team with bad pitching is liking throwing a bucket of water at a forest fire, if you can't compete in the other 4 games per rotation then its useless. Pujols getting an extra run or two a game would mean the same thing as Halladay holding back an extra run or two a game.

You can't make a judgement on relative value without looking at a specific team. A team weak at first base with a weak pitching rotation such as the Pirates would benifit more from a Pujols, while a team such as the Red Socks/Yankees would benefit much more from a Halladay.

[-MetA4-]

I'd rather have the Maddux-esque pitcher because that type of player can singe handily win playoff games. This is still a pitching-dominated game...an elite pitcher has an advantage over an elite hitter; and an elite pitcher can decide the outcome of an entire game whereas it is much harder for a hitter to have that type of impact.

[FreeAgent]

I'm sure this has been discussed but I don't know, so I'm asking.

What's more valuable? A 1.000 OPS guy who hits like 40 homers, grabs a like number of doubles and has a strong walk rate... let's say Albert Pujols last year. He was a 7.1 WAR player who managed 42 HR, 39 2B, about 14% BB (103 walks, 700 PAs) and 1.011 OPS (173 OPS+)?

Or a pitcher like Greg Maddux in 92 or 95, years in which he had a WAR (for pitchers) of 8.2 and 8.8?

My gut instinct is to say the offensive force who plays more games ends up having more value, but is that actually true?

Thoughts/comments/links to the answer, etc?

That's what I would think as well. I'd rather have that position player playing 150 games a season than the 35 or so games that I'd have that pitcher.

Roy Halladay 2010 opponent PA's: 993
Albert Pujols 2010 PA's : 700


now position players play defence as well as hit but the impact a starting pitcher has is underrated and you can't just measure it using the number of starts he makes.

I get that, but I was thinking in terms of...a pitcher can have an amazing impact in only 1 in every 5 games. Whereas a hitter can have an impact every game. I guess the problem with that is that the hitter won't make as much as impact per game as the pitcher so that's where there difficulty lies in comparing them.

Interesting debate to have none-the-less.

[tsherkin]

FA, I see the logic. But take even a really good hitter, and in how many games does he ACTUALLY impact it in a meaningful manner? Every game a pitcher has, whether it be a good or bad outing, the impact is noticeable.

Is a hitter's actual impact equivalent to that or greater if you include slumps or hitting events that don't actually alter the outcome of the game? Do you consider it value if he gets on base with a walk or a hit or a HBP and then doesn't get cashed it? Is it value if he just changes the situation to increase the likelihood of a run scored, such as moving a runner to third with only one out with a SF or something?

[Strav]

FA, I see the logic. But take even a really good hitter, and in how many games does he ACTUALLY impact it in a meaningful manner? Every game a pitcher has, whether it be a good or bad outing, the impact is noticeable.

Is a hitter's actual impact equivalent to that or greater if you include slumps or hitting events that don't actually alter the outcome of the game? Do you consider it value if he gets on base with a walk or a hit or a HBP and then doesn't get cashed it? Is it value if he just changes the situation to increase the likelihood of a run scored, such as moving a runner to third with only one out with a SF or something?

I'd look at it this way. They say that if Longoria missed the entire year for instance, the +/- differential in games won for TB would stand around 8. A great pitcher can win you 15+ games easily on his own.

[J-Roc]

I was thinking last night, with the Red Sox and Gonzalez.....it's not that any one hitter can make a huge impact, but the Yanks and Sox try to guarantee themselves contention by loading up on a few "guaranteed" hitters. Most teams are lucky to have one or two good pitchers, so 60% of the time the Yanks and Sox get to unload weak pitchers. And since the % of time batters do anything is relatively low, the Yanks will pair up the likes of A-Rod with Mark Teixeira. They figure in any given game, there's a low chance both will do poorly. Either one does well, or even both do well. Again, they rack up the wins.

Now if I had to choose between a single pitcher and a single hitter, I'd choose the pitcher. The Greg Maddux basically wins you a game. But if we could afford anything, and since pitchers are always getting injured,, maybe better to go find a couple of hitters and you'd be set. Imagine adding a Pujols to our lineup, then suddenly Bautista and Escobar, etc, are that much better. And then suddenly Cecil wins more games like yesterday, where he doesn't have to be perfect. Or Romero racks up wins for a Cy Young year.

[SharoneWright]

Pat Gillick didn't hesitate to say "hitter" when asked about this while he was in town.

His argument was based on replaceability,, his belief that there is a vast pool of good arms with which you can backfill your rotation, but a real scarcity of premium bats in the league.

[JMH]

IMO, It has to be the pitchers. As a few people mention their playoff value to a team is really high and their league value seems to sky rocket but I also like the fact that those ace's can come in after a 4 game losing streak and put a stop to it and it says to the team lets back on track. A batter can get a game-winning hit but he can't control the game like an all-star cy young pitcher can.

[U_Mad]

But you also have to look it from the perspective of having a bad game...if Maddux has a bad game thats a bigger impact on a team then say a Pujols having a couple of bad games...risk reward with a pitcher is much higher imo...but then again that point is not as strong if ur talking about 92-95 Maddux...so clearly i am on the fence....

[satyr9]

Pat Gillick didn't hesitate to say "hitter" when asked about this while he was in town.

His argument was based on replaceability,, his belief that there is a vast pool of good arms with which you can backfill your rotation, but a real scarcity of premium bats in the league.

Well he was talking about the draft so I'm not sure you want to absolutely attribute that logic in this case. If he or I had to choose, everything else in a vacuum, between starting with a premium bat or a premium pitcher, I'd take the positional player because of scarcity, but if you look at the argument strictly as which can have a larger effect on a season for a ballclub, as several here were doing, I think I would argue the pitcher is more valuable and I don't think you can say Gillick would disagree, although I don't know his stance on this. Still if you look at the Phillies or the pitching acquisitions he made for the Blue Jays I think you'd agree he must think pitching is pretty darn valuable.

So if it's a question of roster building, you start and focus on acquiring positional players because they are the hardest place to acquire true difference makers, but if you were trying to assess what single player can have the most impact above replacement on your club overall, I think you'd give the nod to the elite starting pitcher. What leans you towards the positional is if you have resources, as a GM you can always acquire a starting pitcher significantly closer in WAR to the elite SP and you may not be able to do the same for position players. Sometimes there just aren't any decent guys on the market and trading for one would cost way more than trading for their equivalent WAR value in a SP.

[tsherkin]

Either way this goes, I'm enjoying the different perspectives. Now if we could con Schad into responding...

[Schad]

Schad be here. For the reasons that Avenger and Met noted, I'd lean toward the pitcher, all things being equal; the pitcher will feature in more plate appearances over the course of a full season, and has greater control over the situation than does the hitter...the latter's production is necessarily influenced by the quality of the lineup around them, and while the defense certainly impacts a pitcher it's to a lesser degree. And as Met said, it's of even greater import during the playoffs, when the increased number of off-days can lead to a good starter pitching in at least 29% of the outings of a seven-gamer, and potentially up to 42% if they're the hardy sort.

The one confounding factor is injuries. The risk of catastrophic injury with a pitcher is higher, so while they might be more impactful in the short term, they're also in greater danger of seeing their effectiveness plummet...one torn labrum and your star pitcher could end up a meatballer. In the aggregate, though, the fact that major-injury-free pitchers often have greater longevity than comparable hitters balances things out (though that's cold comfort if your ace goes down and never really regains form).

I would also disagree with Gillick about the draft, insofar as we're talking starters (using high picks on relievers is silly, unless you're turning them into starters); while it's easier to find solid pitchers through free agency and trade, and the bust rate of young pitchers is scary, it's bloody hard without an unlimited budget to assemble a top pitching staff anywhere but the draft or international free agency...you get the occasional Cliff Lee or Johan Santana who muddle through for years before turning into beasts, but they're rare.

[Hoopstarr]

No question, it's the pitcher for me, for the reasons mentioned already. I didn't agree with what Gillick said in the booth either. He basically said there are good arms all over the place and you just have to find them and plug them in. It may be strictly true that there are many strong arms out there, but qualities like makeup, sound mechanics/repeatable delivery, and body type are what keep them around. So many pitchers with strong arms flame out quickly for lack of these qualities. When you find a pitcher with these intangibles and he manages to deflect the whims of injuries, it's a precious thing and you ride his back to multiple starts per playoff series.

Even if Albert Pujols was an elite SS or CF, he's only as productive as what's around him in the lineup, both offensively and defensively. Sure, some great pitchers like Jesse Litsch still require the help of their defense, but others don't leave it up to the defense at all. Rangers teams of the past decade can surely attest to the value of just ONE good starter. They had insane hitting lineups lead by the best hitter in the game and still would win 70-ish games.

[ItsDanger]

Elite starters have the most value because they can shut down good hitters. However, there isnt that many of them. Thats why when Halladay was available, teams should have been improving their bids. Mostly injury free, innings eater, and very consistent. Other elite starters are mostly similar to that. As stated earlier, top teams tend to load up on hitters as they can beat up on avg to below avg starters around the league and boost their win total that way in order to ease into playoffs. Its why I always maintain that with Halladay on the Jays in the playoffs, they would always have a good chance of beating anybody. Unfortunately, they could never get in the playoffs due mostly to the aforementioned reason.