Developing pitchers rather than hitters

by bobr on Oct 19, 2011 11:56 AM EDT

There has been some discussion here about the "problem" in the Rays organization that it has produced lots of pitching talent but few hitters. Here is an article from fangraphs that might lead to some further conversation on the issue:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/comparative-advantage-why-teams-should-specialize-and-trade/

I think some people anticipated this sort of thinking in comments on this site. Is it a valid analysis?

If the Rays scouting and development is really not particularly good at identifying and developing hitters, perhaps they should not spend to upgrade there but rather put even more effort into the pitching side to hone their advantage there.

This post was written by a member of the DRaysBay community and does not necessarily express the views or opinions of DRaysBay staff.

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Or is it the Rays are using their higher picks on pitching they feel strongly in and forgoing hitters?

Maybe someone can do a grid of pick distribution so we can see when the Rays are drafting what.

The fact that there is really nothing other than Beckham at the upper levels as far as positional prospects goes that can help out in 2012 does not sit well with me.

I'm not a fanboy, I'm a _______

by Jason Collette on Oct 19, 2011 12:10 PM EDT reply actions

But thats where the Rays can trade from their strength excess starting pitching for some bats.

Rodriguez, Joyce, Shoppach and Guyer all came from trading away pitching. So did Chirinos, Lee and Sweeney. Not all worked out fantastic but neither do hitting spects. The Rays currently have a larger surplus than ever of pitching. Somehow I think they will fill some of the gap via trade.

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Oct 19, 2011 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions

gotta find the next Brett Lawrie...sheeeeit

I could care less about your graduate degree-I was a full professor at Harvard at 34 and am a full professor at Columbia now in a theoretical field whose main tool is statistical mechanics. So can can come down from your high place.

by Buzzy on Sep 24, 2011 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions

by pudieron89 on Oct 20, 2011 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions

It will be Wil Myers.

Just wait and see.

by mr. maniac on Oct 20, 2011 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Love him and his stock will never be lower

and there goes our season

OTM's biggest Clutch Carl fan.
by gizmosandy on Sep 11, 2011 3:59 PM EDT reply actions

by Sandy Kazmir on Oct 20, 2011 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions

They could use Sheilds, right?

Lamb and Myers are two of my favorite prospects, and both have their stocks on the floor.

by mr. maniac on Oct 20, 2011 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions

They could use Sheilds, right?

Lamb and Myers are two of my favorite prospects, and both have their stocks on the floor.

by mr. maniac on Oct 20, 2011 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Do not want to target Lamb.

by rglass44 on Oct 20, 2011 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Why not?

Left handed Hellickson.

by mr. maniac on Oct 20, 2011 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Because he's coming off TJ, and I assume that the Royals have better knowledge of his health than any other team.

by rglass44 on Oct 21, 2011 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions

Good points, Myers, Sal Perez, and one of the lefty arms would have me pretty happy, That's probably not even enough to be equal to Shields surplus value, but it's not like anyone has a package that will give us fair value

and there goes our season

OTM's biggest Clutch Carl fan.
by gizmosandy on Sep 11, 2011 3:59 PM EDT reply actions

by Sandy Kazmir on Oct 21, 2011 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions

I think it would be.

Using the trade value calculator, even if you put Shields in for 4 wins per season he’s only “worth” $32 million which is less than the value of a top 10 hitting prospect alone. Myers is in the conversation there, but we’ll slot him at 11-25 to be safe (Sickles has already done his 2012 Royals list and has Myers as an A- which slotted at 10-11 hitting prospect or top 20ish overall) which is $25.1 mill. A grade B pitcher is anothr $7.1 mill which gets us to the $32 mill figure with out including Perez. I think it’s about fair value, but it all depends on how the Royals and Rays value all the moving parts.

by rglass44 on Oct 21, 2011 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions

The Rays seem to never back off of injured players.

They seem to be pretty good at evaluating that. Plus, TJ really isn’t such a bad thing anymore, especially for a guy who isn’t max effort.

by mr. maniac on Oct 21, 2011 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions

You aren't the only one.

From Sickles:

2) Wil Myers, OF, Grade A-: I still believe in him, and I expect a big step forward in 2012. Moving up to the PCL, he could explode in the same way that Brett Lawrie did.

I’d love, love, love to get Salvadore Perez. Great defensively, and he seems like he might could handle the stick.

by rglass44 on Oct 20, 2011 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Perez would be a buy high though.

by mr. maniac on Oct 20, 2011 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Possibly. I don't mind buying high on players I really like taht are a big need. I wouldn't pay Wieters value for him, but his work behind the dish is legit.

by rglass44 on Oct 21, 2011 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions

He is a great defender.

I’m still not entirely sold on the bat though. He is very young, so improvement is not out of the question.

by mr. maniac on Oct 21, 2011 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Wow I shoulda read this

I really agree on Perez, what a find

and there goes our season

OTM's biggest Clutch Carl fan.
by gizmosandy on Sep 11, 2011 3:59 PM EDT reply actions

by Sandy Kazmir on Oct 21, 2011 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions

I outlines that a little bit in the AFL thread.

by mr. maniac on Oct 19, 2011 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions

The lack of college hitters taken by the Rays

in say the first round could have certainly created a hole of sorts. College players move faster & are “safer” compared with HS players which are very boom-bust.
1st Round(No Supplemental)
HS Pitchers: Guerierri(2011)
HS Hitters: Hamilton(1999), Baldelli(2000), Upton(2002), Young(2003), Beckham(2008), Sale(2010), O’Conner(2010), Hager(2011)
College Pitchers: Brazelton(2001), Niemann(2004), Townsend(2005), Price(2007)
College Hitters: Longoria(2006), Mahtook(2011)

That’s a 1-8-4-2 breakdown

I put the screw IN THE TUNA!

by Transplanted on Oct 20, 2011 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions

Canzler

by Buzzy on Sep 24, 2011 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions

by pudieron89 on Oct 20, 2011 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions

Guyer

by Buzzy on Sep 24, 2011 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions

by pudieron89 on Oct 20, 2011 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions

HJL

by rglass44 on Oct 20, 2011 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions

That situation makes me very nervous also,

but the question is can the Rays deal pitching for hitting on a regular enough basis to make a strategy of focusing on pitching effective. And of course it also depends on the ability to identify and develop worthwhile pitchers on a regular basis so they are appealing to potential trade partners.

Isn’t that the assumption underlying hopes that the Rays and Reds deal this off-season? The Reds may have multiple promising hitters at 1B and C and a shortage of reliable major league starters. It certainly seems to have been the factor underlying the Garza trade in which the Rays received 4 possible offensive contributors, one with reasonably high upside and two with the potential to be above average, without weakening the rotation.

Of course, it remains to be seen if the Rays identified worthwhile major league offensive talent in that trade.

by bobr on Oct 19, 2011 12:44 PM EDT reply actions

Here are the assumptions:

1) Teams try to maximize both the number of pitchers and hitters that they develop over a given time period.

2) Some teams do in fact have a comparative advantage over other teams in "producing" (scouting and developing) hitters or pitchers.

3) For simplicity, in the example all pitchers are of equal value and all hitters are of equal value.

4) There are no transaction costs

My skepticism comes from assumptions two and four. About two, it’s very possible that some teams do have a comparative advantage in developing certain types of prospects. I think it’s very difficult for teams to actually figure this out. There’s a huge amount of small sample size noise, I would imagine, so while teams can look at what they’ve been able to develop in the past, I don’t think that’s at all similar to establishing their and other teams true talent at player development going forward. Of course you can and should make trades with what you have, but I’d be loathe to reallocate resources to one side or the other of development unless I was very sure that I did have a comparative advantage there.

As for four, I think that there are transaction costs, stemming both from risk aversion and lack of information on other people’s prospects. I suspect that GMs are loathe to give up the top prospect they have in their system, and they’re probably right to be so, as they’ll have more information on and be more assured of their on prospect than they will be of someone else’s, devaluing the outside prospect.

by Whelk on Oct 19, 2011 2:48 PM EDT reply actions

That's essentially how I feel.

As an economist I get the notion of maximizing return via trade of efficiency, but I think since we’re talking in such limited numbers it’s nearly impossible to analyze just how good your comparative advantage is (and what is the barrier of entry on development? is it coaches? why not just go by a good hitting instructor? is it certain lesson plans? steal them. etc. etc.).

The third point is also an issue. There’s no doubt in my mind they have different values and different costs to develop.

Agreed on the transaction costs.

by rglass44 on Oct 19, 2011 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions

There's also the issue of diminishing marginal returns due to players being "blocked."

You only have 600 PAs a year at each position and 1400 IP to spread.

by rglass44 on Oct 19, 2011 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions

One example on why the comparative advantage is so hard:

Say you decide to pour all your resources in to pitching. WHat does that mean? Hiring great coaches that do great work to implement a great plan. Now what about that can not be repeated by another club? Even if you wall off your information, the people that implement it still know it. How much do you pay to keep them? What’s the break-even point on not spending taht money and just trying to hire people away?

by rglass44 on Oct 19, 2011 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions

OT: I should have a long fanpost up (sometime tomorrow) comparing the Rays to the rest of MLB in drafting posistional players.

It is pretty time consuming so far, but I think I should have it up yesterday. The results so far have been interesting.

by mr. maniac on Oct 19, 2011 6:48 PM EDT reply actions

Thanks for taking the time. Real research generally yields really interesting pieces so thanks in advance.

and there goes our season

OTM's biggest Clutch Carl fan.
by gizmosandy on Sep 11, 2011 3:59 PM EDT reply actions

by Sandy Kazmir on Oct 19, 2011 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Okay, the piece is up now.

The Rays seem to have a low amount of guys make the majors, but at a higher impact. Two things popped in my head when I saw that.

1. The Rays have a good team and all these players that are .5.5 WAR don’t make the Rays as often as other clubs.
2. The Rays keep the guys in the minors longer so they can better develop and assess their talent.

by mr. maniac on Oct 20, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions