The
Rick Ankiel story, first uplifting, then sad, then uplifting again, and now possibly sad again, got me thinking. If the Cards could've known that Ankiel had the potential to be either a front-of-the-rotation starter, or a middle-of-the-lineup run producer, which direction would they have pushed him?
Granted, what Ankiel has shown this season is not a guarantee of future production, but it is definitely an eye-opener. In Ankiel's case, the decision was made for the Cardinals, but there is a pitcher out there right now who would be a better test case, Micah Owings. Owings is having a moderately productive rookie season as a pitcher. He's 6-8 with a 4.68 ERA (slightly below the league average of 4.75) and a 1.38 WHIP. His K/BB ratio is a little better than 2 to 1, so there's definitely potential there for him to be a number 2 or 3 starter down the road. Should the Diamondbacks be happy with this?
I'm starting to think they shouldn't. Take a look at Owings' batting statistics: in 51 at bats, he has 15 hits, 8 for extra bases, including 4 home runs and 12 RBIs. His OPS is .952. He looks like he's a legit major league hitter right now. Here's the question, if you're the Diamondbacks' GM, would you convert Owings to a hitter now? There are some warning signs, Owings has struck out 15 times, and only walked twice (although you may be able to chalk that up to the opposing pitcher never wanting to walk a pitcher).
It's a tough debate, and I think the best way to answer the question is this: If you were Brian Cashman, would you trade Alex Rodriguez (the best hitter in the game) for Johan Santana (the best pitcher in the game) straight up? I think the answer is no. If you're thinking this type of decision should probably come down to a team's needs, consider that the Diamondbacks have scored fewer runs than all but three teams in the entire league and they have the worst team batting average.
The Rick Ankiel story, first uplifting, then sad, then uplifting again, and now possibly sad again, got me thinking. If the Cards could've known that Ankiel had the potential to be either a front-of-the-rotation starter, or a middle-of-the-lineup run producer, which direction would they have pushed him?
The slugger vs. ace debate is one I've pondered often. Your post inspired me to take a long, detailed look at it.
Although a pitcher only plays once every 5 days, he has MUCH more control over the outcome of one individual game than a hitter, who only has 4 or 5 chances to contribute on offense, as well as a few plays on the field per game. An ace pitcher, meanwhile, has 30 or so match-ups with hitters with which to make a mark on a single game
Then, you also have to consider the availability/scarcity of sluggers and aces. Doesnt it seem like there are a lot more sluggers out there than ace pitchers? In that case, an ace might be more valuable, because he's harder to come by.
Since there are several people (sabremetricians) who specialize in assigning "value" to player's achievements, I figured that would be a good place. It's safe to assume that Johan Santana is the best pitcher in baseball, and he definitely was for 2006. I figued I would compare Johan to last year's top hitters and see who comes out as more "valuable"
Johan's VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) last year was 79.6, which suggests that he "prevented" 79.6 more runs from scoring than an unheralded AAA call-up would have (think Matt DeSalvo, Chase Wright, or someone of that caliber).
4 hitters had a higher VORP than that last year, namely Albert Pujols, Ryan Howard, Derek Jeter, and Travis Hafner.
Plus, VORP is an offense-only stat that does not account for stellar defense (which Pujols possesses) or stellar base-running (which Jeter possesses)
For the current season, Jake Peavy leads all pitchers with a VORP of 65.4. Once again, 4 hitters have a higher VORP than the best pitcher. In this case, it is A-Rod, Magglio, Ortiz, and Hanley Ramirez.
so, it's not looking good for pitchers so far.
The Hardball Times (www.thehardballtimes.com) keeps track of a stat called "Win Shares", which they describe as "a very complicated statistic that takes all the contributions a player makes toward his team’s wins and distills them into a single number that represents the number of wins contributed to the team, times three."
In this case, you get 30 hitters with higher Win Shares before you get to the first pitcher, Johan Santana.
Looking even worse for pitchers now...
Another thing to consider is injury risk. Pitchers are far more prone to getting inured and losing effectiveness, whereas sluggers are usually consistently good for an extended period of time. There are exceptions of course (Griffey Jr.), but for the most part, I think there's less injury risk in position players.
So, all in all, I think I'd rather have an elite hitter (A-Rod, Ortiz, Pujols, etc.) than an elite pitcher (Johan, Oswalt, etc.)
Tom,
Great research. I think the knee-jerk reaction is to value a pitcher over a hitter, probably because pitching dominates in the post season. In Owings' case, I think he'd help the team much more as a middle-of-the-lineup bat than he would at the back end of the rotation (possibly middle of the rotation down the road).
Tom that was awesome info on pitchers vs. batters. It eliminates a lot of the subjectivity and looks at the numbers. And you are very right that a pitcher is more injury prone and more likely to lose effectiveness.
I had always favored pitchers over hitters. The Phillies
almost changed this bias and nearly had me believing that an explosive offense could overcome bad pitching. But we lost Utley, Victorino and Bourne and still managed to win. Then we lose Cole Hamels and lose to stinkers like the Marlins and fall from contention. The value of good pitchers can't be measured in statistics alone. With all the hitter friendly parks, there are more good hitters than there are good pitchers. Good pitchers are harder to find, less likely to be acquired and seem best if developed in your own system. You better have 'em in your system, as trading for them is more likely to be a disappointment.
In value of acquired hitters vs. pitchers, the better value appears to be the hitters. Gagne vs. Texieria or Zito vs. Sheffield.... Texieria and Sheff have been more productive. And it seems less likely you will get value out of a pitcher acquired in free agent signings or trades than a guy you bring up in your own farm system. Wang, Hughes and Chamberlain have been more valuable to the Yankees than Iagwa and Pavano (extreme example). Kenrick and Hamels have been more valuable to the Phillies than Garcia or Eaton. Pitchers acquired in big trades/free agent signings seem more likely to be damaged goods or disappointments.
It all comes down to balance. Good hitting alone can't get you to the playoffs. You still have to have someone on the mound capable of keeping the game within reach. Good pitchers are harder to find than good hitters. A good pitching staff can carry a below average lineup but a good lineup can't carry a pitching staff that sucks. ( San Diego vs. Philadelphia).
Here's a thought... would the Ankiel story had even been made public if he were still a pitcher? While sluggers are villified as 'roid/HGH users, folks seem to look the other way with pitchers, probably because there aren't as many good pitchers as there are good hitters. Suspect 'roid Pitchers seem to get a free pass (Gagne).
This really is my favourite group, I absolutely like every thing these people have made so far, but some of the first things remains some of the best songs i think
Take the pitcher every time.
Over a five game stretch, the pitcher would pitch once, and face about 30 hitters. Whereas, a hitter would have about 25 plate appearances and get pitched around every time.
I'd rather have Lincecum shutting down Hamilton than have Hamilton getting nothing to hit. Just look at the 2010 world series to see what good pitching can do to good hitting.