Pitching Prospects

Bob Loblaw said:

Apparently, you've never heard of TINSTAAPP........

Click to expand...

emarc27 said:

This year's BDPP and it's myriad of strong pitching prospects got me thinking about how the card community sees young pitchers as investments. It seems to me that collectors spends less $$ on pitchers than on hitters of the same caliber. I've heard some people say that there's no such thing as a pitching prospect.

Is this whole idea just something I made up in my head, or do people not like investing in pitchers? If so, then why? I'm sure injuries might be a reason.

Click to expand...

Ian Stewart said:

[quote="Bob Loblaw":1rold1c9]Apparently, you've never heard of TINSTAAPP........

Click to expand...

emarc27 said:

This year's BDPP and it's myriad of strong pitching prospects got me thinking about how the card community sees young pitchers as investments. It seems to me that collectors spends less $$ on pitchers than on hitters of the same caliber. I've heard some people say that there's no such thing as a pitching prospect.

Is this whole idea just something I made up in my head, or do people not like investing in pitchers? If so, then why? I'm sure injuries might be a reason.

Click to expand...

Ian Stewart said:

[quote="Bob Loblaw":q2nskz8x]Apparently, you've never heard of TINSTAAPP........

Click to expand...

emarc27 said:

This year's BDPP and it's myriad of strong pitching prospects got me thinking about how the card community sees young pitchers as investments. It seems to me that collectors spends less $$ on pitchers than on hitters of the same caliber. I've heard some people say that there's no such thing as a pitching prospect.

Is this whole idea just something I made up in my head, or do people not like investing in pitchers? If so, then why? I'm sure injuries might be a reason.

Click to expand...

sheetskout said:

Acronym or not, it's about the stupidest theory I have ever heard.

Personally, I think people avoid pitching prospects because they are more difficult to understand, measure, and analyze.

Click to expand...

jdsingar said:

I think the big reason why collector's invest less in pitchers is the higher likelihood of injuries. There was some research done on BA's Top 100 lists comparing how many pitchers ending up being successful to hitters and the percentage of successful pitchers was substantially lower.

Click to expand...

hive17 said:

Considering that teams can host 8 potential super stars hitting, while maybe 2-3 potential superstars pitching, there is nothing revelatory about that research. If there are 100 players, there are bound to be more hitters, by far, on the list at any one time, than pitchers, so a greater QUANTITY of success will be hitters.

Click to expand...

sheetskout said:

Personally, I think people avoid pitching prospects because they are more difficult to understand, measure, and analyze.

Click to expand...

hail2thevictors said:

sheetskout said:

Personally, I think people avoid pitching prospects because they are more difficult to understand, measure, and analyze.

Click to expand...

Just curious, why do you say this?

IMO pitchers seem as easy to measure and analyze as hitters. You have your major stats(WHIP, K/BB ratio, ERA) and then you have things like velocity, the age they are, the league they play in, etc. Much the same for hitters I would say.

Click to expand...

Bob Loblaw said:

Apparently, you've never heard of TINSTAAPP........

Click to expand...

Junior Griffey said:

You've gotta find a good strikeout pitcher. True Fans love a dominating pitcher just like they love the longball. I made more money off of Jonathan Sanchez than I've ever made off of a hitter. But I also heavily invested in Pedro Beato. Woops.

Click to expand...

Mudcatsfan said:

The problem as i see it, is two fold.

1. Traditional Pitching Stats are not always representative of true talent: I wont get too deep on this, but everyone knows that Wins say alot more about your team and not just the pitcher (Ian Kennedy vs Matt Cain).

2. Batters have counting stats which accumulate (homers, rbi, runs, sb), whereas pitchers are measure by 'average-based' stats which can be skewed or even RUINED by a bad day, or a bad moment.

It's amazing how bad luck, bad teammates, or even a few statistical outliers can mask how much value some pitchers have.

Golfers are measured by the average of the best 5 of their last 10 rounds.

If pitchers were measured this way, i think we'd more clearly see who has value and who is mediocre.

Perhaps 8 or 9 of 10 would be sufficient, so as to not obscure the greatness of a Halladay who truly is great 9 out of 10 times.

My point being, if someone is lights out for 7 games out of ten, but TERRIBLE in 3 games, isnt that more valuable than someone who is mediocre in 7 games and then slightly bad in their worst 3 games?

Those two pitchers may have similar ERA and WHIP numbers because averages balance everything out. But wouldnt you want the guy who gives you a real chance to win 7 times out of 10?

Case in point. Ubaldo Jimenez goes 10-1 in the first half of 2010 with something like a 0.79 ERA (7 runs in 80 innings) He then gives up 8 runs in his next 4 innings.

So his ERA is now 1.60.

He then gives up 7 runs in his next 3 innings.

His ERA is now 2.33.

So was Ubaldo now a guy who gives up 2 or 3 runs a game all season? Or was he an unbeatbable win machine for 11 games who then had 2 bad games?

Click to expand...