Avoiding SP?

[Grinch]

As my AL only league has a limit of 5 minor leaguers, I am thinking of going bats only this year (I have 3 of the first 9 picks after rebuilding). I am leaning to this as it seems to be becoming standard practice for guys to cut their teeth in the bullpen, limiting their value until their second of even third season. I know every team doesn't do this, but is it worth the risk???

[Sour Masher]

I'm not sure I'd restrict myself that way. I'd continue to focus on getting the very best players who I think will help me the soonest. A guy like Matt Moore, a pitcher, is a good example of how a pitcher can come up quick and likely do well right away. of course, you may lean heavily to bats, but I wouldn't shy away from a top tier arm either.

[Grinch]

Yeah, I agree with that, but once you get beyond the top tier, even though the best player may be an arm. the best fantasy play may be the bat. Position prospects generally don't come up until they have a role that will get them significant AB's -- therefore useful production from a fantasy prospective. The arms (other than top -tier, or Sept. callups) end up in the pen. BTW this was triggered by a report that the Rangers were considering Martin Perez for a role in the pen...............yeah, I own him and cannot sink $6 into a MR. Blech

[Big Tymer]

With early round minor league picks, I also share the pov that position prospects are much safer investments. Prospects in general don't pan out more often than not and then you throw in injury risk and potential for a non-helpful, short-term role as a middle reliever and I'd just as well let another team in the league roll the dice there. That said, once you get past the first or second round then it's a crapshoot anyway and just go with upside regardless of position.

[Sour Masher]

I've seen that data, and I think it is a great read. I've had the opposite experience over the years, personally. I'll concede it is very likely luck, but I've had many of my pitching prospects pan out, unfortunately mostly on other teams, because I followed the mindset that trading pitching prospects for equally ranked hitting prospects was the smart play, mostly because of data like this. In turns out, that mine is a case study on the folly of trying to take a large trend and following it on the micro level. Here are some of the major pitching prospect for hitting prospects deals I did in recent years that didn't work out:

1. I traded Jered Weaver for Howie Kendrick because of TINSNAAP, and the scarcity of premier MIF prospect, and everyone saying Weaver was overrated and his college stats were a mirage. I didn't win that deal.
2. I traded Jon Lester for Jeremy Hermida. I thought I'd robbed the guy. That didn't work out so well either.
3. I traded Tim Lincecum for Alex Gordon, same reasoning, and while Gordon finally panned out last year, it was after I traded him away (and then traded back for him for my title run).
4. And in what may be the worst deal I've ever done--I traded Justin Verlander for Edwin Encarnacion. And the really sad part is I actively lobbied for this deal as I really wanted a top tier 3b prospect. Really, I had to sell Verlander to him, for hours, to get this deal done.

And here is a deal I made a couple of years ago that shows the flip side of it--I traded Matt Dominguez, along with Nick Markakis in the majors, for Anibal Sanchez, Bumgarner and Matt Moore. At the time, Dominguez, the light hitting great glove 3bman was still highly rated, Bumgarner had lost his velocity, and Moore had control issues. It didn't seem like such a horrid deal at the time, really. It may turn out to be one of my best deals ever, if Moore pans outs.

Now, clearly my results are atypical, and I also traded some duds as well, but my recent history of trading pitching prospects for hitting prospects under the theory that hitters are safer bets has been an utter failure overall, and I've done well more recently reversing that trend to take advantage of people's bias against pitching prosects.

I'm fortunate that I've also kept and traded for enough studs to win a title last year and be competitive every year, but I have no doubt I'd have been even better off if I didn't so doggedly follow the strategy of trading top tier pitching prospects for top tier hitting propsects. And if you think I was clearly giving the better prospect in each of these deals, that is hindsight. In each case, the hitter I got was as highly rated or more highly rated than the pitcher I gave at the time.

So, yeah, large general trends suggest to go for the hitters, but if you have a good eye and feel for pitching, don't second guess yourself like I have. I stopped doing that and held onto Kershaw, thank goodness. And I'm not going to trade Matt Moore or Shelby Miller either. Again, maybe I'm a freak, and maybe I'm lucky, but many pitchers I've fallen in love with have panned out, which is more than I can say for the hitters, many of whom turn out to underachieve or be late bloomers (Gordon comes to mind, and Wieters and Smoak may fit in that category too).

[gcstomp]

Sour hit on my general feel as well, that a macro declaration such as "pick hitters over pitchers", generally is meaningless. Every great pitcher in the majors sprang forth not from an acorn sitting in the rain gutter, but from at one time being a prosppect. It is all about the specific name, the specific situaton. If you have the next pick in a farm draft with Bauer, Cole, Shelby Miller, and Skaags available, or some non top 50 ranked hitter, you may want to check yourself.