Jump to content

Does this organization value pitching less than every other organization in baseball?


Recommended Posts

It feels like the Angels are well behind pretty much every other organization in the league when it comes to acquiring pitchers.  We don't draft pitchers high (Canning is the only top 2 round pick in the Eppler draft era), we don't seem to invest any international pool money in them (sans Ohtani), we don't spend money on them in free agency (never given a 9 figure contract to a pitcher), and we seem very hesitant to part with what is considered fair value in trades for pitchers.  I get the sense that our organization just simply doesn't place a lot of value into pitchers.  Why do we seem so hesitant to invest assets into acquiring pitchers by any means compared to every other team in the league?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It feels like the Angels are well behind pretty much every other organization in the league when it comes to acquiring pitchers.  We don't draft pitchers high (Canning is the only top 2 round pick in

If you're asking about drafting, it's a fair question. But didn't they just offer almost $300M to Cole? You don't do that if you don't value pitching. 

Can you imagine if we all had to hang out in person, and talk? Instead of using gifs?  No thanks       (My spelling would be better, though)

Posted Images

They did draft a lot of pitchers in the past two drafts, although none in the first two rounds.     

And there are a fair number of Latin American pitching prospects (Suarez, Soriano, Yan, Aquino, etc.).

The main question then is:  will they draft a college pitcher this June with the #10 overall pick, if that college pitcher is rated around #10 in the draft?    That to me, is the one concern, not using 1st/2nd round picks on pitching. 

Edited by Angel Oracle
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it’s a bit unfair to criticize them for not drafting pitchers specifically in the 1st round.  They did take Canning 2nd and they took the kid with 50 syallables (3rd or 4th?)in his name last year.  I believe they paid over slot for both.  Also the last two years they’ve drafted way more pitchers then position players.  
 

given the volatility of pitchers in terms of health.  I think it’s fair to shy away from handing out big contracts to the 3rd and 4th tier types that tend to be exiting their primes when they hit FA.  Anyway, to me this is a problem about the Angels having a horrible system that didn’t produce much of anything more the a problem of them not caring about pitching. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im honestly a bit tired of this narrative.
I highly doubt we value it any differently, but the better question is where were we supposed to have gotten it in recent years?  Lets not forget weve now lost two men who should still be in our rotation to off field deaths in the last decade.    Two guys we got right, that arent here for non baseball reason.  2/5th of a rotation.
You draft mid to late rounds you are guessing, and usually better off taking the best athlete overall in hopes of trading them for what you actually need.
The draft is largely a crap shoot with a bunch of kids years away from actually being anything.
You could ask the same question as to why 24 teams passed on Trout as you could Walker Bueller as they were taken within picks of each other numerically.
Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you dont, at the end of the day you have to both hit and pitch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lazorko Saves said:

Yes, and for a rational reason: we're committed to having a 6 man rotation.

This actually brings up a good point, one among many on this subject.

There is a real movement in baseball to steer away from starters and toward more long relievers/multi-inning relievers. The reason for this is simple: Relievers get batters out at a better clip than starters overall. Finding the right mix of multi-innings types, starters, and true one inning type relievers is an optimization mix we don't need to go into here but the reality of the numbers shows the more times a pitcher goes through a lineup the more likely they will get hit. It also shows that higher velocity, spin rates, consistent release points, etc., also improve performance as a whole.

The Angels, as AO stated, have been drafting a lot of pitchers, just not at the top of the draft where traditionally taking a position player pays higher dividends. Arms are so unpredictable in terms of injuries that the whole selection process is a crap shoot of sorts.

You saw Eppler trying to acquire a front-of-the-rotation type from free agency this year and it just so happens none of them wanted to come to Anaheim for a plethora of reasons that were out of our control. Billy is more than willing to acquire a top-tier guy it just hasn't been ripe the last couple of off-seasons and we even lost Skaggs who I believe was on the cusp of becoming a front-end guy.

We have some potential front-end types in our system right now in Rodriguez and Kochanowicz, for example. It is the starters that Eppler will invest money in. Finding relievers is pretty easy for him so he doesn't invest there, particularly now that we have crops of throwers coming up in our system that he can pull on or trade from for other needs (Bundy for example).

I think this is just a perception issue that is not really true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Throwman91 said:

The lack of FA signings is all you need to know, this organization undervalues starting pitching for reasons unknown.

And this is the worst part of that narrative.
There is maybe one guy in the last 3 years we actually missed out on.
The rest were never really options outside of our own minds. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe the Angels value pitchers appropriately, and most teams overvalue them.  

to make either conclusion it would require us to have the same information available that the Angels have and we don't.  

what is the success rate of a drafted position player at pick 10 or 23 or 47 vs. that of a pitcher?  What is the success rate of a 16yo foreign pitcher vs. that of a position player?  OFer?  MIFer?  Corner IFer?  C?  What is the ROI for free agent pitchers on multi year deals over a certain age?  under a certain age?  For how many years?  Where are the value plays?  How much emphasis to you put on general trends for these player vs. individual scouting reports?

Where is there bias?  How do you account for that?  What traits are projectable or sustainable?  Which ones are consistent from year to year?  Which ones do you think are undervalued and which ones are untapped?  How do you account for injury risk?  

Ultimately, it's just risk management. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Ponder this.  This is not wholly deductive proof.

P1: Chicks did the long ball

P2: Chicks are emotionally irrational 

P3: Arte is emotionally irrational

P4: Arte was an assbirth

I was thinking something more simple: Arte loves fireworks. Angel Stadium doesn’t do fireworks for pitchers, just home runs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Pancake that this is a tired narrative.  It would probably be less tired if the premise was, “Should the Angels prioritize Starting Pitching at a Higher Level”?  But when you start the premise as they value pitching the least amount in all of Major League Baseball it seems tired.  

As it relates to the draft, this has been brought up here a few times.  When you are building a farm from scratch like Eppler has had to do you want to draft some sure things to build not just depth but currency.  It’s not a secret that pitching is much less predictable and a much bigger risk.  The success rate of pitchers in the draft is significantly less than position players.  Additionally if you have the 10th pick in the draft would you rather have an Adell type outfielder or a #3 starter?  Now that may seem like an exaggeration but how many college starters are taken 10th have Ace potential?  I’m sure they happen, but how often?  Then if you draft the high school pitcher the risk is so great and the development time is 4-5 years.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...