Post by sharksrog on Dec 18, 2021 15:08:11 GMT -5
It's not about having the best #1 or best #2 among the playoff teams. It's about having the best four man rotation. And given injuries, it's nice to have a good #5 or even a good #6.
Boly kind of pooh-poohed the idea of getting starters who can pitch the full 162-game schedule, but in reality, most teams suffer so many pitching injuries that teams CAN benefit from having six, or seven or even eight capable starters. And capable starters are hard to find. I doubt I can find 100 pitchers I would want to have starting for my team. Shocking, isn't it, that there are only 15 active pitchers who have pitched 1000 career innings and have an ERA under 3.50? One 35 pitchers with ERA's below 4.00. Only 55 pitchers with ERA's below 5.00.
Some of that is that pitchers don't accumulate innings as quickly as they used to. Some is because there are starters who haven't been around long enough to pitch 1000 innings yet. But some of it is because there just aren't as many pitchers out there who can pitch well for even five or six innings as one would think. Which is why guys like DeSclafani, Wood and Cobb -- each of whom is likely to do so -- are valuable.
I looked at Baseball-Reference's top 10 pitchers for Wins Above Replacement. Each season the cutoff for the 10 is around 5.0 WAR, usually little above. We're always looking players who will make a big difference, but when it comes to pitchers, there simply aren't all that many. If a team can develop a pitcher who meets that criterion, great. But if not, it may be better to sign a few pitchers who can make SOME difference that might add up to a big difference than to overpay for one pitcher who may (or may not) make a big difference himself.
Think about Max Scherzer, who when last seen couldn't pitch well because of a dead arm, getting over $40 million per season for THREE seasons at the age of 37. The year he turns 40, Max will make $43 million. And he MIGHT even be worth it. But isn't it a much better option to pay $34 million per season to DeSclafani, Wood and Cobb, who combined for 8 WAR last season? Will they pitch that well the next two or three seasons? Probably not. But if they are worth even HALF the wins they were worth last season, they'll earn their contracts. Max needs to be worth over five wins a season to be worth his. Per Baseball-Reference, he's been worth a little over 4 wins per season per season over the past three -- at ages 35-37. 2020 was an abbreviated season, meaning that Max is essentially being paid to be at least as good the next three seasons as he's been the past three. Is that likely to happen?
That said, if one wants a potential big-win player, he's going to have to pay a big, big price. At least in the case of Scherzer it's for three years, not 10. But I think for the most part, it's better to build a team that is made up of many GOOD players than a team that has too much money tied up in one or two players. Spreads the risk. As the Dodgers found out this postseason, if Scherzer suddenly isn't available, it's tough for even a great team to win it all.
Boly kind of pooh-poohed the idea of getting starters who can pitch the full 162-game schedule, but in reality, most teams suffer so many pitching injuries that teams CAN benefit from having six, or seven or even eight capable starters. And capable starters are hard to find. I doubt I can find 100 pitchers I would want to have starting for my team. Shocking, isn't it, that there are only 15 active pitchers who have pitched 1000 career innings and have an ERA under 3.50? One 35 pitchers with ERA's below 4.00. Only 55 pitchers with ERA's below 5.00.
Some of that is that pitchers don't accumulate innings as quickly as they used to. Some is because there are starters who haven't been around long enough to pitch 1000 innings yet. But some of it is because there just aren't as many pitchers out there who can pitch well for even five or six innings as one would think. Which is why guys like DeSclafani, Wood and Cobb -- each of whom is likely to do so -- are valuable.
I looked at Baseball-Reference's top 10 pitchers for Wins Above Replacement. Each season the cutoff for the 10 is around 5.0 WAR, usually little above. We're always looking players who will make a big difference, but when it comes to pitchers, there simply aren't all that many. If a team can develop a pitcher who meets that criterion, great. But if not, it may be better to sign a few pitchers who can make SOME difference that might add up to a big difference than to overpay for one pitcher who may (or may not) make a big difference himself.
Think about Max Scherzer, who when last seen couldn't pitch well because of a dead arm, getting over $40 million per season for THREE seasons at the age of 37. The year he turns 40, Max will make $43 million. And he MIGHT even be worth it. But isn't it a much better option to pay $34 million per season to DeSclafani, Wood and Cobb, who combined for 8 WAR last season? Will they pitch that well the next two or three seasons? Probably not. But if they are worth even HALF the wins they were worth last season, they'll earn their contracts. Max needs to be worth over five wins a season to be worth his. Per Baseball-Reference, he's been worth a little over 4 wins per season per season over the past three -- at ages 35-37. 2020 was an abbreviated season, meaning that Max is essentially being paid to be at least as good the next three seasons as he's been the past three. Is that likely to happen?
That said, if one wants a potential big-win player, he's going to have to pay a big, big price. At least in the case of Scherzer it's for three years, not 10. But I think for the most part, it's better to build a team that is made up of many GOOD players than a team that has too much money tied up in one or two players. Spreads the risk. As the Dodgers found out this postseason, if Scherzer suddenly isn't available, it's tough for even a great team to win it all.