Jack Parkman Posted September 29, 2018 Share Posted September 29, 2018 The acronym means: There is no such thing as a pitching prospect. What say you on this philosophy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominikk85 Posted September 29, 2018 Share Posted September 29, 2018 It is partially true, however starting pitchers on average are the highest draft picks out of all players. In short: any pitcher can fail but it is rare that a non prospect becomes a good starter, late round pitching successes are usually relievers. Pitcher attrition is real and hitting prospects are safer but the market knows that which is why prices of starting pitching has exploded while prices of corner bats have dropped. Yeah it sucks to have your SP prospect hurt but it sucks more to have a 250M free agent ace hurt. The idea to concentrate on developing hitters is nice but only if you can pay 80M per year on your rotation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerksticks Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 On 9/29/2018 at 3:56 PM, dominik-keul@gmx.de said: It is partially true, however starting pitchers on average are the highest draft picks out of all players. In short: any pitcher can fail but it is rare that a non prospect becomes a good starter, late round pitching successes are usually relievers. Pitcher attrition is real and hitting prospects are safer but the market knows that which is why prices of starting pitching has exploded while prices of corner bats have dropped. Yeah it sucks to have your SP prospect hurt but it sucks more to have a 250M free agent ace hurt. The idea to concentrate on developing hitters is nice but only if you can pay 80M per year on your rotation. The cubs spent about $130M on their pitching staff alone this year. There is nothing impressive about their rebuild strategy. It was basically “kinda try to get some good prospects, oh whoops we lucked into Bryant, now spend half a billion dollars and outspend your division rival by 100 Million”. It’s not really an approach that had a lot of innovative strategy. Just kinda got lucky in 2016 with the pitchers all having career years and the prospects hadn’t been exposed yet. Nothing about it is impressive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 I don't agree with the premise. Sure, you can say hitting prospects are more reliable, but it's quite the extreme to pretend all pitching prospects are treated the same and lack equal value to hitters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted October 5, 2018 Author Share Posted October 5, 2018 7 hours ago, ChiliIrishHammock24 said: I don't agree with the premise. Sure, you can say hitting prospects are more reliable, but it's quite the extreme to pretend all pitching prospects are treated the same and lack equal value to hitters. You know what though, the Fangraphs prospect guys believe exactly that. It is very strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daggins Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 TINSTAAPP is more of a warning than a credo. WAR and other valuation models work with averages, and on average, the bust rates for pitchers are substantially higher. One flaw a lot of the valuation model for prospects have is that they, necessarily, work with data from 5-10 years ago. I'd love to see how recent changes in the way pitching staffs are handled (ie the trend towards shorter starts and longer bullpens, improvements in health/mechanics) affect pitcher valuation, or if they affect it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 55 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: You know what though, the Fangraphs prospect guys believe exactly that. It is very strange. They absolutely do not believe that. It was a semi-humorous way to illustrate the higher level of risk on pitching prospects. No one at FG actually thinks there is no such thing as a pitching prospect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yesterday333 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 9 hours ago, Jerksticks said: The cubs spent about $130M on their pitching staff alone this year. There is nothing impressive about their rebuild strategy. It was basically “kinda try to get some good prospects, oh whoops we lucked into Bryant, now spend half a billion dollars and outspend your division rival by 100 Million”. It’s not really an approach that had a lot of innovative strategy. Just kinda got lucky in 2016 with the pitchers all having career years and the prospects hadn’t been exposed yet. Nothing about it is impressive Really? They won a world series... How is there nothing impressive about that? I get you think its a strategy that not everybody can use but the won a world series with quite a few players they got through their rebuild. They also traded players from their rebuild to get more players to help them WIN A WORLD SERIES. Their rebuild worked and you should be impressed. Unless winning a world series isn't impressive to you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted October 5, 2018 Author Share Posted October 5, 2018 (edited) On 10/5/2018 at 8:22 AM, NorthSideSox72 said: They absolutely do not believe that. It was a semi-humorous way to illustrate the higher level of risk on pitching prospects. No one at FG actually thinks there is no such thing as a pitching prospect. But they significantly devalue pitchers just for being pitchers. Obviously they still count them as prospects, but ut seems a pitcher is going to have to be pretty special to make their Top 50 list. Even Cease can barely crack their T100 Edited October 9, 2018 by Jack Parkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted October 5, 2018 Author Share Posted October 5, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, yesterday333 said: Really? They won a world series... How is there nothing impressive about that? I get you think its a strategy that not everybody can use but the won a world series with quite a few players they got through their rebuild. They also traded players from their rebuild to get more players to help them WIN A WORLD SERIES. Their rebuild worked and you should be impressed. Unless winning a world series isn't impressive to you... Winning a world series isn't that impressive winning multiple WS is. What the Giants did in the early part of this decade was impressive. What the Cubs did wasn't. Any decent team can get hot for a season and ride it to a championship. Don't forget that Carrasco, Salazar and Bauer were all hurt and unavailable to start and the Indians were scrambling for starters by the WS. Kluber was dead by game 7. They still fell behind 3-1 and the only reason they won was because Kluber ran out of gas. Indians sweep with a healthy rotation. Edited October 5, 2018 by Jack Parkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yesterday333 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: Winning a world series isn't that impressive winning multiple WS is. What the Giants did in the early part of this decade was impressive. What the Cubs did wasn't. Any decent team can get hot for a season and ride it to a championship. Don't forget that Carrasco, Salazar and Bauer were all hurt and unavailable to start and the Indians were scrambling for starters by the WS. Kluber was dead by game 7. They still fell behind 3-1 and the only reason they won was because Kluber ran out of gas. Indians sweep with a healthy rotation. Wow I understand people here hate the cubs but come on. They went to 3 straight NLCS. I don't care if you think it should've been a sweep. They WON THE WORLD SERIES. That's the whole point. That's what we are trying to build up to. It takes luck and being good to win one. They did just luck into it. I would love it if we made it to the ALCS 3 years in a row and the playoff 4 years running. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominikk85 Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 19 hours ago, NorthSideSox72 said: They absolutely do not believe that. It was a semi-humorous way to illustrate the higher level of risk on pitching prospects. No one at FG actually thinks there is no such thing as a pitching prospect. Yes. They bumb down pitching prospects half a grade now due to risk but there are still plenty on the top100 and if there is a super prospect like strasburg he still will get a 70fv. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 On 10/5/2018 at 8:57 AM, Jack Parkman said: Winning a world series isn't that impressive winning multiple WS is. What the Giants did in the early part of this decade was impressive. What the Cubs did wasn't. Any decent team can get hot for a season and ride it to a championship. Don't forget that Carrasco, Salazar and Bauer were all hurt and unavailable to start and the Indians were scrambling for starters by the WS. Kluber was dead by game 7. They still fell behind 3-1 and the only reason they won was because Kluber ran out of gas. Indians sweep with a healthy rotation. I think it's also worth having someone here add that the thing that carried the Cubs to the best record in baseball that year was their starting pitching, and while they didn't develop all of them it was as good as any other team's starting pitching in baseball that year. Someone's got to develop the pitching. If your team can figure out how to keep pitchers healthier than other franchises, that would become a major moneyball type exploit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliSoxFanViaSWside Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 (edited) Gerritt Cole 1st round pick, 28th pick Justin Verlander 1st round ,2nd pick Blake Snell 1st round, 52nd pick Chris Sale 1st round ,11th pick Max Scherzer 1st round ,11th pick Jacob DeGrom 9th round pick Aaron Nola 1st round, 7th pick Clayton Kershaw 1 round ,7th pick from HS Luis Severino IFA Yankees 2011 17 yrs old. Corey Kluber 4th round pick Carlos Carrasco undrafted FA signed by Phillies in 2003 Stephen Strasburg 1st round 1st pick Zack Greinke 1st round 6th pick Rick Porcello 1st round , 27th pick Jon Lester 2nd round pick Kyle Hendricks 8th round Madison Bumgarner 1st round , 10th pick These are the guys who were top vote getters for Cy Young in 2016 and 2017 and probably will be for 2018 As you can see only Strasburg and Verlander were top 5 picks . The majority were 1st rounders . Draw your own conclusions. Looks like 1st round pick 6-11 are good places to take a pitcher . Edited October 9, 2018 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside More content Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 On 10/5/2018 at 9:09 AM, yesterday333 said: Wow I understand people here hate the cubs but come on. They went to 3 straight NLCS. I don't care if you think it should've been a sweep. They WON THE WORLD SERIES. That's the whole point. That's what we are trying to build up to. It takes luck and being good to win one. They did just luck into it. I would love it if we made it to the ALCS 3 years in a row and the playoff 4 years running. How quickly Theo turned the Cubs around is no doubt impressive. He added a significant amount of positional talent in a very short period of time and that gave them a great foundation to build around. Having said that, him completely ignoring pitching development has cost them greatly. The Cubs got very lucky that Arietta & Hendricks both developed into quality starters and neither Lester or Lackey busted. They’ve had to trade a ton of high end prospect talent and commit big dollars to try and address pitching holes in recent years. Even Theo has somewhat acknowledged this being a problem and has changed their talent acquisition strategy quite a bit. I completely understand valuing positional prospects over pitchers when all else is equal, but the concept of TINSTAAA is quite frankly stupid IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 I vote you're banned from acronyms. C'mon man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Harold Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 On 10/8/2018 at 10:00 PM, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said: Gerritt Cole 1st round pick, 28th pick Justin Verlander 1st round ,2nd pick Blake Snell 1st round, 52nd pick Chris Sale 1st round ,11th pick Max Scherzer 1st round ,11th pick Jacob DeGrom 9th round pick Aaron Nola 1st round, 7th pick Clayton Kershaw 1 round ,7th pick from HS Luis Severino IFA Yankees 2011 17 yrs old. Corey Kluber 4th round pick Carlos Carrasco undrafted FA signed by Phillies in 2003 Stephen Strasburg 1st round 1st pick Zack Greinke 1st round 6th pick Rick Porcello 1st round , 27th pick Jon Lester 2nd round pick Kyle Hendricks 8th round Madison Bumgarner 1st round , 10th pick These are the guys who were top vote getters for Cy Young in 2016 and 2017 and probably will be for 2018 As you can see only Strasburg and Verlander were top 5 picks . The majority were 1st rounders . Draw your own conclusions. Looks like 1st round pick 6-11 are good places to take a pitcher . One issue with the list, Gerrit Cole was picked 1.1 by the Pirates in 2011. He was picked 28th in 08 by the Yankees but didn't sign and went to UCLA instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliSoxFanViaSWside Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 12 hours ago, Sleepy Harold said: One issue with the list, Gerrit Cole was picked 1.1 by the Pirates in 2011. He was picked 28th in 08 by the Yankees but didn't sign and went to UCLA instead. Sorry. He was the 1st guy I researched and took the first info I saw on baseball reference and didn't notice the 2nd part of it. After that I saw several who had been drafted before but didn't sign but it never occurred to me I missed it on Cole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Harold Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 25 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said: Sorry. He was the 1st guy I researched and took the first info I saw on baseball reference and didn't notice the 2nd part of it. After that I saw several who had been drafted before but didn't sign but it never occurred to me I missed it on Cole. No worries, just wanted to mention it since I knew something looked off about Cole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominikk85 Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 (edited) Yeah a lot of Good starters are high draft picks. It is hard to find starters late because so many things need to come together to be a starter (body, pitch mix, delivery, stamina, command). Even many top sp prospects end up in the pen because their 3rd pitch doesn't progress or command is not enough. Because of this tinstaap only works one direction: any SP prospect can fail but rarely a non SP prospect becomes one. So it does exist but you still need ways to acquire starters. Edited October 20, 2018 by dominik-keul@gmx.de Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.