Follow the money - straight to the mound

Arms race started in response to PED's and then really accelerated when the testing reached the point where teams could no longer slug their way to the playoffs. 

 

Offered the opening we see for the smaller markets to compete.  Find enough arms and you can win with average offense with a few real talented position players.  The Giants (although not small market) are the poster child for this approach.  TB, KC, PITT and Nats and others have been on this bandwagon for years.

Take a look at the rosters of any college or pro team.  What percentage of pitchers are on the roster compared to the roster as a whole.  It's around 50%.  That goes right along with the numbers you are quoting.

 

So, to me it seems that kids are getting recruited and drafted in accordance with roster needs, plain and simple.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Being a 2 way player above HS, whether college or Milb is incredibly tough, if a player is going to be at the top echelon for both.

In my view, the "game" transitions who pitches rather than the player.  Sometimes the "game" is the MLB club which drafts the player. Locally we have had a couple of 2 way HS players drafted very high.  Word was the MLB team would let them do both.

That lasted less than one week and pitcher only was the result.

In terms of others above HS, I would propose the game itself ends up as the distinguishing factor in more situations than not.  Hitting in college is not like hitting in A ball. Hitting in A ball is not like hitting in AA ball.  Having an elite type arm provides a back up but the inability to adjust each step of the way and be successful as a hitter  is at least as important in the criterion in my view.  I just don't think many players get the choice to make above HS. Either their coaches or their organization, or their inability to adjust as a hitter makes it for most.

Interesting perspective, infielddad. I'm no data guru, so I can't prove this, but doesn't it seem like today, more young players who can pitch and hit are being pushed or pulled toward pitching than ever before? There's a 2015 stud on JP's summer team from NY - three-hole outstanding hitter, average and power ... excellent 3B - and he brings it 92-95 from the mound.

 

I'm almost certain he'll be drafted to pitch -- and isn't 'the game' potentially losing out on a really good hitter who COULD have more long-term impact with the stick, playing every day? 

 

bballman - you're right of course. But still, those 50% who are pitchers were generally more highly recruited and got higher bonuses. Why? 

 

I looked at 1970-1979 1st round MLB draft. Out of 245 players drafted, 89 were pitchers: 36%. I should know, but did teams carry fewer arms then? 

You do what you have to do to get to the next game, the next season, the next level.

 

Most 2-way players I've known resist the nudge to the mound in HS, college and beyond.  I don't think money has anything to do with it.  They just wanna 'make it' at the next level.

 

Period.

jp, the way I would approach this would be to suggest that no matter how good that HS hitter is, he has a hole or holes.  When he gets to Milb or college, those holes will be found.  He will be forced to adjust or fail.  In Milb, the holes get found earlier and exploited far more frequently and consistently each step of the way, with probably the biggest adjustments occurring  at AA.

While I expect there are variables, it is much easier to project 92-95 out of HS than it is to project the holes in the swing and the ability to adjust at every level through college and Milb.

I'm not for sure that it is follow the money/mound. In our case, it was suggested to 2015 son that he become a PO this past Summer. He was leading his team in hitting at the time. The main issue was injuries as it was related to me. Did not want him getting hit by a pitch, didn't want him twisting an ankle, didn't want someone sliding back into to him at 1B, etc. etc. These suggestions were from people that we trust. It was hard at first but son got to where it kind of liked being a PO.

 

Now he may hit some for his HS team....just don't know yet.

I think the problem with the logic is, probably EVERY pitcher that makes it to the MLB was a 2 way guy in HS.  That generally changes once you get to college.  So, if you look at the numbers from a HS perspective, every pitcher probably could have been looked at as a 2 way guy.  My guess is every position player that is drafted was a pitcher in HS as well.  Those guys who are projected as having the arm to pitch at the next level are drafted as pitchers.  Those who are projected as better hitters are drafted as position players.  Since the rosters call for 50% pitchers, the borderline guys will probably go as pitchers, then things will work themselves out as time goes on.

 

The other factor, I think, is that the pitcher position is also much more fluid at the ML level.  That is, the turnover is higher at the pitcher position.  Between injuries and performance issues, pitching rosters turn over at a higher rate than the rest of the roster.  Therefore, more demand for pitchers.

My 2015 experience mirrored the one described above by RedFish. The school he committed to told him they would give him the opportunity to try to be a two way guy, but I think son has come to the realization that the mound is his future. The same reasons of injuries was given to us. Tough at first but made sense.

luv, I am guessing you already know this about the Giants but there is more to it than average offense and arms.  Because of their approach, and their park, defense is critical.  Playing right field in AT&T has shown how good Hunter Pence really is.  Who would have thought Pablo would be talked about for a Gold Glove but he was terrific in 2014 at 3B while playing nearly every game.  He has very good range and made every play.

Another aspect is the Giants talk about "stretching" their line up. In other words, they want 8 tough outs (9 with Bum), again a factor of the park where HR's are in short supply.  Using this approach, plus 12 really good arms, they shorten the game to 6 innings and look to  be up by one or tied. They have a goal to drive up pitch counts for the opponent, and rely on their bullpen against the opponents pen, a match up they often win. 

On the other hand, in 2014 when the Giants could go Pagan, Posey, Pence, Pablo and Belt 1-5, as they did until Pagan was hurt in mid June, they were with the very best in baseball, without the need for power,  

I believe that when taking a look at a younger player what he can do on the mound at 18 is much easier to project from than what he can do at the plate. It's hard to excell at the upper levels while concentrating on both, so if a kid can throw 90+, I think it's more likely, unless he is a real rare talent with the bat, that he will be led away from the plate to concentrate on pitching. Travis Wood is a good example. growing up, he could throw, but I thought (at least through about age 16) that his best bet to make the upper levels was with his bat. The kid could absolutley rake. Note that he is the answer to a recent MLBtv trivia question (what pitcher has the most home runs over the past 5 years?). However, he was a lefty that could throw 93mph. What advise would any sane advisor give him?

I will tell you that Buster Posey was that "special" kid. He could throw 93 in high school with 4 quality pitches. But, he could flat rake. Everyone told me I was crazy when I said he wouldn't pitch at the next level. I just NEVER personally witnessed anyone that could hit like him. It was fun to watch and you could tell he was always the best player by a long way on the field.

I'm learning here -- and am particularly sold on the logic that strong pitching is more long-term projectable that strong hitting.  

 

That said, has it always been this way? And if so, what accounts for the higher percentage of pitchers getting drafted high today? From about a third in the 70's to more than half now.  

A considerably increased number of the position players don't come through the draft compared to the 60's and 70's. Think international players and especially Latin players.

I think it has probably always been that way, but unt fairly recently, I don't think clubs thought they needed all that many pitching prospects. A couple of good starters, a couple of more who can keep you competitive and a few scrubs (available almost anywhere) in the pen and you were good to go. So you really only needed a few of your pitchers to work out to be succesful. Especially after the 1969 expansion, that started to change.

       
       


Do you know the split of rosters from the 60s and 70s?  Pitching has become much more specialized now. You used to be able to get thru a game with 2 guys. Now, you may use 3,4 or 5 much more frequently. Those guys also used to use a 3 or 4 man rotation as opposed to 5 now. I'm not sure, but maybe the make up of the roster was different then. More position players, fewer pitchers on the roster. Something to look into.

Junior was a 2 way through his 1st year in Juco, cut short by injury, came to the conclusion himself that if he was gonna get drafted, it would be from the mound. As a father I missed watching him play every game, selfish, lol , knew deep down he was right.

A quick spot-check shows that in 1970 and 1971, the Cardinals 40-man roster included 22 and 23 pitchers respectively.

 

Last year they carried 17.

 

Truth is, I can't tell whether this supports my point or not. But to be clear, my point isn't the tongue in cheek headline. It's that potentially great hitters are electing to pitch because baseball values pitching more. There's the pressure we've seen from posters here, and there's more money.

 

Which might explain why offensive production is not keeping pace with improved pitching.

I think that reason may be that at anytime they could call up one of their AAA guys not on the 40 yet.  You don't have to be a golden glove guy but if you can hit you have a job and IMO there are not too many really great hitters out there.

Good responses but I think that JBB hit the nail on the head. Most guys will do what they have to get to where they want to go. And as infielddad brought up the park factors really decide who goes where and why and as bballman, pointed out, pitching is now a specialized position, in the pro game and at the ML level they have a role or learning where they fit in the best. some begin those roles in college.  The problem is that very few know how to use those guys in the proper role.  

 

To be honest, if we had it to do over again I still would definitely encourage son to be a pitcher, more opportunities.

 

IMO, there are so few hitters in ML ball who are really special.  Not in the lower levels, but I kind of understand why so many more pitchers make  the big field before hitters.

 

jp,

Most if not all HS pitchers all played other positions (at one time) and hit the ball well, mine the PO actually made utility player of the year in our county..his senior season. He would have loved to have been a postion guy, I think they all want to, but reality is like JBB stated, a guys got to do what hes got to do to stay in the game. 

 

 

Remember that until the 1980's teams used a four man starting rotation and in the 60's and 70's generally only carried maybe 10-11 pitchers on the 25 man roster instead of 13. Pitchers finished what they started much more often so there wasn't the need for all the spot or specialty relievers. The top pitchers threw more than 300 innings, sometimes as many as 340 or so.

 

I still do not feel there were as many arm injuries in the 1960's as there now but I can't numerically prove it. Today, many pitchers are like cannon fodder with the massive numbers of Tommy John surgeries.

i agree with 3bagger and others who talked about specialization in pitchers. so few complete games now. i remember when knuckleballer wilbur wood threw in both games of dh with the whitesox. also go to showcases today and the scouts/coaches are there w/ radars. showcase formats in many cases favor the pitcher; for the patient hitter a 1-1 count to start an ab is a big disadvantage. pitchers not too recently were the best athletes and 2-way was common. dwight gooden was one pitcher who liked to hit carlos zambrano too.

Perhaps the increase in average velocities (especially at such young ages now) and the rash of arm injuries at all levels makes it necessary to recruit more arms than ever to assure a team is equipped to survive a season competitively...

Just a thought...

They may be drafting more kids with faster arms now, but they may not know how to pitch.  So, they must draft more pitchers in order to find a few good apples.

Some of my experience have involved the opposite issue.  A player is clearly talented as a pitcher only, but the player and his parents have aspirations of being a position player as well.  They are an adequate contact hitter with absolutely no power and a competent fielder but with no range. If they are successful in getting on base they are a liability.  Home to first in 7.2 for a 15U!?!?!?!?  I tried to gently help them understand the value they bring to the team as a pitcher but they insisted that if he can't play other positions they would go to another team.

 

In the words of Gerry Bertier in Remember the Titans "Sometimes you just gotta cut a man loose coach"

       
       
back then it was usually 4 starters one swing man and four relievers for a total of 9 pitchers....  or 36% of the roster (9 of 25)

       
       
Agreed.  See a lot of this.  Kids who could really be good at their craft (pitching) but can't let go of the fact that they hit some home runs when they were 9.

Bottom line is that you keep  doing what you are good at until someone tells you other wise.

Also understand that a lot changes between HS and college.  That great HS hitter may not be that great anymore after 3-4 years. But if he has a great arm, that may help him move to the next level. 

Setting aside why ... and taking into account all of the informed views above, I'd still love to know:

 

 

Does anyone agree with me that a possible explanation for the reduction in MLB offensive production is that the game values pitchers today more than it does hitters?

Plain and simple..pitching wins championships!!!

Jp24,

 

I've studied baseball history extensively and even as far back as the early 1900's, Connie Mack who managed the A's for 50 years stated that baseball was 75% pitching, so nothing is new in that regard.

 

If one studies baseball history, it seems that there are cycles that last up to a decade sometimes of pitching dominance or vice versa. There are also multi year cycles where things are pretty balanced. After the barrage of hitting due to a combination of PED's, small parks, team expansion, overall poor pitching and a group of great hitters, ML baseball has cycled the other way with some hitter negative parks in San Diego, San Francisco, New York(Mets), and Seattle as well as the balls not being as lively in Colorado due to being kept in humidors.

 

A tremendous crop of young pitching as well as hitters who try to do nothing but hit the long ball and strike out 140 to 220 times a season, even the leadoff batters, as well as the new defensive shifts and new emphasis on defensive value as well as the umpires shift to calling the lower strikes has all sparked this new cycle of dominant pitching.

Good stuff!

My son was a two way player.  Sophmore year of HS he wasn't sure if he would be recruited as a pitcher or hitter He had heard both from college coaches. He spoke to a few pro scouts that summer who told him his bat was good but his feet where slow (I mean really slow)so he should hit for fun in high school but focus most of his work on being a pitcher.  Funny tidbit: his sophmore year his HS coach was constantly berating him for being slow, son said to coach "I don't have to run the ball from the mound to the plate".  We know 3 other pitcher draft picks who could swing it but lacked the footspeed to make scouts forget their arms.

Tim Lollar one of the 'great hitting pitchers' was a .234 hitter over 250something at bats.  The truth of the matter is there just aren't many in the modern history who have the ability to do both.  Maybe jon olerued?  He chose 1st base but probably could have made it as a pitcher.  Very rare.  Truth is the game will tell you at some point if you are a hitter or a pitcher.  Facing up to it I imagine is difficult for some.

Yup, JP, I agree from this standpoint - with the heightened accessibility to information, the condensed and well-publicized showcase variety of recruiting and more emphasis put on velocity and projectability, pitchers get more visible love during the college recruiting process (and the younger kids and their parents know about it as well).  This makes pitching more desirable to many recruits and they are more likely to choose that path when both may be options.

 

Cabbage played a year of SoCal Scout ball.  The talent level at every position for most every team was really impressive.  Several D1 caliber kids on the field at any given time.  Yet, everything revolved around the P's.  You could see it in big waves.  So-and-so pitcher was scheduled to throw the 3rd and 4th inning and that's when the scout wave would come and go. 

 

Threebagger beat me to my other thought - more emphasis on hitting the long ball and the resulting acceptance of high K's and lack of complete hitting skills that come with it is another factor. 

There was this one guy who was a pretty good hitter, so even though he was the best lefthander in ML baseball, management decided in midstream to convert him into an outfielder for his bat. We all know that I'm talking about Babe Ruth. Who would have the guts nowadays to convert a Maddux or Martinez after a few 20 win seasons into a hitter and they immediately go from being one of the three or four best pitchers in baseball to being the most crushing hitter right at the prime age of 24 or 25. That's why anyone who argues that there have been greater players really doesn't have the ammunition to argue.

       
       
I am certainly not going to engage in an arguement which can not truly be won or proven by either side but...  I would assert that anything that happened before 1950 in my mind is somewhat misleading.  Baseball was still in its infancy when ruth played and the talent pool was thin which is why there was such a great divide statistically.  One guy hitting .434 and another on the same team hitting .170.  Now that might be more like .320 and .220.  Still a big difference but a lot closer.  Ty cobb hitting .367 career?  With all the great well trained athletes we have today nobody can do that.  Different era different game.  Respect what they achieved.  Enjoy our great pastime but I think it is a mistake to see any modern day relevance to what happened in the teens and twenties now becoming a full century ago.

Threebagger - I like your answer as I was thinking the same.  This game has always been about adjustments.  The best way to counter the pitching era we are in is to value contact hitters with speed and hitters that force the pitchers to throw many pitches.  That will be the next wave of talent that comes through MLB as teams adjust to the greater velocities and defensive shifts.

 

The same can be said for the business side of baseball.  The economics will most always favor the pitcher because you have to have them to play the game.  Whether or not the organization wants to pay them what they are worth is another matter entirely. But the game is tilted to the pitchers no matter what baseball adjustments are being made on the field because they are essential to success.  Every World Series winner will have seperated themselves from the others based on pitching.  Successful college and pro organizations re-tools themselves based pitching.  So, if I'm a great hitter but have a chance to make more "scratch" as a pitcher (college or pro) then I'm going where the money is...on the mound.  It makes sense to me.