Pitchers Vs Fielders who's more valuable?

The key is the word AVERAGE.
You are drawing a coclusion based on numbers that are averages of say 15 pitchers and only a couple 3B players. There are more low paid pitchers bringing the average down.
The other thing is it is a team and all players are important.

quote:

The other thing is it is a team and all players are important.

Thanks, I agree with you, all players are important.
But in the games, it seems like the pitcher position is a little bit more impotant than some fielders. I can have a below average left fielder with a good starting pitcher to win games, right?

And you could have above average fielders with a below average pitcher and win.

Bobble's right --- it's "average". Every MLB team will have --- what? --- 8 starters, 1-2 backup OFers, a b/u catcher, 2-3 utility guys, a DH if they don't play real baeball ...and 10-13 pitchers of varying degrees of skill and experience. Could you even name all the pitchers on your own favorite MLB team off the top of your head?

DH are paid that well because they have been around a long time, have serious bats, and the names that put fans in seats.

"Average" is a dangerous word, particularly when numbers are discussed. Take A-Rod & me; our "average" salary is $13.5 million. Or, as the old saw goes, if you're standing with one foot on a hot stove and one foot in a bucket of ice, "on average" you should be comfortable.

Orlando,
I'll take the better pitcher, thank you.

JMO, but the best pitchers have more impact over a season than the best position players on a team's W-L record despite the best position players playing 5 or 6 times as many innings. In other words I'd trade A-Rod straight up for Johan Santana even at the same salary, and realizing that pitchers are riskier long term investments.

There is no doubt that a pitcher can have a big impact on a game. The position player can keep the pitcher in the game and win games with his bat. To me this question has no merrit since all 9 players are key to a win in most games.

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
There is no doubt that a pitcher can have a big impact on a game. The position player can keep the pitcher in the game and win games with his bat. To me this question has no merrit since all 9 players are key to a win in most games.

TPM are we confused again ?

I agreed with your post. It's a thumbs up.
It takes 9 to win a game.

Anyone making their pitcher beleive they are the most important factor in a game is not doing their player justice. JMO.

Absolutly. We can both think of games our guys were saved by a SS or a fielder making that defining play. The bats coming alive and putting numbers up and handing them a win. It takes 9 to win and lose.

Any given game, any given player can make The Difference. Superstar Starting Pitcher plays once every five games. Superstar Closer throws based on the score. (Are there any Superstar Relievers? ) Superstar Fielder plays every day. Who's worth more? Only the Magic 8 Ball knows....

My response just had to do with the value-as-evidenced-by-salary position coach was making. The average IFer or DH salary is pretty much the average of each position's 30 starters. The average pitcher salary is based on more than 300 guys, from Superstars to Journeymen to Rooks to Who? To suggest that 'the average' of all those 300+ guys is worth more than an everyday starter...mmmm, don't think so.

Any specific pitcher to any specific position player? Yes, then you can assign value.

Can't tell you how many times son has had to say to his fielders "thanks for saving my azz guys".

In the majors, a pitcher.

He has the most control of the outcome of the game. Jeff Francouer can go 0-4 and the Braves can win a game 1-0. If Chuck James gives up 9 runs in the 1st inning not only does it put his team behind , his bad day means 2 to 3 reliever pitchers will have to be used just to complete the game. That why you see low end starters making 10 million a year.

I wounder where catchers come in



drill

What 'low end' starters make $10 mil? Of the eleven guys who made $10 mil or more last year for the Yankees, six were position players. (And one of those guys was Posada, Drill )

Value is a far-reaching term. Value as evidenced by paycheck or value as evidenced by contribution to the game? The first is based on history, perceived value, and negotiations; the latter can change day-to-day or be based on tenure in the game.

The thread was started about salary, although because of the number of pitchers per team, I don't think the comparison can really be made. Even between position players, it's a conundrum. Mauer made $375,000 in 2007, Posada made $12 mil. Anybody here think Posada is 35 times better than Mauer?

Pitchers are easier to project, showcase and schedule for closed tryouts. Size, velocity and experience easier to market. However, that experience pertains only to players in professional baseball.

10 Million pitchers for 2007

Mike Hampton 15 Million
Carl Pavano 10 Million
Matt Morris 10 Million
Jarrod Washburn 9.8 Million
(Incentives with IP made it 10 million)
Jose Contreras 9 Million
(Incentives with IP made it 10 Million)
Derek Lowe 9.5 Million
(Incentives with IP made it 10 million)
Kevin Millwood (9.8 Million)
(Incentives made it 10 Million)
Jon Garland 10 Million

None of these pitchers had a ERA under 4.00 not did any of them have a .500 win %

The value of a good catcher has changed throughout the history of baseball. With the decline of the stolen base and slap hitters, their value has changed through the era's.

Still a catcher that can hit for average and power while still being a above average backstop is still the most coveted position in the Mlb draft other then pitchers.

Also, in terms of defense alone, in all of major league baseball, the catching position win share is 19%.

Catcher 38 points 19%
First Base 12 points 6%
Second Base 32 points 16%
Third Base 24 points 12%
Shortstop 36 points 18%
Outfield 58 points 29%

C'mon, other than Contreras and perhaps Garland, those are former 'high end' starters who are being paid commenserate with their 10+ years starting in the majors.....leftover contracts from their Glory Days, several often injured, some with BoSox/Yankees-inflated salaries. It's not some Lance Painter-style lifetime #4 or 5 being paid 8 figures.

There are all kinds of weird contracts out there -- look at A-Rod's most recent, designed to keep him paid as a superstar well into his declining years.

By the way, Lowe's ERA was 3.88. Hair-splitting perhaps, but it negates the 'none'.

Of course pitchers are important. Which position is unimportant? You can win 1-0....or 16-15. You can pitch a no-hitter and lose.

It's a team sport.

I would not sign any pitcher for more then 3 years at a time.

Pitchers are always going to be overpaid for IP's. A pitcher that can make a great living going 10-18 with a 4.88 ERA in the MLB long has he can get to 180-200 IP.