SnakeBytes 9/19: Pirate Edition

I’m about to give you three very different answers….and because of how long it is, i will separate them into three comments

1) This is actually two separate issues in my opinion. First, the easy part. A home run from your left fielder = a home run from your catcher. They are both the same in terms of results and value to your team. The harder part, why are some positions more “offensively challenging” than others? The answer to this relates directly to scarcity. Essentially, some positions in baseball are easier to play than others. Shagging flyballs in left field is relatively easier than fielding grounders at shortstop and throwing them across the diamond to first. Because of this, there are tons of players who can play left field, but very few players who can play catcher or shortstop. Hence, they are premium positions. If there are tons more players, then those positions are going to be more competitive in terms of how much value can be generated. Value can be generated from both offense and defense. What I’m trying to show, is that the average value generated from offense and defense from a premium position in the league, is less than the average value generated from offense and defense from a non-premium position, if that makes sense. In other words, a SS with league average defense and offense is just as valuable as a LF with league average defense and above average offense is just as valuable as a LF with league average offense and above average defense.

being “offensively challenging” is just one facet of a position. in actuality, a more accurate representation would be something like a left fielder is more “value challenged” than a catcher. however, you see a phenomenon in baseball where this “value challenged” nature gets limited to “offensively challenging” as opposed to “defensively challenging” because measuring offense is a lot easier than measuring defense

i don’t see what’s wrong with it at all. i just think of it as a risk assessment. if the hitter wants to admire his home run, go ahead, he just has to assume the risk that he’s going to get hit by the pitcher.

conversely, if the pitcher wants to hit him, he also has to assume the risk that the hitter will run out to the mound and beat the crap out of him/injure him.

this is a slightly complicated question

basically, there is only one maxim you should follow when considering a player. is the player overvalued or undervalued. if he’s overvalued, make the trade. if he’s undervalued, don’t trade. being at the “peak of your value” oftentimes helps in making this assessment, but is not always the same as being overvalued.

unfortunately, Collmenter is one of those exceptions. yes. he is probably at the peak of his value. however, he is probably also undervalued. this is because baseball is still largely driven by the scouting community, all of whom look at Collmenter and don’t see a starter long-term. the baseball community at large probably has a lower assessment of Collmenter’s ability than the actual value we can get from him by keeping him on the team. in this situation, it doesn’t make sense for us to trade him.

Saunders on the other hand, is in probably the exact opposite boat. if he goes out and does well in the postseason, then a lot of teams’ FO’s will probably overvalue him. in such a situation, it would actually make sense to trade Saunders to get more valuable pieces back, and keep Collmenter as the insurance blanket.

the other slight problem with trading anyone right now, is that there isn’t a single “hotshot infield prospect” in the minors that any team would be willing to give back for either Saunders or Collmenter