December 27, 2004
Darwin Diaries
Baseball Evolution is a new group website on the grand old game. Check out their article on overpaying pitchers. Keith Glab posits two theories on why pitchers seem to be getting so much money this year. Let me posit a third. Pitching is catching up to hitting. There are a numerous reasons for the surge in offense since 1993. But one of them could be economic. It always seemed to me that you could make a lot more money in this game as an okay hitter than as an okay pitcher. So, if you're 18, the best athlete on your high school team (the best hitter and the best pitcher), which way are you going to go? To make the most money, I'd go as a hitter. So let's say for a while, hitters were overpaid. How do you bring the game back into balance? You give the young athletes a reason to take the pitching track. You end up overpaying the pitchers.
This really should happen naturally. When everyone is a good hitter, the supply is plentiful so the price should drop. The value of a good pitcher in this environment should go way up. I never quite understood why we didn't see contracts on the order of Manny and A-Rod for pitchers. Randy Johnson has been making $13 million to $16 million over the past four seasons compared to Manny Ramirez making $13 to $22 million over the last four. Except for 2003, when Johnson was injured, their season have been comparable in win shares (Johnson did better in 2001 and 2002, Manny better in 2004). Why the big difference is salary? I'm sure part of it is the injury factor, but plenty of hitters fall by the wayside that way also (look at Giambi).
Good pitching is still scarce. That scarcity should be driving up the salaries for those who can throw. We shouldn't be that surprised that some are getting overpaid.
Posted by David Pinto at
08:27 AM
|
Blogs
|
TrackBack (0)
Dave,
I could be completely wrong about this, but doesn't the team that drafts the best player on his high school team have something to say about whether or not said player becomes a hitter or a pitcher? The example I'm thinking of is John Vanbenchoten from Kent State who the Pirates drafted as a pitcher although many teams thought of him as a hitter.
Or does the player have that much say in where he will play if he can both hit and pitch?
I think there is at least one difference between the career progression of hitters and pitchers. It seems that young pitchers require much more "nurturing" than the hitters. Hitters pretty much become good, or hit a ceiling in the minor leagues. A lot of young pitchers show great "stuff" but usually get mishandled and become damaged goods either physically or psychologically. So there are much more organizational investment (both in time, coaching and money) for the pitchers, so maybe that's why the teams are less willing to give up-front money to the young pitchers. However, as they age, the pitchers gets a reputation and the good (or average) ones (see Jesse Orosco) tend to have longer careers thus more pay by filling in niches on teams.
Another theory has to deal with the age when players become eligible for FA, and it's relationship between the prime of their careers and their future production. These are all just guesses since I don't have any solid data. Plus, I am not entirely convinced that after age 30 or so, pitchers still get paid less than hitters of the same age.
Add to this several additional possibilities:
- Attendance is up, fueling that flush-with-cash feeling.
- The effects of steroid testing have been underreported on pitching; this means quality declines for some.
- The class of the majors (Johnson, Schilling, Clemens, Martinez, etc.) is older and rarer, increasing the perception that the middle class is more valuable.
Intangibles are by their nature hard to quantify but go a long way towards explaining pitcher salaries seeming to be lower than offensive players. Right or wrong there is a perception that pitchers are more likely to suffer performance reducing injuries over the course of a contract. This causes teams to be more careful with long term contracts for pitchers. This off-season several pitchers have gotten higher dollar amounts than expected but I don't think any got over 4 years in length.
Of course, if I'm a young player who can do both, I have to consider the much larger number of talented young pitchers who get ruined by injury.
I would say almost always if a young player has the option as a position player or a pitcher he'll choose to be a pitcher. It's much easier to get drafted as a pitcher (look at how teams draft...Usually about half of their draft picks are pitchers).