Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Most Dangerous Division in Sports

Community Discussion: Quantity or Quality?

PHOENIX, AZ - OCTOBER 05:  Jarrod Parker #56 of the Arizona Diamondbacks throws a pitch against the Milwaukee Brewers in the sixth inning of Game Four of the National League Divison Series at Chase Field on October 5, 2011 in Phoenix, Arizona.  (Photo by Doug Pensinger/Getty Images)

This question was raised in the AQA yesterday. Someone asked me if I would prefer to have the Seattle Mariners Trio of pitching prospects (Taijuan Walker, A-; Danny Hultzen, A-: James Paxton, strong B+) or the Oakland Athletics Quartet of pitching prospects (Jarrod Parker, A-; A.J. Cole, B+; Sonny Gray, strong B, Brad Peacock, strong B).

I said I wasn't sure, given the attrition rate of pitching prospects, quantity had a quality of its own. What do you guys think? Which group of pitching prospects would you rather have?

Poll
Which group of pitching prospects would you rather have?
Oakland Athletics Quartet (Parker, Cole, Gray, Peacock)
539 votes
Seattle Mariners Trio (Walker, Hultzen, Paxton)
1085 votes

1624 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 60 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

A's

I would have to go with the A’s group though I am higher on Parker and Cole than many. So personally I would take Parker and Cole over Walker and Hultzen and I like Gray and Peacock more than Paxton. So to me this is an easier question because of my preference of the A’s pitchers than most of the M’s pitchers.

Redbird Dugout
http://www.redbirddugout.com

by JDizzidy on Feb 4, 2012 4:12 PM EST reply actions  

wow
So personally I would take Parker and Cole over Walker and Hultzen

wow.

by JoelGuzman'sScout on Feb 5, 2012 1:40 AM EST up reply actions  

Rating the 7 pitchers

I will be in the minority but I like them in this order:

Hultzen, Gray, Parker, Walker, Cole, Peacock, Paxton

Just my opinion.

by bryeic on Feb 5, 2012 9:46 AM EST up reply actions  

My order

Hultzen, Paxton, Walker, Parker, Cole, Peacock, Gray

by cookiedabookie on Feb 5, 2012 11:55 AM EST up reply actions  

mine is similar

Hultzen, Paxton (though these two are really close), Parker, Peacock, Walker, Cole, Gray

with Gray being slightly farther away from the rest of the group

by blue bulldog on Feb 5, 2012 3:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Really?

Not sure why its a big WOW for anyone. we are talking about pitchers that are very closely rated by the industry and everyone rates players differently. Just because people don’t share your opinion doesn’t make it way out there and hard to believe.

Redbird Dugout
http://www.redbirddugout.com

by JDizzidy on Feb 5, 2012 11:56 AM EST via Android app up reply actions  

true

however, the only one in the conversation about a possible #1 is Walker (according to John).

Me:

Walker, Hultzen, Parker, Cole, Peacock and Gray.

But he’s talking 2 vs. 2. You have to take the higher here.

by JoelGuzman'sScout on Feb 5, 2012 12:58 PM EST up reply actions  

as for this
Just because people don’t share your opinion doesn’t make it way out there and hard to believe.

isn’t that what we do here? not sharing opinions is why we discuss. belief has nothing to do with it. it has to do with being surprised, hence the “wow”. but don’t let reading comprehension get in the way of your understanding.

by JoelGuzman'sScout on Feb 5, 2012 12:59 PM EST up reply actions  

No

The point is you exaggerate how outrageous it would be for someone to not have the same beliefs as you. The point of these sites is to get everyone’s view on different topics and have some nice discussions around them…but to make it seem like someone is dead wrong or has no idea what they are talking about is ridiculous.

As far as Walker being the only potential #1 that is the start of where we disagree. Walker has the most upside but Parker is very close in my opinion. And I am much higher on Cole than Hultzen. So it makes it an easy decision for me to pick Parker and Cole as I stated before.

Redbird Dugout
http://www.redbirddugout.com

by JDizzidy on Feb 5, 2012 1:16 PM EST up reply actions  

why do people think

Walker has the most upside here?

if anything, I actually think Parker has the highest upside. at least the same upside.

by blue bulldog on Feb 5, 2012 3:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Upside

You can definitely make he argument for Parker having the highest upside. I have them very close on upside.

Redbird Dugout
http://www.redbirddugout.com

by JDizzidy on Feb 5, 2012 3:43 PM EST via Android app up reply actions  

A's

I’d rather have a high quantity of good pitchers than a low quantity of excellent pitchers. Even the best pitching prospects aren’t sure things, as there is always the injury risk (eg. Mark Prior).

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Feb 4, 2012 4:14 PM EST reply actions  

Though

The difference in quantity here isn’t large, so it makes this comparison a lot closer than I initially thought.

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.

by Frag on Feb 4, 2012 4:16 PM EST up reply actions  

While I agree that pitcher attrition makes quantity important,

not all pitchers have the same amount of risk (I’d take 2 guys in AAA over 4 in rookie ball). And this is only 3 guys vs. 4 guys, which, considering the floors of the various players involved, makes the difference in risk pretty small, IMO. Since the Mariners’ trio is consistently ranked higher, I’ll go with them.

by WhyGodWhy on Feb 4, 2012 4:30 PM EST reply actions  

This probably won’t change your mind, but Oakland’s quartet is closer than Seattle’s trio. Would that even them out a bit?

by Furyan on Feb 4, 2012 5:44 PM EST up reply actions  

"Closer" doesn't mean "less risk," though.

Parker is obviously closer to the bigs than Hultzen, but Parker’s injury history is a risk all of its own. I don’t think there’s a huge difference in overall risk between the two groups, and Seattle’s trio have higher upsides.

I guess what I’m saying is that I think the upside and current polish of the Mariners’ guys isn’t worth giving up just to get one extra player, especially since Oakland has the one guy who is most likely to not amount to anything (Cole).

by WhyGodWhy on Feb 4, 2012 6:49 PM EST up reply actions  

i generally agree with this

it’s incredibly close for me, where if i were the GM and had to pick one set of pitching prospects for the other, i’d really really hate to be in that position

put a gun to my head though, and i’d take the Mariners trio. i admit though that this may be because i’m a lot higher on Paxton than most.

by blue bulldog on Feb 4, 2012 7:45 PM EST up reply actions  

I'd take the three from Seattle over the four from Oakland.

Then again, I think Walker could be an A by the end of this year by doing the same thing a level higher and adding a handful of innings and I think Paxton could be an A- for doing the same thing. It all depends on the repetition of what has already been done for those two. Once Paxton hit his stride, he was magnificent.

by the tourist on Feb 4, 2012 5:43 PM EST reply actions  

Well, you can say the exact same thing about Oakland's prospects

Cole is in the same place for level/innings as Walker and could just as easily become an A- by the end of the season. The same can be said for Gray who could wind up as a B+ or even A-. I’d say that Peacock and Parker could too, but by the end of the season, I doubt they’ll still qualify as prospects.

by Furyan on Feb 4, 2012 5:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Hmm.

Parker’s minor league numbers aren’t great, so maybe his results are just below his talent level. Walker compares most easily to Cole, but is a year younger and has put up better numbers at the same level. Peacock did seem to take a great leap forward, but if Paxton continues to do what he did last year, they’ll be on par (Paxton being older, though). Hultzen and Gray are both unknown, although Hultzen’s pedigree is quite a bit higher than Gray at this point.

Another reason I’d take the Seattle guys is that two of them are lefties.

by the tourist on Feb 4, 2012 6:03 PM EST up reply actions  

I can't remember

if the question specifically mentioned these two organizations or if it just asked generally about quality v. quantity. FWIW, I’d take the Cards trio (Miller, Martinez, Jenkins), the D-Backs quartet (Bauer, Bradley, Skaggs, Chafin) and the Pirates quintet (Cole, Taillon, Heredia, McPherson, Allie-I’ll take his ceiling over Kingham) over the A’s and M’s.

by KentuckyPirate on Feb 4, 2012 5:46 PM EST reply actions  

Fair enough

In that case, I’d take the quantity over quality and go with the A’s. Pitching prospects are just so uncertain that I’d prefer the extra arms to protect myself against the possible flameout. Also, I personally don’t see as much a difference in quality because I am relatively high on Cole and relatively low on Hultzen.

by KentuckyPirate on Feb 4, 2012 6:09 PM EST up reply actions  

The Mariners

mostly because Hultzen intrigues me.

"Clearly the Brewers didn't realize that going into Beast Mode raised their testosterone levels."
by tcyoung

by txzona on Feb 4, 2012 5:54 PM EST reply actions  

Question to John:

What is the main difference between Cole and Walker in terms of their B+ and A- ratings? Pre-draft info, mechanics, upside (e.g. number 2 starter vs. number 1)?

by Furyan on Feb 4, 2012 5:55 PM EST reply actions  

cole/walker

I think Walker’s secondary stuff is further along at this point and his overall ceiling a tad higher

by John Sickels on Feb 4, 2012 6:20 PM EST up reply actions  

The M's trio

actually seems slightly underrated. All three of them. Hultzen could start for Seattle now, Paxton mid-season, and Walker at the beginning of 2013.

If it’s three guys versus four… I’ll take the three higher dice rolls, and if down the road I end up one MLB starter short, I’ll buy a league average FA on a cheap contract to make up the difference.

by KingCorran on Feb 4, 2012 5:57 PM EST reply actions  

with the a's

you can’t forget the underrated guys who could surprise this year

as john mentioned in his top 20 list, AJ Griffin and Dan Straily (who i’m a fan of) are sleepers in the A’s system. AJ was able to pitch in 4 levels, mostly at A+ Stockton. Straily was able strikeout almost a batter an inning, while only giving up 10 home runs across 160 innings in a hitter friendly league

I’d rather have the Seattle Trio over the A’s Quartet, but i’d rather have the A’s overall depth

Snoochies

by guessatomo on Feb 4, 2012 6:10 PM EST reply actions  

although

they are very very close, and paxton DID put up those numbers even though he was a little old for his levels…you know what? nevermind, i’d rather have the A’s quartet

Snoochies

by guessatomo on Feb 4, 2012 6:13 PM EST up reply actions  

those two groups seem to be graded close together

so is this case I would go with the A’s. In general, I would go with a group that has a pitcher was TORP potential ove another group that ha a number of mid roto prospects.

by RangerMad on Feb 4, 2012 6:35 PM EST via Android app reply actions  

I'd say the A's by only a little bit

as many of them are probably closer to the majors. in general, I’d rather have quantity than quality

"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"

by feslenraster on Feb 4, 2012 6:39 PM EST reply actions  

but it is easier to find a #3 SP

then a #1. How many teams have won a WS without a #1?

by RangerMad on Feb 4, 2012 7:28 PM EST via Android app up reply actions  

I think it's

better to have any anything. Hence hedging your bets with 4.

by sourstuff on Feb 5, 2012 12:07 AM EST up reply actions  

oh I don't disagree

but chances of a #1 developing is small

"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"

by feslenraster on Feb 5, 2012 4:38 PM EST up reply actions  

2011 St. Louis Cardinals

unless you’re still considering Chris Carpenter a true #1

by The Gottfather on Feb 6, 2012 8:58 AM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

As a huge Cards fan I can tell you when Waino went down before the season it was devastating for the fact that you can’t replace an ace…just doesn’t happen. As much as I think Carp and Garcia had a good year neither are a legit #1 SP. It was remarkable that we were able to win it all.

Redbird Dugout
http://www.redbirddugout.com

by JDizzidy on Feb 6, 2012 12:52 PM EST up reply actions  

A's

Quantity is a tad more valuable than quality in this case, as the four A’s arms are no slouches themselves. In fact, I think Parker still has the highest upside of any of the seven names here.

The bird is struggling out of the egg. The egg is the world. Whoever wants to be born, must first destroy a world.

by Stupendous Man on Feb 4, 2012 7:47 PM EST reply actions  

M's

To me they have both the highest upside arm of the seven in Walker and the safest in Hultzen. While I’m a huge fan of AJ Cole and to a bit of a lesser extent Gray and Parker, I just feel like the Mariners bunch is better on the whole.

by kyuss94 on Feb 4, 2012 8:01 PM EST reply actions  

Tough, but I'd g

I prefer the average quality of the Mariners, but I think the aggregate quality of the A’s (in other words, the Mariner trio isn’t on overage 4/3 = 1.33 times more valuable than the Athletics quartet). Though this really goes to the nature of the dilemma. The risk is more diffuse with the 4 over the 3, so I’d want more reward to go with the trio. But I think there’s more expected aggregate value in the 4 As, so I’d go there.

by MjwW on Feb 4, 2012 8:35 PM EST reply actions  

Mariners and for me it isn't really that close

And I guess it’s more about the guys themselves than the ideology. I think Hultzen will end up the best of them by a wide margin, just hunch-wise I suppose.

by Jaumiusk on Feb 4, 2012 8:40 PM EST reply actions  

Interesting to see MjwW's analytical approach followed by an opposite gut call

I went with the M’s trio, mostly because I’ve seen more video and liked what I saw, but also because I’ve read that lefties do particularly well in Safeco.
Great post. Looking forward to opinions of those that have actually seen these great kids.

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. -John Kenneth Galbraith, economist (1908-2006)

by chewbalka on Feb 5, 2012 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Good question

It made me open my BA 2012 prospect book to see how they scored these guys on their new ratings system. If my posting this violates their copyrights, I’ll happily delete this post, but if anything, I think this will add to the discussion (and advertise their book, but buy John’s first). Here’s how they were rated by BA:

sea
walker- 70 high
hultzen- 65 med
paxton- 60 med

oak
parker- 65 med
gray- 60 med
peacock- 60 low
cole- 65 high

Essentially, Hultzen and Paxton cancel out Parker and Gray (one 65 medium and one 60 medium). I’d give the edge to Seattle though, because both those guys are lefty, and Parker has already had one major injury.

That leaves Walker’s 70 high versus Peacock’s 60 low and Cole’s 65 high. Personally, I love Walker, so I voted for Seattle. I think this is a really close call. Great question.

by noelman31 on Feb 4, 2012 9:00 PM EST reply actions  

Not surprised that the voting is a blowout

That said, it really should be close. I voted A’s, despite the fact that I am big on Hultzen and not as big on Parker as some (along with Peacock). That said, I love Cole’s upside and think he could take another step forward next year, and I still think Gray is a bit under-rated as a starting prospect.

But really, can’t go wrong with either.

by toonsterwu on Feb 4, 2012 10:49 PM EST reply actions  

i'm surprised with the voting

i think it’s really really close

i voted Mariners, but i don’t have a whole lot of confidence in that vote. at most, i’d give 55:45 odds that the Mariners trio ends up more valuable than the A’s quartet. and really, it might even be as low as 51:49 odds.

by blue bulldog on Feb 4, 2012 11:26 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm also surprised by the margin for the Mariners

I would’ve expected the voting to be closer. I personally would take the A’s quartet.

expectations are premeditated resentments - cheshirecat

by kcgard2 on Feb 5, 2012 5:39 PM EST up reply actions  

There's something actually somewhat ironic about this.

The Mariners organization could probably make out as good, or better, with Oakland’s quartet simply based on their home ballpark. SafeCo has been good to pitchers both mediocre and strong, and the M’s have had no shortage of guys they can just plunk in and deliver some quality innings in a park that can mask pitcher weaknesses.

Just in the last few years, they’ve had a moderate prospect like Fister do really well (caveat that he’s improved himself quite a bit); Vargas who has mediocre stuff and flyball prone, Jarrod Washburn who was never that good, but put in a great season right when he was traded to the Tigers. Hell, if you go back further, you find mediocre starters like Ryan Franklin, Gil Meche, Joel Pineiro, and dare I say it, Jamie Moyer, all turning in quality years for the M’s in that park.

So it seems to me that the M’s could survive either way. Having three potentially great starters or four good to great starters would accomplish the same goal.

Fans are typically idiots.

by The Typical Idiot Fan on Feb 5, 2012 3:37 AM EST reply actions  

It is for different reasons.

SafeCo’s dimensions kill right handed pull hitters and the cold moist air of Elliott Bay deadens fly balls. Oakland has a massive amount of foul territory that turns a lot more “free swings” into outs.

Fans are typically idiots.

by The Typical Idiot Fan on Feb 5, 2012 1:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Fly balls dont travel in the Coliseum at night, either.

"BA doesn't stand for Batting Average. It’s Brandon Allen, as in the percentage of a hitter’s worth compared to Brandon Allen. Ted Williams, at his best, was only 4/10th of the hitter Brandon Allen is today." - YonYonson

by hero66 on Feb 5, 2012 2:01 PM EST up reply actions  

I think the main issue is that SafeCo masks more deficiencies.

Especially of the flyball kind. Oakland is harder to figure out because of the foul ball issue.

And, really, Oakland has done well with pitching over the years, too. So I think my point is a more generalized comment about how Seattle could do well with quality or quantity. That Oakland is the other option in this survey is irrelevant. You can pick any club you want who has 4 good, but not great, starters and it would still work.

Fans are typically idiots.

by The Typical Idiot Fan on Feb 5, 2012 7:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Mariners

Though admittedly I’m not that high on most of these guys. Paxton’s the only one I’m overly bullish on.

by CaptainCanuck on Feb 5, 2012 3:39 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

What It Boils Down To

If you take the grades at face value,the question is, do you want 1 A- or 2 B prospects? I voted for the two B.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Feb 7, 2012 1:13 PM EST reply actions  

I don't understand how everyone can pick Seattle's 3 over Oakland's 4.

For one, picking 3 quality prospects over 4 is never wise, because they are prospects, literally anything can happen. You always go with quantity over quality.

Second, it kind of blows my min how much hype Hultzen has when he’s never thrown a pitch of pro ball and Walker was an 18 year old at A ball last year. The odds of either of those two outperforming the A’s 4 is very remote.

Third, the A’s 4 have more results. Sure ceilings are ceelings, but actual results have to count for something.

by Waiver Claim on Feb 8, 2012 3:27 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Minor League Ball: Where the Future of Baseball is Discussed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Texas Rangers: 2012 Draft List
Small
Minor League Ball Gameday, 5/25 MILB
Me_at_8_small
Minor League Ball Gameday Discussion, MiLB 5/24
Me_at_8_small
Today in Minor League Baseball Discussion, MiLB 5/23
Me_at_8_small
MiLB 5/22

Recent FanPosts

Me_at_8_small
Minor League Ball Gameday Discussion, MiLB 5/26
Small
Minor Leagues Question
Small
Washington Nationals War Room
Small
MiLB Saturday 5/26 "aka Draft Day"
Small
Cubs War Room
Small
Phillies Mock Draft War Room
Small
Cleveland Indians War Room
Small
A's war room
Small
Dodgers War Room
Small
Baltimore War Room

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

March2111_084_small John Sickels

Jeri_avatar_small mssickels

Editors

Small Craig Goldstein

Authors

Headshot_small dougdirt

Mblpglogo_small Matt Garrioch

Small SethSpeaks

Osnation2_small Jordan Tuwiner

Img00006-20101226-1702_small Ray Guilfoyle

Lax-xl_small Marisa Ingemi

Small Marc Hulet

Moderators

Small mrkupe


Site Meter