Answering Some Poll Questions

by John Sickels on Jan 21, 2026 2:00 PM EST

I thought yesterday's poll question regarding Yu Darvish and Bryce Harper would be closer. I thought Harper would win, but I didn't expect such a wipeout result, currently 88% in favor of Harper.

Would the result be the same if I asked a slightly different question? How about this one: if you had to spend $111 million on either Darvish or Harper, who would you pick?

The other poll question I recently asked was about Dellin Betances of the New York Yankees and Jarred Cosart of the Houston Astros, a pair of Grade B pitching prospects. Cosart came out ahead here with 53% of the vote. I asked this question because it came down to either Betances or Cosart for the final spot on my Top 50 Pitching Prospect list. In the end, I went with Betances.

I am taking tomorrow off. I hope to have my Organization Rankings complete on Monday or Tuesday at the latest, and we'll start adding other feature pieces as we move towards spring training.

Tweet Comment 47 comments | Add comment | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: Bryce Harper (CF - WAS), Dellin Betances (P - NYY), Yu Darvish (P - TEX), New York Yankees, Houston Astros

Comments

I might have waited a month or so before asking this question...

That way, the recent results wouldn’t still be on people’s minds. In order to tease out inconsistencies in their thoughts, you either have to get people to forget their first answer, or ask the question in a way that is opaque enough for them not to notice what is being attempted.

Unfortunately, people will want to be consistent, and even if it isn’t blatantly and volitionally done, they will hammer their answer to this question into the mold set by their previous response.

by turambar85 on Jan 21, 2026 2:17 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

I don't think adding the money would change anything

Whether it’s $0 or $111M, you’re spending the same on each, so the question is still Darvish v. Harper.

How about this: Ignoring money, which would you rather have for precisely the next ten years: Darvish or Harper? That is, assuming Darvish starts in the majors next year, and every year Harper stays in the minors is one less season you get out of him.

I’d still take Harper because:
1. Japanese players, particularly pitchers, don’t have a great success rate. I think Darvish will be good, possibly an ace, but there’s not a lot of history on his side.
2. Harper’s close to the majors (though Darvish is obviously closer). I don’t see him spending more than two more years in the minor leagues, and even that’s a bit of a stretch.
3. Position players are more reliably valuable than pitchers.
4. Harper’s considerably younger than Darvish. Ten years of Darvish ends up with him at age 35, and ten years of Harper ends up with him at age 29. You’re more likely to enjoy the peak years of Harper than Darvish.

Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)

by quincy0191 on Jan 21, 2026 2:48 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

The purpose of adding money into the equation...

Is at least ostensibly to balance out a possible biasing factor in the Harper V. Darvish poll from earlier. We already knew that Darvish just cost the Rangers $111m to sign. This automatically raises red ‘bust’ flags in our minds. You see a lot of money spent on an unproven commodity, and you start to worry about whether or not it was justly spent. Harper won’t cost the Nationals anywhere near that much money, at least for the next few years. You don’t feel as much of a risk when you entertain the thought of Harper in a vacuum. This isn’t a rational but a psychological bit pull. The hope, perhaps, is to get people to consider the two prospects outside of particular contingencies; namely, one of them has a hefty price tag, and the other doesn’t.

by turambar85 on Jan 21, 2026 2:53 PM EST up reply actions

I disagree that it's the same question

at 100M each for six years I take Harper all day long and twice on Sunday. He is a safer investment at that price.

At $0 I probably still take Harper, but it is a lot closer, as I am willing to take the risk on getting an Ace at a minimum salary over a hitter.

by ADLC on Jan 21, 2026 3:42 PM EST up reply actions

agreed with this

Money really has nothing to do with it, I still think Harper will produce at a higher rate than Darvish.

His 2011 wRC+ is 26

by Pikachu on Jan 21, 2026 4:08 PM EST up reply actions

This.

by mr. maniac on Jan 21, 2026 4:21 PM EST up reply actions

yeah I think Harper's ceiling is just more phenomenal

don’t get me wrong I am excited to see what Darvish has to offer, and I think he can be really good-but Harper just strikes me as an amazing talent.

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

by feslenraster on Jan 21, 2026 4:29 PM EST reply actions

Make it five years you would have a much closer race

"Self-control is the chief element in self-respect, and self-respect is the chief element in courage." ― Thucydides

by TomCat009 on Jan 21, 2026 5:52 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

+1

This is doubly true if we start in 2012. Excepting very, very rare talents (which Harper may well be), it’s exceedingly rare for a player to perform offensively at an elite level at 19, much less 20 years old. The best one could realistically hope for would be that in 2013 (at 20 years old), Harper hits something like Willie Mays,Ken Griffey Jr. or Jason Heyward’s 2010 (120-130ish OPS+). It bears repeating that even that level of performance is exceedingly rare and extremely impressive. To ask for something like Frank Robinson, Al Kaline, Mickey Mantle,Ted Williams, or A-Rod (160ish OPS+) at that age would be too much.

I don’t really expect anything of Harper this season beyond a cup of coffee and, if he’s really special, an OPS+ over 100.

by GuyinNY on Jan 23, 2026 9:44 AM EST up reply actions

I realize that Harper might not be in the majors in 2012, so assume that Harper’s “decade clock” for purposes of the question begins whenever he reaches the majors, even if that is 2013 or 2014.

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Follow @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Jan 23, 2026 9:56 AM EST up reply actions

Yes

The point TomCat and I are making is that a more realistic counterfactual (next 5 years) would produce different results.

See above

Make it five years you would have a much closer race

This is doubly true if we start in 2012.

I understand the question John asked very well, thank you. I happen to think there’s a better one to be asked. The next 10 years is too far a time discuss any player, except for an already-there superstar. Tell me, where do you fall on Darvish/Harper over the next 5 years, starting in 2012?

by GuyinNY on Jan 23, 2026 10:07 AM EST up reply actions

You're reading more into TomCat's post than what's there

He shortened it to 5 years rather than 10. I saw no reason to assume that he was casting aside the stipulation that Harper’s clock started when he entered the majors.

I’d still take Harper.

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Follow @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Jan 23, 2026 10:12 AM EST up reply actions

Reading Comp

This is doubly true if we start in 2012.

I added an additional clause. That is very plain.

TomCat: Let’s limit this to 5 years
GuyinNY: Let’s limit this to 5 years starting in ’12.

by GuyinNY on Jan 23, 2026 10:20 AM EST up reply actions

I see no reason to add that clause

It is unrealistic and only is there to favor Darvish. The Nationals do not lose service time should Harper spend most of 2012 in AAA, why evaluate him as if he does?

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Follow @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Jan 23, 2026 10:23 AM EST up reply actions

If, say, you were trying to win in '12?

That is a big part of Darvish’s appeal, you understand? Darvish will almost certainly be the better player from the get-go. The question is how long (and to a lesser extent, if) till Harper passes him.* You understand how a 10 year window is inherently unfair to an already-25 year old Darvish? He could have a full, HOF peak/prime of 7 seasons, and still be a washed up 35 year old 10 years from now.

*Somewhere around 2020, when Harper is 28 and Darvish is 33, Harper will probably be a better player if current trajectories hold. The job of prospecting, of course, is to determine those gradations: players in their prime.

by GuyinNY on Jan 23, 2026 10:29 AM EST up reply actions

Good point.

Thing you are missing is under no circumstances is Darvish allowed to beat Harper in any polls on this web site.

Most arguments are really about context.

by SheaWasBettor21 on Jan 23, 2026 10:38 AM EST up reply actions

Actually.

Nobody is allowed to beat Harper in anything on this web site.

Most arguments are really about context.

by SheaWasBettor21 on Jan 23, 2026 10:38 AM EST up reply actions

Matt Moore

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Follow @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Jan 23, 2026 10:40 AM EST up reply actions

I've seen Mike Trout

pull it off a couple times too…

by KentuckyPirate on Jan 23, 2026 2:12 PM EST up reply actions

Why are you still arguing as if I have a problem with the 5 year concept?

I understand the reason to limit it to 5 years. I disagree with the concept of starting the clock at the beginning of 2012 rather than at the start of each player’s MLB career. The question you’re asking, then, is “who gives you the best chance to win the earliest?”

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Follow @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Jan 23, 2026 10:39 AM EST up reply actions

It's a different question entirely

That’s the point. I think it’s better to ask a different question. Perhaps we’ve been arguing context (to steal another poster’s sig)?

by GuyinNY on Jan 23, 2026 11:03 AM EST up reply actions

That seems to be the case

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Follow @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Jan 23, 2026 11:18 AM EST up reply actions

but Harper might be up early 2012

by pedrophile on Jan 23, 2026 4:32 PM EST up reply actions

Harper

Less of a chance that he gets hurt. Pitchers get hurt more often. Plus he is very likely to reach his ceiling. Darvish is an unknown because we don’t know how to translate the Japanese game to the US game. I think both are going to be superstars though…

by noelman31 on Jan 21, 2026 6:00 PM EST reply actions

Harper

Less of a chance he becomes a league average player or better.

Most arguments are really about context.

by SheaWasBettor21 on Jan 23, 2026 10:27 AM EST up reply actions

I just don't see Darvish as an ace

type of upside, whereas Harper has ‘best player in baseball’ upside. I don’t think it’s close.

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Follow @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Jan 21, 2026 6:12 PM EST reply actions 2 recs

Should be "#2 type of upside"

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Follow @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Jan 21, 2026 6:12 PM EST up reply actions

+1

by mr. maniac on Jan 21, 2026 8:22 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed

http://www.crawfishboxes.com

by OremLK on Jan 21, 2026 11:40 PM EST up reply actions

rec'd

"If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep in."

by kelly20210 on Jan 22, 2026 1:28 PM EST up reply actions

Probability

The odds that Harper becomes the best player in baseball are so miniscule at this point, I really don’t see how it can be weighted so heavily when compared to someone as accomplished as Darvish.

There is overwhelming data validating the quality of Japanese baseball. Darvish dominated that league by as large a margin as you will see in any professional league. I don’t see how any objective perspective can be so dismissive because of a less than 1% chance that Harper’s upside comes to fruition.

Most arguments are really about context.

by SheaWasBettor21 on Jan 22, 2026 8:40 PM EST up reply actions

You're pulling numbers out of no where. Less than 1% chance, really?

I don’t think Darvish’s stuff/command is consistent enough for him to be an MLB ace. I do think Harper is going to be a special player

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Follow @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Jan 23, 2026 9:20 AM EST up reply actions

Breaking Balls

We know he can clobber fastballs. When he shows me he can handle pitchers that can control 2 pitches consistently, I’ll raise the odds.

He k-ed in 20% of his single A at bats. Yes he’s 18, but he’s still REALLY FAR from “best player in baseball”. Light years.

Most arguments are really about context.

by SheaWasBettor21 on Jan 23, 2026 10:23 AM EST up reply actions

To this end

The guy that seemingly comes up most often when people are talking about Harper is Larry Walker. Obviously Walker was a stud (albeit in the pre-humidor days of Coors Field) but was he ever really the best player in baseball? Now, if you told the Nats today that they’d get Harper for 16 years, he’d collect 2000 hits, hit 400 HRs, and be a .300/.400/.550 guy for them is there any doubt they’d take it in a second? At the same time, there were still a handful of pitchers that were more valuable than Walker during his first 10 full seasons (90-99). Finley, Glavine, Appier, Brown, Cone, Big Unit, Maddux, Clemens all produced higher bWAR’s than Walker’s 42.4 during that ten year stretch.

None of this is to say that I’d take Darvish over Harper. I do think Harper is probably the better asset. However this has more to do with the fact that hitters in general are safer bets than pitchers. I am surprised to see how overwhelmingly he beat Darvish. It’s a risky proposition to say that Harper will be any better than Walker was and there were a handful of pitchers who were more valuable than he was. I’m not saying that Darvish will be the next Roger Clemens, but would it be out of the question for him to be the next Chuck Finley (insert Tawny Kitaen joke here)?

by KentuckyPirate on Jan 23, 2026 2:27 PM EST up reply actions

Really?

since we are comparing with $ for 6 years we have to figure in how long it will take Harper to adapt. Take a look at Upton and his career path.

by pedrophile on Jan 23, 2026 12:57 AM EST up reply actions

Harper has exceeded expectations at every step

I think we’re more likely to see a Mike Stanton type of start to his career.

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Follow @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Jan 23, 2026 9:18 AM EST up reply actions

And as far as Upton

I’d take his first 6 years (assuming that we’re disregarding his 140 ABs in 2007) over Darvish.

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Follow @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Jan 23, 2026 9:42 AM EST up reply actions

+1

by GuyinNY on Jan 23, 2026 9:45 AM EST up reply actions

Harper

Out of every 100 Harpers, you get 1 Griffey, 20 Ben Grieves, and a bunch of scenarios in between. The Nationals would consider themselves lucky if he becomes Jeromy Burnitz.

Can we wait until the probability of the best case scenario hits 5% before we romanticize his “upside”?

Most arguments are really about context.

by SheaWasBettor21 on Jan 22, 2026 8:46 PM EST reply actions

uhhh...no....

seems like you’re just a mets fan worried about staring up at the nats for the next 10 years

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jan 22, 2026 8:56 PM EST up reply actions

No,

I’m just a guy that doesn’t feel the need to mythologize players to be a fan.

Most arguments are really about context.

by SheaWasBettor21 on Jan 22, 2026 8:59 PM EST up reply actions

Jeromy Burnitz?

We agreed with everything you were saying until you tossed Burnitz into the mix. Pretty sure the Nats aren’t looking at Harper as a Jeromy Burnitz type of player and would be very disappointed if that what he ended up producing. He may not be the second coming of Ken Griffey, but he will almost surely be a hell of a players, and we aren’t talking about some old smasher who hangs around pinch hitting for 20 years, either.

No one can read the future. Harper is a stud; Darvish looks like an excellent arm. We would be pleased to have landed either one.

by Hairylady on Jan 23, 2026 7:03 AM EST up reply actions

Burnitz

Burnitz’s career is well above average outcome for even elite prospects. You wouldn’t take this outcome from a single A prospect?

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=867&position=OF

Most arguments are really about context.

by SheaWasBettor21 on Jan 23, 2026 10:03 AM EST up reply actions

haper is a AA Prospect

and for a normal top 10 or 20 hitting prospect, yeah…you’d take it. from harper, that’d be a mild disappointment

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jan 24, 2026 12:23 AM EST up reply actions

AA

In the context of AA, Harper doesn’t measure up to the accolades yet. By the literal definition of prospect, you would be correct.

Most arguments are really about context.

by SheaWasBettor21 on Jan 24, 2026 12:56 AM EST up reply actions

Yep, we would take a Burnitz line

over most A-Ball propsects. But Harper isn’t any ol’ A-Ball prospect, and we doubt seriously the Nats view him in those terms, either. Saying they would “settle” for those projections greatly underestimates the Nats expectations.

by Hairylady on Jan 23, 2026 2:38 PM EST reply actions