Batter or Pitcher

[xw668]

Shohei Otani? lol

[Number4]

Both. A batter that can pitch is much more valuable than the sum of its parts - you have both in a single roster spot.
Though if you really have to focus, do it on batting - even a good reliever is still only a reliever.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by marc5477

I actually think its the other way around lol. I usually make pitching centered teams with great fielders. Keeps costs down too.

Maybe in OOTP but a pitching centric team IRL is very expensive and not as successful as you may think. Do I really have to make a list?

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by DustinthePOWERHOUSE

See my concern isn't whether you can properly make time for it the divide sounds fine. But in addition to how long it takes for someone to develop normally, with a certain number of at bats this will logically take even more time for this particular player. As well as the extra fatigue, and extra amount of hitting/pitching which could in turn cause more potential for injury.

I also don't think this has anything to do with how you value pitching. Pitching is important, and I think you probably value that properly, but I just don't see it with this guy what you're so enthralled with.

He's a two pitch player with great stamina, but very low velocity. He may be a long relief guy, but I don't see why I would favor that over a .300/30 guy (potentially) It just seems like a waste, development wise, to give him innings when he could be practicing at-bats and becoming a star.

Read the posts I made earlier. I addressed the current lack of velocity as well as how players develop in the dual role system.

We obviously have differing opinions. If everyone agreed on baseball strategies, well, that would make the game a lot more boring, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by RchW

Batters are almost always more valuable than pitchers with certain exceptions.

Depends on what context you're talking about. If you're talking about the fact that most batters play 140-plus games, therefor impacting approximately 90 percent of every game played, compared to 34 or so games for a starter and 70-80 for an elite reliever, then yes, hitters are almost always more valuable. I adamantly argued with friends that Clayton Kershaw had no business being MVP.

That, however, is much different than saying a hitter is a much more valuable commodity to have in your farm system. There's a reason the phrase "you can never have too much pitching" is on the verge of being cliche. The only reason it's not cliche is because it's true.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Depends on what context you're talking about. If you're talking about the fact that most batters play 140-plus games, therefor impacting approximately 90 percent of every game played, compared to 34 or so games for a starter and 70-80 for an elite reliever, then yes, hitters are almost always more valuable. I adamantly argued with friends that Clayton Kershaw had no business being MVP.

That, however, is much different than saying a hitter is a much more valuable commodity to have in your farm system. There's a reason the phrase "you can never have too much pitching" is on the verge of being cliche. The only reason it's not cliche is because it's true.

To me he would have to be Greinke level to justify being a pitcher in this case. Like you say we have different approaches.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by RchW

To me he would have to be Greinke level to justify being a pitcher in this case. Like you say we have different approaches.

And he's not Greinke level, at least not in his current state. I'm just a proponent of the dual player system since it's worked for me in the past. It won't stunt his development in either role, so there's no harm in finding out if he'll develop into a Greinke (or Rivera-type closer) while also developing him as a hitter. Give it three years and see what happens. There's nothing to lose if done properly.