Comments on: Comparative Advantage: A Theory of Trade

By: JP

JP — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:38:42 +0000

I actually do think that it’s a reach to assume that any first or second round pick has the raw talent to be a successful big league player. There are TONS of 1st/2nd rounders who never have long careers in the majors, and I doubt that’s just for lack of quality coaching and development. Those guys probably just did not have the talent the scouts thought they did.

I’m sure players are both made and born. There is clearly some mix of nature/nurture. However, to whatever extent players are made, a lot of that process probably happened before the prospects even enter the minor leagues. Think how many hours of practice and playing a 20 year old already has under his belt by the time he is drafted. Just as an example, with the Giants, it was Tim Lincecum’s dad who helped him develop that freakish delivery, not the Giant’s minor league coaches. They may have tweaked him here and there, but the vast majority of the “nurturing” it took to mold Lincecum into a nasty Cy Young winner was done before he was ever drafted.

I think it’s likely that teams are not uniform in their ability to mold talent. However, I am more skeptical as to how disparate the ability really is. I’m also not sure how you can distinguish between good drafting (identifying latent talent) and development (molding that talent).

To the extent that success at churning out big league pitchers or hitters is a result of good drafting, then trying to “create” more hitters or pitchers might be futile. Good scouting means spotting the best talent. Maybe the Giants scouts were good enough to recognize the talent of a Tim Lincecum, but they can’t create more Tim Lincecum’s to draft. Teams could probably tinker at the margins, say if they are undecided between a hitter and pitcher, perhaps they’ll err on the side of the pitcher if they’ve had success in the area.

Also, how much do these minor league coaches get paid? If they’re really playing a large role in creating quality MLB level players, they are providing HUGE value to their franchises, by providing players at sub-market salaries. Maybe the minor league coaches deserve some raises?

By: Boomer

Boomer — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:39:43 +0000

I agree with your point to some extent, but be careful to distinguish absolute advantage from comparative advantage. This sounds like absolute advantage, which is not what drives the Ricardian model.

By: Boomer

Boomer — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:35:07 +0000

Identifying and/or developing, Noah. Picking is not the same as getting them to MLB. I can imagine teams specializing around either of those activities.

By: Boomer

Boomer — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:32:26 +0000

@Telo: That was kind of an offhand comment thinking about other offers AA might have had for Wells and if he could have done those deals too, it might have been even better for him. In real life, you’re right.

By: Boomer

Boomer — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:29:57 +0000

Barkley, sorry if I don’t follow. What does waiving have to do with this topic?

As Fed says, I was considering singing bonuses and development costs as capital expenses. Besides, this is a trade model, not a drafting model.

By: Noah Isaacs

Noah Isaacs — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:47:02 +0000

True, it is a zero sum game, but it is also easy to see that both teams could invest less, save money, and still produce the same number of pitchers and hitters as they did with no trade.

Also, I am not suggesting that the Giants and the Dodgers should be trade partners, I (as a Giants fan) just wanted to point out the mediocrity of the Dodgers.

By: Al Gore

Al Gore — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:44:15 +0000

I would put all my pitching in a Lock Box