Weighing Max Fried Against Blake Snell: Consistency vs. Potential
As Major League Baseball gears up for another offseason, the spotlight shines brightly on two of its standout pitchers—Max Fried and Blake Snell. Both hurlers have etched their names into the annals of the game with impressive achievements, and both are expected to attract considerable interest from teams seeking to bolster their rotations with premium talent. Yet, the debate rages on in the baseball community: who offers more value, Fried or Snell?
Proven Consistency vs. Dynamic Potential
Max Fried emerges as the more consistent option. Sporting a remarkable career ERA+ of 140 over nearly 900 innings, Fried has established himself as a reliable presence on the mound. Even in a season reduced by injury to just 14 starts, Fried managed to deliver a solid WAR of 2.6, underscoring his dependability as a starter. This steady performance has led analysts like Matt Snyder to assert that "Fried is the much safer option... a much more steady presence."
On the other hand, Blake Snell represents the embodiment of high potential intermingled with variability. Snell boasts two Cy Young awards, a testament to his ability to reach the pinnacle of pitching excellence. Yet, his career is peppered with fluctuations, marked by high walk rates and a spectrum of WAR outputs. When Snell is in rhythm, his capabilities are unparalleled, with Mike Axisa noting, "When he's on, he's as good as any pitcher in the game... Snell is one of the game's premier bat-missers."
Financial Considerations
With both Fried and Snell hitting the market, financial considerations play a crucial role. Teams are prepared to open their coffers, recognizing the scarcity of elite starters. R.J. Anderson has highlighted that "they might have a similar financial outlook based on their ages and track records," suggesting that both pitchers are likely to command substantial offers.
Fried's consistency may provide teams with a sense of security, knowing that he rarely falls prey to the command-related pitfalls that have sporadically hampered Snell's career. Anderson points out, "he doesn't have the same command-related crater risk," an aspect that could weigh heavily on a team's decision to invest.
Risk and Reward
The contrasting styles of Fried and Snell prompt a broader discussion about risk and reward. The conundrum is whether to gamble on Snell's ability to deliver high-reward performances consistently, or to opt for the reliable hands of Fried, whose track record suggests fewer peaks and valleys. Dayn Perry encapsulates the concern for many evaluators, stating, "it's hard for me to overlook his chronic command-and-control issues."
This is further echoed by Snyder, who leans towards Fried as the safer bet, remarking, "I like gambling at times, but less so with southpaw pitchers in their 30s. Gimme the safe option in Fried."
Conclusion
As teams deliberate their strategies, the choice between Fried and Snell serves as a paramount decision. While both pitchers are set to be pivotal figures in the market, the ultimate selection may hinge on a franchise's appetite for risk versus stability. Will Fried's unwavering consistency trump Snell's dazzling, albeit sporadic, brilliance? This winter, those decisions will unfold, shaping the contours of competitions to come.