SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
#1, #2, #3, #4, #5 pitchers for non-scouts
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 12, 2014 3:42:13 GMT -5
One of the real problems I have with off-the-cuff analysis is that there's no real definition for "ace", and none for #1, #2,..., #5. Apparently the common definition is that there are 15 #1 pitchers in baseball, 45 #5 pitchers, and 30 each of the others. I find this definition quite silly but it seems entrenched. I grabbed all the Steamer projections for 2015 and filtered out the pitchers projected to pitch 134 innings or more, which conveniently gave me exactly 150 pitchers. I sorted these by projected ERA. This gets me: #1: 3.30 - 2.50 ERA #2: 3.77 - 3.38 ERA #3: 4.04 - 3.78 ERA #4: 4.23 - 4.04 ERA #5: 5.43 - 4.24 ERA Now, the obvious problem here is that, AFAIK, Steamer projections are based on playing in a specific park and league. That should more or less cancel out in our 150 pitcher sample, but to categorize any single pitcher, we would need his projection in a neutral park, and I don't know where to get that (nor does Steamer project, say, ERA+). So, I've outlined what I think should be done theoretically, but since I don't have the appropriate data, what can I do? Well, FIP probably requires quite a bit less park adjustment. This will be slightly unfair to the few pitchers who have a BABIP skill so obvious that even Steamer recognizes it, but we could try to adjust for that manually later. Meanwhile, here's our 150 pitcher sample in buckets: #1: 3.30 - 2.63 FIP #2: 3.68 - 3.31 FIP #3: 3.96 - 3.69 FIP #4: 4.27 - 3.96 FIP #5: 5.71 - 4.27 FIP In 2014, the average NL pitcher had a FIP of 3.69 and the average AL pitcher had a FIP of 3.79. So I'll just add 0.05 to the FIP of any pitcher projected for an NL team and subtract 0.05 from the FIP of any pitcher projected for an AL team to get their "true talent FIP". OK here's our current rotation by Steamer FIP projections modified for League: Miley 3.78 (good #3) Porcello 3.79 (good #3) Masterson 3.90 (bad #3) Buchholz 4.01 (good #4) Kelly 4.34 (good #5) Just keep in mind that, due to the funky definition, a "good #3" is actually the 2nd-best pitcher on many teams, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 12, 2014 9:48:29 GMT -5
One of the real problems I have with off-the-cuff analysis is that there's no real definition for "ace", and none for #1, #2,..., #5. Apparently the common definition is that there are 15 #1 pitchers in baseball, 45 #5 pitchers, and 30 each of the others. I find this definition quite silly but it seems entrenched. Disagree. I know Eric uses something like that as an off-hand estimate, but I wouldn't say this is the entrenched definition at all. To me (and scouts, of which I am not one), it's got more to do with shorthand for how good a guy is. You could have 10 aces or 20 aces in the game at a given time depending on who fits the definition. I'll try to find it tonight, but in the Prospect Handbook one year, BA listed the attributes of pitchers in those spots as a rough estimate. An "ace" is going to have great control, a couple plus pitches and a solid-average to above-average third pitch, for example. The problem is that with pitchers, the spot in the rotation is used as shorthand for how good they are as well, whereas with position players, it's not like you field a lineup of one "MVP candidate," one "all-star," one "above-average regular," one "average regular," one "second division regular," one "fourth outfielder/bench infielder," and so forth. Of course, this is NOT to say that I don't find what you did there interesting. I think it is.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 12, 2014 16:17:42 GMT -5
Starters should be required to wear uniform numbers identifying their slot in the rotation. Have two #1s? One is 1 and the other is 11. Is your #1 really a #2? Give him 12. Have three #5 starters? You've got problems of another sort.
|
|
|
Post by knuckledown on Dec 12, 2014 16:23:14 GMT -5
Heard Speier on the radio today say that he though an elite pitcher was 200+ innings of 120 ERA+, which I think is a more inclusive definition than many have. According to ERA- that includes about 25 guys, several teams have two "aces", Kershaw and Grinke, Zimmermann and Fister.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 12, 2014 16:29:11 GMT -5
Instead of giving them numbers, how about dividing in tiers (with some examples):
ELDER GOD TIER:
Madison Bumgarner Cole Hamels Keith Couch
GOD TIER:
Clayton Kershaw Felix Hernandez Chris Sale Stephen Strasburg Johnny Cueto Adam Wainwright
HERCULES AS PLAYED BY THE ROCK TIER:
Jordan Zimmermann Justin Verlander Sonny Gray Max Scherzer Julio Teheran
HERCULES AS PLAYED BY KEVIN SORBO TIER:
David Price Jon Lester Jeff Samardzija Hisashi Iwakuma
ABLE TO PITCH ABOVE AVERAGE FOR STRETCHES OR FOR A FULL SEASON TIER:
Everyone else that might, you know, pitch above average for stretches or for a full season.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 12, 2014 16:47:55 GMT -5
I would think Couch gets his own tier.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 12, 2014 17:40:43 GMT -5
Heard Speier on the radio today say that he though an elite pitcher was 200+ innings of 120 ERA+, which I think is a more inclusive definition than many have. According to ERA- that includes about 25 guys, several teams have two "aces", Kershaw and Grinke, Zimmermann and Fister. Using the definition he gave, that's 14 guys this year. Don't ignore the innings (although that excludes the likes of Kershaw). Looking at it over 3 years using ERA- (equivalent would be 80, right?) and requiring 600 innings, it's four guys: Kershaw, Felix, Zimmermann, and Scherzer, although Sale and Greinke were close enough in innings (580.1 and 592.1) to add them. Price, Hamels, Shields, and Wainwright just miss on ERA-. Last two years: Kershaw, Felix, Wainwright, Scherzer, Lester, Zimmermann, with the guys getting close on innings including Sale, Greinke, Kluber, and Iwakuma. Shields, Hamels, Teheran, Bumgarner lurking just outside on ERA-, Strasburg just outside on both. Frankly, after reading those lists... anyone else feeling like the Sox should just go out and get that ace now, given who's available?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 12, 2014 17:50:03 GMT -5
FACT: Any attempt to apply rigid statistical definitions to the 1-5 starter ranks is pointless and doomed to failure.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Dec 12, 2014 19:30:24 GMT -5
FACT: Any attempt to apply rigid statistical definitions to the 1-5 starter ranks is pointless and doomed to failure. I agree, it is pointless. You can categorize the players on this arbitrary threshold, it's when you try to quantify what it means to your team where it really is doomed. I hate hearing a team needs an ace. It is used in different ways, need an ace to win WS, need an ace for the playoffs, or just need an ace. An ace is a valuable piece to have, but it will never be the whole equation. I always think it is better to think about a holistic view of the team instead of one piece. Let's look at a couple of quick and dirty hypothetical. Thinking only of 2015, would you trade the 5 players of our starting rotation for Pedro Martinez's 1999 season. (Of course we all would because we would like to see him duplicate that, that's not the point). Once again quick and dirty, Porcello, Buchholz, Materson, Miley, and Kelly's projected fWars are 3, 2.1, 1.9, 2, 1.1 = 10.1 which would be less than Pedro's 11.9 (Seriously?) It would leave us with Barnes, Ranaudo, Escobar, and Wright as our opening day starters (side bar this actually very good if you compare same method with other teams). Now while you would have the best pitchers season of the last 50 years, the holistic view of your pitching staff would be pretty bad. Another quick and dirty hypothetical. Let's assume we have 5 ace pitchers who throw 220 innings each of 2.7 ERA ball (only 5 pitchers accomplished this last year, 6 if you round Lester's innings), but anyone out of your bullpen is 2014 Jim Johnsons at 7 ERA (worse relief pitcher). Assuming every game you pitch is exactly 9 innings your starters give up 330 ER, and your bullpen gives up 278 ER. That gets you to 608 ER or 13th highest in 2014, right around the middle of the pack. So if you had 5 starting pitchers pitching at basically the pinnacle and a bullpen at the bottom your team comes out about average. These are very abstract ways of thinking about it, that's just how my mind works, but I think I proved my point. Having an ace is just one piece of a puzzle that can be solved many ways. I'm not opposed to categorizing pitchers, I'm opposed to saying that a pitcher from that highest category is needed to be successful.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 12, 2014 19:39:47 GMT -5
#1 - One of the 5-ish best pitchers in the game. #2 - Well above average #3 - Above average #4 - Below average #5 - Filler
That's it. That's as strictly as it ever needs to be defined. If you want to measure pitchers with greater precision than that, fine. There's good ways of doing that, but the 1-5 nomenclature is not one of them. Lumping everyone into five categories is inherently imprecise. Trying to make it precise makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 12, 2014 19:49:13 GMT -5
#1 - One of the 5-ish best pitchers in the game. #2 - Well above average #3 - Above average #4 - Below average #5 - Filler That's it. That's as strictly as it ever needs to be defined. If you want to measure pitchers with greater precision than that, fine. There's good ways of doing that, but the 1-5 nomenclature is not one of them. Lumping everyone into five categories is inherently imprecise. Trying to make it precise makes absolutely no sense. No offense, but you're not the arbiter of language, you don't get to define how others use these terms, and many folks (including many scouts) would disagree with the above definitions (for instance, most folks think there are more than five number one starters at any given time).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 12, 2014 22:55:17 GMT -5
So in the BA Prospect Handbook, they define the slots as follows:
No. 1 Starter: Two plus pitches, average third pitch, plus-plus command, plus makeup No. 2 Starter: Two plus pitches, average third pitch, average command, average makeup No. 3 Starter: One plus pitch, two average pitches, average command, average makeup No. 4-5 Starter: Command of two major league pitches, average velocity, consistent breaking ball, decent changeup
Now, obviously, there's a ton of wiggle room there, but I think that's a good way to frame it in a super-general way. You could, perhaps, be a No. 2 with one plus pitch and two above-average pitches if you had plus command and plus makeup or something, y'know? Meanwhile, you could have two plus pitches, no third pitch, below-average command and below-average makeup coughAllenWebstercough and be a No. 5 or worse.
For shiggles, here's how they define a closer: one dominant pitch, second plus pitch, plus command, plus-plus makeup.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 13, 2014 0:23:22 GMT -5
#1 - One of the 5-ish best pitchers in the game. #2 - Well above average #3 - Above average #4 - Below average #5 - Filler That's it. That's as strictly as it ever needs to be defined. If you want to measure pitchers with greater precision than that, fine. There's good ways of doing that, but the 1-5 nomenclature is not one of them. Lumping everyone into five categories is inherently imprecise. Trying to make it precise makes absolutely no sense. No offense, but you're not the arbiter of language, you don't get to define how others use these terms, and many folks (including many scouts) would disagree with the above definitions (for instance, most folks think there are more than five number one starters at any given time). I mean how far off do you think I am on those? I'm not trying to define language for others, I'm trying to give a general representation of how the 1-5 scale actual works in real life. And no, I don't get to define language, but that doesn't mean there isn't a definition. People who think there should be 30 #1s aren't using the term correctly, at least as far as scouting lingo goes.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 13, 2014 0:37:48 GMT -5
Potter Stewart knows #1 starters as well as #2's, #3's, #4's and #5's.....
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 13, 2014 1:23:36 GMT -5
Without even looking at the numbers - or rather before I do - I will bet that any statistical indicator, or qualitative measure, that doesn't include some metric for year-to-year consistency will blow apart the notion of ace-hood quickly. Variability is the bugaboo for any definition that doesn't include it in some way, yet it isn't mentioned in this thread. The best pitchers can deliver year after year. That's been the argument against Lester's #1 status. There are a lot of pitcher's who have very good years sandwiched between lousy ones, including guys who had the attributes Chris copied from BA's #1 tag. The ones who can do it season after season are on a different plane. But you can't really know that until they are quite a way into their career. That's why Kershaw is so impressive. He's taken it to a different level and kept it there for a few years now. That's also what made Pedro other-wordly. At the height of his career you knew what you were getting every time out, and that would be hell if you had a bat in your hands and were on the other team.
Jmei pointed out that a few of the recent acquisitions have had years that look like those of a #2 starter. Without the consistency, however, there's a risk factor that isn't there with the very best pitchers. What do you get this year?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 13, 2014 10:05:32 GMT -5
No offense, but you're not the arbiter of language, you don't get to define how others use these terms, and many folks (including many scouts) would disagree with the above definitions (for instance, most folks think there are more than five number one starters at any given time). I mean how far off do you think I am on those? I'm not trying to define language for others, I'm trying to give a general representation of how the 1-5 scale actual works in real life. And no, I don't get to define language, but that doesn't mean there isn't a definition. People who think there should be 30 #1s aren't using the term correctly, at least as far as scouting lingo goes. You're not that far off, but most would say that there are more than five #1 starters in the league and incorporate some notion of consistency in defining #1 starters. Many scouts also call average starters #3s. I've always been fond of these definitions by Sickels: www.minorleagueball.com/2012/8/7/3226335/defining-1-2-3-4-5-starters
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Dec 13, 2014 10:27:10 GMT -5
Here's how I define a closer: Someone who pitches the 9th inning (or the bottom of an extra inning) when his team has the lead.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Dec 13, 2014 10:30:59 GMT -5
These definitions are useless and cause confusion. Can we stop using them?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 13, 2014 11:08:13 GMT -5
What seems clear is that the best available pitchers on the free agent market are paid like aces whether they are one or not.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 13, 2014 17:08:29 GMT -5
It seem everyone has a different definition of what a number one starter/ACE is. Look at players like Corey Kluber, Garrett Richards, Jake Arrieta, Tanner Roark and Dallas Keuchel. Last year they pitched like #1 starters, all were in the top 17 in rWAR last year and most likely they would have been like top 12 if Richards didn't get injured at the end of the year. I think there is a major difference in an ACE and a #1 starter. An ACE is a Hamels, Kershaw, Hernandez, Sale , or Scherzer type that is great year in and year out. What if Kluber goes back to his career averages next year, does that mean he wasn't a true #1 starter last year? I don't think so. Look at Lester, for his Career he's a number #2 starter, but last year he was a #1 in my eyes.
John Sickel calls Verlander, Hernandez, Kershaw and Strasburg #1 starters. I have a big problem with this, because while Strasburg has nasty stuff and a ton of strikeouts, he has not been a number 1 in a single season in his career. Last year he was 34th in rWAR at 3.5, in 2012 is was 2.7 and 3.1 in 2013. I know your going to fire back that rWAR is only one stat. Your not going to be a cy young contender without having a good rWAR. Last years leaders in r WAR Kershaw at 7.5 and Kluber at 7.4. Guess who won the Cy Young in the NL and AL, that's right Kershaw and Kluber.
Also Sickel talked about pitchers with elite stuff needing to get results to be an ACE, yet when he called Strasburg an ace (Aug 2012) he had played in a total of 17 games and had gone 6-4. That's crazy!
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 13, 2014 20:56:16 GMT -5
I mean how far off do you think I am on those? I'm not trying to define language for others, I'm trying to give a general representation of how the 1-5 scale actual works in real life. And no, I don't get to define language, but that doesn't mean there isn't a definition. People who think there should be 30 #1s aren't using the term correctly, at least as far as scouting lingo goes. You're not that far off, but most would say that there are more than five #1 starters in the league and incorporate some notion of consistency in defining #1 starters. Many scouts also call average starters #3s. I've always been fond of these definitions by Sickels: www.minorleagueball.com/2012/8/7/3226335/defining-1-2-3-4-5-startersThose Sickels definitions are what I've always looked to as well.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 15, 2014 11:20:39 GMT -5
Variability is the bugaboo for any definition that doesn't include it in some way, yet it isn't mentioned in this thread. The best pitchers can deliver year after year. That's been the argument against Lester's #1 status. Ironically, for his career as a whole Lester has been a model of consistency. He had only one year where his ERA+ dipped below 110, FIP>4, and has started 31-33 games every season.
|
|
|
Post by kmann on Dec 15, 2014 12:50:42 GMT -5
An ace is like porn, you know it when you see it. And I don't see one in the Sox rotation as of yet.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Dec 15, 2014 12:52:13 GMT -5
An ace is like porn, you know it when you see it. And I don't see one in the Sox rotation as of yet. Yup, and we know that no team has ever won a championship without porn.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 15, 2014 12:54:02 GMT -5
An ace is like porn, you know it when you see it. And I don't see one in the Sox rotation as of yet. And we probably won't without a massive overpay. We might see a #2 and a bunch of pitchers who like they are poised for improvements. People should just quit their whining now. I mean it's not often that a 26 year old Pedro Martinez is traded. And now that steroids are gone, it's not like a 42 year old Roger Clemens can pitch like an ace anymore.
|
|
|