|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 16:17:10 GMT -5
If two of the three Giants prospect pitchers turn out to be good, I would think the Giants would be pleased. If all three make it, they should be delighted.
I'm high on Harrison. In fact, I think I'll see about getting a scouting report from his high school coach. I'll let you know how that works out. But while Kyle struck batters out like crazy last season, he also walked a ton. He's rated a 55 on the 20-80 scouting scale, which equals a #3/4 starter. I personally think he'll do better than that, but only if he reins in his control. Kyle has upped his velocity by four or five mph since coming out of high school, but he hasn't yet learned to control the added speed. Bednar and Mikulski are rated 50, which is a #4 starter.
Not that we should ignore the possibility of these guys' getting blocked, but I think you're looking for rationalizations to support your undervaluing of DeSclafani and are giving it too much weight.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 16:19:13 GMT -5
Reeder may have hit on a solid solution to Anthony's problems against the Dodgers. Perhaps he simply needs to be more aggressive, have a little more confidence in his stuff.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 16:30:24 GMT -5
Matt, you asked the question of how if the Giants felt DeSclafani were in the way of the three young Giants prospect pitchers, other teams would want to trade for him.
When I think of the guy who most exemplifies "getting in the way" of a prospect, I think of Wally Pipp, who on June 2, 1925 made the mistake of getting sick and allowing Lou Gehrig into the lineup, beginning the second-longest playing streak in history. The Yankees had no problem selling Wally -- selling players was more common then, and even Babe Ruth went to the Yankees for $100,000, not players -- to the Reds, and in fact in 1926, Wally finished 14th in the NL MVP voting.
If Anthony pitches as expected, he should be eminently tradeable. Know any teams that AREN'T looking for starting pitching?
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 14, 2021 16:34:01 GMT -5
Rog- When Matt said Anthony had only been good in one season, he was incorrect. That's probably the main reason Matt is so undervaluing Anthony. Boagie- What other full season was he good enough to be considered a frontline starter? 2019 he had a 3.89 ERA in 31 starts, 2016 was 3.20 in 20 starts. 2016 and 2017 he had injuries and every years besides these two and 2021, his ERA was over 4. This is what Passan says: DeSclafani hasn't been remotely consistent from year to year, but he's had several strong seasons, including a career-best 3.17 ERA in 31 starts for the Giants in 2021. His 22.5 percent strikeout rate was slightly below average, but contact isn't punished as frequently in Oracle Park as it is elsewhere, and he avoided long rallies thanks to his 6.2 percent walk rate. The Giants evidently believe DeSclafani reached a new level last season and won't fall back to being the guy who posted a 7.22 ERA in 2020 or a 4.93 ERA in 2018. The ceiling may not be particularly high here, and his age (he'll turn 32 in April) as well as the likelihood of regression in his .265 BABIP both add risk, but the veteran righty still looks like a good bet to be a capable mid-rotation arm in 2022. I think if the Giants think he's a #2, that would mean their rotation is weaker this year. As far as I know, no one in the Giants organization said he's our #2 and Krukow has stated a few times that some pitchers feel jinxed against certain clubs or in certain ballparks. and this was in context of DeSclafani's troubles against the Dodgers. After that, he usually says something like "if you take away his games against the Dodgers, his stats are up there". If you look closely at his starts in 2021, there were 20 starts against teams with losing records, 11 starts against teams with winning records (6 of those against the Dodgers, 2 against the Braves). BABIP was .268 so that indicated he was a little lucky. As such, I feel his 3.17 ERA in 2021 is somewhat illusory and may not be a realistic expectation for the next three years. Baseball reference projects ERA of 3.85 for him. I think its going to be about 4.1. For some reason he did well against the Padres but I think that is not sustainable. The ratio of his starts between winning teams and losing teams will even out so I think his next three years may be okay but its going to be a struggle.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 16:41:30 GMT -5
Matt, you asked what other season aside from 2021 that Anthony could have been considered a frontline starter. That depends in part on whether one defines frontline starter as only a #1 or either as a #1 or #2, but while Anthony's ERA+ of 129 last season equaled Juan Marichal's career mark, it wasn't the high of his career. Anthony's high was 130 in 2016. His 120 (20% better than average) in 2019 was also impressive. In addition, Anthony pitched at the level of a #3 starter in 2015.
Because of Anthony's lack of innings in 2016, he was probably only a #2 that season. But in three of his seven seasons, he's pitched at the level of a #2 or better. And two of the three have come in his past two full seasons.
Anthony is no more a #1 starter IMO than he's a #4 starter. But he's pitched at the level of a #1 or #2 starter in each of his past two full seasons. He's a #2 or at WORST a #3. No way should he be considered only a #4. If his career ERA were half to three-quarters of a run higher and his past two full seasons hadn't been among his best, sure.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 16:50:04 GMT -5
The Giants' rotation for 2022 IS weaker. No question about it. That could change before the season or by the trade deadline, but clearly it's weaker this season.
Why?
First of all, there is a good chance of regression from the Giants' top three starters. Webb had by far his best season, and DeSclafani had his best too. Wood made a strong comeback from injury, although he is probably the most likely of the trio not to regress (maybe Webb is).
Secondly, Cobb is highly unlikely to fully replace Gausman, although Kevin himself might not have been able to replicate what was a very good 2021 season.
Finally, no one has mentioned it, but for a fifth starter, Johnny Cueto was very good. He has yet to be replaced.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 17:02:17 GMT -5
The Giants traded for Matt Moore because they needed starting pitching, and Matt had been a very promising pitcher before suffering an arm injury. Matt pitched pretty well for the Giants in 2016 after the trade, posting a 4.08 ERA and a 3.53 Fielding Independent Pitching ERA. He pitched beautifully against the Cubs in Game 4 of the NLDS, yielding one earned run on two hits over eight innings. He would have received the win and set up a deciding game between Johnny Cueto and Jon Lester if the Giants' bullpen hadn't suffered bad luck and given up the Giants' 5-2 lead.
I'm not sure what went wrong with Matt, but he was never much good after that.
The Giants didn't lose out too much on that deal. Matt Duffy has had a hard time staying healthy, and the key prospect in the deal, Lucius Fox, has already been claimed on waivers twice this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 17:12:46 GMT -5
I haven't seen Harrison pitch, but I doubt he's truly pitching like a man among boys. Perhaps, but he's just not throwing enough strikes yet. Not that he hasn't been really good and isn't a very good prospect. I moved Luis Matos up to my #2 prospect last winter ahead of anyone else I had seen, and I had moved Kyle up to at least #4 now. Because he hasn't yet mastered the strike zone, I'm not sure I can move him past Joey Bart yet. Kyle may have the higher ceiling, but Joey probably still has the higher floor.
Now, Tim Lincecum pitching for Fresno WAS like a man among boys. The weird thing was that he looked like a high school sophomore, so aesthetically it was like a boy pitching among men. When he warmed up, it looked like a boy among men. But the AAA hitters had so much trouble against him -- only one run in 31 innings and just under a strikeout and a half per inning -- that once he began pitching, the roles reversed, and it was indeed like a man pitching to boys. I've NEVER seen consistent dominance like that, not even when Tim pitched the season before in high A San Jose. The difference was that in 2007, Tim had added his split finger.
You know, the one Mike Krukow kept saying over and over again that he didn't have until 2008? It was before the 2008 season that Tim added his slider. In 2006 he had been really good for San Jose with only his fastball and curve. Somehow he lost the deception on his curve late in the 2007 season, but entering the 2006 draft, it had been considered the best pitch in the draft -- better even than his or Max Scherzer's fastball.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 17:51:28 GMT -5
Matt, you keep saying that DeSclafani wasn't consistent last season. Giving up three or fewer runs in 28 of his 31 starts, he was more consistent than I had realized, but I agree with you that he wasn't consistent. But, really, how many pitchers truly have been? As I pointed out, Tim Lincecum finished 10th in the 2010 Cy Young voting, and he was chosen the postseason MVP, but his season was at LEAST as inconsistent as Anthony's was last year.
If we want consistency, and I've never seen this recognized away from this board, look at Ryan Vogelsong from May 8, 2011 through July 29, 2012. In 45 starts, Ryan gave up three runs only 8 times, four runs only twice, and five runs only once. For that matter, he yielded two earned runs only a dozen times. In virtually half his starts, he yielded one earned run or fewer. Now THAT'S consistency.
But even among the best pitchers, consistency is rare. As an example, in 2016, Max Scherzer won the Cy Young Award despite yielding four runs 3 times, five runs 4 times and seven runs once.
When one considers that Max won the Cy Young while giving up four runs 3 times, five runs 4 times and seven runs once in 34 starts, Ryan's four runs twice and five runs once in 45 starts -- 11 longer than Max -- was simply amazing. And yet, other than here, where have we heard about that amazingly consistent run?
And when we look at Max's yielding four or more runs eight times in 34 starts yet winning the Cy Young Award in 2016, can we deny that with three or fewer runs in all but three of his 31 starts, Anthony was more consistent than I initially gave him credit for?
You say I don't change my mind, Matt, but I do when the facts dictate it. I wasn't totally wrong when I agreed that Anthony was inconsistent last season -- hard to COMPLETELY ignore the 10 runs he gave up to the Dodgers on May 23rd -- but by and large, since that was the ONLY time he yielded more than four runs and he yielded four runs only twice in 31 starts, he was much more consistent than I was giving him credit for.
I sometimes go out of my way to try to agree with you, Matt. I hate to disagree with you seemingly ALL the time. But this isn't the first time I went overboard to try to agree with you -- only to find on closer examination that my agreement stemmed at least as much from a desire to agree than to the facts. When a starting pitcher holds the opposition to four or fewer runs in over 90% of his starts -- and to three or fewer in 97% of them -- he's been far more consistent than all but a few starting pitchers.
One thing I shouldn't ignore is that with pitchers pitching fewer innings per outing now, it's easier to hold teams below benchmark run totals. But to give up three or fewer runs in 97% of one's starts is actually rather amazingly consistent even if the pitcher averages only 5.4 starts as Antony did. And remember, as short as that 5.4 innings sounds, it put Anthony within 10% of all qualifying pitchers except six for average innings per start.
Take a look at other pitchers, Matt, and you'll see that Anthony was much more consistent than you -- or I -- gave him credit for. We all love Logan Webb, but whereas Anthony gave up more than three runs in only 3% of his starts, Logan yielded four or more in 19% -- six times as often.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 14, 2021 19:05:47 GMT -5
Rog- Take a look at other pitchers, Matt, and you'll see that Anthony was much more consistent than you -- or I -- gave him credit for. We all love Logan Webb, but whereas Anthony gave up more than three runs in only 3% of his starts, Logan yielded four or more in 19% -- six times as often.
Boagie- I love it when you yourself prove your stats to be deceptive so I don't have to.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 14, 2021 21:38:37 GMT -5
I haven't seen Harrison pitch, but I doubt he's truly pitching like a man among boys. Perhaps, but he's just not throwing enough strikes yet. Not that he hasn't been really good and isn't a very good prospect. I moved Luis Matos up to my #2 prospect last winter ahead of anyone else I had seen, and I had moved Kyle up to at least #4 now. Because he hasn't yet mastered the strike zone, I'm not sure I can move him past Joey Bart yet. Kyle may have the higher ceiling, but Joey probably still has the higher floor. Now, Tim Lincecum pitching for Fresno WAS like a man among boys. The weird thing was that he looked like a high school sophomore, so aesthetically it was like a boy pitching among men. When he warmed up, it looked like a boy among men. But the AAA hitters had so much trouble against him -- only one run in 31 innings and just under a strikeout and a half per inning -- that once he began pitching, the roles reversed, and it was indeed like a man pitching to boys. I've NEVER seen consistent dominance like that, not even when Tim pitched the season before in high A San Jose. The difference was that in 2007, Tim had added his split finger. You know, the one Mike Krukow kept saying over and over again that he didn't have until 2008? It was before the 2008 season that Tim added his slider. In 2006 he had been really good for San Jose with only his fastball and curve. Somehow he lost the deception on his curve late in the 2007 season, but entering the 2006 draft, it had been considered the best pitch in the draft -- better even than his or Max Scherzer's fastball. Melissa Lockard thinks Harrison has passed Bart and Ramos on the prospect list and thinks he is one of the best pitchers taken in the 2020 draft. She thinks Harrison is one of the future anchors of the rotation. Burrell thinks Harrison's composure is very mature. He is hitting 97 and can add velocity with more muscle. I trust Lockard's eval.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 22:08:34 GMT -5
You need to hone in on logic, Matt. Remember when I said that being consistent was being better than being good? Yes, if I had said that Anthony DeSclafani was BETTER than Logan Webb last season, I would have been mistaken, and you would have deserved your smugness. But what I said was that he was more CONSISTENT than Logan, and clearly that was the case.
In part because I was going out of my way to agree with you, I missed it at first. The difference between us here is that you seem to be wanting to win the argument, while I'm trying to find the facts. The more facts we find, the more accurate our opinion can become.
By the way, Matt, if "my" stats are so deceptive, it should be easy for your to disprove them. But so far you haven't even tried. You tried to pass off a snide remark as if you didn't need any evidence to back it up.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 22:48:12 GMT -5
It would be amazing if Kyle could add more velocity. He's already gone from the low 90's to the high 90's since being drafted. While muscle usually doesn't hurt, as we know, velocity is much more about elasticity and mechanics than about muscle. I like Kyle the best of any of the Giants' pitching prospects, and I think his ceiling will be determined by his control and command more than his muscle. Kyle was indeed known as a thinking man's pitcher when he was drafted out of De La Salle High, which is a tremendous athletic high school which also tries to encourage its athletes to grow intellectually, spiritually and ethically.
Prior to your mention, Reeder, I had never heard of Melissa Lockard, but I'm guessing she's a protege of Susan Slusser, the first female president of the Baseball Writers Association. Be forewarned though that Boly doesn't think women can understand baseball. He has put down here the female baseball announcer Jessica Mendoza as not being able to understand major league baseball, even though Mendoza has at the very least worked quite hard at improving her craft.
I considered Harrison to be the Giants' most improved minor league this past season. He allowed no more than one run in each of his final eight starts. Kyle is probably the best example of the Giants' trying to sign their top draftees for below slot money so they can draft fine prospects such as Kyle in the third round. I mentioned earlier that may have been part of the reason they drafted Bednar instead of Kahlil Watson with their first pick this year (Bednar signed for nearly $1 million less despite being drafted ahead of Watson. There was at least one other player drafted after Bednar who received quite a bit more money. Entering the draft, the high school shortstop Watson was considered by many to be one of the top five players in the draft. I didn't know anything about him, but I fell in love with his swing.
The Giants wisely used Bednar lightly at San Jose, where he allowed only one run in seven innings over four starts. Bednar was named the Most Outstanding Player of the College World Series, pitching six shutout innings on three days' rest. Will's brother David is the Pirates' closer, while I haven't studied him closely, Will's brother looks pretty good to me. And Will is considered a much better prospect.
Will is ranked highly. He didn't make MLB.com's top 100 prospects as Harrison (#99) did, but he is ranked as the Giants' #7 prospect there. Despite being drafted out of high school and playing in only six minor league games IIRC, Watson is already ranked the #27 overall prospect. Tim Lincecum made the top 10 overall the winter after he was drafted, but he was already 22 years old with three seasons of college experience. #27 is really high for an 18-year-old high school player.
While Harrison is ranked higher than Bednar as of now, Will could pass him -- and likely will do so if Harrison doesn't improve his control. Much to his credit, Kyle DID improve his control as the season went on, which was likely much of what enabled him to pitch so well down the stretch. I haven't read about it, but since Kyle's strikeout rate dropped along with the walks, he likely took a little off, much as Sandy Koufax did when he was so dominant.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 22:53:12 GMT -5
If Will can develop his change up, his status may improve, but right now he's viewed by MLB.com as a mid-rotation starter prospect. Right now it appears Harrison has the higher ceiling.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 15, 2021 7:36:40 GMT -5
Melissa Lockard has been around about 15 years. She knows her Bay area sports and knows as much about The Giants farm system as anyone.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 15, 2021 9:29:31 GMT -5
What newspaper did she write for prior to the Athletic?
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 15, 2021 9:41:19 GMT -5
Oakland Clubhouse. From what I've seen the past few years, the thing that impresses me about Lockard is the depth of inofrmation about many prospects, not just the usual top 5. The amount of pure information she provides probalby surpasses Bisbee at this time. Bisbee has a tendency to get too cute with his writing and that stuff is not necessary on a daily basis.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 15, 2021 10:11:16 GMT -5
Wpw! If Melissa Lockhart surpasses Grant Brisbee, Boly's view of women and baseball must be a bit misogynistic. Good for her!
Until yesterday I hadn't even HEARD of Melissa, but I think Grant is really good. I'm waiting for Fan Graphs to come out with their Giants prospect list. Boly thinks they're all stats geeks, but they've seen many of the players, whereas he's seen close to none of them. Boly likes to put down their evaluations, but he knows practically nothing about the Giants' prospects, so mostly he's just showing bias against guys he considers stats-oriented. I personally think the Fan Graphs evaluations are very good. Quite interesting at the very least.
I was thinking of buying John Sickels' prospect book again this year, but I'm not sure he's still writing it. He's a good guy who years ago discussed Tim Lincecum with me, although I couldn't convince him to increase Tim from his grade of A- to a straight A. In the short run I was probably right, but in the long run it was he who was correct.
When Tim hit the big leagues, I had the advantage of having seen more of his minor league games than almost anyone and of charting his pitches in each one I saw. I also had the advantage of a lot of back and forth with Tim's dad. Even before I got to see Tim pitch in 2006, I had read a TON about him and seen some intriguing video. I've never been as excited about a Giants prospect, although I soon became pretty excited about Buster Posey and Madison Bumgarner as well. Not like with Tim though. In the long run, Madison and especially Buster turned out better, but few prospects have ever been as exciting as Tim.
I wonder if any pitcher has ever dominated AAA the way Tim did in early 2007 when he gave up only one run (on a sacrifice fly to Fred Lewis) in 31 innings. The only minor league game I saw Tim struggle in, he simply couldn't master his control -- but it wasn't until after the game that I realized he hadn't given up any hits either. Man, how can that have been 15 years ago!
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 15, 2021 11:37:16 GMT -5
Baseball reference projects ERA of 3.85 for him. I think its going to be about 4.1. For some reason he did well against the Padres but I think that is not sustainable. The ratio of his starts between winning teams and losing teams will even out so I think his next three years may be okay but its going to be a struggle. His lifetime ERA is 4.06 so 4.1 is a reasonable estimate, going with the larger sample size. Also, he has a tendency to try to be too fine when he's pitching to a good team as K/BB drop contributes quite a bit to his problems when pitching to good teams.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 15, 2021 16:03:13 GMT -5
4.10 is a reasonable estimate for Anthony over the next three seasons. I think it will be a little lover, but our difference of 0.20 isn't much. If Anthony can pitch even 350 innings at 4.10, he'll likely earn his contract. In order to earn his pact, he needs to pitch at about 4.5 WAR over the next three seasons. In 824 innings over his seven seasons to date, he's at 11.7 WAR based on his 4.06 career ERA.
At 4.10 and 350 innings, I would say Anthony would be a #3. He could easily fall that far. I think he's a #2 now, but he likely won't be better than a #3 by the end of his contract. At the 3.90 I predicted and say 425 innings, Anthony might be around say 7 WAR, which would mean he returned about $56 million on the Giants' $36 million investment. He might do even better, but I would settle for 7 WAR over the next three seasons. That would likely make him a #2 over that period.
By the way, if the Giants DO feel they can rejuvenate Madison Bumgarner, I'm virtually certain he would be available. Madison pitched at the level of (mostly) a #1 or #2 most of the time through 2019, although he has been a #4 or even #5 since. Probably a #4. I don't think it's totally unreasonable that with the help of the Giants' coaching staff he might become a #3. He still had plus pitches as recently as 2019.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 15, 2021 16:12:32 GMT -5
Anthony's control hurt him against the Dodgers. But against the Braves, he didn't walk a batter in nine innings. The Dodgers were the only team he had control issues with last season, showing very good control against virtually everybody else. He did give up three home runs in those nine frames against the Braves, but that is likely a temporary issue. Entering last season, Anthony's HR/9 against the Braves was right at 1.0, or just below league average.
At the end of August I wouldn't have rated Anthony as highly as I do now. He had been down since the All-Star game. But in September he pitched six shutout innings to slightly redeem himself against the Dodgers, and he was probably the Giants' best pitcher that final month.
One thing I am convinced of is that Anthony is NOT a #4. #4's give up a lot more runs than Anthony does.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 15, 2021 19:46:14 GMT -5
Well at least you've convinced yourself.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 15, 2021 22:03:10 GMT -5
You're maddeningly passive-aggressive, Matt. Lots of sharp opinions with very little to back them up. Rather than confront the evidence, you make the asinine comment of "Well at least you're convinced yourself."
Just name me the 60 pitchers who are better than Anthony, and I'll agree with you that he is a #3. Of course, you and Boly said he is a #4, so you'll need to come up with 90 pitchers better than he to back that opinion up.
You can't do it. Boiy wouldn't even know where to begin.
Just 60 or 90 pitchers who are better than Anthony. With valid reasons to support their inclusion on the list. To put this in context, that's two per team to make Anthony a #3 and three per team to make him a #4. A reasonable person MIGHT have a shot at 60 if he really stretched it. But no way to get to 90.
Try it. If things are as you say, it should be a walk in the park.
Anthony DeSclafani isn't a superstar. He'll likely never make an All-Star team. But let's call him what he is -- and that's a #2. He was a #1 last season, but that was just one season. But he's been a #1 or (more likely) a #2 two other seasons. Over his career he's been 5% to 10% better than the average starter. That's a WHOLE lot closer to #2 territory than #4 territory.
Just make up your quick list. It's going to be tough for you to come up with more than 50.
Do you have any idea now many pitchers have pitched 100 or more innings each of the past two seasons? My guess is you're probably thinking somewhere between 150 and 200. In reality, it has been 130 or fewer. All Anthony has to do to be a #2 is be better than a little over half of those.
So how did he do in 2019? He finished 45th in ERA and 53rd in innings pitched. Easily in the top 60 in each case, meaning he was probably in the top 40 or 50 starters when we look at everything. Last season he was even better. He finished 24th in ERA and 31st in IP. Last season Anthony was a (low) #1.
Which other pitcher do you know that was a #1 in 2021 and a #2 in 2019 that ISN'T a #1 or #2 pitcher? I can't think of any. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 15, 2021 23:05:07 GMT -5
I just went through the list of pitchers who pitched 100 or more innings last season, and I can come up with maybe 50 who are better than Anthony. I tried to pick everyone I could make a decent argument for. There are likely another few who didn't reach 100 innings last season. But good luck getting Anthony outside the top 60, and there is simply no honest way to get him above #90.
You guys think #2 and #3 pitchers are better than they truly are. I think you've got a pretty good handle on #1's. Those guys usually stand out. But I think your expectations for #2 starters and #3 starters are way too high, as are your qualifications for #4's. By the time we get down to #5's, they're almost always pretty lousy, which likely means your expectations are too high for them, as well.
Here is an example of each category, listing a guy who is likely close to the middle of the category. I haven't done a lot of research, but I think you will find them pretty accurate.
#1 -- Shohei Ohtani
#2 -- Ian Anderson
#3 -- Zack Greinke
#4 -- Jordan Lyles
#5 -- Matt Harvey
Remember, our rough categories are:
#1 -- ERA below 3.40
#2 -- ERA from 3.40 to 3.89
#3 -- ERA from 3.90 to 4.39
#5 -- ERA from 4.40 to 4.89
#6 -- ERA over 4.89.
As for innings pitched, 170 or more as a starter certainly qualify for #1.
#2 -- 150 - 169 IP
#3 -- 125 - 149 IP
#4 -- 105 - 124 IP
#5 -- 90 - 104 IP
Anyway, make up your own list of the top 60 or 90 starting pitchers. Anthony will probably be on the first, and if you're honest, he'll almost certainly be on the second.
Back when guys like Boly and I were kids, there were only 16 teams. A pitcher had to be in the top 16 to be a #1, and in the top 32 to be a #2. Perhaps that's how we came to set our standards artificially high.
Back in 1961, for instance, the final season with only 154 games, a pitcher had to toss 244 innings to be a #1 in terms of innings pitched, and he had to reach 212 to be a #2. To be a #3, he needed 188. To be a #4, he had to toss 165. The pitcher who comfortably made the IP cutoff as a #4 back then would qualify as a #1 today. And remember, some teams still had only four starters in their rotations back then.
The ERA brackets haven't changed nearly as noticeably. A pitcher needed 3.20 or lower to be a #1. 3.21 to 3.65 made a #2. 3.66 to 3.86 for a #3. 3.87 to 4.11 for a #4. One thing we quickly notice is that there is a lot more difference between a #1 and a #4 today than there was 60 years ago.
Notice the broad ERA range on #2's even back then. But the ranges on #3 and #4 were tighter -- especially #3's.
Back in the Giants' World Series season of 1962, they were considered to have one of their best rotations of the decade. But the rotation's ERA were still 3.36 (Marichal), 3.43 (Sanford), 3.49 Pierce, 3.53 (O'Dell) and 5.38 (McCormick). Higher than we would have expected. Based on our ERA ranges from the previous season, the Giants had four #2's and a #5. Marichal went on to become a clear #1 of course, and Pierce had been a #1 when he was younger and finished #3 in the Cy Young voting in 1962 (based more on the Giants' record than on his own performance, although it was a godsend). O'Dell and Sanford were probably #3's over their career, although Jack was the Rookie of the Year in 1957, and his 24 wins in 1962 propelled him to #2 in the Cy Young voting. McCormick was probably a #3 over his career as well, although in 1967 he became the first SF Giants pitcher to win the Cy.
But back to the main point, it doesn't take as much -- especially in innings pitched -- to be a #2 today as when we were kids.
On a side note, Pierce is one of the best pitchers in history NOT to be in the Hall of Fame. Pitching mostly for a mediocre White Sox team, he went only 211-169 over his career. Billy's 1.97 ERA in 1955 was a season for the ages, but they didn't have the Cy Young Award back then, and because he had only 15 wins, he finished only 18th in the MVP voting.
Did we know that the Giants have more ex-players in the Hall of Fame than any other team (although many of them played only briefly with the Giants)?
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 15, 2021 23:37:28 GMT -5
I believe this horse has been beaten to death. Hopefully, this topic won't still be around when the halls are decked. Deck the halls with Desclafani
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 15, 2021 23:52:18 GMT -5
Good one, Reeder! All Matt and Boly need to do is come up with the solid list of 60 or 90 starters who are better than the hall decker. Right now their evaluations are coming across like a Disco Duck. It's not so much that they're being Grinch-like in their evaluation of Anthony, but that there are more than three wise men who realize the flock of #1, #2, #3 and #4 sheep aren't nearly as wooly as these guys think.
How many starters can you come up with who are better than DeSclafani, Reeder? I don't think you'll have much trouble getting to around 50, but after that it gets tough. But Matt and Boly make really detailed arguments like "Well (comma deleted) at least you convinced yourself."
In reality, I didn't convince myself. The facts did. If the facts don't do it, and I have to convince myself, I'm likely to misevaluate like they're doing. DeSclafani is no better than a #4? Good luck coming up with 90 starters who are better. In fact, I would be that without looking it up, Boly couldn't name 90 of today's starting pitchers period.
I imagine Boly knew the players when he was a kid. We all did, didn't we? But I don't believe he knows them well now. If we want a good evaluation of starting pitchers, ask Mark. He DOES know today's better players. He knows them very well. Although right now his focus is on football.
A lot of my focus has been on the Warriors since their very first pre-season game. Since he's a Knicks fan, I would be surprised if Mark didn't watch last night's Warriors/Knicks game. The Warriors have struggled at "only" 5-3 their past eight games, but they're REALLY good. Add back Klay Thompson and James Wiseman, and suddenly they're 15 deep. As good as they are, I'm not sure even the GIANTS are 15 deep.
Speaking of the Giants, where should we place the over/under right now? High 80's? They've lost Posey and Gausman, and most of their players are due for regression. Still a good team, but I still don't see concerted greatness before 2023 or 2024. Then they could become REALLY good. Like the Warriors.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 16, 2021 0:21:35 GMT -5
This is what Krukow meant that there really is no such thing as a #1-2-3-4-5. Whoever is on the mound, the guys playing behind him have to have his back. If you are a #5, you earn your way up. Likewise, if you pitch poorly, you go down in the pecking order. This argument is getting weird because it assumes all pitchers get their number slot based on certain criteria. Also, it assumes 1>2>3>4>5 (for a couple of years, Kershw was opening day starter even if Walker Buehler was better). Furthermore, it assumes all pitching staffs are created equal. As an example, a #1 on a bad team may not even be a #4 on a good team. For example, if you ask the question how the ace of the COlorado Rockies or the Arizona Diamondbacks compares to other #1 starters, the honest answer most people would give is "I don't know who it is".
Having Matt and Boly come up with the names of 60 pitchers is a flawed exercise. These so-called rankings will fluctuate due to injury, changes in performance so it will change from month to month. A truer exercise would be to take the ten playoff teams and see how many pitchers are better. Would AD crack the top 20? Its not clear cut. Even in the Giants-Dodgers series, he's at best the 7th best starter. If you expand the pool to NL teams, I think he was about 13th or 14th so its not looking good for AD.
On an average team, AD fots the criteria of a #2 but if the team is a playoff team, its not adequate. In the playoffs, he will be facing teams with winning records and not some poor team he has been fattening his stats on. I believe I found that his 2021 ERA against teams with winning records was 5.70 and frankly, thats not a #1 or #2, its a candidate for opener or Johnny Cueto's spot in the NLDS (watching TV). I think even some of the openers pitched better in the playoffs so 13th or 14th in the NL might be a generous estimate.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 16, 2021 0:31:18 GMT -5
Good one, Reeder! All Matt and Boly need to do is come up with the solid list of 60 or 90 starters who are better than the hall decker. Right now their evaluations are coming across like a Disco Duck. It's not so much that they're being Grinch-like in their evaluation of Anthony, but that there are more than three wise men who realize the flock of #1, #2, #3 and #4 sheep aren't nearly as wooly as these guys think. How many starters can you come up with who are better than DeSclafani, Reeder? I don't think you'll have much trouble getting to around 50, but after that it gets tough. But Matt and Boly make really detailed arguments like "Well (comma deleted) at least you convinced yourself." In reality, I didn't convince myself. The facts did. If the facts don't do it, and I have to convince myself, I'm likely to misevaluate like they're doing. DeSclafani is no better than a #4? Good luck coming up with 90 starters who are better. In fact, I would be that without looking it up, Boly couldn't name 90 of today's starting pitchers period. I imagine Boly knew the players when he was a kid. We all did, didn't we? But I don't believe he knows them well now. If we want a good evaluation of starting pitchers, ask Mark. He DOES know today's better players. He knows them very well. Although right now his focus is on football. A lot of my focus has been on the Warriors since their very first pre-season game. Since he's a Knicks fan, I would be surprised if Mark didn't watch last night's Warriors/Knicks game. The Warriors have struggled at "only" 5-3 their past eight games, but they're REALLY good. Add back Klay Thompson and James Wiseman, and suddenly they're 15 deep. As good as they are, I'm not sure even the GIANTS are 15 deep. Speaking of the Giants, where should we place the over/under right now? High 80's? They've lost Posey and Gausman, and most of their players are due for regression. Still a good team, but I still don't see concerted greatness before 2023 or 2024. Then they could become REALLY good. Like the Warriors. In the Dodger-Giants series alone, Scherzer, Buehler, Urias, Webb, Wood, and Gausman are better. Atlanta's Fried and MOrton are better, Milwaukee's Woodruff, Burnes, and Peralta are better, St Louis has Wainright. He's 13th best using NL playoff pool and that's not including openers. If you settle for AD as your #2, that's kind of like in the early 80s when Milt May was leading the club in hitting. Or you can trade him to Arizona or Colorado and he can be their ace.. I'm thinking the higher he is on the pecking order, its a sign of trouble.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 16, 2021 11:09:27 GMT -5
Good one, Reeder! All Matt and Boly need to do is come up with the solid list of 60 or 90 starters who are better than the hall decker. Right now their evaluations are coming across like a Disco Duck. It's not so much that they're being Grinch-like in their evaluation of Anthony, but that there are more than three wise men who realize the flock of #1, #2, #3 and #4 sheep aren't nearly as wooly as these guys think. How many starters can you come up with who are better than DeSclafani, Reeder? I don't think you'll have much trouble getting to around 50, but after that it gets tough. But Matt and Boly make really detailed arguments like "Well (comma deleted) at least you convinced yourself." In reality, I didn't convince myself. The facts did. If the facts don't do it, and I have to convince myself, I'm likely to misevaluate like they're doing. DeSclafani is no better than a #4? Good luck coming up with 90 starters who are better. In fact, I would be that without looking it up, Boly couldn't name 90 of today's starting pitchers period. I imagine Boly knew the players when he was a kid. We all did, didn't we? But I don't believe he knows them well now. If we want a good evaluation of starting pitchers, ask Mark. He DOES know today's better players. He knows them very well. Although right now his focus is on football. A lot of my focus has been on the Warriors since their very first pre-season game. Since he's a Knicks fan, I would be surprised if Mark didn't watch last night's Warriors/Knicks game. The Warriors have struggled at "only" 5-3 their past eight games, but they're REALLY good. Add back Klay Thompson and James Wiseman, and suddenly they're 15 deep. As good as they are, I'm not sure even the GIANTS are 15 deep. Speaking of the Giants, where should we place the over/under right now? High 80's? They've lost Posey and Gausman, and most of their players are due for regression. Still a good team, but I still don't see concerted greatness before 2023 or 2024. Then they could become REALLY good. Like the Warriors. In the Dodger-Giants series alone, Scherzer, Buehler, Urias, Webb, Wood, and Gausman are better. Atlanta's Fried and MOrton are better, Milwaukee's Woodruff, Burnes, and Peralta are better, St Louis has Wainright. He's 13th best using NL playoff pool and that's not including openers. If you settle for AD as your #2, that's kind of like in the early 80s when Milt May was leading the club in hitting. Or you can trade him to Arizona or Colorado and he can be their ace.. I'm thinking the higher he is on the pecking order, its a sign of trouble. Great, great post, Reeder!
But what you pointed out just amplified my complaint about Farhan not really addressing our starting pitching needs.
I get not wanting Gausman back.
Heck, late in the year I DIDN'T want him back!
But with Ray and Stroman on the board, Farhan should have acted.
But he didn't.
And now, as you and boagie continue to point out, after Webb, we're stuck with a bunch of # 3 and # 4 starters, because that's all AD and Wood are; middle to bottom of the rotation guys.
IMHO, unless he pulls off one HECK of a trade, we're staring 3rd place squarely in the face for next season.
In fact, based upon our current starters, we'll be lucky to win more than 85 games.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 16, 2021 11:39:26 GMT -5
In the Dodger-Giants series alone, Scherzer, Buehler, Urias, Webb, Wood, and Gausman are better. Atlanta's Fried and MOrton are better, Milwaukee's Woodruff, Burnes, and Peralta are better, St Louis has Wainright. He's 13th best using NL playoff pool and that's not including openers. If you settle for AD as your #2, that's kind of like in the early 80s when Milt May was leading the club in hitting. Or you can trade him to Arizona or Colorado and he can be their ace.. I'm thinking the higher he is on the pecking order, its a sign of trouble. Great, great post, Reeder!
But what you pointed out just amplified my complaint about Farhan not really addressing our starting pitching needs.
I get not wanting Gausman back.
Heck, late in the year I DIDN'T want him back!
But with Ray and Stroman on the board, Farhan should have acted.
But he didn't.
And now, as you and boagie continue to point out, after Webb, we're stuck with a bunch of # 3 and # 4 starters, because that's all AD and Wood are; middle to bottom of the rotation guys.
IMHO, unless he pulls off one HECK of a trade, we're staring 3rd place squarely in the face for next season.
In fact, based upon our current starters, we'll be lucky to win more than 85 games.I think the Dodgers will start to decline, also so 3rd place in the NL West isn't a given. I would like to see the youth start to take over and phase out guys like Longoria, Flores. They should aim to be a feared team starting in 2023.
|
|