What is a #1 Starter?

[Rebbiv]

2009-2011 MLB Starter Averages

79.31 RC/650 .742 OPS 1.38 WHHIP 2.22 SO/BB

**WHHIP = Walks+Hits+Hit Batsman/IP

Now, the assumption is average = #3 starter. So what is a good way to determine who is a #1? A #2, etc, etc

 

[Rebbiv]

Of the 150 starters with at least 132 IP Away the last 3 years, I ranked each player in each of the peripheral stats and IP, added an age factor and created a total ranking. Here is the top 10

1. Halladay
2. Verlander
3. C. Lee
4. F. Hernandez
5. Greinke
6. Lincecum
7. C. Carpenter
8. Marcum
9. Kershaw
10. Haren

42. Fister
59. Sherzer
74. Porcello

133. Penny

146. Parra
147. D. Davis
148. Mazzaro
149. D. Huff
150. A. Galarraga

 

[Mitchrapp]

Good numbers but I'm not sure you can put AL and NL pitchers in the same ranking. So Fister for example in your last post would rank much higher AL only.

 

[manchild98]

You are the stat master. Good stuff!

 

[Thumb]

I think a #1 is anyone who is capable of leading a staff, and gives his team a better then average chance at a win.

That said I don't think all teams have #1's, and some have more than 1.

I agree with you assessment of Bondo, he seems to be really promising before the blood clot issue, and might have been creeping in on the #1 type title.

 

[Rebbiv]

Mitch[/color]]Good numbers but I'm not sure you can put AL and NL pitchers in the same ranking. So Fister for example in your last post would rank much higher AL only.

Your assumption must be based on something?

Last 3 year averages

AL 80.57 RC/650 .747 OPS 13.25 PA/BB 5.89 SO/BB 2.18 SO/BB 1.40 WHHIP

NL 78.20 RC/650 .738 OPS 13.49 PA/BB 5.59 SO/BB 2.25 SO/BB 1.37 WHHIP

Granted, there is a slight statistical advantage to the NL Starter, but it is only slight.

The NL averages 3.80 Plate Appearances per #9 hitter. A pitcher gets about 2.25 Plate Appearances per game hitting. That means another hitter in the #9 spot gets the other 1.55 PAs.

The AL also averages 3.80 Plate Appearances per #9 hitter.

So....with interleague play a AL starter gets about 3 of his 16 away starts versus NL and vice versa for an NL starter.

At about 13 games started difference, that equates to 29 Plate Appearances a year that an NL starter sees the opposing pitcher as the hitter. IMHO...that does not justify ignoring all the stats.

Fister might be 1 or 2 spots higher, all things being equal. But it isn't going to be a significant jump.

 

[Mitchrapp]

But don't you need to add in the #9 that hits for the pitchers? I mean if they were worth a damn they'd be a starter.

 

[Rebbiv]

Mitch[/color]]But don't you need to add in the #9 that hits for the pitchers? I mean if they were worth a damn they'd be a starter.

You mean like Inge?

 

[jimrice]

Mitch[/color]]But don't you need to add in the #9 that hits for the pitchers? I mean if they were worth a damn they'd be a starter.

With the exception of platoons, days off and other issues? Most , if not all teams in the NL have at least 1-2 guys on the bench that can hit. Pinch hitter is a pretty important spot in the NL, they almost always have a chance to impact the game.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Mitch[/color]]But don't you need to add in the #9 that hits for the pitchers? I mean if they were worth a damn they'd be a starter.

You mean like Inge?

An exception to the rule.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Mitch[/color]]But don't you need to add in the #9 that hits for the pitchers? I mean if they were worth a damn they'd be a starter.

With the exception of platoons, days off and other issues? Most , if not all teams in the NL have at least 1-2 guys on the bench that can hit. Pinch hitter is a pretty important spot in the NL, they almost always have a chance to impact the game.

.214 2011 for NL, oddly same as AL. That's Inge level. And you know how bad that is.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Bottom line, there is a reason someone is a PH.

 

[jimrice]

Mitch[/color]]Bottom line, there is a reason someone is a PH.

So, in your opinion, a full time player is better than a guy that doesn't play full time, no matter the reasons or the stats? Fair enough.

 

[spockmaster]

Mitch[/color]]Bottom line, there is a reason someone is a PH.

conversely, most "regulars" dont PH well. Bench guys who play good/great defense and PH well are essential.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Mitch[/color]]Bottom line, there is a reason someone is a PH.

So, in your opinion, a full time player is better than a guy that doesn't play full time, no matter the reasons or the stats? Fair enough.

PH is hard and I understand If they were starters they'd hit better. But its the same reason why most RP are RP instead of starters. You don't think a kid growing up thrives to be a RP or closer, do you? They all want to be starters.

But the FT PH, the ones who hardly ever start, there is a reason. Sure maybe on certain teams they could be starters but my point was if they are better than a starter, why aren't they starting?

 

[Mitchrapp]

Mitch[/color]]Bottom line, there is a reason someone is a PH.

conversely, most "regulars" dont PH well. Bench guys who play good/great defense and PH well are essential.

Not saying they're not essensial. You need them and some are better at it.