Thread: Mackey: Diamond Has Been Good, But Let's Not Get Carried Away

Originally Posted by powrwrap

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

Does anyone actually believe Diamond is going to be the ace on a good team?

I guess I don't understand this question. You seem to be saying Diamond needs to be on a good team to be an ace. In other words, he can't be an ace because the Twins aren't good. Is that it? So by extension Felix Hernandez is not an ace because he's on the Mariners?

I don't understand why Diamond could not be an ace on the Twins. Is the implication that if Diamond were on a 'good team' he would not be the number one starter? If so, isn't that because most good teams already have an ace?

Just to show you how hard this question can get--who's the ace on the Phillies? Or since the Phillies are not a good team this year, then they don't have an ace this year?

I know when we think 'ace' we think of power pitchers that get a lot of strikeouts and dominate opponents--Verlander, Jered Weaver, Strasburg. So R.A. Dickey, at 15-4, more strikeouts than IP's and a 2.89 ERA is not an ace? Zach Greinke was an ace on the Brewers but now that he's on the Angels he's not?

I think what we need is a consensus definition of what makes a pitcher an ace.

I don't think there really is a consensus definition of an "ace." I don't think he was saying that you have to be on a good team to be an ace. I think he was referring to an ace of the staff as being the best pitcher in the rotation and that if, and when, the Twins contend again Diamond is not going to be the best starting pitcher in the rotation.

I don't really like to label a pitcher with a number cuz a #1 on a team A might be a # 3 on team B but for arguments sake why can't Diamond be a top of the rotation starter for us?? I won't say ACE persay because he doesn't seem to have dominating stuff but a #2....it's possible, and he might be our #1

Not many Twins writers I like and that's why I come here. LaVelle E Neal is okay, but everyone else I'm not a fan of. The condescending smug and arrogance on some them.

Originally Posted by TwinsGuy55422

I don't think there really is a consensus definition of an "ace." I don't think he was saying that you have to be on a good team to be an ace. I think he was referring to an ace of the staff as being the best pitcher in the rotation and that if, and when, the Twins contend again Diamond is not going to be the best starting pitcher in the rotation.

Pretty much this. All I was saying is that while Diamond is the best pitcher in a bad team (and would be if his ERA was a full run higher) he's never going to lead a quality staff for a contender. This isn't a guy you can match up against legitimate No. 1 starters in the playoffs. To me, that's the closest definition of an "ace" although I really don't like using the term because of its ambiguity.

What Diamond has proven is that he's a legitimate major-league starter and probably a guy you can slot in the middle of a good rotation. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

Originally Posted by TwinsGuy55422

I don't think there really is a consensus definition of an "ace." I don't think he was saying that you have to be on a good team to be an ace. I think he was referring to an ace of the staff as being the best pitcher in the rotation and that if, and when, the Twins contend again Diamond is not going to be the best starting pitcher in the rotation.

Pretty much this. All I was saying is that while Diamond is the best pitcher in a bad team (and would be if his ERA was a full run higher) he's never going to lead a quality staff for a contender. This isn't a guy you can match up against legitimate No. 1 starters in the playoffs. To me, that's the closest definition of an "ace" although I really don't like using the term because of its ambiguity.

What Diamond has proven is that he's a legitimate major-league starter and probably a guy you can slot in the middle of a good rotation. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I'd say he's basically a left-handed version of Kevin Tapani. Which is pretty good, but not to be confused with Jack Morris or Frank Viola.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

Originally Posted by TwinsGuy55422

I don't think there really is a consensus definition of an "ace." I don't think he was saying that you have to be on a good team to be an ace. I think he was referring to an ace of the staff as being the best pitcher in the rotation and that if, and when, the Twins contend again Diamond is not going to be the best starting pitcher in the rotation.

Pretty much this. All I was saying is that while Diamond is the best pitcher in a bad team (and would be if his ERA was a full run higher) he's never going to lead a quality staff for a contender. This isn't a guy you can match up against legitimate No. 1 starters in the playoffs. To me, that's the closest definition of an "ace" although I really don't like using the term because of its ambiguity.

What Diamond has proven is that he's a legitimate major-league starter and probably a guy you can slot in the middle of a good rotation. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Nick, you don't know that he cannot be a leader of a staff. He doesn't throw real hard. But, neither did Whitey Ford, or Warren Spahn. He does have some of their attributes like good control, changing speeds, etc. He comes over the top and hides the ball real well. Now if he could develop a real good change up like Ford--it could be possible that he could be a leader of a good staff. I'm just saying that it is possible.

Originally Posted by peterb18

Nick, you don't know that he cannot be a leader of a staff. He doesn't throw real hard. But, neither did Whitey Ford, or Warren Spahn. He does have some of their attributes like good control, changing speeds, etc. He comes over the top and hides the ball real well. Now if he could develop a real good change up like Ford--it could be possible that he could be a leader of a good staff. I'm just saying that it is possible.

Are you being serious? Whitey Ford? Warren Spahn?

I guess Mackey wasn't arguing against a phantom viewpoint after all.

Originally Posted by JB_Iowa

I'm not a big Phil Mackey fan. For the most part I find his analysis interesting but his tone condescending.

On this column, though, I wonder if his audience isn't the Twins brass as much as the wide world. Part of a campaign to remind them that they have a long way to go with the pitching staff.

This would actually make sense.

[QUOTE=Nick Nelson;47750]

Originally Posted by TwinsGuy55422

I don't think there really is a consensus definition of an "ace." I don't think he was saying that you have to be on a good team to be an ace. I think he was referring to an ace of the staff as being the best pitcher in the rotation and that if, and when, the Twins contend again Diamond is not going to be the best starting pitcher in the rotation.

Pretty much this. All I was saying is that while Diamond is the best pitcher in a bad team (and would be if his ERA was a full run higher) he's never going to lead a quality staff for a contender. This isn't a guy you can match up against legitimate No. 1 starters in the playoffs. To me, that's the closest definition of an "ace" although I really don't like using the term because of its ambiguity.

What Diamond has proven is that he's a legitimate major-league starter and probably a guy you can slot in the middle of a good rotation. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I'm getting a better understanding of your position.

I'll go back to my hypothetical. Supposing Diamond finishes the season 14-7 with an ERA of 2.90. Now suppose next year he goes 18-9 with an ERA of 3.12, statistically the best Twins pitcher. Assuming no free agent pitcher signings, in 2014 isn't Scott Diamond your #1 pitcher, the leader of the pitching staff? Come playoff time, who else would you start in Game 1?

I for one am tired of the #1, #2,#3,#4, etc. starting pitching references. Like someone said earlier, it totally depends on the team where the pitcher is slotted in the rotation. I hate reading how a guy has an upside of a #3 pitcher. John Smoltz was a #3 pitcher at one time, and the same can be said about Carlos Silva. I would think that is a pretty big gap of quality. The job of a starting pitcher is to go out there once every five days and get the other team out. Scott Diamond has done a pretty good job of doing that. I like it!

Originally Posted by Coach J

I for one am tired of the #1, #2,#3,#4, etc. starting pitching references. Like someone said earlier, it totally depends on the team where the pitcher is slotted in the rotation.

I think it's valid terminology, especially when it comes to setting up your rotation for the playoffs. Teams do designate pitchers in this manner, so it's legit.

I hate reading how a guy has an upside of a #3 pitcher. John Smoltz was a #3 pitcher at one time, and the same can be said about Carlos Silva. I would think that is a pretty big gap of quality.

Guess who is the Cardinal's #1 pitcher? Kyle Lohse. He's 12-2 with a 2.61 ERA and 1.11 WHIP. He's only allowed 148 hits in 162 IP.

i would say that the era starts with a 2, not a 3, and at least 100 K's and 200 innings.

Originally Posted by powrwrap

Guess who is the Cardinal's #1 pitcher? Kyle Lohse. He's 12-2 with a 2.61 ERA and 1.11 WHIP. He's only allowed 148 hits in 162 IP.

Guess again. That would be Adam Wainwright. And this is where I am coming from (but it is not a simple read)

And agreed. Diamond would be a good number 3 in a good team. The Twins need to look for number 1 and 2. And might have one of them around...

I see your point with a team lining up playoff starters. The point I was trying to make is that Scott Diamond has done a nice job this year regardless of what so called experts rate him (1,2,3,4,5 starter). I also think its tough to rate a player in A ball as a future 3,4, or 5 starter. I am okay with the terms "front of the rotation starter" or "back of the rotation starter." There is a pretty big gap in those two terms. Just do not think it is the most effective way to project talent.

Originally Posted by powrwrap

Guess who is the Cardinal's #1 pitcher? Kyle Lohse. He's 12-2 with a 2.61 ERA and 1.11 WHIP. He's only allowed 148 hits in 162 IP.

Originally Posted by thrylos98

Guess again. That would be Adam Wainwright.

Wainwright 3.87 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, .256 BAA, 11-10 W-L
Lohse 2.61 ERA, 1.11 WHIP, .242 BAA, 12-2 W-L

It's not that complicated

Diamond would be a good number 3 in a good team. The Twins need to look for number 1 and 2. And might have one of them around...

Would someone address my hypothetical? If, over the next 2 1/4 seasons, Diamond posts a 2.90 ERA a 1.10 WHIP and goes 43-20, is that not the numbers of a #1 starter?

Originally Posted by powrwrap

Wainwright 3.87 ERA 1.22 WHIP .256 BAA 11-10 W-L
Lohse 2.61 ERA 1.11 WHIP .242 BAA 12-2 W-L

Again... as I said when I put that link... and it is not an easy read. And W-L and ERA do not matter. Jeff Gray is 6-0 right?

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

Originally Posted by peterb18

Nick, you don't know that he cannot be a leader of a staff. He doesn't throw real hard. But, neither did Whitey Ford, or Warren Spahn. He does have some of their attributes like good control, changing speeds, etc. He comes over the top and hides the ball real well. Now if he could develop a real good change up like Ford--it could be possible that he could be a leader of a good staff. I'm just saying that it is possible.

Are you being serious? Whitey Ford? Warren Spahn?

I guess Mackey wasn't arguing against a phantom viewpoint after all.

No, I'm not saying that he will be a Ford , or Spahn--I just think that he has some of the characteristics in pitching style that those two had. So he has some potential that is to be determined. And he seems eager to learn.
Basically, all I said was that you don't know his potential as of now.

Originally Posted by snepp

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

Another one of these weird columns where Mackey is arguing against no one in particular. Does anyone actually believe Diamond is going to be the ace on a good team?

Someone here stated that he'll never post an ERA above 4. Does that count?

I think you are referring to me in another post a couple weeks ago. I meant that for the next few seasons, I don't see him posting a +4 ERA given the way he's pitching now. I stand behind that still. Also, a 3.99 ERA does not make one an ace on a good team either, so while I know you are just having a laugh, I don't think it's worked this time.

Originally Posted by thrylos98

Originally Posted by powrwrap

Wainwright 3.87 ERA 1.22 WHIP .256 BAA 11-10 W-L
Lohse 2.61 ERA 1.11 WHIP .242 BAA 12-2 W-L

Again... as I said when I put that link... and it is not an easy read. And W-L and ERA do not matter. Jeff Gray is 6-0 right?

Agreed that W-L does not matter much. ERA is a valid stat. I like WHIP a lot more. And BAA is a good metric as well. Those three are sufficient to compare two pitchers.

Jeff Gray is 6-1 with a 5.54 ERA.

Originally Posted by powrwrap

I'm getting a better understanding of your position.

I'll go back to my hypothetical. Supposing Diamond finishes the season 14-7 with an ERA of 2.90. Now suppose next year he goes 18-9 with an ERA of 3.12, statistically the best Twins pitcher. Assuming no free agent pitcher signings, in 2014 isn't Scott Diamond your #1 pitcher, the leader of the pitching staff? Come playoff time, who else would you start in Game 1?

Well, your scenario supposes that Diamond continues posting the numbers he has over 20 starts this season throughout next year. I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. Assuming he can sustain the way he's been inducing grounders and limiting walks, he's a nice pitcher, but we're still talking about a fairly hittable guy who ranks 96 out of 101 qualified MLB starters in K-rate. That's just not a sustainable recipe for the kind of numbers you're envisioning.

I'm not saying his performance this year is a complete mirage. He could very well be a good pitcher again next year. But to answer your final question, if he's the Twins' best pitcher, I certainly don't think they're a playoff team.