Thread: AL Central starting rotation comparison

Rotation poker hands: AL Central - CBSSports.com

I got a chuckle out of this one. They give each starting rotation a poker hand value. The tigers are a full house, 9's over 6's and the Twins get a 9 high. No pairs, no face cards.

From the brief recap for the Twins,
I like Worley, but his transition to the AL won't be kind, especially since he's been thrust into the role of staff ace, for which he's ill-suited. Acquisitions Correia and Pelfrey are mediocre and unexciting while Hendriks and Diamond have limited upside.

It's time for the season to start, that is if the weather lets us.

I call BS, they clearly have three of a kind.....great poker hand, lousy pitching staff*

*three threes** is not good in this game
**threes, as in 2 is the worst pitcher possible, Ace the best.....not as in "number three pitcher types"

Originally Posted by minn55441

Rotation poker hands: AL Central - CBSSports.com

I got a chuckle out of this one. They give each starting rotation a poker hand value. The tigers are a full house, 9's over 6's and the Twins get a 9 high. No pairs, no face cards.

From the brief recap for the Twins,
I like Worley, but his transition to the AL won't be kind, especially since he's been thrust into the role of staff ace, for which he's ill-suited. Acquisitions Correia and Pelfrey are mediocre and unexciting while Hendriks and Diamond have limited upside.

It's time for the season to start, that is if the weather lets us.

That Worley statement makes no sense to me. If he likes him as a pitcher, who cares if he is "the ace?" If we're to the point where pitcher wins mean next to nothing, why would anyone care who a pitcher matches up against? Plus, it's not as though aces only pitch against other aces. If Worley is good, he's good.

Originally Posted by Brad Swanson

That Worley statement makes no sense to me. If he likes him as a pitcher, who cares if he is "the ace?" If we're to the point where pitcher wins mean next to nothing, why would anyone care who a pitcher matches up against? Plus, it's not as though aces only pitch against other aces. If Worley is good, he's good.

I think the phrase was maybe just worded a little wrong.
I'm guessing what he meant was something like, "I like Worley, but if he's your ace, that tells you how bad your staff is."

Edit: I'm cutting out my criticism of this article, because one of their articles finds it necessary to say: Just to be clear: The poker hands are intended to represent the rotation as a whole. We are not assigning individual cards to individual pitchers. So I guess they've been told it's dumb, already.

Originally Posted by Mr. Brooks

I think the phrase was maybe just worded a little wrong.
I'm guessing what he meant was something like, "I like Worley, but if he's your ace, that tells you how bad your staff is."

I suppose that makes more sense. I don't subscribe to aces and whatnot. I think jorgenswest wrote about eliminating the number 1,2,3 etc. starter labels in place of just having good starters. I liked that idea a lot.

Originally Posted by Brad Swanson

I suppose that makes more sense. I don't subscribe to aces and whatnot. I think jorgenswest wrote about eliminating the number 1,2,3 etc. starter labels in place of just having good starters. I liked that idea a lot.

That just sounds like semantics to me.
If you replace the word 'ace' with 'best starter', it doesnt really change anything except the words.

Originally Posted by Mr. Brooks

That just sounds like semantics to me.
If you replace the word 'ace' with 'best starter', it doesnt really change anything except the words.

I read nothing in the statement about "Best Starter, Next Best Starter", etc...

I haven't read the original jorgenswest post, but it seems like BradSwan is just saying he likes the idea of "screw labels, just get good pitchers". I might be totally wrong though, in which case I will no doubt be informed repeatedly.

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

I read nothing in the statement about "Best Starter, Next Best Starter", etc...

I haven't read the original jorgenswest post, but it seems like BradSwan is just saying he likes the idea of "screw labels, just get good pitchers". I might be totally wrong though, in which case I will no doubt be informed repeatedly.

Yep, that's right. 5 "number 3s" can get it done, especially since true aces are quite rare. At least, that was his idea. I think there is solid logic there.

Saying one guy is the best starter isnt really a "label".
Unless a team manages to literally clone a pitcher, and have 5 of him in the rotation, you are always going to have a best pitcher, 2nd best pitcher, 3rd best pitcher, etc., even if you/they choose not to use those terms.

The problem is that while the rest of the division is playing poker, the Twins are playing Go Fish.

I think my issue with the article is that saying Worley is "ill-suited" to be the ace implies that Worley is some part of the problem with the rotation. In reality, it is the pitchers around him that make up the problem. If Worley is the one starter he likes, why not just state that and talk about the lack of.a rotation around him. It's not as though Worley was traded for to be the ace.

I also don't agree with the notion that his transition to the AL will somehow he more difficult because he is the "ace."

Originally Posted by Brad Swanson

I think my issue with the article is that saying Worley is "ill-suited" to be the ace implies that Worley is some part of the problem with the rotation. In reality, it is the pitchers around him that make up the problem. If Worley is the one starter he likes, why not just state that and talk about the lack of.a rotation around him. It's not as though Worley was traded for to be the ace.

I also don't agree with the notion that his transition to the AL will somehow he more difficult because he is the "ace."

Yeah, like I said before, it only makes sense if he misstated what he meant, and meant something different than how its exactly written.
If not, then I agree, it doesnt make any sense in the context its written.

The way it makes sense to me is if he meant something like:
"I like Worley, though I think he's due for some regression in the AL, and if the Twins are counting on him to be their best pitcher, they are in trouble."

Agreed and I would agree with that statement as well.

Originally Posted by Brad Swanson

I think my issue with the article is that saying Worley is "ill-suited" to be the ace implies that Worley is some part of the problem with the rotation. In reality, it is the pitchers around him that make up the problem. If Worley is the one starter he likes, why not just state that and talk about the lack of.a rotation around him. It's not as though Worley was traded for to be the ace.

I also don't agree with the notion that his transition to the AL will somehow he more difficult because he is the "ace."

Almost my exact reaction to that comment.

Great analogy Brock!

In any case, my viewpoint regarding Vance Worley is that while I don't disagree that there might be some regression moving into the AL, I believe that he will likely be a vast improvement over most of the starters not named Diamond that the team trotted out to the mound last season. That doesn't make him "ace" material by any means, but probably the de factor #1 on this team.

I thought the article was funny