Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Defing an ace

  1. #1
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,623
    Like
    261
    Liked 197 Times in 122 Posts

    Defing an ace

    Sickels has a nice article at minor league ball on defining the different sorts of pitchers.

    http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/...3-4-5-starters

    Baseball prospectus had similar definitions for their pitching categories as well.

  2. #2
    On Vacation All-Star
    Posts
    4,139
    Twitter
    @thrylos98
    Like
    35
    Liked 433 Times in 263 Posts
    Blog Entries
    200
    The issue I have with those definitions is that they are all subjective. And every definition that uses "makeup" as a factor, really turns me off.

    About as good as Blyleven's (who called Diamond an "Ace" in last night's telecast.)

  3. #3
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,036
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    47
    Liked 1,526 Times in 798 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by thrylos98 View Post
    The issue I have with those definitions is that they are all subjective. And every definition that uses "makeup" as a factor, really turns me off.
    I thought the exact same thing reading the article. My response was something akin to:

    WTF is "makeup"?

  4. #4
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,623
    Like
    261
    Liked 197 Times in 122 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rocketpig View Post
    I thought the exact same thing reading the article. My response was something akin to:

    WTF is "makeup"?
    Probably things like not exploding when things start unraveling or how competitive a guy is or how hard he'll work. Sickels pointed to Grienke as a guy who has make up questions.

  5. #5
    On Vacation All-Star
    Posts
    4,139
    Twitter
    @thrylos98
    Like
    35
    Liked 433 Times in 263 Posts
    Blog Entries
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by rocketpig View Post
    WTF is "makeup"?
    Stuff that late 70s and 80s Rockers put on their face (See: KISS) Not to be confused with "eye black", even though for some people (See: Doumit, Ryan) has the same results.

    BTW, according to their criteria Frankie Viola, Randy Johnson and Dwight Gooden were not "number 1" pitchers.

  6. #6
    Senior Member All-Star James's Avatar
    Posts
    1,248
    Like
    261
    Liked 131 Times in 84 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rocketpig View Post
    I thought the exact same thing reading the article. My response was something akin to:

    WTF is "makeup"?
    It hides skin blemishes.

    Yeah, I can't put much stock in this article. I did a decent enough job of clarifying that there are very, very few #1 starters. But I knew that already, so I didn't gain much from this one.
    You can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forty percent of all people know that.

  7. #7
    Senior Member All-Star YourHouseIsMyHouse's Avatar
    Posts
    1,235
    Like
    8
    Liked 17 Times in 12 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10
    If those are the definitions, I'll take two #2s over a #1 and a #3.

  8. #8
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,623
    Like
    261
    Liked 197 Times in 122 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thrylos98 View Post
    Stuff that late 70s and 80s Rockers put on their face (See: KISS) Not to be confused with "eye black", even though for some people (See: Doumit, Ryan) has the same results.

    BTW, according to their criteria Frankie Viola, Randy Johnson and Dwight Gooden were not "number 1" pitchers.
    ??? Randy Johnson certainly had two plus pitches (Fastball and slider). He had an avg third pitch. His K/BB ratio is 3.25, good for 30th all time. Ate innings. Not sure how Sickels article indicates he wasn't a #1 pitcher. "For me, a Number One starter is a guy who anchors your rotation, will be in line for the All-Star game most seasons, and is on the pre-season candidate list for the Cy Young Award. The exact style can vary between pitchers, but the results have to be there." Certainly had the results.

  9. #9
    Senior Member All-Star crarko's Avatar
    Posts
    1,202
    Twitter
    @crarko
    Like
    152
    Liked 752 Times in 396 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by YourHouseIsMyHouse View Post
    If those are the definitions, I'll take two #2s over a #1 and a #3.
    And save enough money to sign an extra bat or two in the process.

  10. #10
    On Vacation All-Star
    Posts
    4,139
    Twitter
    @thrylos98
    Like
    35
    Liked 433 Times in 263 Posts
    Blog Entries
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnarthor View Post
    ??? Randy Johnson certainly had two plus pitches (Fastball and slider). He had an avg third pitch. His K/BB ratio is 3.25, good for 30th all time. Ate innings. Not sure how Sickels article indicates he wasn't a #1 pitcher. "For me, a Number One starter is a guy who anchors your rotation, will be in line for the All-Star game most seasons, and is on the pre-season candidate list for the Cy Young Award. The exact style can vary between pitchers, but the results have to be there." Certainly had the results.
    this is what the definition is:

    NUMBER ONE STARTER:
    **Two plus pitches
    **Average third pitch
    **Plus/plus command
    **Plus makeup

    plus plus fastball, plus slider. check
    no third pitch - that is where that fails. He did try to throw something slow ones in a while but 96-98% of the time it was one of those two.
    plus plus command. - no check. effectively wild
    plus makeup - whatever.


    BTW, this is a fun read about scouts and Randy Johnson.

  11. #11
    Twins Moderator All-Star diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,262
    Like
    378
    Liked 758 Times in 472 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by rocketpig View Post
    I thought the exact same thing reading the article. My response was something akin to:

    WTF is "makeup"?
    It's why Liriano isn't an ace.

  12. #12
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,036
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    47
    Liked 1,526 Times in 798 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan View Post
    It's why Liriano isn't an ace.
    Liriano isn't an ace because he hasn't been a very good pitcher in four of the past five seasons.

  13. #13
    Senior Member All-Star Badsmerf's Avatar
    Posts
    1,570
    Like
    18
    Liked 59 Times in 34 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Waste of time with this article. A "number 1" is a guy that can go out and dominate a game and does it consistently. In my opinion, there are a number of guys each year that you can call a number 1 pitcher. People have off years with injuries or other issues where they don't perform as well, but I don't think you have to be a ****ing HOF to be considered a number 1 pitcher. There is reason people get to the HOF, its because they were great. I would say in any year there are 10-20 guys I would call a number 1 pitcher, the next 30 would be number 2's and the range for number 3 and 4 or 5 is all dependent on the pitcher. For example, Diamond is in the top 15 in the MLB for ERA. That's pretty damn good. At this point, I'd still consider him a strong number 3 because the lack of an out pitch places a lot of emphasis on the fielders. This level of success just isn't sustainable.

    My point is, labeling 1-5 starting pitchers is going to vary. While I think number 1 pitchers are the elite group of every year, Sickles thinks in order to be a number 1 you need a ticket to Cooperstown. Who knows, maybe Dave thinks everybody could be a number 1 if they battled hard enough!

  14. #14
    Twins Moderator All-Star diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,262
    Like
    378
    Liked 758 Times in 472 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    Liriano isn't an ace because he hasn't been a very good pitcher in four of the past five seasons.

    very little of which has to do with stuff.... almost all of which has to do with the fact that he's got a 10 cent head.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    987
    Like
    190
    Liked 217 Times in 94 Posts
    so to be a number three starter you must pitch to contact and be a former, current, or future Minnesota Twin.

  16. #16
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,623
    Like
    261
    Liked 197 Times in 122 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Badsmerf View Post
    Waste of time with this article. A "number 1" is a guy that can go out and dominate a game and does it consistently. In my opinion, there are a number of guys each year that you can call a number 1 pitcher. People have off years with injuries or other issues where they don't perform as well, but I don't think you have to be a ****ing HOF to be considered a number 1 pitcher. There is reason people get to the HOF, its because they were great. I would say in any year there are 10-20 guys I would call a number 1 pitcher, the next 30 would be number 2's and the range for number 3 and 4 or 5 is all dependent on the pitcher. For example, Diamond is in the top 15 in the MLB for ERA. That's pretty damn good. At this point, I'd still consider him a strong number 3 because the lack of an out pitch places a lot of emphasis on the fielders. This level of success just isn't sustainable.

    My point is, labeling 1-5 starting pitchers is going to vary. While I think number 1 pitchers are the elite group of every year, Sickles thinks in order to be a number 1 you need a ticket to Cooperstown. Who knows, maybe Dave thinks everybody could be a number 1 if they battled hard enough!
    I guess there are a few ways to look at this article. I liked it since it explained the scouting side of pitchers. When BA, Klaw, Goldstein etc said that guys like Zimmer, Gausman and Appel were more likely #2s than aces it meant that, from the scouting view, those pitchers lacked something - a second plus pitch, command, an avg third pitch, etc. I think labeling ML pitchers aces, #2 etc is a bit redundant since results matter in the majors more than projection. Radke was a better pitcher than Beckett, for example, even though Beckett was surely rated higher.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan View Post
    very little of which has to do with stuff.... almost all of which has to do with the fact that he's got a 10 cent head.
    Command and control are more important than "makeup". Liriano has very good stuff, he just can't always throw it where he's supposed to throw it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.