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

[East Coast Twin]

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Scott_Diamond_has_been_good_but_lets_not_get_carried_away081912

[Riverbrian]

I don't care if he is labeled as an ace or a 2,3,4,5 or AAAA.

 

Barring injury he's the only Twin Starter that has a job (for sure) waiting for him in the 2013 rotation. So carry me away.

[Cody Christie]

I am not expecting Diamond to be a Cy Young candidate but a solid starting pitcher is something the Twins lack. He can be that pitcher for now and who knows about the future.

[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?

[DPJ]

Sweet damn the sports writing in this town is crap.

 

Between this gem and the "Mauer needs to swing" article, Twin Cities sports reporting is at another all-time low.

[beckmt]

Diamond will still make a good #3 starter. Deduno may be able to be a #4 or a #5. That still leaves 3 spots to fill.

[twinsnorth49]

Mackey teaching us all about something we already know.

[powrwrap]

I've got to agree with Nick that the article is kind of a strawman argument.

 

OK, Mr. Mackey when can we get carried away and call Scott Diamond the Twins' ace?

 

Suppose he finishes the season 14-7 with an ERA of 2.90. Clearly the best pitcher on the Twins in 2012.

 

Now suppose next year he goes 18-9 with an ERA of 3.12. Then would it be OK to call him the Twins' ace?

 

Or is the argument that he should not be called an "ace"?

[ericchri]

"Hey look, a pleasant surprise. Let's make sure nobody gets excited about it."

[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.

[twinsnorth49]

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.

 

Well they'll surely pay attention now that Phil Mackey has told them about it.

[Twins GFP]

Mackey = Reusse

 

How did Minnesota end up with so many hacks?

[Highabove]

Phil's the smartest Guy in the room.

 

If you don't believe me, just ask him.

[anthonyq77]

If the Twin Cities sports writing is so bad what towns have it good? I know it ain't Seattle because i lived there for 3 years and Boston and NY are so condescending and negative that i can hardly believe they can be considered good. Also which TC sports writers ARE good? Personally I like LENIII.

[Nick Nelson]

Let's please try to keep the focus on the piece, not the writer. I know I sort of opened the floodgates on that one but there's no need for attacks.

[snepp]

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?

[nokomismod]

Without a doubt the Twins need to bring in 2 starting pitchers for next season (unless they are okay with attendance continuing to plummet). That being said, why can't Diamond continue to pitch this well. He has good mechanics, good location, and seems to stay pretty calm.

[nokomismod]

Also, just have to add that this is a tough crowd. Man, maybe it's because a lot of us are passionate about baseball and writing. In general we have pretty good witty writers covering this team. Barrero used to suck..., but he's gone. Mackey and Reusse are solid. Hell, Reusse even goes to amatuer baseball games for fun. How many sports writers in other markets do that?

[LimestoneBaggy]

Benefit of the Doubt: Maybe he's arguing against the front office? At this point, who else gets the ball to start 2013?

[powrwrap]

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.

[TwinsGuy55422]

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.

[Dilligaf69]

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

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

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.

[Nick Nelson]

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.

[Craig Arko]

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.

[peterb18]

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.

[Nick Nelson]

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.

[notoriousgod71]

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.

[powrwrap]

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?

[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 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!