Chris Paddack Has Earned His Rotation Spot. Now, He Just Has to Prove He Can Keep It.

[jmlease1]

12 hours ago, Hubie29 said:

16? You must be kidding.  It's going to be a struggle for any Twins starter to get to 16, and he's 4th, 5th, or worse in the pitching heirarchy on this team.  He would be very lucky to get to 10 wins. Maybe 6-7 if the offense can support him. 

well, since Pitcher Wins isn't all that informative of a stat, I'm not too worried about it. Last season no Cleveland starter had more than 13 "wins" and only 2 reached double-digits.

I think what will be the most interesting thing to monitor with Paddack is whether or not his velocity stays fairly even from start to start, and how he responds after going 6 innings in his next outing. Despite it being a disappointing season in 2024, Paddack still had outings with a Game Score of 75. 73, 74, and 67: those are really nice games! Joe Ryan's best 4 last season? 68, 75, 74, 71. Ryan was much better last season because he had fewer clunkers and many more games with a GS in the 60's rather than the 40's or 50's, but you did see why the Twins have been clinging to Paddack's potential.

If he's more consistent this season, and healthier, he could be a real asset in the back end of the rotation.

[Fatbat]

4 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

well, since Pitcher Wins isn't all that informative of a stat, I'm not too worried about it. Last season no Cleveland starter had more than 13 "wins" and only 2 reached double-digits.

I think what will be the most interesting thing to monitor with Paddack is whether or not his velocity stays fairly even from start to start, and how he responds after going 6 innings in his next outing. Despite it being a disappointing season in 2024, Paddack still had outings with a Game Score of 75. 73, 74, and 67: those are really nice games! Joe Ryan's best 4 last season? 68, 75, 74, 71. Ryan was much better last season because he had fewer clunkers and many more games with a GS in the 60's rather than the 40's or 50's, but you did see why the Twins have been clinging to Paddack's potential.

If he's more consistent this season, and healthier, he could be a real asset in the back end of the rotation.

Yes, the Guardians only had 2 decent SP’s. The other 11 had era’s well over 4.5 with most over 5.00. Hard to earn a win with era’s over 5. The team won games because 4 guys in the bullpen just pain shut the door.  Clase had 47 saves and an era under 1.00. 
If out SP keep the score at 3-4 at most consistently, we will win more often than not and the rotation guys will get the W.
 

[bean5302]

There's a disconnect between acceptable for a #5, and what a team might actually just have to suck it up and eat. There were 71 pitchers in MLB who went at least 150 innings starting last year. Of those, only 10 had ERA's above 4.50. Less than 1/2 of them were expected to start the year in an MLB rotation.

Mitch Spence a27 - 4.58 ERA, lost rotation job for the Athletics.
Brandon Pfaadt a26 - 4.71 ERA, (3.61 FIP) made Diamondbacks rotation
Austin Gomber a31 - 4.75 ERA, Rockies, shoulder injury, out.
Frankie Montas a32 - 4.84 ERA, 2 year $17MM contract for Reds. Lat injury, out.
Chris Flexen a30 - 4.95 ERA, MiLB contract with the Cubs.
Griffin Canning a29 - 5.19 ERA, 1yr $4.25MM deal with Mets, IL replacement depth #6 in DC
Miles Mikolas a36 - 5.35 ERA, Under 3yr contract at $18MM AAV
Patrick Corbin a34 - 5.62 ERA, 1yr $1.1MM contract starting year in AAA IL replacement depth.

Fans who believe 4.50 ERA is acceptable for a #5 aren't being realistic IMHO. 4.50 ERA is a fast ticket to the bullpen, the minors or totally out of MLB. Guys returning to the rotation from having an ERA at or above that breakpoint are pitching not because the team really wants them in the rotation, but because the team doesn't have any good options.

This is about where the break points for a pitcher to be competitive and keep their jobs in my opinion 
0.00-3.30 Ace 
3.31-3.60 #2 
3.61-3.90 #3
3.91-4.10 #4
4.11-4.30 #5

 

[Hubie29]

27 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

There's a disconnect between acceptable for a #5, and what a team might actually just have to suck it up and eat. There were 71 pitchers in MLB who went at least 150 innings starting last year. Of those, only 10 had ERA's above 4.50. Less than 1/2 of them were expected to start the year in an MLB rotation.

Mitch Spence a27 - 4.58 ERA, lost rotation job for the Athletics.
Brandon Pfaadt a26 - 4.71 ERA, (3.61 FIP) made Diamondbacks rotation
Austin Gomber a31 - 4.75 ERA, Rockies, shoulder injury, out.
Frankie Montas a32 - 4.84 ERA, 2 year $17MM contract for Reds. Lat injury, out.
Chris Flexen a30 - 4.95 ERA, MiLB contract with the Cubs.
Griffin Canning a29 - 5.19 ERA, 1yr $4.25MM deal with Mets, IL replacement depth #6 in DC
Miles Mikolas a36 - 5.35 ERA, Under 3yr contract at $18MM AAV
Patrick Corbin a34 - 5.62 ERA, 1yr $1.1MM contract starting year in AAA IL replacement depth.

Fans who believe 4.50 ERA is acceptable for a #5 aren't being realistic IMHO. 4.50 ERA is a fast ticket to the bullpen, the minors or totally out of MLB. Guys returning to the rotation from having an ERA at or above that breakpoint are pitching not because the team really wants them in the rotation, but because the team doesn't have any good options.

This is about where the break points for a pitcher to be competitive and keep their jobs in my opinion 
0.00-3.30 Ace 
3.31-3.60 #2 
3.61-3.90 #3
3.91-4.10 #4
4.11-4.30 #5

 

Thanks for this. 

[jorgenswest]

12 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

There were 71 pitchers in MLB who went at least 150 innings starting last year.

It strikes me that 71 pitchers should mostly be #1 and #2 starters. There must be 60 of them. I am not sure that group gives a picture of what should be expected from a number 5 starter.

Would the picture be different if instead you selected the top 150 pitchers selected by games started and then sorted by ERA? If you want to just look at a number 5 on competitive teams I suppose you could take the teams with the top 15 records and then select 75 pitchers based on starts from that group and sort by ERA.

It is possible that a number X starter isn’t well defined but let’s no do a tedious back and forth and then eventually realize that we have different definition of a number 1 or number 2 starter. For me if you are in the top 30 starters you are a number 1 starter. I don’t start filling the number 5 spots until I have some way of clearing out the first 120. You are welcome to let me know the flaws in that thinking but let’s not go back and forth.

 

[nicksaviking]

I'm not against him starting as he's been productive and looked good.

But how often does this end well where the consistently injured starter keeps trying and trying and trying to make it work in the rotation? I'm not talking about with the Twins, but overall in the MLB?

I think the smart move is to just make the move to the pen now. I know he doesn't want to, and I know the Twins want to desperately make their investment pay out the highest dividends, but I think the overwhelming odds say the pen is best option.

[Cody Pirkl]

20 hours ago, bean5302 said:

How low is this bar? Is it actually like a closet rod rolling on the ground? 

Paddack earned a DFA/release last year, but his contract prevented it.

The bar for a back end starting pitcher is pretty low. Go look at the depth charts for the Mets, Yankees, Astros etc. It's unrealistic to expect an entire rotation of top end starting pitchers. 

Paddack also allowed almost 1/3 of his total runs between two starts, which is exactly why it's worth looking at more just just ERA.

[Cody Pirkl]

21 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm not against him starting as he's been productive and looked good.

But how often does this end well where the consistently injured starter keeps trying and trying and trying to make it work in the rotation? I'm not talking about with the Twins, but overall in the MLB?

I think the smart move is to just make the move to the pen now. I know he doesn't want to, and I know the Twins want to desperately make their investment pay out the highest dividends, but I think the overwhelming odds say the pen is best option.

They don't need him in the bullpen either, though. Worst case scenario he either struggles or gets injured down the line and Zebby or Festa make the 5 minute trip from CHS field at that point. There isn't a reason to make that decision right now.

[Cody Pirkl]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

There's a disconnect between acceptable for a #5, and what a team might actually just have to suck it up and eat. There were 71 pitchers in MLB who went at least 150 innings starting last year. Of those, only 10 had ERA's above 4.50. Less than 1/2 of them were expected to start the year in an MLB rotation.

Mitch Spence a27 - 4.58 ERA, lost rotation job for the Athletics.
Brandon Pfaadt a26 - 4.71 ERA, (3.61 FIP) made Diamondbacks rotation
Austin Gomber a31 - 4.75 ERA, Rockies, shoulder injury, out.
Frankie Montas a32 - 4.84 ERA, 2 year $17MM contract for Reds. Lat injury, out.
Chris Flexen a30 - 4.95 ERA, MiLB contract with the Cubs.
Griffin Canning a29 - 5.19 ERA, 1yr $4.25MM deal with Mets, IL replacement depth #6 in DC
Miles Mikolas a36 - 5.35 ERA, Under 3yr contract at $18MM AAV
Patrick Corbin a34 - 5.62 ERA, 1yr $1.1MM contract starting year in AAA IL replacement depth.

Fans who believe 4.50 ERA is acceptable for a #5 aren't being realistic IMHO. 4.50 ERA is a fast ticket to the bullpen, the minors or totally out of MLB. Guys returning to the rotation from having an ERA at or above that breakpoint are pitching not because the team really wants them in the rotation, but because the team doesn't have any good options.

This is about where the break points for a pitcher to be competitive and keep their jobs in my opinion 
0.00-3.30 Ace 
3.31-3.60 #2 
3.61-3.90 #3
3.91-4.10 #4
4.11-4.30 #5

 

I just think this scale sets you up for disappointment. By these measures Pablo Lopez falls into the #4-5 starter range by last seasons measures. How often do MLB teams have a consensus back end starter put up a season on par with 2024 Pablo Lopez?

[Cody Pirkl]

3 hours ago, LambchoP said:

I was also thinking if he stays healthy and effective, but we also have someone in AAA banging down the door for a call up, maybe we could aquire a bat for Paddack at the deadline before he inevitably goes down....

This is a common argument, but I assume you're referencing David Festa and Zebby Matthews, who each have their own concerns.

Festa wasn't trusted to turn the lineup over last season which strained the bullpen. He also made some mechanical adjustments and really struggled this spring. 

Zebby had a very tough audition last season after going from A Ball to the MLB. If either had done enough to earn the spot over Paddack, I would assume the Twins would have been happy to give Paddack to another team and save the salary.

[nicksaviking]

37 minutes ago, Cody Pirkl said:

They don't need him in the bullpen either, though. Worst case scenario he either struggles or gets injured down the line and Zebby or Festa make the 5 minute trip from CHS field at that point. There isn't a reason to make that decision right now.

Right, but the getting injured part is the issue. I don't think pitchers have the capability to sustain and come back from an infinite amount of injuries. The next one could be the last one for all anyone knows.

I know we've been conditioned to see these guys as commodities, but I wouldn't intentionally put him in a situation where the worst case scenario is also the most likely scenario.

[Cody Pirkl]

Just now, nicksaviking said:

Right, but the getting injured part is the issue. I don't think pitchers have the capability to sustain and come back from an infinite amount of injuries. The next one could be the last one for all anyone knows.

Absolutely true, but I don't think there's significant data showing that moving him to the bullpen where he'll empty the tank in shorter stints will keep him healthy either. This is something I would have liked to see them try earlier with Matt Canterino, but that's because he was a young highly drafted arm with team control who hadn't impacted the team in any way since being drafted.

Paddack has shown the ability to perform like at least a back end starting pitcher when healthy over his career, and is currently healthy and built up to start the season in the rotation. 

[bean5302]

2 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

It strikes me that 71 pitchers should mostly be #1 and #2 starters. There must be 60 of them. I am not sure that group gives a picture of what should be expected from a number 5 starter.

Would the picture be different if instead you selected the top 150 pitchers selected by games started and then sorted by ERA? If you want to just look at a number 5 on competitive teams I suppose you could take the teams with the top 15 records and then select 75 pitchers based on starts from that group and sort by ERA.

It is possible that a number X starter isn’t well defined but let’s no do a tedious back and forth and then eventually realize that we have different definition of a number 1 or number 2 starter. For me if you are in the top 30 starters you are a number 1 starter. I don’t start filling the number 5 spots until I have some way of clearing out the first 120. You are welcome to let me know the flaws in that thinking but let’s not go back and forth.

 

Injuries. Did pitchers not pitch because they were hurt or because the team didn't want them on the mound. That's the distinction. If the pitcher was getting roughed up with a 4.50+ ERA, it's because the team wanted a better option/result.

1 hour ago, Cody Pirkl said:

The bar for a back end starting pitcher is pretty low. Go look at the depth charts for the Mets, Yankees, Astros etc. It's unrealistic to expect an entire rotation of top end starting pitchers. 

Paddack also allowed almost 1/3 of his total runs between two starts, which is exactly why it's worth looking at more just just ERA.

Paddack's history isn't just last year on the ERA. 2021 on... 5.04, 4.03, 5.40, 4.99. You might counter about oh, well he's injured all the time so the samples are small. That's not a good reason to add him to the rotation.

1 hour ago, Cody Pirkl said:

I just think this scale sets you up for disappointment. By these measures Pablo Lopez falls into the #4-5 starter range by last seasons measures. How often do MLB teams have a consensus back end starter put up a season on par with 2024 Pablo Lopez?

No, it sets people up for a reasonable expectation. First off, Lopez has never earned the "ace" moniker a lot of people around here assigned to him. So if you're using "ace" as a starting point for your vision of Lopez, it makes sense why you might be in disbelief Lopez could have such a rough year. IMHO, Lopez has been a back end #2 or top end #3 guy. Similar to a Berrios. Last year was a bad year for Lopez. I care about results, and Lopez was a mixed bag. The evaluation I use for a pitcher's performance generally includes ERA, something like FIP and percentage of starts 5.0+ IP with ERA 3.99 or less (I just call it QS2). If a guy has a few blow up games, but is otherwise highly effective, it can distort the ERA. I don't like FIP a lot for specific pitcher applications, but it can be helpful. What I really care about most is how often a pitcher goes out there and gives the team a start that puts the team in a good position to win the game. The meltdowns matter too, but often the meltdowns are a partial function of the manager and bullpen.

Lets compare three pitchers last year.
Lopez vs. Berrios vs. Gibson vs. Sears
ERA 4.08 vs. 3.60 vs. 4.24 vs. 4.38
FIP 3.65 vs. 4.72 vs. 4.42 vs. 4.71
QS2 59% vs. 67% vs. 50% vs. 53%
Lopez had a pretty nice FIP, but he put the Twins in a less than ideal spot in quite a few starts. That said, he was better than his ERA suggests on any given day with his overall 59% QS2 suggesting he's more on par with a #3ish starter. Lopez seems to always have a "shoulda woulda coulda" number a lot better than what actually happens. His ERAs are consistently much worse than his FIPs. It's not luck at this point. People would be a lot happier if they stopped setting expectations for Lopez based on his FIP.

Berrios gave up a lot of HR, but they did minimal damage when he allowed them. It was the highest HR rate since his rookie year so while the FIP was sky high, he also probably gave up more HRs than expected, period. When it came to his starts, 67% of the time he delivered at least 5.0 innings and had an ERA of 3.99 or less. Not ace territory, but consistent with that #2/3 range that his ERA matched. Toronto usually wins the game when Berrios pitches. Even in Berrios' down years. Like his disaster of a campaign in 2022 (5.23 ERA, 4.55 FIP, 53% QS2, Blue Jays winning percentage that year with Berrios? .718).

Kyle Gibson had results pretty consistent with Pablo Lopez. He had 2 fewer starts get that QS2 thumbs up than you'd expect for Lopez starting 30 games. Gibson is viewed as back end rotation arm.

JP Sears also had results pretty similar to Lopez. I'm not sure how you view JP Sears as a starter, but I'm going to go ahead and say nobody views the guy as a mid/upper rotation option.

Pablo Lopez's results last year were consistent with a lot of guys viewed as #3/4ish starters. They were not consistent with a pitcher you'd want at the front end of your rotation.

 

[Cody Pirkl]

24 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Injuries. Did pitchers not pitch because they were hurt or because the team didn't want them on the mound. That's the distinction. If the pitcher was getting roughed up with a 4.50+ ERA, it's because the team wanted a better option/result.

Paddack's history isn't just last year on the ERA. 2021 on... 5.04, 4.03, 5.40, 4.99. You might counter about oh, well he's injured all the time so the samples are small. That's not a good reason to add him to the rotation.

No, it sets people up for a reasonable expectation. First off, Lopez has never earned the "ace" moniker a lot of people around here assigned to him. So if you're using "ace" as a starting point for your vision of Lopez, it makes sense why you might be in disbelief Lopez could have such a rough year. IMHO, Lopez has been a back end #2 or top end #3 guy. Similar to a Berrios. Last year was a bad year for Lopez. I care about results, and Lopez was a mixed bag. The evaluation I use for a pitcher's performance generally includes ERA, something like FIP and percentage of starts 5.0+ IP with ERA 3.99 or less (I just call it QS2). If a guy has a few blow up games, but is otherwise highly effective, it can distort the ERA. I don't like FIP a lot for specific pitcher applications, but it can be helpful. What I really care about most is how often a pitcher goes out there and gives the team a start that puts the team in a good position to win the game. The meltdowns matter too, but often the meltdowns are a partial function of the manager and bullpen.

Lets compare three pitchers last year.
Lopez vs. Berrios vs. Gibson vs. Sears
ERA 4.08 vs. 3.60 vs. 4.24 vs. 4.38
FIP 3.65 vs. 4.72 vs. 4.42 vs. 4.71
QS2 59% vs. 67% vs. 50% vs. 53%
Lopez had a pretty nice FIP, but he put the Twins in a less than ideal spot in quite a few starts. That said, he was better than his ERA suggests on any given day with his overall 59% QS2 suggesting he's more on par with a #3ish starter. Lopez seems to always have a "shoulda woulda coulda" number a lot better than what actually happens. His ERAs are consistently much worse than his FIPs. It's not luck at this point. People would be a lot happier if they stopped setting expectations for Lopez based on his FIP.

Berrios gave up a lot of HR, but they did minimal damage when he allowed them. It was the highest HR rate since his rookie year so while the FIP was sky high, he also probably gave up more HRs than expected, period. When it came to his starts, 67% of the time he delivered at least 5.0 innings and had an ERA of 3.99 or less. Not ace territory, but consistent with that #2/3 range that his ERA matched. Toronto usually wins the game when Berrios pitches. Even in Berrios' down years. Like his disaster of a campaign in 2022 (5.23 ERA, 4.55 FIP, 53% QS2, Blue Jays winning percentage that year with Berrios? .718).

Kyle Gibson had results pretty consistent with Pablo Lopez. He had 2 fewer starts get that QS2 thumbs up than you'd expect for Lopez starting 30 games. Gibson is viewed as back end rotation arm.

JP Sears also had results pretty similar to Lopez. I'm not sure how you view JP Sears as a starter, but I'm going to go ahead and say nobody views the guy as a mid/upper rotation option.

Pablo Lopez's results last year were consistent with a lot of guys viewed as #3/4ish starters. They were not consistent with a pitcher you'd want at the front end of your rotation.

 

Kind of a lot to address here for me on mobile, so I'll just say this: I didn't only cite Paddack's ERA as the reason he's a worthy back end starting pitcher. I know you say you care about results, so none of this is likely meaningful, but Paddack pitched much better than his near 5.00 ERA he wound up with.

The projection systems agree by the way. Steamer projects a 4.15 ERA for him in 2025, while the worst projection for him is a 4.41. For many people, this means absolutely nothing, which is their prerogative. Many of his numbers last season point to him deserving much better results though, and the projection systems value that and see what he could provide with the skills he's shown while healthy. 

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, Cody Pirkl said:

They don't need him in the bullpen either, though. Worst case scenario he either struggles or gets injured down the line and Zebby or Festa make the 5 minute trip from CHS field at that point. There isn't a reason to make that decision right now.

Randy Dobnak in the opening day pen would beg to differ there. I don't believe they have any plans to ever use Dobnak, but arguing they don't have a need for someone in the pen rings untrue to me. Stewart is less likely than Paddack to make it through the year, and he's already hurt.

Dobnak in the pen and Paddack in the rotation or Paddack in the pen and Zebby or Festa in the rotation? Which would you choose? I'll take Zebby in the rotation after the spring he just had and Paddack in the pen.

[Morland]

Hopefully he pitches well enough that they can trade him for someone decent and promote Festa or Matthews or Morris, whosever pitching the best.

[jorgenswest]

@Cody Pirkl I appreciate your article and this discussion. I particularly appreciate that you took the time to engage in the debate.

I find your argument that he has earned an opportunity to start convincing. I hadn’t seen his pitching summary from March 20. I also agree that he will need to earn it. 

The discussion left me wondering what his 17 starts looked like last year individually. Did he earn that opportunity last year? How many starts was he a burden? How many starts did he look like a top starter?

In 2024 the Twins were 11-6 in his 17 starts. He gave up 50 runs (earned and unearned) in those starts. More than half of those runs came in his 4 worst starts where he gave up 5 or more runs in each. Even in those starts in two of them he pitched at least 5 innings so it wasn’t a drag on the bullpen. They were 1-3 in those 5 starts. He also had four starts with a game score of 67 or better. They were 3-1 in those starts. The loss was after he had pitched 8 innings while giving up 2 runs to the Guardians only to have Duran give up a three run walk off home run to Brennan in the bottom of the 9th. There were two starts where he was removed before the 5th inning. One was his first start where they pulled him after 4 innings and 2 runs. The other was one of the bad starts. I don’t think he was a significant burden on the bullpen.

[bean5302]

20 hours ago, Cody Pirkl said:

Kind of a lot to address here for me on mobile, so I'll just say this: I didn't only cite Paddack's ERA as the reason he's a worthy back end starting pitcher. I know you say you care about results, so none of this is likely meaningful, but Paddack pitched much better than his near 5.00 ERA he wound up with.

The projection systems agree by the way. Steamer projects a 4.15 ERA for him in 2025, while the worst projection for him is a 4.41. For many people, this means absolutely nothing, which is their prerogative. Many of his numbers last season point to him deserving much better results though, and the projection systems value that and see what he could provide with the skills he's shown while healthy. 

Yeah, on mobile it's pretty impossible so thanks for responding at all, haha.

Here is my full evaluation methodology for determining a player's rotational fit.
ERA, FIP, xFIP, QS, QS2, Streak (number of QS2 in a row)

ERA is king, but sometimes it's all luck so I use FIP/xFIP (especially compared to historical differences) to buffer it a bit. I look at quality starts, QS2, and the max number of QS2 in a row trying to identify anomaly. 

There are usually patterns which emerge. Even #2 rotation pitchers rarely put together more than 4-5 QS2's in a row where Ace pitchers typically do it week in and week out for an extended stretch during a season.

Pablo Lopez 4.08 ERA, 3.65 FIP, 3.36 xFIP. QS 53%, QS2 59%, Streak = 4
Overall, that's mid rotation area.

'21-24 GS Paddack 4.94 ERA, 3.72 FIP, 3.91 xFIP, QS 25% QS2,41%, Streak = 3 

Luis Castillo 3.64 ERA, 3.91 FIP, 3.82 xFIP, QS 60%, QS2 60%, Streak = 10
MacK. Core 3.90 ERA, 3.53 FIP, 3.87 xFIP, QS 34%, QS2 56%, Streak = 4
Chris Bassitt 4.16 ERA, 4.08 FIP, 4.28 xFIP, QS 39%, QS2 45%, Streak = 5
Kyle Gibson 4.24 ERA, 4.42 FIP, 4.19 xFIP, QS 43%, QS2 50%, Streak = 5
'22 Dylan Bundy 4.89 ERA, 4.66 FIP, 4.70 xFIP, QS 7%, QS2 45%, Streak = 4

Paddack has been poor to very poor by any real result I use. He rarely goes 6+ innings, he doesn't even give the team a good chance to win a ball game half of the time. His ERA is poor and he has 2 bad starts for every 1 good one. That's over 44 starts from 2021-2024. He honestly compares to 2022's Dylan Bundy pretty well, and that was Bundy's last year in a MLB team uniform.

Then there are the metrics used to evaluate what we think might happen for a pitcher. While TD articles have often painted Paddack as having upper rotation ceiling and stuff, he certainly doesn't strike guys out, and he does give up a lot of hits. The only thing that keeps Paddack even serviceable at the back end is he doesn't walk a lot of guys.

Paddack has been all hype since 2019. Lots of pitchers have a promising rookie campaign before turning into pumpkins. There's just not much to suggest to me Paddack has some sort of ceiling above "serviceable."

[Fatbat]

37 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Yeah, on mobile it's pretty impossible so thanks for responding at all, haha.

Here is my full evaluation methodology for determining a player's rotational fit.
ERA, FIP, xFIP, QS, QS2, Streak (number of QS2 in a row)

ERA is king, but sometimes it's all luck so I use FIP/xFIP (especially compared to historical differences) to buffer it a bit. I look at quality starts, QS2, and the max number of QS2 in a row trying to identify anomaly. 

There are usually patterns which emerge. Even #2 rotation pitchers rarely put together more than 4-5 QS2's in a row where Ace pitchers typically do it week in and week out for an extended stretch during a season.

Pablo Lopez 4.08 ERA, 3.65 FIP, 3.36 xFIP. QS 53%, QS2 59%, Streak = 4
Overall, that's mid rotation area.

'21-24 GS Paddack 4.94 ERA, 3.72 FIP, 3.91 xFIP, QS 25% QS2,41%, Streak = 3 

Luis Castillo 3.64 ERA, 3.91 FIP, 3.82 xFIP, QS 60%, QS2 60%, Streak = 10
MacK. Core 3.90 ERA, 3.53 FIP, 3.87 xFIP, QS 34%, QS2 56%, Streak = 4
Chris Bassitt 4.16 ERA, 4.08 FIP, 4.28 xFIP, QS 39%, QS2 45%, Streak = 5
Kyle Gibson 4.24 ERA, 4.42 FIP, 4.19 xFIP, QS 43%, QS2 50%, Streak = 5
'22 Dylan Bundy 4.89 ERA, 4.66 FIP, 4.70 xFIP, QS 7%, QS2 45%, Streak = 4

Paddack has been poor to very poor by any real result I use. He rarely goes 6+ innings, he doesn't even give the team a good chance to win a ball game half of the time. His ERA is poor and he has 2 bad starts for every 1 good one. That's over 44 starts from 2021-2024. He honestly compares to 2022's Dylan Bundy pretty well, and that was Bundy's last year in a MLB team uniform.

Then there are the metrics used to evaluate what we think might happen for a pitcher. While TD articles have often painted Paddack as having upper rotation ceiling and stuff, he certainly doesn't strike guys out, and he does give up a lot of hits. The only thing that keeps Paddack even serviceable at the back end is he doesn't walk a lot of guys.

Paddack has been all hype since 2019. Lots of pitchers have a promising rookie campaign before turning into pumpkins. There's just not much to suggest to me Paddack has some sort of ceiling above "serviceable."

Paddack has a career 4.38 ERA with just under 1 SO/inning (417/424) career whip of 1.19. 
The only knock on Paddack is the injuries. I will never understand the haters…

[bean5302]

3 hours ago, Fatbat said:

Paddack has a career 4.38 ERA with just under 1 SO/inning (417/424) career whip of 1.19. 
The only knock on Paddack is the injuries. I will never understand the haters…

What does 2019 Paddack have to do with today Paddack? Let's get Stephen Strasburg out of retirement! Bet he'll be cheap! Career ERA 3.24, dude!!!