Consistently Stellar SPs

[Taylor]

Who are some consistently stellar SPs, who have been solid throughout their entire career? I could be wrong about this, but it seems like in the last several years or so in the MLB, pitching (as a whole) has been inconsistent. And there are hardly any starting pitchers (or relievers, even) who are stellar every year.

The only two that immediately come to mind are Kluber and Scherzer. 

[Barrett]

Verlander? Kershaw has been hurt but he seems like someone who's been pretty consistent other than injuries.

[tdawg87]

Kershaw.

[tdawg87]

Blanton

[2020worldseries]

What’s “stellar” 

Chris sale

[TroutAdell]

Deck McGuire

[totdprods]

7 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Blanton

 

5 minutes ago, TroutTrumbo said:

Deck McGuire

Stellar. Not cellar. 

[Taylor]

7 minutes ago, Barrett said:

Verlander? Kershaw has been hurt but he seems like someone who's been pretty consistent other than injuries.

Verlander went through a stretch of a few years where he wasn't entirely dominant. Kershaw would definitely be on the short list.

[Taylor]

8 minutes ago, 2020worldseries said:

What’s “stellar” 

Chris sale

Consistently an ace. Consistently dominant.

[Barrett]

6 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Verlander went through a stretch of a few years where he wasn't entirely dominant. Kershaw would definitely be on the short list.

I don't know looking just over Verlander stats and other than 2014 he has been pretty consistent. Been a 2 or 3 era pitcher. Even his batting average against look consistently low 200s except for 2014. I am not an avid Detroit Tigers fan but I wonder what was going on that year that things went awry for him. But even so that year he had a 4.54 era and pitcher 206 innings. 

[GrittyVeterans]

Scherzer has been consistently dominant since he won that first Cy Young. Kluber is approaching that level too

sale is another one. 

[tdawg87]

When talking about consistency, well John Lackey is a horse of a different color.

[T.G.]

Scherzer, Kershaw, Baumgardner (when not hurt), Sale, Verlander, Kluber, and Greinke come to mind.

Jon Lester has been pretty consistent over the years.  The list is short for sure. Lots of pitchers fall off the cliff or just have up and down years.  It's tough to judge.  I think it's always best if a team can develop their own and they know what have.  Easier said than done.

Some guys who have managed long careers include Lackey (of course), Sabathia, Hamels, and Lester.

I guess it depends on what you want out of the list?

[floplag]

Precisely why im not in favor of overpaying a supposed "true ace".  What does that even mean anymore?   How many are there really out there? 
I really dont see a lot of guys out there that to me would fall into that category in my book. 

[Make Angels Great Again]

Strasburg is right on the edge of that.

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

Precisely why im not in favor of overpaying a supposed "true ace".  What does that even mean anymore?   How many are there really out there? 
I really dont see a lot of guys out there that to me would fall into that category in my book. 

Yep. It seems like a such a gamble to pay big money to a SP. Both Darvish and Arrieta, who were the top two SP FAs last off-season, have had pretty unspectacular seasons.

[Troll Daddy]

[Dick B Back]

[Dick B Back]

3 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

When talking about consistency, well John Lackey is a horse of a different color.

 

[Blarg]

I guess the point here is of the 30 teams you can only name a handful of pitchers that would be consistent high performers. With that in mind the Angels situation is not out of the norm except for the attrition.

They have no true Ace (Richards never was one) but they do have some guys that are solid #2 that are just now getting more innings in with Heaney and Skaggs. They are probably the Angels #1&2 next season which would match up against another other pitcher not in the handful of true aces category. And even at that they can suppress enough run production the Angels have a fighting chance.

But consistency? So far that has been pretty illusive for a long while. The hope is next season they all fair better logging innings because even a #3 or #4 guy putting in 6 innings is a shit ton better than these bullpen games that take 7 pitchers to complete a game.

 

[Mark68]

deGrom absolutely belongs on this list.

[floplag]

39 minutes ago, Mark68 said:

deGrom absolutely belongs on this list.

Does he? 
I mean when i think of guys like that im generally not talking about guys with ERAs in the 3.x range. which is what he has been the last 2 seasons.  Last year was his worst as a pro, now hes having a career year.
I'm not suggesting hes not one of the best this year, but prior to this year was he in your top 10?  20?   
Hes damn good right now, but you trade for him now you pay for a 1.x ERA and are likely to get a 3.x.  

[floplag]

3 hours ago, Taylor said:

Yep. It seems like a such a gamble to pay big money to a SP. Both Darvish and Arrieta, who were the top two SP FAs last off-season, have had pretty unspectacular seasons.

... and going into this year both were likely higher rated than DeGrom.  
Im not paying Ace money unless it is an absolutely unquestionable true Ace, and im sorry but for me he isnt.  Hes having an ace year, but his career numbers suggest that could be a mirage waiting to happen, can we afford that risk for the cost?

[Mark68]

12 minutes ago, floplag said:

Does he? 
I mean when i think of guys like that im generally not talking about guys with ERAs in the 3.x range. which is what he has been the last 2 seasons.  Last year was his worst as a pro, now hes having a career year.
I'm not suggesting hes not one of the best this year, but prior to this year was he in your top 10?  20?   
Hes damn good right now, but you trade for him now you pay for a 1.x ERA and are likely to get a 3.x.  

So his career-worst year he had a 3.53 ERA? Sign me up. Absolutely. BTW, his previous three years were at 2.69, 2.94, and 3.04. If that's not consistently one of the best, then not many will meet your standards.

 

His career ERA of 2.78 is not just because of this year.

[floplag]

22 minutes ago, Mark68 said:

So his career-worst year he had a 3.53 ERA? Sign me up. Absolutely. BTW, his previous three years were at 2.69, 2.94, and 3.04. If that's not consistently one of the best, then not many will meet your standards.

 

His career ERA of 2.78 is not just because of this year.

correct, Last year.  Not like it was his rookie year it was last year.   Again im not suggesting he sucks, just that to me he isnt an unquestionable ace and not someone i would pay Heaney and Adell for, no way no how.