What exactly is a #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 starter? And the Angels rotation

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, Lou said:

not at all. when a starter doesn't have his best stuff he's pulled in the 5th inning

Yep.  If he’s a Dodger he’s pulled when he comes up to bat the first time. 

[Angel Oracle]

Post-season games are going to closely resemble All-Star games before long, with the starter only going 3+ innings?  

Heck, two years ago, even long outings Kluber only averaged 5 1/3 innings in his three WS starts. 

Jack Morris and John Smoltz laugh at today's stratergy. 

[Jay]

28 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I really like this, but how many #1’s were there last year, 4?

True. In any given year you can't predict who if anybody will reach 200 IP.  Most teams will look back at the end of the season and say this was our #1, 2, 3 etc. based on IP, and maybe none of them got to 200.

By my definition there definitely aren't enough #1's for every team to have one. But Houston had 3 pitchers with 200 IP last season. Any one of those would be a candidate to be a #1 on the Angels.

If you want to win a championship you need to be looking for pitchers who have that potential, IMO.

 

[totdprods]

Putting together everyone’s input, here’s how I would define it, or at least the ideal I would place on each slot. 

#1 SP - possesses at least two consistently dominant ‘ace’ traits; durability, stuff, reliability, and ‘stopper’ demeanor. Greinke, Verlander, Kluber, Kershaw, Sabathia, Colon, peak Lackey, peak Washburn

#2 SP - a flawed #1, either due to make-up issues, consistency issues, health issues, or durability issues. They’ll give you flashes of #1 for half a season, but cannot put it all together. Richards, Cole, Syndergaard, Rich Hill, Prior, Harden, Robbie Ray, pre-18 Sonny Gray, even year Angels Santana

#3 - basically a #1, but a tier lower. Consistent, good, reliable, but rarely dominant. Quality start machine. A career year will give them fringe #1 results, an unlucky year puts them at back of rotation results, but more often than not they’re above average. Haren, Saunders, St. Louis Lance Lynn, Shoemaker, Keuchel, McCullers the 2005 White Sox rotation

#4 - a flawed #2, or an unexpectedly overachieving #5. Sort of the yin to a #2 yang, there are flashes of above-average stuff, but they are instead far less reliable than the consistency of a #2. A young talent who hasn’t found their footing yet. Odd-year Angels Santana, pre-18 Zach Wheeler, current Matt Harvey, Dylan Bundy, pre-18 Skaggs, pre-18 Bauer

#5 - basically a #3, but again, down a tier. Consistently mediocre to average, but reliable in what to expect. Nolasco, Paul Byrd, late-career Colon

Designing a rotation this way, you’re setting up your anchors 1, 3, and 5, ideally giving your bullpen a chance to rest up those days.

[Tank]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

just imagine what a lunch with doc and aj would be like.

Pretty sure I'll be lunching with Ms. Upton that day.

[NJHalo]

#3 and #4 usually get exposed and lit up in the post season. 

[Lou]

4 hours ago, Tank said:

Pretty sure I'll be lunching with Ms. Upton that day.

after our night together, I'm sure she'll have worked up quite an appetite, but I'll make sure she only has a light breakfast. 

[Angelsjunky]

15 minutes ago, Lou said:

after our night together, I'm sure she'll have worked up quite an appetite, but I'll make sure she only has a light breakfast. 

Lou shopping beforehand:

[Lou]

22 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Lou shopping beforehand:

I agree 

[Erstad Grit]

Solid 4s and 5s are needed for a season,  but usually play no role in the playoffs.  

[Docwaukee]

8 hours ago, Lou said:

just imagine what a lunch with doc and aj would be like.

aj and I don't invite others to our lunches.  except tank.  

[Docwaukee]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

after our night together, I'm sure she'll have worked up quite an appetite, but I'll make sure she only has a light breakfast. 

I don't think she enjoys jazzercize.

and you may want to rethink how you phrased the 'light breakfast' comment.