Does every other team have at least one starting pitcher that is better than anyone on the Angels?

[mmc]

7 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

This is 100% subjective and relies on there to be some definitive opinion of what a 1-5 is -- there isn't.   If you base it on what the historical definitions used to be then I'd agree but we'd only be half right.  

Historically speaking an Ace was a #1 pitcher that beats other numbers #1s every 2 out of 3 times.  -- we don't have anyone that's proven to be at this level.
1s were considered to be guys capable of well above league average run prevention and  200+ innings -- Teheran has done this, but he's not that pitcher anymore.
2s were anyone capable of above league average run prevention and 180+ innings -- that 180+ figure likely rules out all the Angels SPs
3s were anyone capable of league average run prevention and 160-180 innings. -- Teheran and Heaney have done this, still likely can.
4s and everyone else were just guys that could eat innings but typically were no better than league average run prevention, most fell short of that.

Using those historical definitions the Angels rotation is all over the place.  Their most talented pitcher has no record of being able to pile on innings, the upside is huge the track record is suspect at best.  Teheran is easily their most established/reliable SP and he's anything but a sure bet to be anything but a 3 in the AL.  Heaney might be the surest thing and hes a constant injury risk, so again... hes no sure bet.   Canning and Sandoval are total wild cards, they seem capable of turning in league average or better run prevention numbers but neither guy should be counted on for more than 140-150 innings this year.  Bundy will give them innings but there seems to be a lot of wishing involved as far run prevention goes.

Given the workload concerns they really almost would be better off using some hybrid 6 man rotation and to really do that right they would need to add another arm (IMO).   At this point the best we can hope for is a rotation full of guys that get to somewhere around 150 innings and provide league average run prevention, which would fall short of traditional 3's but a world better than we have seen since the days of Weaver, Santana, Haren, etc....

What I mean by that is a starter that is good enough to be a #3 starter on a contender

[Angels_Fan]

The starting rotation is far from good (as a whole), but saying that every other team has at least one starter better than anyone the Angels have is disingenuous, imo. Ohtani, for example, may be on an innings limit and coming back from injury, but he has potential to be one of the best starters in baseball. Let’s also not forget that he was pretty good in 2018. 

[Stradling]

9 minutes ago, robblin17 said:

Can’t wait to bump that thread. 

I absolutely hope you are right.  I think he’s going to be a dependable back end starter that takes the ball every fifth day and gives you close to 6 innings a start. 

[Inside Pitch]

4 minutes ago, mymerlincat said:

What I mean by that is a starter that is good enough to be a #3 starter on a contender

I get the point you're making but, still subjective.  Were the Twins, Rays, A's and Brewers contenders last year? 

They all made the playoffs but TB only had one pitcher throw more than 145 innings.  The A's had two and one of them is now gone. The Twins won 101 games with only three guys throwing more than 160 innings and two of those guys had ERA's over 4.80.  The Brewers had NOBODY pitch as many as 160 innings and only one over 140.   Even the vaunted Dodger's pitching staff only had two guys reach 180 innings, Kershaw just missed.  The Braves -- zero.  Yankees -- one.   

In some ways I'm saying that the traditional number 3 pitcher was more valuable than what people believed it to be, and my bigger point is that in the days of workload management the old 180 IP line that was expected of a number 3 might be more than what can reasonably be expected.   Bigger point, the Angels best chance of coming close to contending is to add another arm that can be counted on to amass innings.   Even a traditional number 3 would be an upgrade.

[eligrba]

This is like watching a toddler whine....over and and over again.

How about letting the season start before complaining? How about giving the team a chance to play before complaining?

[Angelsjunky]

According to this article (which i  as good as any in defining 1-5 starters), Ohtani would already fit the description of a #2. He's got #1 talent, but  "not as consistent or durable as a number one." He may never be a true  #1 because he'll probably never pitch 180+ innings. 

The Angels have a bunch of  guys  who could be #3s by Sickels' definition, but all have question marks: Heaney (if healthy), Canning and Sandoval should get there eventually, whether in 2020 or later. Bundy  has the chance of a mid-career breakthrough and could be a #3; Teheran is if you ignore FIP and hope his  ERA is sustainable. Suarez has the potential, but probably not  for a couple years. Barria seems like  another Teheran-type: a "soft #3."

So there are no guarantees with this team, but  that's par for the course, no?

 

[Angels_Fan]

9 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

According to this article (which i  as good as any in defining 1-5 starters), Ohtani would already fit the description of a #2. He's got #1 talent, but  "not as consistent or durable as a number one." He may never be a true  #1 because he'll probably never pitch 180+ innings. 

The Angels have a bunch of  guys  who could be #3s by Sickels' definition, but all have question marks: Heaney (if healthy), Canning and Sandoval should get there eventually, whether in 2020 or later. Bundy  has the chance of a mid-career breakthrough and could be a #3; Teheran is if you ignore FIP and hope his  ERA is sustainable. Suarez has the potential, but probably not  for a couple years. Barria seems like  another Teheran-type: a "soft #3."

So there are no guarantees with this team, but  that's par for the course, no?

 

Does a pitcher really have to pitch 180+ innings to be a number 1, though? Ohtani may not have the same value as many others who are not on an innings/starts limit, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t as good or even better when he actually is playing.

It’s like saying Trout wouldn’t be the best player in baseball if he had only played in 100 games. 
 

 

[Inside Pitch]

3 minutes ago, Angels_Fan said:

It’s like saying Trout wouldn’t be the best player in baseball if he had only played in 100 games. 

If he only played 100 games every year, he wouldn't be.

[Angels_Fan]

Just now, Inside Pitch said:

If he only played 100 games every year, he wouldn't be.

Not according to WAR, no. But he would be better than everyone else during the games that he did play, though. 

Another player may provide more value by appearing in more games than Trout, but that wouldn’t make them better than Trout when they both played at the same time. It just means they accumulated more value by playing more games.

[Inside Pitch]

1 minute ago, Angels_Fan said:

Not according to WAR, no. But he would be better than everyone else during the games that he did play, though. 

Another player may provide more value by appearing in more games than Trout, but that wouldn’t make them better than Trout when they both played at the same time. It just means they accumulated more value by playing more games.

People would be talking about Larry Walker as one of the greatest players to have ever played had he not been on the shelf as much as he was, and even he averaged better than 100 games a year.  Seriously, you take his WAR per game and he is essentially Stan Musial had he played as many games

Durability matters, for pitchers it matters even more since they have a greater impact on the game when they do play.  Garret Richards was the best pitcher on the Angels every year from 2014 on and he was utterly useless.

[Docwaukee]

no.  they don't.  

[Inside Pitch]

1 minute ago, Dochalo said:

no.  they don't.  

It's science!

[Angels_Fan]

Just now, Inside Pitch said:

People would be talking about Larry Walker as one of the greatest players to have ever played had he not been on the shelf as much as he was, and even he averaged better than 100 games a year.  Seriously, you take his WAR per game and he is essentially Stan Musial had he played as many games

Durability matters, for pitchers it matters even more since they have a greater impact on the game when they do play.  Garret Richards was the best pitcher on the Angels every year from 2014 on and he was utterly useless.

Someone like Ohtani is a pitcher and a hitter, though. As a result, he will never have the innings necessary to be among the league leaders in WAR. Had he focused solely on pitching, he probably wouldn’t be on an innings limit and could even show improved results. But even if he ‘only’ makes 20-25 starts per year, it doesn’t mean he can’t be as good as some of the best starters in the game or be a legit ace - he can, just in a limited capacity. 
 

[Angelsjunky]

44 minutes ago, Angels_Fan said:

Does a pitcher really have to pitch 180+ innings to be a number 1, though? Ohtani may not have the same value as many others who are not on an innings/starts limit, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t as good or even better when he actually is playing.

It’s like saying Trout wouldn’t be the best player in baseball if he had only played in 100 games. 
 

 

I agree with Inside Pitch's take, but will add that in defining #1s and  differentiating them from #2s, I do think durability matters a huge deal. Or at least that's how John Sickels (the author of the article I linked) sees it, and I agree.

A player's worth in pretty much every sport is a combination of quality and quantity. There are plenty of instances of a player with high peak value (talent) who is inconsistent, and overall less productive than lesser talents with greater durability. 

Now if Ohtani is able to pitch 150 innings of 2.50 ERA ball, year in and year out, maybe he deserves to be considered a true  #1 - at least in this era in which 200 innings is a rarity. But until we see at least a couple  such seasons, he's not there.

 

[Inside Pitch]

1 minute ago, Angels_Fan said:

Someone like Ohtani is a pitcher and a hitter, though. As a result, he will never have the innings necessary to be among the league leaders in WAR. Had he focused solely on pitching, he probably wouldn’t be on an innings limit and could even show improved results. But even if he ‘only’ makes 20-25 starts per year, it doesn’t mean he can’t be as good as some of the best starters in the game or be a legit ace - he can, just in a limited capacity. 
 

I didn't comment on Ohtani, but since you bring this up.   Ohtani would be on an innings limit no matter what.   The last time he's crossed the 55 innings pitched mark was 2016.

Your original point asking if a guy needs to throw 180+ innings to be considered a number 1 grows more and more valid as teams continue to try to move towards managing workloads -- but the notion that Mike Trout would still be the best player in the game even if he only played  100 games a year is significantly more sketchy.  He'd definitely be the most talented but, most teams would view the better player as the one providing the most value.

 

[Angels_Fan]

2 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I agree with Inside Pitch's take, but will add that in defining #1s and  differentiating them from #2s, I do think durability matters a huge deal. Or at least that's how John Sickels (the author of the article I linked) sees it, and I agree.

A player's worth in pretty much every sport is a combination of quality and quantity. There are plenty of instances of a player with high peak value (talent) who is inconsistent, and overall less productive than lesser talents with greater durability. 

Now if Ohtani is able to pitch 150 innings of 2.50 ERA ball, year in and year out, maybe he deserves to be considered a true  #1 - at least in this era in which 200 innings is a rarity. But until we see at least a couple  such seasons, he's not there.

 

If Teheran pitches 200 innings with a 4.5 ERA while Ohtani pitches 100 innings with a 3.5 ERA, and Teheran ends up with the higher WAR, would you say Teheran is “better” than Ohtani? 

He would provide more value through sheer innings, but making more starts doesn’t suddenly make one better. 
 

 

[Angels_Fan]

4 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

I didn't comment on Ohtani, but since you bring this up.   Ohtani would be on an innings limit no matter what.   The last time he's crossed the 55 innings pitched mark was 2016.

Your original point asking if a guy needs to throw 180+ innings to be considered a number 1 grows more and more valid as teams continue to try to move towards managing workloads -- but the notion that Mike Trout would still be the best player in the game even if he only played  100 games a year is significantly more sketchy.  He'd definitely be the most talented but, most teams would view the better player as the one providing the most value.

 

All I’m saying is that Trout’s 100 games would be worth more than anyone else’s best 100 games. As a result, he would be the best player in baseball when he did play. 

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, Angels_Fan said:

If Teheran pitches 200 innings with a 4.5 ERA while Ohtani pitches 100 innings with a 3.5 ERA, and Teheran ends up with the higher WAR, would you say Teheran is “better” than Ohtani? 

He would provide more value through sheer innings, but making more starts doesn’t suddenly make one better. 
 

 

The point I think you're missing is that "better" and "value" aren't exactly synonymous. 

 

[Angels_Fan]

3 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

The point I think you're missing is that "better" and "value" aren't exactly synonymous. 

 

I know. That’s why I said Trout wouldn’t be better according to WAR/value, but he would be better during the games when he did play. 

Ohtani may not provide the same value as many #1/#2 starters from making fewer starts, but that doesn’t mean he cannot be as good as them when he is actually in a game. 

[Angelsjunky]

3 minutes ago, Angels_Fan said:

All I’m saying is that Trout’s 100 games would be worth more than anyone else’s best 100 games. As a result, he would be the best player in baseball when he did play. 

I don't mean to keep nit-picking you, but because we're all arguing over specifics, those speicfics matter.

In this case, I don't agree that Trout's 100 games would be worth more than anyone else's best 100 games (assuming that you are saying that if you take, say, a Mookie Betts season of 150 games and take out the 50 worst games and compare the rest to all 100 games of an abbreviated Trout season, you  think Trout's 100 would be better).

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, Angels_Fan said:

I know. That’s why I said Trout wouldn’t be better according to WAR/value, but he would be better during the games when he did play. 

Ohtani may not provide the same value as many #1/#2 starters from making fewer starts, but that doesn’t mean he cannot be as good as them when he is actually in a game. 

Yes, agreed. But Sickels is saying--and I'm agreeing--that a #1 isn't just quality per start. It is also durability, consistency, etc.

[Inside Pitch]

1 minute ago, Angels_Fan said:

I know. That’s why I said Trout wouldn’t be better according to WAR/value, but he would be better during the games when he did play. 

Yes, and he would be utterly worthless in the other 39% of the season.    Nobody that only played 61% of the games in a season would be considered the best player in baseball.

[Angels_Fan]

24 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I don't mean to keep nit-picking you, but because we're all arguing over specifics, those speicfics matter.

In this case, I don't agree that Trout's 100 games would be worth more than anyone else's best 100 games (assuming that you are saying that if you take, say, a Mookie Betts season of 150 games and take out the 50 worst games and compare the rest to all 100 games of an abbreviated Trout season, you  think Trout's 100 would be better).

Good catch. If we remove Trout’s 50 worst games, he’d be Bondsian (and more). But you know what I meant. 100 games of typical Trout is worth more than another players typical 100 games.

[Angels_Fan]

3 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Yes, and he would be utterly worthless in the other 39% of the season.    Nobody that only played 61% of the games in a season would be considered the best player in baseball.

We’re talking who is better. You’re talking about value. Someone can be more valuable and still not better than another player.

Point: 200 innings of 4.5 ERA from Teheran vs 100 innings of 3.5 ERA from Ohtani. 
 

Ohtani is better, but not as valuable (most likely) because Teheran appears in more games.

[Inside Pitch]

Just now, Angelsjunky said:

Yes, agreed. But Sickels is saying--and I'm agreeing--that a #1 isn't just quality per start. It is also durability, consistency, etc.

Sickels and pretty much everyone else in MLB's history.   This was true of both starters and RPs.   

Workload management is changing how teams value pitchers but we don't have to look very far to find how greatly teams still value durability and consistency..    Gerrit Cole signed a 360 million dollar contract.  Alex Wood is looking for a job.

Prior to 2019, Cole had a career ERA+ of 118.  Wood, 117.