A true #1 pitcher

[halodground]

The Athletic recently had an article, "The Aces Project", ranking the top 50 active starting pitchers in MLB (no Angels), with Gerrit Cole being rated the highest. Scores were tabulated based on a 20  person panel of executives, scouts, and analysts rating the pitcher on durability and performance on a 1-5 scale. It's pretty clear that the definition of a "#1", TOR arm has evolved quite a lot over the past 10-15 years, but the article made me realize that the Angels haven't drafted and developed a guy who you could argue is a true ace since Weaver. It seems like even when we draft someone, they usually come with a tag like "could develop into a mid rotation starter with #2 upside". Two guys would get an asterisk - Ohtani and Garrett Richards. Ohtani certainly has TOR stuff and results, but his status as a unicorn, the injuries, and the need for the 6 man rotation would knock him down a tier for me, plus he was playing professionally in Japan so there wasn't much "development" to be done.  Richards seemed like he was on the path to being the Angels next ace but the bad luck of the patellar tendon rupture seemed to cascade into endless injuries.  Outside of those two, I can't think of a time since Weaver that we drafted anyone that was expected to become an ace, and we certainly haven't molded anyone into that type of pitcher either.  The Angels do a decent job of producing mid rotation guys, but why no true aces?  Is this a scouting and drafting issue? A player development issue? Just bad luck? It's been nearly 20 years since we drafted Weaver. 

Edited March 30 by halodground

[TroutField]

Poor drafting, poor facilities and being slow to adapt to new technologies, no emphasis on pitching, and poor player development would be the quick answers. 

[mmc]

We had one.  Arte didn’t think he was worth keeping around

[halodground]

Just now, mmc said:

We had one.  Arte didn’t think he was worth keeping around

Ohtani?

[REDneck]

Were you not impressed with Sandoval's outing on Opening Day?

[cals]

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

2 hours ago, TroutField said:

Poor drafting, poor facilities and being slow to adapt to new technologies, no emphasis on pitching, and poor player development would be the quick answers. 

They were also drafting 2 catchers #1 in back to back seasons. So, you could sign them for under slot... Ward #26 & Thaiss #16.

Previously, we've had so many issues in development that just getting #'s was more important. Then let them figure it out, washout as they will.

Playing catch up Perry is bringing in guys who are closer to MLB ready and who may have 3-4 * tools and have 1 or 2 less positions to deal with in the future. As for the tools "Power" is usually the last that comes as you fill out and learn to lift.

We've needed such a high influx of talent throughout the system. Perry has played catch up we even drafted what 20+ arms in that one draft...

I'm actually excited to watch Caden Dana evolve that could be your future #1. His mental makeup is what you want. He goes after guys! Silseth also has the makeup. He throws well and attacks hitters. They both may end up being your #1 & #2 in the future.

[halodground]

I think it was the prospect analyst in the thread about the Angels top young players that said something along the lines of Dana could become a “mid-rotation starter”. Seems like all of our pitchers are projected mid rotation, and that is if things work out. Obviously you need a steady influx of those guys too, but it feels problematic that the guys we have to be excited about aren’t projected for bigger things than mid-rotation. Why aren’t we seeing more pitchers in the system that if things break right have higher ceilings? Like the pitcher equivalent of Jo Adell. Everyone seems to recognize that Adell COULD be a special player with the raw tools he has, he just needs to put it together. But I haven't heard the same type of comments made about Angels pitching. Are there those type of talents lurking in the minors and I’m just not hearing about it or is this really an organizational issue?

[arch stanton]

DeGrom debuted at age 25 and stays hurt. Cole was drafted 13 years and 2 organizations ago. When Strider and Burnes were drafted in the 4th round was it because they were expected to become aces? Unless someone who has the stuff just magically puts it together for you it seems that's something you look for once the other pieces are mostly in place

Edited March 30 by arch stanton

[Angelsjunky]

I'm checking out that article right now, and the first thing that stands out is that Gerrit Cole is the only pitcher that was voted a unanimous ace - that is, by all 20 participants. So if there is only one "true ace" in MLB right now, going by their definition, then that means 29 other teams haven't drafted and developed a guy who is currently a true ace. Of course there are a bunch of guys that would have been unanimous at some point over the last ten years--Kershaw, Scherzer, Verlander, DeGrom, Sale, and others come to mind--but in 2024, Gerrit is the only guy to make the grade. Which is weird.

Back up for a moment. If you're over 35ish, you remember a time when top pitchers regularly pitched 250 innings. Justin Verlander is the only active pitcher to pitch 250 IP, which he did last back in 2011 with 251 IP. Roy Halladay did it a year before. Meaning, from 2010-23 there have been two pitcher seasons with 250 IP. In the decade before, 2000-09, there were 7; in 1990-99, 33; in 1980-89, 109; in the 70s, 255.

Or to put that another way, over the last three seasons, there have been, on average, 5.67 seasons of 200+ IP; from 2010-19, it was 27.1 - that's more than four times as many. Going back further, and it is even more extreme, especially accounting for fewer teams.

It is nothing new to point out that innings have declined over baseball history - and it isn't just the last few decades. There are some crazy numbers in the 19th century, with Will White holding the record with 680 IP (!) pitched in 1879. The most IP in the 20th century was Ed Walsh with 464 IP in 1908, which was also the last 400+ IP season. The last 350 IP season was Wilbur Wood with 359.1 in 1973, and the last 300 IP was Steve Carlton with 304 IP in 1980.

It should also be noted that velocity has risen throughout history. We don't have good numbers before the last 10-20ish years, at least consistently and accurately across the board, but I think I read that average fastball velocity has increased by something like 3-5 MPH over the last couple decades. I'm guessing that there were outliers through history, but it is quite possible that no one threw a 90 MPH fastball until the 20th century. In mid-century, I'm guessing that Bob Feller and a few others could hit 95, but the average was probably somewhere in the low 80s.

Anyhow, this is all a long way around to saying that we're still influenced by the past; as recently as the 2000s, just about every team had at least one guy who threw 200 IP in a season. Now it is one out of five teams. The nature of starting pitching has changed. 200 IP today is close to what 250 IP was in the 90s, and 300 IP was in the 70s. That means that about 160 IP today - qualifying, basically - is the equivalent of the historical notion of 200 IP, at least in the preceding few decades. In other words, the expected IP of a regular starter is in the 160-180 IP; 180-200 is very good, and 200+ is exceptional.

So if we want to adjust to today's context, we have to also adjust downward not only with innings pitched, but also WAR, because WAR is largely dependent upon IP. Historically, though, this has been somewhat counter-balanced by higher WAR/IP, with more Ks and fewer walks, at least among elite pitchers. In a way, the best starting pitchers today are sort of like closers who pitch 180+ innings.

Now Cole has been a full time player since 2015 (he pitched 255 IP in 2013-14 total), which is eight full seasons (not counting 2020). Of those eight seasons, he's pitched 200+ IP six times. Here are the number of 200+ IP seasons from 2015-23:

2015-23 (103 player seasons of 200+ IP)

6 Cole

4 Greinke, Scherzer, Verlander

3 Archer, Bumgarner, deGrom, Mikolas, Nola, Sale, Samaradzija

2 Alcantara, Bieber, Corbin, Cueto, Hamels, Keuchel, Kluber, Lester, Porcello, Price, Quintana, Shields, Stroman

1 Bunch of guys

Meaning, over the last eight full seasons, only 24 players have had multiple seasons with 200 IP, and only 11 with three or more seasons, and only 4 pitchers threw 200+ IP in half of those seasons or more. Over his career spanning back before 2015, Kershaw only did it 5 times, all in 2015 or before; Scherzer 6 times; and Verlander 12 times. Weaver, if you're wondering, did it 4 times. Before him, Lackey did it 6 times (4 for the Angels). Going back, Chuck Finley did it 9 times.

Compare that to the "golden era" of aces: Maddux 18, Clemens 15, Johnson 14, Pedro 7. Maddux pitched 14 years in a row of 200+ IP, and 18 out of 19. Even the more fragile Pedro Martinez pitched more 200 IP seasons than any active player other than Verlander.

Is this all due to velocity? No fucking clue, though I think it is the leading factor among, perhaps, several others. But some of those guys threw as hard as today's staff aces, but still managed to regularly throw 200 IP, sometimes 250. I would speculate--and it is speculation only--that other factors include over-training, poor nutrition (not in terms of what players eat, but the nutritional and mineral quality of food), and perhaps something akin to "baby-ing"...meaning, a perhaps erroneous view that coddling pitchers will reduce injuries, when it may actually be more the opposite.

Baseball is ever-changing. While the trend from more to less innings is pretty consistent going back 145 years, it may be that we're at a nadir and will bounce back a bit, to at least 2000s levels. But who knows. It may also be that starting pitchers eventually become 3-4 IP "super-openers" and the line between starters and relievers gets blurred.

Anyhow, lots of words, but it is an interesting subject.

Edited March 30 by Angelsjunky

[Junkballer]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

I'm checking out that article right now, and the first thing that stands out is that Gerrit Cole is the only pitcher that was voted a unanimous ace - that is, by all 20 participants. So if there is only one "true ace" in MLB right now, going by their definition, then that means 29 other teams haven't drafted and developed a guy who is currently a true ace. Of course there are a bunch of guys that would have been unanimous at some point over the last ten years--Kershaw, Scherzer, Verlander, DeGrom, Sale, and others come to mind--but in 2024, Gerrit is the only guy to make the grade. Which is weird.

Back up for a moment. If you're over 35ish, you remember a time when top pitchers regularly pitched 250 innings. Justin Verlander is the only active pitcher to pitch 250 IP, which he did last back in 2011 with 251 IP. Roy Halladay did it a year before. Meaning, from 2010-23 there have been two pitcher seasons with 250 IP. In the decade before, 2000-09, there were 7; in 1990-99, 33; in 1980-89, 109; in the 70s, 255.

Or to put that another way, over the last three seasons, there have been, on average, 5.67 seasons of 200+ IP; from 2010-19, it was 27.1 - that's more than four times as many. Going back further, and it is even more extreme, especially accounting for fewer teams.

It is nothing new to point out that innings have declined over baseball history - and it isn't just the last few decades. There are some crazy numbers in the 19th century, with Will White holding the record with 680 IP (!) pitched in 1879. The most IP in the 20th century was Ed Walsh with 464 IP in 1908, which was also the last 400+ IP season. The last 350 IP season was Bob Feller with 371.1 in 1946, and the last 300 IP was Steve Carlton with 304 IP in 1980.

It should also be noted that velocity has risen throughout history. We don't have good numbers before the last 10-20ish years, at least consistently and accurately across the board, but I think I read that average fastball velocity has increased by something like 3-5 MPH over the last couple decades. I'm guessing that there were outliers through history, but it is quite possible that no one threw a 90 MPH fastball until the 20th century. In mid-century, I'm guessing that Bob Feller and a few others could hit 95, but the average was probably somewhere in the low 80s.

Anyhow, this is all a long way around to saying that we're still influenced by the past; as recently as the 2000s, just about every team had at least one guy who threw 200 IP in a season. Now it is one out of five teams. The nature of starting pitching has changed. 200 IP today is close to what 250 IP was in the 90s, and 300 IP was in the 70s. That means that about 160 IP today - qualifying, basically - is the equivalent of the historical notion of 200 IP, at least in the preceding few decades. In other words, the expected IP of a regular starter is in the 160-180 IP; 180-200 is very good, and 200+ is exceptional.

So if we want to adjust to today's context, we have to also adjust downward not only with innings pitched, but also WAR, because WAR is largely dependent upon IP. Historically, though, this has been somewhat counter-balanced by higher WAR/IP, with more Ks and fewer walks, at least among elite pitchers. In a way, the best starting pitchers today are sort of like closers who pitch 180+ innings.

Now Cole has been a full time player since 2015 (he pitched 255 IP in 2013-14 total), which is eight full seasons (not counting 2020). Of those eight seasons, he's pitched 200+ IP six times. Here are the number of 200+ IP seasons from 2015-23:

2015-23 (103 player seasons of 200+ IP)

6 Cole

4 Greinke, Scherzer, Verlander

3 Archer, Bumgarner, deGrom, Mikolas, Nola, Sale, Samaradzija

2 Alcantara, Bieber, Corbin, Cueto, Hamels, Keuchel, Kluber, Lester, Porcello, Price, Quintana, Shields, Stroman

1 Bunch of guys

Meaning, over the last eight full seasons, only 24 players have had multiple seasons with 200 IP, and only 11 with three or more seasons, and only 4 pitchers threw 200+ IP in half of those seasons or more. Over his career spanning back before 2015, Kershaw only did it 5 times, all in 2015 or before; Scherzer 6 times; and Verlander 12 times. Weaver, if you're wondering, did it 4 times. Before him, Lackey did it 6 times (4 for the Angels). Going back, Chuck Finley did it 9 times.

Compare that to the "golden era" of aces: Maddux 18, Clemens 15, Johnson 14, Pedro 7. Maddux pitched 14 years in a row of 200+ IP, and 18 out of 19. Even the more fragile Pedro Martinez pitched more 200 IP seasons than any active player other than Verlander.

Is this all due to velocity? No fucking clue, though I think it is the leading factor among, perhaps, several others. But some of those guys threw as hard as today's staff aces, but still managed to regularly throw 200 IP, sometimes 250. I would speculate--and it is speculation only--that other factors include over-training, poor nutrition (not in terms of what players eat, but the nutritional and mineral quality of food), and perhaps something akin to "baby-ing"...meaning, a perhaps erroneous view that coddling pitchers will reduce injuries, when it may actually be more the opposite.

Baseball is ever-changing. While the trend from more to less innings is pretty consistent going back 145 years, it may be that we're at a nadir and will bounce back a bit, to at least 2000s levels. But who knows. It may also be that starting pitchers eventually become 3-4 IP "super-openers" and the line between starters and relievers gets blurred.

Anyhow, lots of words, but it is an interesting subject.

AJ, a couple of years ago you had a fantastic post that compared the Nationals and other WS teams with heavy top ends with other rotations deep with 2s & 3s.  As I recall, the jist was that because relying on having #1-types is difficult to draft/project/develop/acquire (also risky due to the likelihood of injury), that the trend of WS winners was towards deeper rotations with mid-tier arms.  Anyway, I doubt that I summarized that post well but, it was a fantastic analysis and very relevant to the current conversation.

[Taylor]

8 hours ago, mmc said:

We had one.  Arte didn’t think he was worth keeping around

He wouldn't have been able to pitch this year anyway.

[Angelsjunky]

35 minutes ago, Junkballer said:

AJ, a couple of years ago you had a fantastic post that compared the Nationals and other WS teams with heavy top ends with other rotations deep with 2s & 3s.  As I recall, the jist was that because relying on having #1-types is difficult to draft/project/develop/acquire (also risky due to the likelihood of injury), that the trend of WS winners was towards deeper rotations with mid-tier arms.  Anyway, I doubt that I summarized that post well but, it was a fantastic analysis and very relevant to the current conversation.

That's basically it, with the caveat that depth of #2-3s was more correlative of WS championships than a top-heavy rotation...but this doesn't mean that those with both weren't even better off.

In other words, A is usually better than B, even though both sets add up to 15:

A: 2, 3, 3, 3, 4

B: 1, 2, 4, 4, 4

Meaning, all other things being equal, a high floor is more important than a high ceiling. Obviously the both is the best of all worlds.

And thanks!

[Stradling]

19 minutes ago, Taylor said:

He wouldn't have been able to pitch this year anyway.

And the track record of guys having a 2nd TJ surgery is far from promising. 

[Taylor]

8 minutes ago, Stradling said:

And the track record of guys having a 2nd TJ surgery is far from promising. 

Unless mmc was talking about the great Lucas Giolito.

[Erstad Grit]

Lackey was a high end number two guy IMO, very close to ace status. 

For me a plethora of guys like Santana, saunders, etc can be more valuable than a sole ace. 

[Angel Oracle]

44 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Unless mmc was talking about the great Lucas Giolito.

He was great, for the opposition. 

[happybat4]

13 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

Lackey was a high end number two guy IMO, very close to ace status. 

For me a plethora of guys like Santana, saunders, etc can be more valuable than a sole ace. 

He led the league in ERA and ERA+ one year. That's an ace to me. Other than that he was more of a 2 though.

[Angel Oracle]

How would 2002’s second half of season Halos rotation rate using the 1 through 5 rating?

Washburn, Ortiz, Lackey, Appier, Misc.

[stormngt]

10 hours ago, halodground said:

The Athletic recently had an article, "The Aces Project", ranking the top 50 active starting pitchers in MLB (no Angels), with Gerrit Cole being rated the highest. Scores were tabulated based on a 20  person panel of executives, scouts, and analysts rating the pitcher on durability and performance on a 1-5 scale. It's pretty clear that the definition of a "#1", TOR arm has evolved quite a lot over the past 10-15 years, but the article made me realize that the Angels haven't drafted and developed a guy who you could argue is a true ace since Weaver. It seems like even when we draft someone, they usually come with a tag like "could develop into a mid rotation starter with #2 upside". Two guys would get an asterisk - Ohtani and Garrett Richards. Ohtani certainly has TOR stuff and results, but his status as a unicorn, the injuries, and the need for the 6 man rotation would knock him down a tier for me, plus he was playing professionally in Japan so there wasn't much "development" to be done.  Richards seemed like he was on the path to being the Angels next ace but the bad luck of the patellar tendon rupture seemed to cascade into endless injuries.  Outside of those two, I can't think of a time since Weaver that we drafted anyone that was expected to become an ace, and we certainly haven't molded anyone into that type of pitcher either.  The Angels do a decent job of producing mid rotation guys, but why no true aces?  Is this a scouting and drafting issue? A player development issue? Just bad luck? It's been nearly 20 years since we drafted Weaver. 

I remember Weavers rookie year when so many argued he is a #3 at best.

[ThisismineScios]

I remember making this observation early in the offseason, that we truly lack starting pitching talent. Which will inevitably lead to us overhyping Caden Dana and talking about him pitching in the majors soon. The prospect article said this year, which I truly hope does not happen. Nearly every Org has a Dana, if not 2-3. For once I wish we’d allow our prospects to play and get experience and not constantly worry about bringing them up. Let Dana, Urena, and Mederos be the next in line in 2026 instead of us figuring a way to squeeze them into our bullpen this year. I am glad they are slowly bringing Bachman back and letting him start. He needs to be a starter. 

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, ThisismineScios said:

I remember making this observation early in the offseason, that we truly lack starting pitching talent. Which will inevitably lead to us overhyping Caden Dana and talking about him pitching in the majors soon. The prospect article said this year, which I truly hope does not happen. Nearly every Org has a Dana, if not 2-3. For once I wish we’d allow our prospects to play and get experience and not constantly worry about bringing them up. Let Dana, Urena, and Mederos be the next in line in 2026 instead of us figuring a way to squeeze them into our bullpen this year. I am glad they are slowly bringing Bachman back and letting him start. He needs to be a starter. 

You wish we would let our prospects play?  That is exactly what has been happening for 3 years.  

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, happybat4 said:

He led the league in ERA and ERA+ one year. That's an ace to me. Other than that he was more of a 2 though.

He lead the league in tantrums every year.

 

 

[greginpsca]

1 hour ago, Angel Oracle said:

How would 2002’s second half of season Halos rotation rate using the 1 through 5 rating?

Washburn, Ortiz, Lackey, Appier, Misc.

3 4 4 4 5

[Blarg]

4 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Is this all due to velocity?

Yes. They have been telling these guys to come in throwing their best heat from pitch 1 until they are gassed by the 5th inning. Today you see guys pushing their peak early and wonder why they can't locate. The bullpen session simply wasn't enough mechanical repetition to create control. 

What you saw in previous decades is the guys with real heat, like a Nolan Ryan, he would start in the low to mid 90's and basically warm up to go hard from inning 6 forward. So later innings they had lots of reserve and a good feel for their control to let it loose from 95-100 mph without killing the mascot.

That is why you saw those guys clocking in a lot of 7-9 inning outings. They created a slow accelerating pace towards velocity which is far less stress on the arm. They hadn't given away their best pitches while the other team was fresh and ready.