Classifying Starting Pitchers

[bedir than average]

There are a lot of terms thrown around baseball circles that attempt to classify starting pitchers. Often the disagreements over these terms lead to disagreements among fans about the player even if they agree about the player's abilities.

Take Barry Zito. Some are calling him an Ace, a Top of the Rotation pitcher, a True #1, a #1, a #2 and even a few think of him as a #3 starter. Yet, most of those writing about Zito agree on his talent level.

So what do these terms mean?

What kind of stats do you think of when you read ACE? Or TOR? What is the difference between a True #1 and a #1 starter?

Does it matter that a Middle of the Rotation (MOR) guy on one team might be a TOR on another? OR when you read MOR/TOR do you think about what slot the guy would be on a certain caliber ballclub?

For me, I always tend to classify pitchers based upon how they would stack up in a rotation on a 95+ Win ball club. Except for the ACE - when I think of ACE, I think of a guy that regardless of his performance year-to-date instills fear in the majority of the opposing batters. The ACE in my mind is the perrenial Cy Young contender. Santana, Halladay, Clemens, Oswalt, Carpenter might be the only ones that are at that status.

A "True #1" for me would be the guy who is a number one starter on a majority of winning teams. Not the guy who was given the Opening Day duties, but the one who if the Manager had full control he would put as the #1 starter for the first round of the playoffs.

All teams have a 1,2,3,4,5 starter of course, but when we call someone a #1 it has a certain connotation. It makes one think of a dominant player. In the Mariners realm we started talking about TOR, MOR and BER (Back End Rotation) guys rather than their slotting.

Jason Churchill, as the DiamondGenius on FanHome v2.0, created the TOR designation as a way to indicate that on a playoff caliber club the pitcher would be at WORST the third starter.

Middle of Rotation guys we think as guys who in any given year who slot between a 2 and 4 on a playoff club, but would definately be starters in both short and long series.

Back End of the Rotation types are guys who on a good club I would expect to not start in a short series, and at most start a single game (#4) in a long series.

Do I have certain statistical limits for each qualification? NO, 'tis mainly a gut thing. I guess I could say that ACES are the top 5% or so of guys. TOR would be the top 25% (ish) of the 150-160 regular starters in a season, I might say that the MOR guys are the middle half (think 26-75%) of those guys and the BER would be the long tail of regular starters, sixth starters, and spot guys. So in my little world I would say that their are 6-9 Aces, 35-40 TOR, 75-85 MOR and a lot of BER.

One could use any unified metric for pitching analysis and rank all pitchers according to that I guess, be it Pitching Runs Created, Average Game Score, Pitching Win Shares, or whatever and have a good idea.

I write this thinking that some Mariner Fans are saying that Zito is a #3, which i feel sells him short. He was 29th by AGS, 71st by DIPS, and tied for 14th by Quality Starts.

So how do you classify pitchers, and how specifically would you classify Barry Zito?

[Slica]

So this is where that queston came from...

Zito is a #2 guy, BUT if he is your #2 guy, its a pretty good thing. I dont think he is an Ace, but im sure alot of the teams out there without one would make him theirs.

I say hes a #2, but would be used as a #1 for the lesser teams. #3 if you're stocked with great pitching, but I dont think that fits the profile of any team out there.

I also noticed that fellow Mariner fans are saying Zito is a #3, which is probably where I used him as the comparison to Horacio Ramirez, whom someone said could be a #3. Ramirez is a #5, a #4 is you are unlucky. Zito is a #2. The comparison I made was just convenient since Zito is a the popular name going around given his situation.

[bedir than average]

Can a team really "make" a guy their Ace? I don't think that talent changes based upon the team's makeup. Arizona in their championship year could have been said to have had two Aces in Johnson and Schilling, but let's be honest, the Mariners did not have an Ace last year, though they did have an Opening Day starter.


Back to the Zito example, he was 10th by Pitching Runs Created. and 16th by ERA+. Anyone calling him a number three (not you Slica, we've clarified that) isn't looking at his performance, but is looking at a perception of his performance based upon DIPS or FIP only.

[Slica]

Depends on your definition of Ace. Calling both Johnson and Schilling 'Aces' is exactly why I use the term 'Staff Ace'...people are defining Ace as the #1 guy on a particular team, so if you go by that, then you just have to go by who is in fact the Staff Ace. If you use the word by its origin in baseball terms, than yeah, they both were aces.

As for making someone an ace, I dont necessarily mean that in a literal sense. Bad wording once again on my part. Im just saying if he (Zito) is your #2 pitcher, you are probably in good shape. Unfortunately on most teams, he would be a #1, because there are not many true aces out there. Thats why I prefer TOR over the word 'Ace'. People use that term for every #1 pitcher, and Gil Meche of the Royals is no 'Ace'. Then again, hes no longer a TOR pitcher either.

Hmm this is a harder question than I thought.

I just think the term 'Ace' has gone from a great pitcher to simply being the #1 guy on a team's pitching staff. Since its become used so loosely, ive begun using 'Staff Ace' more. The logic there is...I just add staff to it because hes only an ace on THAT team.

I personally think that 'Ace' shouldn't be used anymore on free agent pitchers, because, take Zito for example, is not a Staff Ace on Toronto, but would be on Kansas City. The word means different things to different people, hence why its become such a confusing term.

I think people should stick with 'our teams best pitcher' to save confusion. Other sports are comparing players with the word 'Elite'...so perhaps that will lessen the confusion. Santana is elite. Halladay is elite. Zito, should he become a Mariner, will just be 'our teams best pitcher'...until King Felix puts his potato chips down, wipes his hands, and winds up...

Hope that wasnt confusing on its own. I might of confused myself, as my head is spinning. Im up for intelligent discussion, but im pretty tired right now.

[nanwynnfan]

Don't know if this will add anything useful to the discussion; but my look at classifying starting pitchers follows the following outline:

1. It is historic, including pitchers whose careers occurred predominantly after 1901;

2. It is based on career numbers; and the final figures presented are for entire career, not prime years or any other modifiers;

3. Career games or IP are not weighted for longevity; they are career-to-date;

4. It is overview: I have not looked at park adjustements, although i have tried to relate pitcher inputs relative to the hitting climate of their times;

5. The key evaluator is WHIP relative to league, converted to pitching runs saved or lost vs. league.;

6. Pitching runs are then converted to wins on a very basic 10:1 ratio and a winning % for a team of each pitcher is projected ... down and dirty stuff ... back of the envelope; but I found some interesting and revealing results [for me, at least]. Some forgotten guys show up, pitchers who [IMO] deserve to be remembered with more respect than they usually get.

Career-based numbers reveal the effects of injury, loss of stuff and other pitfalls of brief & dramatic careers. Example: J. Vazquez, evaluated two-three years ago would have come up @ 1.06 runs saved/9IG and a win % of .624 = elite. Through 2006, he's dropped, carerr-wise, to .19 runs saved/9IG, with a win % of .521, modestly avove average.

I like Slica's use of the category "elite," which I was thinking of using before outlining this post. I also agree that the term "ace" is totally relative to the pitching staff involved.

Pitcher Name.............Runs Saved/9IG........Win %

P. Martinez.................... 1.82................. .726
L. Grove........................ 1.67................. .713
J. Santana..................... 1.51................. .684
C. Young....................... 1.43................. .672
R. Johnson..................... 1.42................. .672
R. Clemens..................... 1.37................. .664
M. Halladay.................... 1.12................. .633
G. Maddux..................... 1.07................. .626
T. Hudson..................... 1.02................. .619
W. Johnson................... 1.00................. .617
H. Brecheen.................. .97................. .614
B. Zito......................... .95................. .611
K. Brown...................... .95................. .610
J. Wood....................... .94................. .609
T. Bridges.................... .93................. .608
M. Mussina................... .93................. .608
D. Dean....................... .92................. .605
H. Newhouser............... .91................. .606
M. Buehrle................... .91................. .606
S. Chandler.................. .90................. .605
C. Schilling................... .90................. .605
G. Alexander................. .89................. .603
E. Ford........................ .88................. .602
C. Hubbell.................... .88................. .602
*S. Koufax................... .87................. .600
M. Parnell..................... .86................. .599
*S. Maglie.................... .83................. .596
L. Gomez...................... .83................. .595
J. Smoltz...................... .81................. .593
E. Walsh....................... .81................ .593

I'll cut the post off here, although it goes down to .70 runs/9IG which = .575 win percentage. There are some great pitchers, some personal favorites and some HoF that follow; and this is NOT meant to say that they are lesser pitchers than the guys listed. Example: Bob Feller lost almost 5 years to WW II and still came back strong; but he did have control problems early on and his post WW II career did have him on staffs that included guys like Bob Lemon, Mile Garcia, and Steve Gromek. Sandy Koufax also had big control problems early in his career and did pitch at a time when hitting was at an ebb.

The guys above, healthy and sound, would be elite in the most hellacious batting climate, would not walk their way into trouble, and would be they kind of pitcher you'd want to give the ball for a big $$$$ game [IMO].

*Sandy Koufax, inadvertendtly omitted in original post.
*Sal Maglie, inadvertently omitted in original post.

[bedir than average]

Jeff Sackman analyzed ERA by rotation slot for 2006

How Good Is Your #4 Starter? -- The Hardball Times

Lg      #1      #2      #3      #4      #5
MLB     3.60    4.14    4.58    5.10    6.24
AL      3.70    4.24    4.58    5.09    6.22
NL      3.51    4.04    4.57    5.11    6.26

later
SEA     4.22    4.49    4.52    4.67    6.03

He does not address the question about who an "ace" is, but does have the data as to what each team got from their rotation slots.

Which I'm going to have to compare to this year's signings/acquisitions, but compared to the AL averages by slot the Mariners fared better in the last three spots, but struggled at the TOR area. Much of that could point to a struggling Felix Hernandez.

If the top 2 slots start 33 games, and the next three start 32 games you'd have an even distribution. If one were to have Innings Pitched expectations by rotational slot you could start to calculate win added/lost by staff position.

[nanwynnfan]

In my post above, I was attempting, probably ineffectively, to outline a framework for sorting out starting pitchers by roles, or numbers 1 through 5.

Within the structure above, any pitcher on the list would be an ace on any staff; and, in the event two such guys happened to be on the same staff, the ranking might determine whose is "ace" and who is number 2.

In my view, every staff has a functional [or non-functioning] "ace." He's the one guy in your rotation who can save you more runs allowed per 9IP than anyone else on the staff. A guy could conceivably get the unwarranted title with a record of 12-21 and an ERA of 5.15, if the team is pathetic enough to go 49-113 with a team BA of .240 and 610 runs scored over 162 games. However, if the guy can't give you innings, then his frailty might bump him down.

In the sample provided by bedir, one you get an average ERA of 6.00 +, even in a good hitting climate, you don't have a #5; you have ongoing tryouts.

Maybe a simple formula such as RA/IP*#IP would provide a basis for ranking starters within a rotation, such that:

Pitcher....Games......IP.......Runs....Runs/IP....LG Avg........#........Rank

A..............35........180......110....... .61 ....... .56.........+9.0

B..............34........205......120...... .59 ....... .56.......+ 6.6

C..............33........240......145...... .60 ....... .56.......+11.8

D..............24........130........75...... .58 ....... .56....... 2.6

E..............30........190.......100..... .53........ .56......- 5.7


Simple multiplication [and maybe common sense] might pick E as the staff ace. He's sound enough to make near the top number of starts and he appears to go reasonably deep into games.

D looks like number 2; but if his line is typical, he's frail averaging about 5 IP for each start. If the 'pen performs at the level of the rotation, the club's in trouble. Is he a spot-starter; or a promising middle relief guy

The guy I'd call #2 is the horse, C, seemingly not missing a start and going deep into games he does start. The collateral stats of a guy like this might prove interesting [K:BB ratio; opponent BA against; HR allowed].

I'd say: E, C, B [as the stopper] and A. D spot-start or pen. Point is: assigning number place to a staff has so many dynamics: games, healthy and able; stamina, combined with a basic degree of effectiveness; innings*relative quality vs. league stuff. Then too, within the numbers, there's the psyche profile ... a horse like C might be the go-to guy on the staff.

Decent thread, bedir. Hope I haven't derailed anything.

[bedir than average]

nan, what I linked was the actual averages of the best starter, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and the rest of the guys for staffs in the 2006 ML season. I was amazed when I learned that the average number 4 and number 5 starters were guys who likely shouldn't have been pitching as starters in the first place.

Maybe teams are unwilling to make changes to their master plan midseason, or injuries force unwarranted adjustments to role (Liriano?). But it would seem that if your #5 starter is putting up a 6 ERA after a couple of starts, you may just want to move on to a new guy.

[bedir than average]

Jeff Sackman continues his work on performance by rotation slot

More Fun With Rotation Numbers -- The Hardball Times

Another way to look at this would be to figure the averages for last year's playoff teams. Of course, playoff teams needn't have great pitching staffs; some of them aren't even in the top half of their league. Here are the results for those eight squads:

Lg      #1      #2      #3      #4      #5
MLB     3.40    3.81    4.34    4.91    5.80
AL      3.36    3.75    4.27    4.93    5.65
NL      3.43    3.87    4.41    4.89    5.95

Man do the fifth starters on teams suck. Which makes me wonder why some teams sign bad starters to long contracts.

[bedir than average]

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/inde...tion/#comments

This includes applying the baseballthinkfactory work on the same subject


His main contention is that slotting needs to be preselected, not post selected, and Tango also uses some baseline pythagPat Win% for each slot

.572, .524, .476, .428, .380

[bedir than average]

Sackman continues the classifying starters debate, this time with actual people rather than accumulated stats

Another Look at Starting Rotations -- The Hardball Times

Based on projected 1-6 men in rotation

Spot       ERA     GS      IP
#1 Starter 3.91    28.5    181.2
#2 Starter 4.61    26.6    165.7
#3 Starter 4.74    27.6    167.5
#4 Starter 4.82    20.8    123.4
#5 Starter 4.96    20.6    126.8
#6 Starter 4.77    15.5    95.1

So, those were the ZiPS Averages for the best 5 and then the guy picked by the team to get the most starts not in those five. It would seem that a team that is willing to cut bait on its lousy four and five guys and rotate in AAA or relievers that are performing well could rescue a few games from the back end of the rotation.

A team that had an Ace at the top of the staff and two TOR guys that then mixed in its top performers, rather than just let the vets play in the 4,5,6,even 7? slots would seem to be able to give up about two wins.