By the way, I'd include Livan among that group, esp given the # of innings he logs.

^He's never healthy

I see what you were aiming to do with this diary tho'. It's worth discussion.

#1 - these guys are clear aces.  There are ~15 in MLB at any one time.  These guys dominate the game on a consistant basis.  Movement in/out of this status is low.

#1/#2 - 30 of these guys.  They tend to bounce around between the bottom end #1 types and high end #2's from one year to the next.

#2/#3 - 30 of these guys...same explaination as above

#3/#4 - 30..same

#4/#5 - 75..these types seem to have more variability.  From one year to the next they are interchangeable moving between the 30 that would correspond to the above explainations, the remaining 15 that are actual last men in the rotation and then the 30 "replacement guy" types that are ready to fill in at the back of the rotation if someone goes down.

So, in the end, to answer your question having only 4 guys who project into a #1 status in the next 4 years that seems about right.

If you looked at it as being the best starter on your team is the #1 guy, then you have 30 #1 starters.  This is not the route I would go though.

I like FredUD's post, but think he has to high a number on the #1's.

If you take roughly the top 15 pitchers, 13 or so will make the top 30, so they are about as much of a guarantee as you get in pitching. These 15 are what most people consider ace pitchers. Think Halladay or Santana.

You can take another group of roughly 30 pitchers, 13 or so of whom will be in the top 30 and 13 or so will be in the next 30. These are what I (and FredUD) call #1/#2. Most years that will either be in the top 30 or the next 30, but its hard to predict which. These pitchers are consistently in the top 60, but rarely in the top 10.

The group of 2/3 pitchers range from 30-90 any given year.

I consider the last group to be 3/4/5 pitchers, meaning that they could range from solid starting pitchers to marginal starting pitchers in any given year.

I. My experience is that no pitcher will ever be considered - while a prospect - to have "#1 stuff" unless he throws very very hard.  

II. To me, a lot of the psychological reasons for calling a pitcher an "ace" involve "stats" like "MPH", "K", and "Run Support".  

III. Very occassionally, a good control pitcher (without tons of K's) will have enough years of success that he will be impossible to ignore, and will (grudgingly) receive the title of "ace".  Maddux and Glavine are the two most obvious examples.  

IV. I think the volatility rating of the "#1" or "ace" designator is similarly affected by velocity.  If Daniel Cabrera has 20 good starts to begin 2006, I suspect that virtually all the (innumerable) people who have said he has "#1 stuff" for years will immediately start considering him an "ace".  Meanwhile, if Joe Blanton continues to operate as did last year - even if he piles up the same stats (W/L/ERA/component ERA) as D-Cab - he will be considered a "very good #3".

V. I think that pitchers who are "top 30 but not top 10" on a consistent basis get underrated to some extent.  

VI. I think that - to use scouting parlance - there is "knowing how to pitch", and "having good stuff".  In general, the guys that are truly aces have a surplus of both, and also have the "skill" of staying healthy and often have good run support.

VII. I think there's an intimidation factor in being an "ace".  Guys who pick apart hitters can reach "ace" status usually only after leaving batters talking to themselves in frustration for a long period of time.  Meanwhile, if the hard throwers find the plate, watching them can immediately make people think that life isn't fair for the hitters - leading rather quickly to "ace" designation.

Coming into 2005, Carpenter was a career below average pitcher. His 3.46 in 2004 was his only season below 4.00.

I also wonder about Colon being on that list. Compare Colon's recent ERA's to the the mystery pitcher below, who has pitched in similar contexts.

Colon 3.31  3.87 5.01 3.48 career 3.94
?         3.15  4.43 4.64 3.20 career 3.93

? has a better ERA 3 of the last 4 years and a better career ERA, with only a half run deficit in 2003 to blot an otherwise consistently superior record. He pitched not only in a similar context, it was the same context the last 2 seasons.

? is

Jarrod Washburn.
Would anyone include him in a list of #1s?

Scott Baker, btw, looks remarkably similar with slightly better stuff than Radke had.

the screamer that Dejesus "claimed" he caught a strand of after it got sucked into a low-flying jet engine was later TESTED by MLB

turned out to be a PIECE OF HIS OWN DANDRAFF.

pokey reese got robbed.