What Do SP Numbers Mean?

by lonestar on Dec 4, 2006 6:09 PM EST

Is there a standardized definition and criteria of what a #1-5 starting pitcher is, especially #2, #3, and #4.

To illustrate the issue:
What makes both Johan Santana and Roy Halladay #1's?
Was Brad Radke a #2, #3, or #4?
What number is Gil Meche?
Jake Westbrook was 10th in AL in xFIP -- arguably the 10th best pitcher in the league. Is he a #2 or #3?
The AL average ERA for starters was 4.71. If a pitcher in a relatively neutral ballpark puts up an ERA of 4.71, what number is he? How do you determine?

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

In the words of

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart:

"I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"

by Jgaztambide on Dec 4, 2006 6:16 PM EST 0 recs

That's obscene

by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2006 7:58 PM EST up 0 recs

Thomas'

I believe it was Justice Thomas who said:

I can't define it, but it really makes me horny.

I won't get married until the Red Sox win the World Series. AGAIN!!

by Shep on Dec 4, 2006 9:17 PM EST up 0 recs

Haha

Love that definition.

I guess it depends on who's doing the defining. I think most would tell you there are only a handfull of true #1's. Usually they are guys that throw a ton of innings and strikeout a ton of batters. There's exceptions/variances of course as Webb and Halladay don't have gaudy K #'s, but they do get a lot of groundballs. Glavine didn't really ever used to be known as K machine, but he was definately a true #1 in my book.

As for the rest, it's highly subjective and there really aren't any right/wrong answers. I'd consider Westbrook a 2/3 - Meche a 4/5, but that's just me.

by slurve on Dec 4, 2006 6:54 PM EST 0 recs

Interesting

That you think durability is a feature of a true #1. I never really thought of it like that.

by Yakker on Dec 4, 2006 7:33 PM EST up 0 recs

I do

I agree that durability should be a factor in a true #1. You can't really be a staff leader if your injured often.

A #1 is the teams best pitcher, with veteran presence and time with team being a deciding factor. There are few real aces in the game. An Ace goes out every time with the expectation of winning. Not going to win every time, of course, but keep them close in 90% of their starts.

by doublestix on Dec 4, 2006 11:34 PM EST up 0 recs

Spinning this out

So do Pedro, Carpenter and Halladay count as true #1s, under this test?

All are (relatively) healthy now, but haven't always been. I guess that's my trouble with using durability as a factor. Sure, the guy can't be hurt all the time and be considered an ace (Prior, I'm looking at you), but I think the problem with focusing on durability is that it changes year to year, and for me the whole point of a true #1 is that he transcends seasons.

by Yakker on Dec 5, 2006 12:56 PM EST up 0 recs

durability vs. awesomeness

to me it's a sliding scale. i don't think you can say that 240 innings year after year is a hard and fast floor for true #1-hood. pedro was so sick it almost didn't matter how many innings he pitched. someone like glavine, you need the workhorse factor to get there.

halladay should get a pass. he might actually be the most durable pitcher out there, it's just the damned blunt instrument trauma elves won't leave him alone.

by wily mo on Dec 5, 2006 8:22 PM EST up 0 recs

Thoughts

This is an interesting discussion - and I believe it will expose why many people dislike the numbering classifications. But, here's some random thoughts:

The definition of a #1 starter that is usually given by baseball guys goes something like this, "He is the guy we can count on to end our losing streaks and extend our winning streaks." Now, that really doesn't mean much - except that teams expect to win every time their #1 starter pitches.

My definition of a #1 starter is a little different. To me, a #1 starter has the combination stuff that is good enough to dominate 90% of the league (no one is going to dominate Papi, Vlad, etc.) and consistency to know that he is going to give you a good chance at winning most of the time.

I believe that most starting pitchers have either good stuff or consistency, which makes it very difficult to determine who is a #2 and who is a #5. Thus, your typical #3 pitcher will be somewhat consistent and have decent stuff...but he's either not consistent enough to be counted on as a #1 or his stuff isn't good enough to dominate the majority of hitters.

Maybe the best way to classify pitchers would be to give them a score from 0-10 in consistency and 0-10 in stuff. #1 pitchers are 17-20, #2 pitchers are 13-16 and so on...

by Dfarth on Dec 4, 2006 7:04 PM EST 0 recs

#1's

I think most would tell you there are only a handfull of true #1's

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but I thought the definition was linked to where in a typical rotation they would likely fit. So, in theory almost every rotation has has a #1 starter in it (allowing exceptions for horrible staffs).

That said, not many pitchers can reliably stay in the ace position year after year. Those are the guys who are usually annointed the title of a "true" #1.

Anyone have the splits for what the "average" 1-5 starters for each team do? Not that it would have to link to the definitions of the titles, but it would be interesting to see.

by DavidFoss on Dec 4, 2006 7:06 PM EST 0 recs

For me

Like someone else said, this is a tough thing to verbalize--I know it when I see it. But let me try...

Just because a guy is the #1 starter for his team doesn't make him a #1 in my book. I think of #1s as guys who dominate most of their starts, #2s as guys who give you mostly quality starts.

Usually, the profiles for a #1 and a #2 in my book turn on component ratios--if a guy has high Ks/9 and solid K/BB ratios, he's probably a #1. If he's missing one or the other (but still pitching well enough to give you QSs), he's probably a #2. But there are always exceptions, so I fall back on the dominant/QS ratings.

3/4/5 are somewhat interchangeable in my book, and guys will often vacillate from one to the other over the course of their careers. I expect a #3 to give you solid league average innings consistently. #4s and #5s you're really just hoping they stay healthy and eat innings.

by Yakker on Dec 4, 2006 7:30 PM EST up 0 recs

A

#1 to me is a guy who can have a Era of 0-3.35 a #2 is 3.35-3.80 #3 is 3.80-4.40 a #4 4.40-5.00 and a #5 anything over 5.00.

1941 .406

by FrozenTed9 on Dec 4, 2006 7:09 PM EST 0 recs

A #1

To me, an ace is different than a #1. Any team can have a #1. An ace is a guy that makes batters miss. Not necessarily strike out -- just miss. If a guy is trying to drive it deep to score the fella on 3rd, then an ace will somehow make that guy miss and induce the groundout to short. He's a guy that can strike hitters out on any given at bat. which even guys like Webb and Glavine can do. He's a guy that will get you those same outs quickly -- the faster the out is gotten, the less time that something bad can happen defensively.

I would argue that aces have a certain level of competency in every single pitching method. They don't have weaknesses -- not a lot of HRs/9, not a high WHIP, not a ton of walks, a significant amount of K's, and enough control that the counts don't get to 3-2 every other batter, and when it gets to 2 strikeouts you can expect the next pitch to be the last of that at-bat.

ERA wise, the guy above me seems to be asking a lot. A 3.35 ERA is phenomenal everywhere, and 3.80 is phenomenal almost everywhere. I wouldn't start any pitcher w/ an ERA over 5. I like another guy's definition that he dominates over 90% of batters, it seems fair to me that an ace should be able to totally dominate 8/9 batters on a given lineup (except your average team's #3 or #4).

by mroak89 on Dec 4, 2006 7:28 PM EST 0 recs

I usually go by rankings

If a pitcher is consistently (more than twice) one of the top 15 in baseball, he counts as a number one in my book. Number two's fall in the 15-50 range, three's in the 51-100 range, four's 100-200 and five's are anybody lower. I usually prefer using stats that neutralize park factors, like WARP, Pitching Runs Created or ERA+ when making these judgements. I think a lot of times pitchers get mislabeled on the reputations of one fluke season, whereas others who are consistently solid but unspectacular (like Bert Blyleven was) are overlooked.

by Rox Girl on Dec 4, 2006 7:41 PM EST 0 recs

i think

BA does a breakdown of it in their prospect handbook. . . but that's just their opinion.

by SoCalSoxFan on Dec 4, 2006 10:46 PM EST 0 recs

here are 6 number #1s on 2 teams...

Hudson, Zito, Mulder for the A's

Madduz, Glavine, Smotz for the Braves

by Havok1517 on Dec 5, 2006 3:05 AM EST 0 recs

x

by Havok1517 on Dec 5, 2006 3:05 AM EST up 0 recs

My definition

A number 1 is expected to be dominant, have good stuff, eat innings, give the bullpen some rest and be consistent.
A number 2 is a guy with good stuff who can be dominant but just isn't quite there either with
consistency or probems here and there.
A number 3 is the average to above average guy with good stuff and okay control.
A number 4 is ideally just an average pitcher to a slightly below average guy with okay stuff and control but does not impress.

Go Jays!!!!

by achengy on Dec 5, 2006 4:58 AM EST 0 recs