It’s just one of those expressions people toss out a bit carelessly. I don’t think anyone would suggest that promotions be limited to those who meet my definition. But the converse probably is true: if a pitcher has had 10+ starts and is meeting those criteria, you have to question why he’s not getting promoted.
I think this year will show if he’s destined to be a starter or a bullpen guy. I’d say his floor is probably Tanner Scott, a lefty who’s hard to hit and gets a lot of whiffs but struggles with command. I honestly can’t tell what his ceiling is. Probably a no. 2-3 starter but it all depends on how command develops.
That all seems reasonable to me..and it’s also why it’s crazy to say a player must dominate to get a promotion. My guess is if that was the criteria, we would rarely see promotions and players would never get out of the minors.
Here’s my rough definition of dominant:
- ERA under 3.00 or more than a run lower than league average, whichever is lower.
- K/9 at least 20% above league average.
- H/IP of 0.9 or less (8.1 H/9)
- K/BB of 3.0 or higher
A pitcher can do a lot less than that and still be very deserving of promotion, but that’s what I’d call dominant.
It’s a tough standard. Zac Lowther was EL pitcher of the year and yet met only one of those four criteria (6.2 H/9). He came close on ERA (2.55 was 0.98 below league average). His K/9 and K/BB did not meet the standard.
Only eight major league pitchers met my standard last year: Bieber, Bauer, Darvish, Lamet, DeGrom, Maeda, Cole and Carrasco.
Crazy that he is 22 already. He turns 23 in September. It’s time for him to start making strides on his command and control and push himself up to the majors.
Gotta figure if it doesn’t happen within the next year or so, that it may not happen at all. Not that he can’t be a MLer but the ceiling is lowered significantly imo if he doesn’t show a lot of improvement soon.