How Many #1/#2 Starters Exist in MLB

[wildcard]

After the 2024 season there will be two more aces.   GRod and Bradish.

[btdart20]

2 hours ago, Malike said:

There are thousands of examples of guys who have had a season where they pitched like an Ace. There are not many bonafide Aces in MLB, that's the main difference. By definition, every team has a number 1 pitcher, it's their best starter, even if they aren't that great.

Agreed.  The difference is trust in the sustainability.  There are plenty of examples of aces of non-ace-like seasons too. 

 

Is 2023/2024 Bradish much different than 2022/2023 Cease?  Cease didn't follow up his ace 2022 with an ace 2023.  If Cease had the same metrics/analytics/stuff as he did in 2023 but posted a 3.83ish ERA would he be an ace?  

On the flipside, Alcantara was a stud from 2019-2021.  Was he an ace in 2021?  Or did it take 2022 get the badge (if he even got it then)?

 

Another curious thought:  Is it about the track record or about the actual pitches being thrown?  Usually those things line up nicely.  But occasionally something like Gausman's 2018 comes along to make me wonder...  Was Gausman an ace all along like we hoped?  Or did he get the label after posting the stats?  I'm not really wondering that, but what's more important on Elias' shopping matrix?

Which conveniently brings us to Gerrit Cole.  Was he an ace after 2015?  Certainly not after 2014.  Is one year enough (about 450 IP into his career)?  Then what about 2016 and 2017?  I assume he lost the ace label.  But Houston saw something...  Was it the one year of greatness on the resume (ala Cease)?  Was it the pitches?  What's on Elias' shopping matrix?

 

A few truisms that frame the squishy "bonafide ace" debate in a few directions:

Perception lags reality.  We start with recency.  Sample size matters.  

[Jim'sKid26]

1 hour ago, clapdiddy said:

In my estimation, an "ace" is a guy you know is going to win the game that day.    I just don't think there are other guys like him out there.   I think there are some very good pitchers besides him, but I don't consider any of them an "ace".   Back in the day, I would have considered Verlander, Randy Johnson, Clemens, Maddux, Sale and others "aces".   I may be missing someone from today, but that's all I have right now is Cole.    I would likely have Ohtani on that list as well if he were not hurt.   Strider might be one if he replicates what he did last year.

Ok, I see your point. 

Looking over the stats, I have to say that I would include both Strider and Snell in that category, at least for 2023.

[Malike]

3 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

Agreed.  The difference is trust in the sustainability.  There are plenty of examples of aces of non-ace-like seasons too. 

 

Is 2023/2024 Bradish much different than 2022/2023 Cease?  Cease didn't follow up his ace 2022 with an ace 2023.  If Cease had the same metrics/analytics/stuff as he did in 2023 but posted a 3.83ish ERA would he be an ace?  

On the flipside, Alcantara was a stud from 2019-2021.  Was he an ace in 2021?  Or did it take 2022 get the badge (if he even got it then)?

 

Another curious thought:  Is it about the track record or about the actual pitches being thrown?  Usually those things line up nicely.  But occasionally something like Gausman's 2018 comes along to make me wonder...  Was Gausman an ace all along like we hoped?  Or did he get the label after posting the stats?  I'm not really wondering that, but what's more important on Elias' shopping matrix?

Which conveniently brings us to Gerrit Cole.  Was he an ace after 2015?  Certainly not after 2014.  Is one year enough (about 450 IP into his career)?  Then what about 2016 and 2017?  I assume he lost the ace label.  But Houston saw something...  Was it the one year of greatness on the resume (ala Cease)?  Was it the pitches?  What's on Elias' shopping matrix?

 

A few truisms that frame the squishy "bonafide ace" debate in a few directions:

Perception lags reality.  We start with recency.  Sample size matters.  

When you think of bonafide Aces, which names come to mind? In the past 10 years or so. deGrom? Kershaw? Guys you know, when they take the mound, you're going to have a chance to win the game. There are a lot of very good pitchers, but true Aces are few and far between. It's more than 400 innings of dominant stuff, an Ace isn't made overnight, there is longevity involved and the term gets tossed around quite liberally when it shouldn't.

Edited January 5 by Malike

[btdart20]

Just now, Malike said:

When you think of bonafide Aces, which names come to mind? In the past 10 years or so. deGrom? Kershaw? Guys you know, when they take the mound, you're going to have a chance to win the game. There are a lot of very good pitchers, but true Aces are few and far between. It's more than 400 innings of dominant stuff, and Ace isn't made overnight, there is longevity involved and the term gets tossed around quite liberally when it shouldn't.

deGrom and Kershaw can carry the ace badge.  I'll take Bradish and Grayson over those two in 2024.

[Malike]

Just now, btdart20 said:

deGrom and Kershaw can carry the ace badge.  I'll take Bradish and Grayson over those two in 2024.

Well, sure. Kershaw is old and has nothing left and deGrom is hurt, so not really going out on a limb there. Like I said, every year someone pitches like an Ace, let's see it sustained over several years before we start labeling them as such.

[ChosenOne21]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

Honestly, I’ve always hated the terminology. Because nobody agrees on what it means, and many people’s definitions are way stricter than the literal definition of the term.  

Couldn't agree more. Technically if you're a top-30 pitcher in MLB, you should be a #1. 31-60 a #2, etc.

Funny enough, if we go by 2023 ERA from pitchers who qualified for the title, Dean Kremer is ranked #30. He would, by definition (and again I'm just using ERA here) be the "best" pitcher on at least one team in MLB. This would make him a #1. And yet some people on this board can't wait to get rid of him to improve the rotation.

 

If we go by ERA of pitchers who threw at least 100 innings as a starting pitcher, Tyler Wells is 53rd and Dean Kremer is 58th. They would, by definition, be the second best starting pitchers on multiple teams. They'd be low-end #2's

Grayson Rodriguez comes in at 71st, making him a #3 (and yes, I know he's trending up). Kyle freaking Gibson was 87th, making him a low-end #3.

Bryce Miller, a popular trade target here, is 70th.

Dylan Cease is 82nd (and yes, I know there's #1 upside here).

 

Jack freaking Flaherty is #100, making him a #4.

 

There were only 117 pitchers who threw 100 innings as a starting pitcher last year. You'd have to set the innings limit at 70 to even get 150 pitchers. People massively, massively, overestimate how much even mediocre pitching talent is out there.

 

Edited January 5 by ChosenOne21

[btdart20]

29 minutes ago, Malike said:

Well, sure. Kershaw is old and has nothing left and deGrom is hurt, so not really going out on a limb there. Like I said, every year someone pitches like an Ace, let's see it sustained over several years before we start labeling them as such.

Yep, no limb walking here.  I'm just showing it's not as easy as looking over the last 5, 10, or X years to determine who's an ace.  Maybe it starts there, but there's more to it as well. 

[HakunaSakata]

I got to 30 pretty easily. 

Strider 
Cole 
Gausman 
Burnes 
Castillo 
Wheeler 
Gallen
Valdez
Webb
Glasnow
Snell
Nola
Lopez
Fried
KIrby
Verlander
Gilbert 
Musgrove
Gray
Luzardo
Ryan
Skubal
Cease
Senga
Ryan
Eflin
Kershaw
Bradish
Peralta

[btdart20]

7 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

There were only 117 pitchers who threw 100 innings as a starting pitcher last year. You'd have to set the innings limit at 70 to even get 150 pitchers. People massively, massively, overestimate how much even mediocre pitching talent is out there.

People (myself included) also massively underestimate how important innings pitched is.  The fact that you had to lower the limit to 70 IP to get 150 pitchers (30 teams of a 5 man rotation) is amazing.  Yennier Cano had 72.2 IP.

[Just Regular]

13 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

People (myself included) also massively underestimate how important innings pitched is.  The fact that you had to lower the limit to 70 IP to get 150 pitchers (30 teams of a 5 man rotation) is amazing.  Yennier Cano had 72.2 IP.

I think in today's game it is perhaps impossible for anyone to replicate Justin Verlander's 80-win career.     Greinke, Scherzer and Kershaw are in the 70's and may not get there.     Verlander's the only pitcher born since 1972 to get there.

Mussina and Pedro born circa 1970 also did, and Maddux/Big Unit circa 1965 had 100-win careers.      Clemens with the great asterisk born 1962.

CC Sabathia joins the Hall ballot next year as one of the interesting 60-wins is the new 90-wins generation of pitchers gets their career output scorned by geezers.

Clubs want guys like Jordan Lyles and Kyle Gibson and Dean Kremer, but only as a parlor trick so Felix Bautista is fresh enough in fall.

[Sports Guy]

 

[ChosenOne21]

19 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

Bradish is awesome, but every time I see something like that I always wonder how he did over his last 39 starts. They drew the line there for a reason and that reason is probably to make him look better than he is.

[catjuggler]

11 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Bradish is awesome, but every time I see something like that I always wonder how he did over his last 39 starts. They drew the line there for a reason and that reason is probably to make him look better than he is.

38 games ago was the 8 innings 0 earned runs against the Astros....39 was 5.2 innings 3 earned runs

[bpilktree]

18 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Bradish is awesome, but every time I see something like that I always wonder how he did over his last 39 starts. They drew the line there for a reason and that reason is probably to make him look better than he is.

He is actually at an ERA of exactly 3 from when he returned from injury middle of June 2022 which is 43 starts.