The Athletic - MLB insiders rank starting pitchers

[ChosenOne21]

8 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I wouldn't say a fluke, just had a strong year.

Folks are acting like 25th overall is somehow a bad ranking.  That's lower end #1 higher end #2 starting pitcher.  I think that's fair considering the sample size.

It's not that 25th overall is a bad ranking as much as it seems obviously low. Also, that's not a #1/#2 according to their silly system. They say that's a low #2, high #3 which is what I really take issue with. How is the 25th best pitcher a low #2, high #3?

[Frobby]

9 hours ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Last year, Bradish was way better than the 25th best pitcher in baseball. Like I said, you'd have to think last year was a fluke to rank him that low.

WAR is a somewhat reasonable metric for pitchers, though I like it better for hitters. He was 16th in fWAR for starting pitchers last year, but I think that's underselling him a bit. WAR is heavily based on innings pitched, and on a per inning basis he was better than some of the people above him.

Yes, Bradish's season last year was that of a #1 pitcher. Even if we limit it to playoff teams, I'll bet his season was better than the best starting pitcher season on at least one team that made the playoffs and probably several.

I don't care that they're executives, scouts, and analysts. Their distribution is way too bottom heavy, even for "playoff caliber" teams, whatever that means. Bradish was the best starting pitcher on a playoff caliber team, so even if that's their silly standard, he's a #1 by their own definition. How is Grayson Rodriguez not an "applicant" by their standards? Does he really have little to no chance to be an "ace?"

I'm not claiming anti-Oriole bias here--I just can't see how they ranked other teams' pitchers. I'm sure I'd have issues there, too.

It’s pretty simple.  They aren’t ranking the pitchers based solely on last season.  Guys with a longer track record of success are going to rank higher than guys who’ve had one good season.   It’s not that anyone thinks Bradish was a “fluke,” but you can’t assume that level of performance will be repeated just because he did it one time.  

[dystopia]

11 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It’s pretty simple.  They aren’t ranking the pitchers based solely on last season.  Guys with a longer track record of success are going to rank higher than guys who’ve had one good season.   It’s not that anyone thinks Bradish was a “fluke,” but you can’t assume that level of performance will be repeated just because he did it one time.  

Bradish also had the 2nd half of 2022 after he was recalled, similar to what happened with G-Rod last year. People forget about that. 

[ChosenOne21]

30 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It’s pretty simple.  They aren’t ranking the pitchers based solely on last season.  Guys with a longer track record of success are going to rank higher than guys who’ve had one good season.   It’s not that anyone thinks Bradish was a “fluke,” but you can’t assume that level of performance will be repeated just because he did it one time.  

"Sure, you pitched like an Ace/#1 last year, but there's no way that's who you actually are. There's not even a chance. You're not even an 'applicant'"

This is what I see when I read their ranking. And that doesn't make sense to me. He's done it for the last year/year and a half but there's no chance that's who he actually is? How else am I supposed to interpret that other than they think he's a fluke? If he had a multi-season track record of mediocrity then pulled last year out of his butt, I could see it, but it was his second season in the majors.

Edited March 22 by ChosenOne21

[Can_of_corn]

13 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

"Sure, you pitched like an Ace/#1 last year, but there's no way that's who you actually are. There's not even a chance. You're not even an 'applicant'"

This is what I see when I read their ranking. And that doesn't make sense to me. He's done it for the last year/year and a half but there's no chance that's who he actually is? How else am I supposed to interpret that other than they think he's a fluke? If he had a multi-season track record of mediocrity then pulled last year out of his butt, I could see it, but it was his second season in the majors.

That's because you are looking for a reason to view it that way.

If Bradish pitched for the Brewers would you still feel that way?

If they viewed him as a fluke why would he be rated in the top 30?

 

[dystopia]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

That's because you are looking for a reason to view it that way.

If Bradish pitched for the Brewers would you still feel that way?

If they viewed him as a fluke why would he be rated in the top 30?

 

And you are looking for any excuse to not view it that way.

You strike me as an easy mark for scammers.

[Frobby]

12 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

"Sure, you pitched like an Ace/#1 last year, but there's no way that's who you actually are. There's not even a chance. You're not even an 'applicant'"

This is what I see when I read their ranking. And that doesn't make sense to me. He's done it for the last year/year and a half but there's no chance that's who he actually is? How else am I supposed to interpret that other than they think he's a fluke? If he had a multi-season track record of mediocrity then pulled last year out of his butt, I could see it, but it was his second season in the majors.

I think you’re just reading too much into it.  Bradish was a top ten pitcher in baseball last year, but on a list like this, he’s going to take a back seat to guys who have shown that they’re good year after year.   If he has another top 10 ERA this year, he’ll probably move way up the list next year.  

Another reason Bradish is downgraded is he barely qualified for the ERA title last year, whereas a lot of guys ranked above him are reliable innings eaters in addition to being quality pitchers.   Bradish won’t establish himself as a reliable innings eater this year, even if he’s able to come back this season.  
 

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, dystopia said:

And you are looking for any excuse to not view it that way.

You strike me as an easy mark for scammers.

Wow, that's random.

I guess I've just been lucky these 52 years...

[Just Regular]

The present injury probably ends up changing basically who Kyle Bradish is as a pitcher, but don't forget his 2022 was similar to Grayson's 2023.

The 2022 game log shows him pounded out of the rotation with a 7.38 ERA in mid-June.

Since his 7.29.2022 return:

-fWAR considers Burnes and Bradish level with 4.9 apiece

-his 2.96 ERA is 3rd among all qualified pitchers

-his 240 innings pitched are 26th

He had performed like a Good #1 starter for 1.5 seasons, including shoving against those white-hot Rangers.

MLB Bats are routinely going to hang 7.00 ERA's even on very good Arms as they cut their teeth, as Corbin Burnes can attest.

[Bemorewins]

18 hours ago, dystopia said:

The Orioles always get shat on by the media. Just the way it is. 

I don’t see that being the case anymore with all the young talent/prospects/young stars. There is definitely a lot of positive media attention on the team in particular focusing on #1 prospect Jackson Holliday.

I think a lot of the negative media attention had to do with how poorly the Angeloses treated everyone in the game including the media. We were largely a laughing stock under their regime. I don’t think that is/will be the case any longer.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Bemorewins said:

I don’t see that being the case anymore with all the young talent/prospects/young stars. There is definitely a lot of positive media attention on the team in particular focusing on #1 prospect Jackson Holliday.

I think a lot of the negative media attention had to do with how poorly the Angeloses treated everyone in the game including the media. We were largely a laughing stock under their regime. I don’t think that is/will be the case any longer.

They are spouting nonsense.

The National Media is fawning all over this Oriole team.

Some folks are just looking for a reason to feel slighted.

Then they buy a hat...

[dzorange]

2 hours ago, ChosenOne21 said:

How is the 25th best pitcher a low #2, high #3?

Is this not exactly what he is on the Orioles? And was making this happen not a priority for the Orioles this past offseason?

Edited March 22 by dzorange

[dystopia]

50 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Wow, that's random.

I guess I've just been lucky these 52 years...

Clearly you believe everything the media tells you, and if you trust the media you’ll trust anybody. 

[ChosenOne21]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

That's because you are looking for a reason to view it that way.

If Bradish pitched for the Brewers would you still feel that way?

If they viewed him as a fluke why would he be rated in the top 30?

 

This isn't about me having a chip on my shoulder because I feel the Orioles are getting slighted. If the Brewers had a clone of Kyle Bradish who was rated where he was, I would still feel he's underrated. My point is that this method and, frankly, how pretty much everyone talks about starting pitchers MASSIVLY UNDERRATES ALMOST ALL OF THEM.

The impression I'm getting is most people think there are like 2-5 #1 starters in all of baseball, maybe 15-20 or so #2 starters, twice that many #3 starters and everyone else is awful. But this ignores the reality that there are 150 starting pitcher jobs at any point in time.

To me, If you're in the 80th percentile of starting pitchers, you're a #1. If you're in the 60th percentile of starting pitchers, you're a #2, etc. If you want to single out a few pitchers as "Aces" I guess I'm fine with that.

There are prominent posters on this board who were hoping to get Dean Kremer out of the rotation earlier in the offseason because "he's not a starting pitcher" or "he's a #4 starter at best" or something like that. Granted, I'd love to have a rotation of pitchers better than Kremer, but he was something like a 70th percentile starting pitcher last year. Depending on what metric you use, he would have been the best starting pitcher on multiple teams. How is that a #4 anywhere but on a wishlist?

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I think you’re just reading too much into it.  Bradish was a top ten pitcher in baseball last year, but on a list like this, he’s going to take a back seat to guys who have shown that they’re good year after year.   If he has another top 10 ERA this year, he’ll probably move way up the list next year.  

Another reason Bradish is downgraded is he barely qualified for the ERA title last year, whereas a lot of guys ranked above him are reliable innings eaters in addition to being quality pitchers.   Bradish won’t establish himself as a reliable innings eater this year, even if he’s able to come back this season.  
 

He missed what, two starts, and had an abbreviated third because a comebacker hit his leg in the first inning? That's just bad luck, and that's something people just looking at a bunch of numbers wouldn't consider. And yes, I'm sure other pitchers had similar bad luck, but even so, Kyle Bradish pitched more innings than the vast majority of major league starting pitchers. And they were better innings than the vast majority as well.

32 minutes ago, dzorange said:

Is this not exactly what he is on the Orioles? And was making this happen not a priority for the Orioles this past offseason?

Was Steve Avery a #4 starter because the Braves had three pitchers better than him?

When people talk about what number a starter is, they generally don't mean on their team--they're talking about the general ability of the player.

Edited March 22 by ChosenOne21

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, ChosenOne21 said:

This isn't about me having a chip on my shoulder because I feel the Orioles are getting slighted. If the Brewers had a clone of Kyle Bradish who was rated where he was, I would still feel he's underrated. My point is that this method and, frankly, how pretty much everyone talks about starting pitchers MASSIVLY UNDERRATES ALMOST ALL OF THEM.

The impression I'm getting is most people think there are like 2-5 #1 starters in all of baseball, maybe 15-20 or so #2 starters, twice that many #3 starters and everyone else is awful. But this ignores the reality that there are 150 starting pitcher jobs at any point in time.

To me, If you're in the 80th percentile of starting pitchers, you're a #1. If you're in the 60th percentile of starting pitchers, you're a #2, etc. If you want to single out a few pitchers as "Aces" I guess I'm fine with that.

 

If what you are trying to say is that you are OK with him being ranked #25 but think that should be considered a low #1 - high #2 I don't disagree with you.

If you have 30 teams you should have 30 #1 starters.