So, pitchers come with
ratings like 3-3-3. One shorthand way to keep track of their talent is
by adding these numbers up; so for instance, a 3-3-3 guy is a "9 pt.
pitcher", a 3-4-3 guy is a "10 pt. pitcher", etc. Using this system, I
now have some sense of the rules of thumb to follow when looking at
pitchers.
Specifically, when I'm looking for a low-end starter (4th or 5th)
or a middle reliever, I like to see a total talent *minimum* of 9 pts.
There can be successful pitchers with numbers lower than 9 (e.g., Doug
Kelly), but they're sort of an exception. There can also be 9 pt.
pitchers who are failures (this is more common), but again as a general
rule this seems pretty good.
For a top-end starter or closer, I look for a talent minimum of
11, although 12 is really ideal. If I could invent a staff, it would
go like this: SP1: 12 pts.; SP2: 11 pts; SP3: 10 pts; SP4: 9 pts; SP5:
9 pts; Closer: 12 pts; Setup men: 10 pts; Middle Relievers; mostly 9
pts. with maybe a few 8 pt guys.
I think this point system for evaluating pitchers should become
part of our vocabulary. "X is an 11 pt. guy; Y is only a 7 pt. guy,
etc." Let's look at some case studies...
This year, perhaps the biggest free agent closer signing is Mauro
Medina. After winning the fireman of the year award last year, Medina
has struggled quite a bit in 1991, posting a 5.84 ERA and record 11
saves vs. 9 blown saves. Obviously, that's a horrible save ratio. In
his talent-peak of 1987 (not his stat-wise peak), Medina was a 12 pt.
pitcher, solid for a closer. Last year, he had his award winning
season as an 11 point closer. According to my rule above, that's the
minimum I look for in a closer. This year, he's dropped to be a 10
point pitcher, which is below the minimum. By contrast, Herman Thomas
remains an 11 pt. closer, which meets the threshold. Thomas has been
having a good year this season, while Medina has struggled mightily.
My closer, Carlos Hernandez is a 10 pt. pitcher, but with 12
potential. If he doesn't reach that potential, if he stays at 10, I'll
be a little nervous about leaving him as a closer. 10 is great for a
set up man, but a little shakey as a closer. If he can make it to 12,
though, then I'll feel like I'm set at closer for years to come.
Frank "Mounds" Hearn of Boston is a 14 pt. closer; you won't find
better than that. (Of course, 15 is possible in principle, but I don't
know of any pitcher who's ever reached that.) It's no surprise Hearns
managed to win the Gibson Award in 1989. Julio "Punk" Perez is also
quite solid, at 13 pts. Anytime you're 12+, you're talking about an
elite pitcher, the kind of guy who can contend for Gibson Awards and
Fireman Awards and All Star Games, etc.
The best starters today are George Banks and Nelson Rowland, both
of whom are 13 pt. pitchers -- just what you would expect, since
they're battling for the AL Gibson Award. The two are both expected to
decline though. Banks was at his peak in 1990, when he was a 14 pt.
pitcher. So he's down 1 pt. from there (even though 1991 is better
than 1990 for him). Worse, scouts presently rate his talent to be just
10 pts. (3-4-3). By my lights, a 10 pt. pitcher is a solid 3rd
starter, or slightly iffy 2nd starter. It's not a top notch ace. Are
the injuries soon going to start taking their toll? Banks is still
just 25, but he's suffered a bunch of minor injuries in his short
career. It may be that Rob was smart to offer Banks only a 1 year
extension. Similarly, Rowland's talent projects to an 11 pt. pitcher.
That's still very solid; he could still make All Star games and
occasionally contend for the Gibson Award as an 11 pt. pitcher. But,
you wouldn't expect an 11 pt. pitcher to dominate year-in-year-out,
like a Luis Delgado in his prime, or a George Banks in his prime. So,
Rowland projects to be good, but not world-class great.
Looking
forward to free agency, last year Carlos Pena wins his 2nd Gibson Award
as a 13 pt. pitcher. This year, he dropped to an 11 pt. guy, and he's
only 5-7, 4.61. Maybe this is why Chicago hasn't locked him up with an
extension. Again, 11 pts. is an acceptable ace or a quite solid #2.
But, I'm not sure you can count on Pena to keep racking up Gibsons.
Buyer beware.
One of the most consistent pitchers for years is Dallas' Michael
Bowden, who's been a 12 pt. guy most of his career, and continues to be
one at the age of 33. Fittingly, he continues to have good success.
The most talented pitching prospect in baseball is Lawrence Jordan
of Cleveland. The 3rd overall pick in 1990, Jordan projects to be a 12
pt. pitcher -- the same as Bowden (for a reference point). Right this
minute, Jordan is a 9 pt. guy. If my rule of thumb is right, then at
this very moment Jordan is a borderline low-end starter: maybe he could
be a 4th or 5th starter in the majors right now. If Cleveland nurtures
him properly, though, he figures to be among the top aces in all of
baseball.
Another top prospect (i.e., one who makes the top 100) is Randall
Garner of Omaha. Garner was at his peak in potential in 1990, when he
projected to be an 11 pt. pitcher -- a solid 2nd starter or perhaps
even ace. Today, though, Gardner's potential has dropped, making him a
9 pt. pitcher, both potentially and presently. If his ratings don't go
back up eventually, that projects more to a 4th or 5th starter, or
maybe 3rd (bit of a stretch). Not a top shelf guy.
In last year's draft, 3 starting pitchers were selected in the
first round. 2 were 9 pt. talents, while 1 was a 10 pt. talent. I
don't know if this is usually how things go -- maybe starting pitchers
always start off with low potential -- but this makes me think it was a
weak draft, SP wise. By contrast, the top reliever drafted was
Mohammed Koigi by Houston. Koigi projects to be a 14 pt. talent --
we're talking Frank Hearns-level, here. Right now, Koigi is 8 pts., so
you figure Houston will let him spend 1-3 more full season in the
minors, and then try and have him make his debut in 1993, 1994, or 1995.
Here's an analysis of our starting staffs, strictly from the standpoint of the points system.
OMAHA.
SP1: Steve Page - 10 pts. Ideally, a 2nd or even 3rd starter; a bit of a stretch as an ace.
SP2: Thomas Merritt - 9 pts. Ideally, a 3rd starter or lower.
SP3: Adam Hamilton - 9 pts. Respectable 3rd starter.
SP4: Murray Morgan - 9 pts. 8 pt. talent. The 9 pts is fully
acceptable as a 4th starter, but the 8 pt. talent would make me a
little nervous.
SP5: Randall Garner - 9 pts. Discussed above. Maybe he can bounce back.
DL: Felix Rojas - 9 pts. 8 pt. talent. According to my rule,
Rojas' talent makes him a borderline starter. It's probably important
that in coming back from injury, his numbers don't dip in the way
scouts worry they might.
DL: Orlando Diaz - 11 pts. 10 pt. talent. If Diaz lives up to his
11 pts. he figures to be an ace who competes for All Stars and maybe
even awards during his career years. If he becomes a 10 pt. guy, then
he's more like a respectable 2nd starter, or maybe even a 3rd.
MIAMI
SP1: George Banks - 13 pts, 10 pt. talent. Discussed above. For
now, he's as good as it gets. 2 years down the line, who knows.
SP2: Aurelia Davila - 9 pts. 10 pt. talent. The 9 pts. makes him
a non-ideal 2nd starter for now; if he can reach his 10 pt. talent
level, though, then he's a decent #2 option.
SP3: Ben Stinson - 9 pts. Talent-wise, Stinson is pitching over
his head this year, with his low 2 ERA. But again, talent ratings and
my pt. system isn't meant to be a hard, exceptionless rule. Maybe
Stinson will continue to thrive despite being only a 9 pt. guy.
SP4: Bo Clark - 9 pts. 11 pt. talent. According to my rule, Clark
is a low-end of the rotation guy for now, but a potential ace or solid
2nd starter, if he makes it to 11 pts.
SP5: Forest Thomas - 8 pts. 11 pt. talent. 8 pts. is a little low
to be in a rotation. If, somehow, the 42 year old Thomas could make it
back to his 11 pt. talent level, he would be great. Don't count on
it. For what it's worth, Thomas was an 11 pt. guy for most of his
prime. That might be a nice reference point: if you have an 11 point
guy, think of him as being like Forest Thomas -- an All Star perhaps,
but probably not an award winner.
DL: Ed Hartley - 7 pts. By my rules, Hartley isn't even a
marginal starter. He should be a AAA pitcher at best. But, again,
exceptions.
WASHINGTON
SP1: Sergio Garcia - 11 pts. During his peak, Garcia was a 12 pt.
guy. Since he's dropped to 11, he hasn't seriously competed for a
Gibson Award. Still, he was an All Star this year, and 11 pts. is
decent for a staff ace.
SP2: Ty Moore - 11 pts. Moore's injury has knocked him from a 12
pt. guy to an 11 pt. pitcher. Again, that's roughly the difference
between year-in-year-out contender for the Gibson Award, vs. a nice top
of the rotation guy who might occasionally challenge for All Star
appearances. We very much hope that Moore can recapture his pre-injury
form.
SP3: Roger Wright - 9 pts. Wright has regressed from 11 pts. in
1989 to 10 in 1990 to 9 in 1991. Maybe he's another exception though:
his 12-4 and 3.38 record in 1991 is the best of his career.
Talent-wise, he's merely an adequate 3rd starter; stat-wise, he's very
good as a 3rd guy.
SP4: Antonio Aranda - 9 pts., 8 talent. A 9 pt. guy should be a
back of the rotation pitcher, and that's what Aranda is for us. His
4-10 record is dreadful, but his 3.58 ERA testifies to a lot of bad
luck. If he drops down to an 8 talent pitcher, though, we start to get
concerned.
SP5: Dan Fulton - 8 pts. 9 talent. Fulton has joined the rotation
only recently, but has been pitching above his talent level. We aren't
yet convinced he's for real, but we'll see. 8 pts. figures to be a
borderline starter at the big league level, while 9 pts. is respectable.
ALSO: Gustavo Chavez - 10 pts. Talent-wise, Chavez figures to be
our 3rd best starter -- the sort of guy who should be a solid 3rd or
okay 2nd. Despite showing flashes, though, he hasn't quite lived up to
this in terms of production. Both in 1990 and 1991, he's bounced back
and forth from the rotation to the bullpen.
One last bit of analysis. No doubt, the greatest EWB pitcher of
all time was Luis "Gizmo" Delgado. How does Delgado fit into the point
system? In his (very long) prime, he was consistently a 13 pt.
pitcher, occasionally dipping down to 12 and then back again. 13 pts.
is where Banks and Rowland are today, and again they're the tops in the
league. So, for a very long time, Delgado had the point value you
would expect of the top pitcher in the league. At the very end of his
career, in 1988 at age 41, Delgado was still a 10 pt. pitcher, with 13
pt. talent. That would make him a 2nd starter, or maybe a 3rd. His
record that last year was 15-16, 2.81 (3rd in AL), which again is what
you would expect.
Summing things up, I think this points system is a helpful way to
analyze pitchers, and to abstract away from differences on categories
(e.g., who's better, a 4-3-3 pitcher or a 2-5-3? According to the
points system, they're equal). It's also helpful to project talent, to
know what you're getting with someone who has 9 vs. 11 pt. potential,
say.
