NFBC Content Panel: Top 25 Starting Pitchers

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:55 pm

Here is the composite Top 25 Starting Pitchers according to our NFBC Content Panel:

1. Johan Santana

2. Chris Carpenter

3. Roy Oswalt

4. Brandon Webb

5. Roy Halladay

6. Jake Peavy

7. Carlos Zambrano

8. Jeremy Bonderman

9. John Lackey

10. Felix Hernandez

11. Scott Kazmir

12. Brett Myers

13. C.C. Sabathia

14. Aaron Harang

15. Jason Schmidt

16. John Smoltz

17. Chris Young

18. Dan Haren

19. Daisuke Matsuzaka

20. Cole Hamels

21. Ben Sheets

22. Jered Weaver

23. Curt Schilling

24. Bronson Arroyo

25. Erik Bedard

Interesting insight:

** Johan Santana was No. 1 on every ballot.

** Chris Carpenter was No. 2 on all but three ballots, while Roy Oswalt and Jake Peavy generated the other No. 2 votes.

** Roy Oswalt was a consensus No. 3, but after that if got dicey. Brandon Webb ranked as high as third and as low as 10th. Roy Halladay ranked as high as third and as low as ninth. Carlos Zambrano ranked as high as third and as low as eighth. After the Top 7, there was a big dropoff.

** Daisuke Matsuzaka ranked 19th overall, but went as high as eighth and unranked by a couple of owners. Ben Sheets also was ranked as high as eighth and unranked by one owner.

Thoughts?

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:17 pm

I think the couple of owners who didn't have DMats in the Top 25 should post their lists and defend leaving him off - absurd

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:26 pm

I think it looks pretty good, i would move Halladay down 5 spots , just doesnt get enough k's.Also move Hernandez down 5 spots, like 11 to 15 better than Felix the cat.Hamels might be moved up a couple. well done.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:53 pm

Originally posted by Captain Hook:

I think the couple of owners who didn't have DMats in the Top 25 should post their lists and defend leaving him off - absurd It shouldn't have to be defended. The first 18 are aces or as sure as a sure thing pitcher is going to get. After that it gets Daise.

poopy tooth · Post by **poopy tooth** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:48 pm

How could the '07 NL Cy Young Winner be out of top 20?

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:02 pm

Originally posted by Captain Hook:

I think the couple of owners who didn't have DMats in the Top 25 should post their lists and defend leaving him off - absurd I am a member of the panel and do have him on there, but would have just as easy of time defending not having him on as having him. Do you like your kool aid in grape or fruit punch-don't drink too much just yet.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:05 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by Captain Hook:

I think the couple of owners who didn't have DMats in the Top 25 should post their lists and defend leaving him off - absurd It shouldn't have to be defended. The first 18 are aces or as sure as a sure thing pitcher is going to get. After that it gets Daise. [/QUOTE]I left him off, so Daisueme !!!

Q

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:14 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Ben Sheets also was ranked as high as eighth and unranked by one owner.Sheets was unranked? Where's bjoak when you need him?

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:28 pm

I had Daisuke 20th. I just can't rate him higher than proven talent yet. I had Sheets at 27 due to injury risk. I had Becket at 21 but I don't see him on the list at all!

I guess I also think Arroyo is more for real than everyone else....

Spy

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:15 pm

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Ben Sheets also was ranked as high as eighth and unranked by one owner.Sheets was unranked? Where's bjoak when you need him? [/QUOTE]I had him ranked, though not too high. When I drafted him his only health concern was his back. I suggested back then his back was fine. I was exactly right; it was the onslaught of other problems that became issues. I didn't have him in any league last year and it is unlikely that I will this year. I draft players with good health outlooks unless they are great players going in the 15th or 22nd rounds and I don't hate their outlooks besides (Drew, Thomas).

Crazy Like a Fox · Post by **Crazy Like a Fox** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:37 am

Originally posted by Captain Hook:

I think the couple of owners who didn't have DMats in the Top 25 should post their lists and defend leaving him off - absurd I think it's it's more absurd that somebody ranked him as high as 9th than not ranked him at all.

He's an absolute unknown. He has a better chance of being Irabu than he does Hideo Nomo in his first year.

Negatives going against him:

1. It will be his rookie year (I don't care if he's pitched in the Japanese League for years)

2. He's pitching in the 2nd biggest market in baseball = PRESSURE

3. He's pitching in one of the best hitter's parks in the American League

4. He's pitching against the hitting rich American League

5. He's pitching against major league hitters who dwarf the Japanese hitters he has faced in the past.

Listen. I don't mean to bash the guy. He may very well have great stuff, but so do many pitchers in baseball who continue to struggle.

In my mind, he has to prove it before I could stick him in the top 25.

The reason he's ahead of some quality arms....I think it's overhype more than anything, something I would hope the NFBC doesn't fall into.

Ahead of Jered Weaver........WOW!

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:54 am

1. It will be his rookie year (I don't care if he's pitched in the Japanese League for years)

You may not care, but he is 26 years old and has pitched professionally for quite a while, including international competitions. He is not a 20 year old kid out of AA.

2. He's pitching in the 2nd biggest market in baseball = PRESSURE

This is a guy who had 50,000 people watching him pitch in his high school championship and has been under the spotlight ever since. This is a guy who took the mound and won the WBC for a country whose code of honor reaps pressure.

3. He's pitching in one of the best hitter's parks in the American League

Ever since they put up the 406 club structure above and behind home plate, Fenway has played neutral to a slight pitchers park. It is actually a negative park in terms of HR.

4. He's pitching against the hitting rich American League

Agreed, except he doesn't have to face one of the best lineups in the game.

5. He's pitching against major league hitters who dwarf the Japanese hitters he has faced in the past.

I think dwarf is too strong. What I do think is a difference is top to bottom, the lineups in MLB are better. That is there may have been a part of the lineup he could cruise through but not anymore.

The aspects I am more concerned about are transitioning from 5 days of rest to 4 and the difference in lifestyle, which not only includes being away from home but also playing in several time zones, at different times of the day etc.

I think on the average, the panel got it about right. There are a couple of guys ahead of him I might take first, but 15-20 is fine.

Ahead of Jered Weaver........WOW!

There's something ironic about the fact your argument centers around inexperience, lack of a track record, hype, etc, and you choose Jered Weaver as the guy you are most flabbergasted about.

[ January 27, 2007, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:24 am

He's an absolute unknown. Funny how you go on about how good you are at evaluating players and then you blatantly admit you have no idea about how to evaluate someone who has never pitched in the majors before. If he never pitched a day in his life, if he had no stats to look up, I would agree with you, but this is a guy who has plenty of experience and in order to compete at this level you need to be able to evaluate that and evaluate that within the context of his new ballpark, defense, and offense. You can do none of these things.

I think it is best for everyone that you are staying home.

[ January 27, 2007, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

Crazy Like a Fox · Post by **Crazy Like a Fox** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:19 pm

He will be lucky to have an e.r.a in the low 4's.

I say high 4's to low 5's barely making him a top 40 let alone top 20.

Believe me, if I'm wrong about him and he goes out and has a superb year I will certainly come back on these boards and proclaim that I'm an idiot (waiting for Chest to chime in) but I don't see that happening.

I see him struggling mightily, and he could very well be sent to the minors by the All-Star break (might not due to the money he's being paid).

He is a HUGE risk in the top 10 rounds where I'm sure he's being taken.

As far as Weaver is concerned, he has great stuff, great makeup, and in 4 months of play, he didn't have one bad month, consistent across the board. He is a stud, but I realize he needs to prove it for a whole year. My point about Weaver is that he's 10x safer pick than Daisuke (don't compare me to Irabu) Matsuzaka

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:37 pm

Originally posted by Big Dog:

He will be lucky to have an e.r.a in the low 4's.

I say high 4's to low 5's barely making him a top 40 let alone top 20.

Believe me, if I'm wrong about him and he goes out and has a superb year I will certainly come back on these boards and proclaim that I'm an idiot (waiting for Chest to chime in) but I don't see that happening.

I see him struggling mightily, and he could very well be sent to the minors by the All-Star break (might not due to the money he's being paid).

He is a HUGE risk in the top 10 rounds where I'm sure he's being taken.

As far as Weaver is concerned, he has great stuff, great makeup, and in 4 months of play, he didn't have one bad month, consistent across the board. He is a stud, but I realize he needs to prove it for a whole year. My point about Weaver is that he's 10x safer pick than Daisuke (don't compare me to Irabu) Matsuzaka Listen to him, he stayed at a Holiday Inn.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:54 pm

Big Dog, I'm just curious...

You aren't at all concerned that Weaver's BABIP was an unbelievably low .239 and DIPS theory suggests it should correct towards the more normal .300-.310?

And furthermore, you are not all worried about the fact that Weaver is an extreme fly ball pitcher? If some of those lucky breaks last year fall for hits this year, and he stays at the league norm of 11% fly balls for homers, his ERA could possibly suffer.

Don't get me wrong, Weaver is very good. But he was extremely lucky last season. In 330 AB when the ball was put in play, by rights he should have given up about 100 hits, but he only gave up 79. Add those 21 lucky hits onto his WHIP and it goes from 1.03 to 1.12 -- still very good but not 1.03. If the same percentage of baserunners score, his ERA rises from 2.56 to 3.04. Again, 3.04 is quite good, just not 2.56.

Now imagine if he was unlucky next year -- his stats could even be worse than 3.04/1.12.

Sorry, he is not even close to 10x safer than Matsuzaka. He is a risk as well. His 2006 stats are representative of a lucky pitcher, which is nothing unusual with such a small sample of 123 IP.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:30 pm

What pitcher ISN'T a risk for 2007? These guys all have question marks -- yes, even Johan Santana.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:16 pm

Big Dog we do not need these results to come in to confirm whether or not you are an idiot.

Zola vs Big Dog in an intellectual debate is a number one seed vs a number 16 seed.

By the way Big Dog- bjoak and Doughboys abuse you almost as much as me-

Now on point my one concern about this guy is the decreased rest he will get between starts. My second biggest concern is that bullpen behind him will give a few back.

In the end if I can make him my number 3 I will take him if not Chest will pass that risk on to someone else.

[ January 27, 2007, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Chest Rockwell ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:28 pm

You aren't at all concerned that Weaver's BABIP was an unbelievably low .239 and DIPS theory suggests it should correct towards the more normal .300-.310?

And furthermore, you are not all worried about the fact that Weaver is an extreme fly ball pitcher? If some of those lucky breaks last year fall for hits this year, and he stays at the league norm of 11% fly balls for homers, his ERA could possibly suffer. I can answer that question. No, he wasn't at all concerned about it. Also, he had to google DIPS and BABIP. He knows what ERA is, though.

I don't think Weaver is a 'complete unknown' by any stretch, but the lack of data since college is disturbing about him. Using, what I know his ERA came out to 4.26 in my system. I actually think he is a good bet to outperform that but the result is almost as scary as the Angel's outfield defense.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:33 pm

What pitcher ISN'T a risk for 2007? These guys all have question marks -- yes, even Johan Santana. Risk is relative.

With respect to Santana, you can throw a board on top of his 3-year stats, put a ball on the board and it wouldn't roll off the stats are so consistent.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:37 pm

He will be lucky to have an e.r.a in the low 4's.

I say high 4's to low 5's barely making him a top 40 let alone top 20.

You say this, but really you have no idea because he is a 'complete unknown.' I'm not defending Matsuzaka, btw. I have him at 4.08, a good ERA for his ballpark and defense. I'm not done with wins yet but I expect him to project well there and 8 K/9 makes him a solid acquisition.

But not drafting him because you feel

demonstrates that you could potentially lose value there and in all kinds of similar places.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:42 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big Dog:

[QB]

I say high 4's to low 5's barely making him a top 40 let alone top 20.

Since everyone has found their favorite thing in your quote to abuse you on this is mine. A pitcher with an era in the high 4's or low 5's barely in the top 40- if you truely believe that then he is barely draftable even in this format.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:45 pm

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big Dog:

[QB]

I say high 4's to low 5's barely making him a top 40 let alone top 20.

Since everyone has found their favorite thing in your quote to abuse you on this is mine. A pitcher with an era in the high 4's or low 5's barely in the top 40- if you truely believe that then he is barely draftable even in this format. I see sportsbettingman on the phone getting a second on his house for this wager...

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:50 pm

Originally posted by UFS:

quote:Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big Dog:

[QB]

I say high 4's to low 5's barely making him a top 40 let alone top 20.

Since everyone has found their favorite thing in your quote to abuse you on this is mine. A pitcher with an era in the high 4's or low 5's barely in the top 40- if you truely believe that then he is barely draftable even in this format. I see sportsbettingman on the phone getting a second on his house for this wager... [/QUOTE]I like Lance a lot I hated seeing him make that bet-

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:49 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

Also, he had to google DIPS and BABIP. Results: DIPSHIT and BABEL