NFBC Content Panel: Top 25 Starting Pitchers

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:43 am

For me, I do not doubt Smoltz's production. He is a class act and a future Hall of Famer. When he pitches, he is one of the best.

However, he is 39, pitched in 35 games, threw 232 innings (i.e. into the seventh inning on average) as the Braves did not have much faith in the bullpen last year. He also had 211 k's. That is a lot of pitches. In my mind, he is at risk for some prime DL time this year.

Does he have one more year in that elbow? Somebody is going to make him their ace and staff anchor. If he makes it through, they look good. I think there are options that are nearly as good (maybe not in K's), but will have less baggage.

[ January 29, 2007, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:46 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

The only thing smoltz has done is produce. Why do people continue to doubt him? The six inning wins that pen could produce for him and lighten his workload a bit make me a little bit more pro Smoltz.

Still a little too old and a little too much of a health risk to be my number one guy.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:51 am

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

The only thing smoltz has done is produce. Why do people continue to doubt him? The six inning wins that pen could produce for him and lighten his workload a bit make me a little bit more pro Smoltz.

Still a little too old and a little too much of a health risk to be my number one guy. [/QUOTE]Great #2 for your staff, but a mediocre #1. For all the reasons given, plus...where's the upside?

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:59 am

Wayne- I think the obvious answer to your question is your list is a little too risk adverse. My qualifications for a number 2 starter are that they are a very good pitcher who I think has a better than avg chance to pitch like a number one. Four NFBC leagues last year and I got it right twice and wrong twice. Webb on 2 teams, Harden and Buerhle on the others. Not so sure I applied that logic with Buerhle but I thought I was getting value where we got him in the champs league- not so much value in the end.

So Wayne if you prescribe to my theory tell me about the day you visualize Vazquez or Freddy pitching like a number one? It is true, Chest. I may becoming so risk averse that I need to wear a skirt (just a joke, no offense intended to the ladies of the board)!

Vazquez and Garcia are both pitching for teams with powerhouse offenses. Vazquez may have been the unluckiest pitcher last year, but is in his pitching prime (30 yo), threw 200+ IP last year, but averaged just of 6 IP per start so was not crazy overworked. He pitched his home games in a power park, but was a little better than average giving up the long balls (the 21 AL pitchers with 200+ IP averaged 24.5 HR, Vazquez 23). His K/BB is great (3.3), so you have a power pitcher (180+ k) in his prime on a powerful team. Nice.

Garcia is a bit of a tougher shot. Lower K's than Vazquez, more HR (32) last year, and a little more work (averaged about 6.5 IP per start). While Citizens is still a hitters park, it is probably less so that U.S. Cellular. He is also in his prime (30) and hopefully may take advantage of the Philly line-up as well as the lack of DH. I see upside.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:01 am

Plus, in speaking of the Top 25, we are not just looking at the Number Ones, but also the solid Number Two's.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:06 am

Remember garcia gets to face the pitcher, not the DH this year

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:52 am

With respect to Matsuzaka, I see a guy who tops out at 95, throws six pitches for strikes, has a catcher in Varitek that once caught Pedro so he is not afraid to work backwards and a fellow SP in Schilling who literally keeps a book on every batter and umpire.

Between being on center stage since high school and winning the WBC, I see a guy that can handle the pressure.

If he was in the NL, I'd say something like he can finish anywhere from #2 overall to out of the top-25 altogether. Being in the AL East tempers expectations, so I'll say he could be the #2 AL pitcher behind Johan to being out of the top 10 or 12 AL pitchers.

I don't have my numbers done yet, but off the cuff, I'd have him probably 14-16, when I started getting into the Schmidt/Smoltz class where there injury risk balances the unknown with respect to Matsuzaka.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:40 am

Smoltz threw mostly category one starts last year (less than 100 pitches). 15 starts were category one. He threw 8 cat 2 starts (101-109), 8 cat 3 (110-121), and 4 cat 4 starts (122-132). That is not maybe as gentle on him as you'd like it to be for his age, but there is no evidence that they abused him because they were desperate to have him in a game. It is a nice downward progression, unlike some of the guys who have more cat 3 than cat 1 starts. I know some respectable people like to use innings pitched, even in the face of the more precise pitch count number, but to me it's mythical evidence used to support a prejudice.

[ January 29, 2007, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:27 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

Smoltz threw mostly category one starts last year (less than 100 pitches). 15 starts were category one. He threw 8 cat 2 starts (101-109), 8 cat 3 (110-121), and 4 cat 4 starts (122-132). That is not maybe as gentle on him as you'd like it to be for his age, but there is no evidence that they abused him because they were desperate to have him in a game. It is a nice downward progression, unlike some of the guys who have more cat 3 than cat 1 starts. I know some respectable people like to use innings pitched, even in the face of the more precise pitch count number, but to me it's mythical evidence used to support a prejudice. Good information. Thanks. How was the distribution for the twelve heavier starts? Did the frequency of "stretching" the pitch counts get heavier in the second half?

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:35 am

That I don't know.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:35 am

I looked at the stats and answered my own question. The distribution is not too bad, but September was a heavy work-load month for him even after the Braves fell out of it (I wonder why?).

In five of the six starts from 9/6 to 10/1 (except for a two inning bomb versus CHI), Smoltz averaged 111 pitches per game with a high of 125 and a low of 99. Overall, Bojak's info takes some of my concern over his over-work away, but why would the Braves, after the rosters had expanded and after they were out of it (especially the last two or three weeks of the season), run Smoltz out there every five days for so long? Doesn't make good sense to me.

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:07 am

Bjoak, nice job on the innings Smoltz pitched.I had Smoltz last year in a few leagues.He is 39 , and you just dont know when age will hit a person.I think the King said it early , Smoltz would make a nice number two.I saw no decline so i would again go after him , but as a nu. 2.

For the dice man , i think he will go too high for me , so i probably wont own him in any leagues.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:31 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

Smoltz threw mostly category one starts last year (less than 100 pitches). 15 starts were category one. He threw 8 cat 2 starts (101-109), 8 cat 3 (110-121), and 4 cat 4 starts (122-132). That is not maybe as gentle on him as you'd like it to be for his age, but there is no evidence that they abused him because they were desperate to have him in a game. It is a nice downward progression, unlike some of the guys who have more cat 3 than cat 1 starts. I know some respectable people like to use innings pitched, even in the face of the more precise pitch count number, but to me it's mythical evidence used to support a prejudice. Brian that is good info and one as a guy who follows the Braves I somewhat shocked by-

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:38 am

Without looking anything up I would suspect that Smoltz's Cat 3 starts and his high pitch counts in September were due to chance or high quality. Two-hitter bids, complete game shutouts, etc. At any rate, I would think the fact that he is strong enough to go out there and pitch so much at the end of the year is a good harbinger for his future.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:10 pm

odds on bjoak ending up with smoltz...2-1

Crazy Like a Fox · Post by **Crazy Like a Fox** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:45 pm

Chest, I am not a rookie at this game. I will certainly not overrate Arroyo. So far I've heard that you like Nick Swisher and Corey Patterson. I'm not too impressed.

Do you have any fresh insight on any upcoming players or do you just regurgitate what all the magazines say?

This is gonna be a fun season. I'll let you know what Satellite I'm in so you can join. We'll see how much competition you are.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:54 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

odds on bjoak ending up with smoltz...2-1 Naw, I'm just saying he deserves a fair shake for the round he goes in. His elbow does concern me, but he's had two long seasons off the dl and his age is almost a plus to me. Pitchers whose body has held up that long tend to have continued health. I'd bet on Clemens' health over Felix Hernandez is what I'm saying.

But at the moment, no he doesn't seem to fit in the plan. Why are you always trying to figure out who I want? Well, it's probably the smart thing to do.

[ January 29, 2007, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:10 pm

Chest, I am not a rookie at this game. Witout getting all on your case, I'm sure you have not played in the nfbc before so that makes you a rookie after a fashion. Unless you have played in several 15 man, 23 active, faab, 5x5 leagues (as opposed to, say, 11x11

) , you learn like a rookie in the first year. Not that that's ever to be used as an excuse.

[ January 29, 2007, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:32 pm

Originally posted by Big Dog:

Chest, I am not a rookie at this game. I will certainly not overrate Arroyo. So far I've heard that you like Nick Swisher and Corey Patterson. I'm not too impressed.

Do you have any fresh insight on any upcoming players or do you just regurgitate what all the magazines say?

This is gonna be a fun season. I'll let you know what Satellite I'm in so you can join. We'll see how much competition you are. Again I have said neither- in fact said the opposite on Patterson. People including me would think you were not such a moron if you got the facts right even half of the time. Now go back find my Patterson post and see you are wrong again. Run along Big Dog-

Tradesman Kettleers · Post by **Tradesman Kettleers** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:22 am

With all due respect to the opinions proffered, when I look at this top 25 list the thing that stands out is the LARGE gap that should be there after the #7 slot and even Webb is somewhat suspect in the top 7 having never had a WHIP under 1.13 nor an outstanding K rate.

The argument of taking certain guys as a #2 is relatively moot. As in a 15 team league with only 7 semi-clearcut # 1's, 8 teams,at least, will have to start their staffs with the proverbial # 2. A Staff Dominator is much like every other commodity in NFBC, he comes at a cost in opportunity toward other Players. If I can get 2 or 3 guys on this list on my squad, then I'm a happy camper.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:40 am

Originally posted by Tradesman Kettleers:

If I can get 2 or 3 guys on this list on my squad, then I'm a happy camper. I can certainly agree with that!

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:12 pm

even Webb is somewhat suspect in the top 7 having never had a WHIP under 1.13 nor an outstanding K rate Webb has an outstanding K rate for a groundball pitcher. In fact, I don't even understand your argument. If it is that he doesn't get enough K's to keep his ERA down, he does that in other ways, like not allowing longballs. If it is that quantitatively he doesn't get enough for your team, he routinely pitches 30 extra innings and should continue to do so if healthy because he doesn't waste too many pitches on strikeouts and is thereby able to accrue more strikeouts.

I wouldn't complain about a 1.13 WHIP. Is that not elite? Plus he seems to have the walks under control for good now so he should continue to do better there.

I will say that in order for him to remain effective, both he and Orlando Hudson need to stay healthy.

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:20 pm

arizona is going to have a very, very good defense this year.

Tradesman Kettleers · Post by **Tradesman Kettleers** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:42 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote: even Webb is somewhat suspect in the top 7 having never had a WHIP under 1.13 nor an outstanding K rate Webb has an outstanding K rate for a groundball pitcher. In fact, I don't even understand your argument. If it is that he doesn't get enough K's to keep his ERA down, he does that in other ways, like not allowing longballs. If it is that quantitatively he doesn't get enough for your team, he routinely pitches 30 extra innings and should continue to do so if healthy because he doesn't waste too many pitches on strikeouts and is thereby able to accrue more strikeouts.

I wouldn't complain about a 1.13 WHIP. Is that not elite? Plus he seems to have the walks under control for good now so he should continue to do better there.

I will say that in order for him to remain effective, both he and Orlando Hudson need to stay healthy. [/QUOTE]This is why I don't like using a specific pitcher or player as an example. Defending the player comes as a natural response. Let me first say, "I like Brandon Webb" and I fully endorse his rank in the Content Panel Top 25. I also endorse the Panel's Top 25 in general with some personal reservations as regards slotting and maybe 1 or 2 omissions, but I am sure most others would have their own reservations. Overall an excellent list.

When I look at Starting Pitching I look for the 3 categories that a Pitcher can control more or less, K's,WHIP, and ERA. I almost can't be bothered trying to determine Wins. Let me state unequivocally, 1.13 WHIP is NOT ELITE,an ELITE WHIP is < 1.09 . 1.10 - 1.25 is an Excellent WHIP to be sure, but tell me the 3-4 Round difference between Brandon Webb and Chris Young. I'll tell you, Webb is perceived in the same context as Halladay, Zambrano, and Oswalt - Innings eating HORSES whose total K's for a year hit the 175-200 thru sheer force of Innings pitched with the nod to Zambrano for overall K-rate,a nod to Halladay for his ability to reach ELITE WHIP, and a nod to all 4 for their impressive ability to suppress ERA despite all 4 pitching in favorable hitter's parks. Also, the weight of their IP's in concert with their WHIP and ERA give them a Decided edge over a 180IP guy like Chris Young. Given the total package all 4 of these guys,they deserve a Strata of their own. Its nice to present a Top 25, but the list does not run smoothly from Pitcher to Pitcher. There are tiers and strata hidden in these rankings: Santana.....Carpenter....Webb,Zambrano,Halladay,Oswalt...Peavy. These reflect my opinion of the first seven, yours may be different. And so it goes on down through the rest of the list and the remainder of the available Starting Pitching.

Again, I am not in the habit of arguing the merits or demerits of individual Players. Unfortunately, examples have to be used to illustrate points.

SluggoJD · Post by **SluggoJD** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:58 pm

Well I always thought ELITE = < 1.08. No wonder I suck.