Starting Pitchers - What makes a #1/#2?
I saw a study similar to this done either last offseason or one before, but I hadn't seen anything about this since. I wanted to take a look at five major statistics for a starting pitcher to see what makes a great starter. Since there are 30 teams, I am going to look at 60 pitchers, 30 of which should be #1 starters and 30 of which should be #2 starters.
The five categories that I am going to look at are: innings pitched, ERA, FIP, WHIP, and K:BB.
(Note: I only used players who qualified for the leader board.)
In 2008, the top 30 (#1 starters), the top 60 starters (#1 and #2 starters combined), and the 31-60 starters (#2 starters) had an average of these stats:
- IP - 211 2/3, 202 1/3, and 193
- ERA - 3.22, 3.59, and 3.97
- FIP - 3.43, 3.78, and 4.14
- WHIP - 1.170, 1.242, and 1.314
- K:BB - 3.64, 2.97, and 2.30
In 2007, the top 30 (#1 starters), the top 60 starters (#1 and #2 starters combined), and the 31-60 starters (#2 starters) had an average of these stats:
- IP - 215 2/3, 205 1/3, and 194 2/3
- ERA - 3.39, 3.79, and 4.20
- FIP - 3.58, 3.97, and 4.35
- WHIP - 1.183, 1.268, and 1.353
- K:BB - 3.48, 2.82, and 2.17
In 2006, the top 30 (#1 starters), the top 60 starters (#1 and #2 starters combined), and the 31-60 starters (#2 starters) had an average of these stats:
- IP - 219 1/2, 209 1/3, and 199 1/3
- ERA - 3.58, 3.96, and 4.35
- FIP - 3.68, 4.02, and 4.37
- WHIP - 1.210, 1.282, and 1.355
- K:BB - 3.58, 2.87, and 2.17
The three year average for the 5 categories are as follows:
- IP - 215 2/3, 205 2/3, and 195 2/3
- ERA - 3.40, 3.78, and 4.17
- FIP - 3.56, 3.92, and 4.29
- WHIP - 1.188, 1.264, and 1.341
- K:BB - 3.57, 2.89, and 2.21
In other words:
A #1 starter should throw approximately 215 2/3 IP, with a 3.40 ERA (3.56 FIP), a 1.188 WHIP and a K:BB of 3.57.
A #2 starter should throw approximately 195 2/3 IP, with a 4.17 ERA (4.29 FIP), a 1.341 WHIP and a K:BB of 2.21.
Someone who throws 205 2/3 IP, with a 3.78 ERA (3.92 FIP), a 1.264 WHIP and a K:BB of 2.89 would be a #1/#2 "tweener."
The problem with these averages is that they are nearly unattainable. In those 3 seasons I looked at above, only 12 individual seasons met the above goals (one by our own Chris Carpenter in 2006). In the last ten years, only 37 individual seasons have met those goals set by a #1 starter above (Carpenter in '05 and '06 actually).
As for the "tweener" pitchers, there have been 28 in the past 3 seasons (including '06 Carp) meeting the numbers above. In the past ten years, there have been 79 pitchers that fit the bill (including '01 Matt Morris, '05 Carp, and '06 Carp).
As for the #2 starting pitchers, there have been 69 pitchers in the last three years to meet the numbers for a #2 starter (including our own '06 Carp, '08 Lohse, and '08 Looper). In the last ten years, 220 pitchers have fit the bill (including '00 and '01 Darryl Kile, '01 and'02 Morris, '01 and '03 Woody Williams, '05 Carp and the 3 seasons mentioned earlier in this paragraph.)
That means that over the last 10 years:
The Cardinals have had two seasons in which they had a clear #1 starter: '05 Carpenter and '06 Carpenter
The Cardinals have had one more season in which they arguably had another #1 starter: '01 Matt Morris
The Cardinals have had 7 more seasons in which they had clear #2 starters: '00 with Kile, '01 with Kile and Williams, '02 with Morris, '03 with Williams, and '08 with Lohse and Looper.
10 players fitting the bill in 10 years (for a clear #2 starter) does not seem like much, but when you take into account that only 220 players met all of the criteria, that means the Cardinals have had 1/22 the players, and by the averages they should have had 1/30.
Lastly, looking at all of the years in the history of the game (from 1885 on) only 152 players have met the criteria above to be a #1 starter and only 425 (including the 152 above) met the criteria to be "tweeners."
Thanks, if you got through all of that. Let me know how I can make this better!
0 recs |
7 comments
Comments
What about...
..that GRIT factor? Gibson had tons of grit…
I hate Jason Marquis!
:=8O
by The MooCow on Jul 31, 2009 8:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I would look at IP per game instead of total innings pitched
And only narrow it down to pitchers with 100 innings or whatever. That would allow you to expand your sample size and get more blended results. Right now, the difference between a 1 and 2 starter is too large.
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 31, 2009 11:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
maybe i missed it, but how did you pick
The top 30 and top 60 that you used as a reference – by era, by fip? Because that’s going to affect your results.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Aug 1, 2009 2:26 AM EDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...I just picked the top 60 results in each category.
That’s why they seem to be a little high.
by stlfan on Aug 1, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
honestly...
… to get a better feel for this i’d concentrate on one or two stats. say, top 30/60 FIP with a cut-off of 150 (175?) IP. FIP, ERA, and K/BB are correlated well enough to introduce multicollinearity anyway, so which not just pick the one of those (probably FIP) and run with it?
and while high IP is certainly a good thing, an excellent pitcher who can only manage 150-175 IP/year without breaking down can still be an exceptionally valuable pitcher. so maybe have the cut-off at 150 IP or so, but then add extra value by weighting all IP over 150 somehow. not sure the best way to do it, but do it in a way that a pitcher with a 3.50 FIP and 200 IP is more highly valued than a pitcher with a 3.50 FIP but only 175 IP.
that FIP + IP stat should generate a more nuanced picture then simply looking at how many guys were in the top ranks in all four stats at the same time.
by kindred on Aug 1, 2009 5:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Or you could just use WAR
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Aug 1, 2009 6:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















