A 5th starter that can pitch the minimum 5 quality innings on the avg. ...
 

Your standards are impossibly high in the present game. Only one pitcher, Alcantara, even meets your standard for a 2nd starter, as he's the only one who averaged even 7 innings per start.  The rest-of-the-best in the majors averaged in the 6s.

I pretty much agree with your ranking system. However, in todays game full of "snowflake" pitchers and the way they baby most of these guys, I think your payroll would be unsustainable unless you are the Yankees or Dodgers.

5 hours ago, Karbo said:

I pretty much agree with your ranking system. However, in todays game full of "snowflake" pitchers and the way they baby most of these guys, I think your payroll would be unsustainable unless you are the Yankees or Dodgers.

I have to admit to you guys that I'm out dated and haven't been following any front line pitchers in recent history plus we haven't really had any of them with Twins for awhile. So my profiling should be adjusted a little.

On 10/12/2022 at 12:54 PM, ashbury said:

A 5th starter that can pitch the minimum 5 quality innings on the avg. ...
 

Your standards are impossibly high in the present game. Only one pitcher, Alcantara, even meets your standard for a 2nd starter, as he's the only one who averaged even 7 innings per start.  The rest-of-the-best in the majors averaged in the 6s.

Alcantara is great, never missed a start except the last one they decided to spare him because there was nothing to play for. But still 32 starts / 224 innings pretty remarkable.

I was just wondering how you'd modify my profiling standard? If you like?

4 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

Alcantara is great, never missed a start except the last one they decided to spare him because there was nothing to play for. But still 32 starts / 224 innings pretty remarkable.

I was just wondering how you'd modify my profiling standard? If you like?

Fair question but I don't really worry about the #1, #2 thing for starting rotation.  I just want good pitchers.

My only concept about the numbering is that there is no such thing as a #5.  That's a temporary spot - for aging players trying to demonstrate they still have value, young players trying to prove they belong in a major league starting rotation, and spot starters who will be DFA right after the game.  Signing someone like Dylan Bundy for several million and justifying it as solidifying the #5 is a waste of money in my book.

I thought Bundy did ok as a number five starter. The trouble is that Archer was their number five starter. But it seems like they could get that production from a younger player for a lot less money. Still I hate the way Rocco mishandles the staff. Imagine Morris, Viola, Santana, Verlander, or any 15-20 game winners being lifted after five innings because the manager doesn’t have confidence they can get three more outs. Who would want to be a starting pitcher for a guy who doesn’t believe in you?

On 10/14/2022 at 11:18 AM, ashbury said:

Fair question but I don't really worry about the #1, #2 thing for starting rotation.  I just want good pitchers.

My only concept about the numbering is that there is no such thing as a #5.  That's a temporary spot - for aging players trying to demonstrate they still have value, young players trying to prove they belong in a major league starting rotation, and spot starters who will be DFA right after the game.  Signing someone like Dylan Bundy for several million and justifying it as solidifying the #5 is a waste of money in my book.

I see your point and that's FO question. My point is the neccessity to profile pitchers (I think # of pitches thrown or times through the order could be more precise but I thought innings could be simpler) and not over extend them to keep them healthier, more effective & hungrier translating into more quality innings throughout the season.