Do you think that with his experience this yr Hoch have a chance of being a solid #3.

Definitely. He wasn’t far from it in his rookie season, and I only see him getting better from here. I think he’ll likely develop into a good #3 SP. Of course, with his sinker and high number of groundballs, his success will be significantly dependent on the quality of his IF defense. If he has a great IF defense behind him, he could easily be a solid #2. If he has a very poor IF defense behind him, it could be hard to pitch at the level of a #3.

I do and I also think that Davies will be a decent 3/4 pitcher.

Personally, I see him as more of a 4/5 going forward. But I think he is hard to project. His 2008 stats were very different from the rest of his major league career. Is that because he was rushed to the majors and now has figured something out? Or was the pre-2008 version the “real Davies” and 2008 was more of an aberration? I think the answer lies somewhere in between. He improved this year, which is to be expected from a talented 24-year-old pitcher, but I’m hedging my bets. I’d be surprised if he pitched this well as a starter next year. I could easily be wrong and I hope I am.

Also I think that this shows that the #5 guy can be just about anyone.

While I largely agree with this, I would add one caveat. There are awful #5’s who almost never give their team a chance to win. And there are decent #5’s who at least give their team a chance to win in 25% of their starts. If the team is a potential contender, and had to choose between the vet and the promising young pitcher, I would go with the one who I thought was going to give my team the chance to win the most games. If that means going with the vet and sending the young guy to the bullpen or the minors, then so be it. But if the team isn’t a contender and the young pitcher isn’t being rushed, then definitely go with him. There is much to gain and little to lose.

What this seems to say is that we might not need to bring in another pitcher as much as many of us (myself included) thought.

That’s what I’ve been thinking. We had a pretty good rotation this year and given the age of the pitchers, it should only improve (Greinke and Hochevar improving with age, Meche not changing much, Davies and Bannister probably going in opposite directions, their changes cancelling each other out).

I’ve probably erred to far this year in only paying attention to fielding independent stats, so I like the "composite" idea.

I wanted to find out the #1, #2, etc. classifications for ERA, but I was hesitant to include it in the composite. ERA is a much weaker stat than the other three. But I think it captures something, so I included it. Does it deserve to be 25% of the “composite”? Probably not. But I think it should be taken into account.

In a related note, I think that the 3-slash stats for pitchers should be ERA/FIP/tRA. Instead of trying to come up with a rate stat composite, as I did, I think looking at 3 or 4 is the best way to do a quick-and-dirty description of a pitcher’s stats.

But since K’s and BB’s are included in FIP, xFIP and tRA, I didn’t see the need to specifically rank players by strikeout rate or walk rate. You can succeed with more K’s or fewer BB’s. The key is the overall (all defense independent variables). I think the above four metrics measure the “overall” pretty well. Similarly, while GB% can be very helpful, it isn’t at all necessary. There is a group of players who succeed primarily by inducing a lot of groundballs. But there are many pitchers who succeed without regard to their GB. I think the extreme sinkerballers/groundballers are a unique subset of effective starting pitchers, but I don’t think that a low GB is a necessary element to good starting pitching. There are many very good SP’s who are flyball pitchers.

Yhe Royals should be doing whatever they can to improve the team wherever they can (channeling DMGM, although I’m not quite ready to blame it on Billy — TPJ, GLoad, and Guillen are the real culprits. And Banny. Can’t fix Allard’s mess all at once, though. Oh, yeah…).

Having said that, without speaking for NYRoyal, I think that what this means is the Royals don’t need to go nuts in terms of paying, with talent or FA money, for starting pitching. They have 1-2 excellent candidates who could probably improve the rotation right now: Rosa, and not matter what sort of ill-considered posts Rany makes at his blog, Soria.

They’ve already got Shields, Kazmir, and Garza in the rotation, with ERA+ of 122, 125, and 118 respectively. Their #4 and #5 rotation spots this year had ERA+ of 99 and 100.

Next year, David Price will be added in, giving them the possibility of having four #1 starters in the rotation followed by a #3. Amazing.

I’d like to see the Royals try for better than a traditional #1,2,3,4,5 as well, but whether or not the additional pieces need to come from FA is probably a different post.

If the Royals are intent on trying to win long-term with great pitching and an ok offense, then yes they’ll need a really good rotation, probably including an upgrade over the current staff. I know DM values pitching highly, but I’m not sure he’s entirely committed to building the team in that direction long-term. We really don’t know yet. He’s been acquiring the “currency of baseball.” The fact that he describes pitching as “currency” implies that it is something to be spent. So far his teams have been pitching heavy, but I don’t know that this is what he wants from the major league team long-term. If that is his goal, then I don’t agree with GM going all-in on that kind of plan. But if it is his plan, he needs to upgrade pitching.

But there is an important second level of inquiry. If Moore wants to win almost exclusively with pitching, then when should another SP be acquired? Right now, the Royals have six starting pitchers with a good shot of making many starts for the Royals next year:

Greinke
Meche
Hochevar
Davies
Bannister
Rosa

I think the future of the first three is secure. But the latter three are still question marks. And I think those are question marks that the Royals need to resolve in a rebuilding year (hopefully the last rebuilding year). If the Royals acquire another SP, then one or two of those pitchers will likely be shut out. I want the Royals to get a long, meaningful look at Bannister to determine how good he really is. I want the Royals to get a long, meaningful look at Davies to see if his 2008 improvements are the real deal. And Rosa is a very good prospect who is clearly major league ready. It’s time to figure out if he can handle starting in the majors. For 2009, I’d rather the Royals take a good, long look at the pitchers they have. Then, if Moore is intent on winning with pitching only, he can acquire an upgrade for 2010, when the Royals should be closer to contention.

I saw him as a current-and-future ace before I put these numbers together. A pitcher that young, who is that good, with his peak and so many good years ahead of him is extremely valuable. If he can’t be re-signed by March 1, I’d look hard for a trade to be completed by opening day. The Royals could get a hell of a lot for him from someone. A Haren-like deal would be fair and doable.

First, one could say that the average rotation looks like this:

SP1 – #1-quality
SP2 – #2
SP3 – #3
SP4 – #4
SP5 – #5

I would say that a SP3 who is a #3-quality pitcher is an asset. Of course, he’s even more of an asset if he’s better than an average #3. And I think what is most important is having some pitchers who are better than their slot. For instance, the Royals rotation could look like this next year:

SP1 – #1 (Greinke)
SP2 – #2 (Meche)
SP3 – #3 (Hochevar)
SP4 – #3 (Davies)
SP5 – #4 (Bannister)

In my opinion, the optimistic end of the reasonable range of possibilities is:

Greinke #1
Meche #2
Davies #3
Hochevar #3
Bannister #3
Rosa #3 (with a long-term ceiling of #2)

But what I think will happen is:

Greinke #1
Meche #2
Hochevar #3
Davies #4
Bannister #4
Rosa #4

Personally, I don’t find any value in differentiating between #1 SP’s and “aces”.

I’m happy saying Greinke was the 9th best pitcher in the AL this year, but does that make him a #1? I’d define a #1 pitcher differently than a pitcher who falls into the top 20% in his league. An ace should be exceptional in how he separates himself from the pack, not where he lines up.

I think the only truly meaningful descriptors are objective ones. I think the 14 best SP’s in the AL are the #1-quality starting pitchers.

Yes, I would define a #3 pitcher as better than MLB average.

I just don’t think that is accurate. I can understand you wanting better than average from your team’s #3, but roughly average describes the reality of #3-quality SP’s in major league baseball.

I think when we call someone a #2 pitcher, we mean a player than could be the second best starter on a championship caliber team—not on a middle of the pack team.

I think that would be an odd way to define “#2 pitcher.” Basically that definition describes the best #2 pitchers. I was trying to find what #1, #2, etc. SP’s really are, not what we want them to be. I would certainly agree that a playoff team probably needs to have a rotation which is better than the average 1-2-3-4-5.

Just a little. Your WS ring from last year should make you feel better.

oh, yeah…

(sorry, couldn’t resist, winner-boy)

But interestingly that number has gone from roughly the middle of the range for each rotation spot in 2006 and for several years before that, to the top of the range for each rotation spot in 2008. It is too soon to tell if this is just a blip or if there is a larger trend going on here.

The nature of his injury continues to remain a mystery to me. I’ve looked but the information just isn’t. One brief blurb mentioned surgery, but everything else just said forearm soreness. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that it was minor and he will probably be ready to throw in November.

I got linked at THT once too. My pathetic baseball resume is very, very, very slowly growing.

I could add in the SP with the sixth most starts for a #6 starter classification . But then we’re getting deeper into small sample size territory. Some of those pitchers would have only gotten 5-10 starts.

This makes Delmon Young/Brendan Harris (and change) for Matt Garza and Jason Bartlett even funnier. Twins baseball!

But of course good field usually costs good hitting too.

It’s nice to hear that the results were very similar.

We’d love to give it cross-team exposure it deserves. We’ll even take team-centric pieces if it’s somewhat interesting to non-Royals (for example) fans.

No statistical (or any other) analysis is divinely revealed truth. They are all attempts at discovering something, describing something or counting something in a meaningful way. So when such an attempt is made, people should give props to the analyst for what he did well and what they agree with, but also point out faults, flaws, weaknesses, etc. That’s how we build better analysis and a better understanding of stats and the game. Constructive criticism and building on and being inspired by the work of others is central to the whole enterprise of baseball analysis.

That’s a very good piece. Rec’d