Minor League Starting Pitcher Rankings

[caulfield12]

 

 

I'll use the formula I developed in high school.....IP-H + K-BB/ERA.

 

 

1. Erik Johnson 32.1

2. Bassitt 19

3. Myles Jaye 16.7

4. Chris Beck 12

5. Spencer Arroyo 9.9

6. Jason Berken 6.5

7. Cose 5.2

8. McCray 3.33

9. Snodgress 2.4

[ChiSoxJon]

Your formula interests me quite a bit, I'd still rank them prospective wise, but I like the formula.

[caulfield12]

Your formula interests me quite a bit, I'd still rank them prospective wise, but I like the formula.

 

 

You can level it further by essentially making it WHIP/9 divided by ERA as well.

 

It's very simple formula, and it gives you a good idea before looking at any of the other peripherals that have come about in the last decade or so how well a certain pitcher is doing at any given point in time of the season.

 

Now most would consider Snodgress our 2nd or 3rd best pitching prospect, but he's not pitching as well as some of the others right now, especially Bassitt and Jaye. That said, when guys like Bassitt and Jaye can get it done in AA, that will start to put them on the map as legitimate Top 6-12 prospects in our system.

Edited May 6, 2013 by caulfield12

[danman31]

I don't understand what dividing by ERA accomplishes.

[caulfield12]

I don't understand what dividing by ERA accomplishes.

 

Well, it can make a pitcher with a lot of strikeouts (by my formula) but not pitching as effectively (ERA-wise) look worse...for example, Snodgress statistically wouldn't stand out, but most here are calling him our 2nd or 3rd best pitching prospect.

 

Or it could do the opposite. A pitcher without gaudy IP/H or BB/K ratios could be made to look better because of a low ERA.

 

Essentially, it's trying to screen for both pitchers putting up a good WHIP, high K's per IP and also lower ERA's, but combining it.

Edited May 7, 2013 by caulfield12

[danman31]

Well, it can make a pitcher with a lot of strikeouts (by my formula) but not pitching as effectively (ERA-wise) look worse...for example, Snodgress statistically wouldn't stand out, but most here are calling him our 2nd or 3rd best pitching prospect.

 

Or it could do the opposite. A pitcher without gaudy IP/H or BB/K ratios could be made to look better because of a low ERA.

 

Essentially, it's trying to screen for both pitchers putting up a good WHIP, high K's per IP and also lower ERA's, but combining it.

All the stat does is credit positive statistics and punish negative ones. The actually number is a nonsense combination of that.

[caulfield12]

All the stat does is credit positive statistics and punish negative ones. The actually number is a nonsense combination of that.

 

 

Well, I'm sure there are better ways to do it.

 

That was my own version of SABR back in 1988, lol.

 

 

For hitters, it was adding a combination of slugging percentage and OPS (TB + W + HBP + SB) - (CS + GIDPX2)/TOTAL PA OR AB

 

That stat penalized baserunners who were often thrown out and especially hitters who hit into lots of double plays, generating 2 outs at one time (vs. one out for a K).

 

 

[caulfield12]

All the stat does is credit positive statistics and punish negative ones. The actually number is a nonsense combination of that.

 

 

If it was completely nonsense, it wouldn't have Johnson and Bassitt at 1/2.

 

Who has pitched better than them, statistically?

 

What argument could you possibly make from a more advanced SABR argument that those guys shouldn't be at the top?

[danman31]

If it was completely nonsense, it wouldn't have Johnson and Bassitt at 1/2.

 

Who has pitched better than them, statistically?

 

What argument could you possibly make from a more advanced SABR argument that those guys shouldn't be at the top?

As I clearly and simply said above you're rewarding positive stats and punishing negative ones so the ranking is correct, but the math that went into it is random. The actually numbers don't have proper context.

 

Why would you divide by ERA? You could subtract ERA and that would do the same thing in terms of the relative number.

[caulfield12]

As I clearly and simply said above you're rewarding positive stats and punishing negative ones so the ranking is correct, but the math that went into it is random. The actually numbers don't have proper context.

 

Why would you divide by ERA? You could subtract ERA and that would do the same thing in terms of the relative number.

 

 

 

Dividing by ERA will make a pitcher without gaudy stats but a low ERA look comparatively better.

 

Someone like Beck for example, who's not putting up a ton of amazing stats but has pitched very well, overall.

[witesoxfan]

Dividing by ERA will make a pitcher without gaudy stats but a low ERA look comparatively better.

 

Someone like Beck for example, who's not putting up a ton of amazing stats but has pitched very well, overall.

 

And some of that is due to luck because guys don't allow a .209 BAA when you allow that many balls in play. The one really good thing he is doing is inducing groundballs (2.31 GO/AO), but he is going to need to show swing and miss stuff to be anything more than a middle to back end starter in the majors.

 

Those numbers should not be rewarding Beck. He's had a nice start to the year but there are areas where he needs to show marked improvement.