Who will have the better career when it's all said and done?

[BlackSox13]

I just do not understand the lack of appreciation for Q by some fans. Q does not have the sexy strike numbers but he makes all his starts and continues to put up a low to mid 3 ERA every year while pitching in a very hitter friendly ball park. Imo, Q is not that different from Buehrle, whom was the #1 for the Sox for quite a few years. Q is not the prototypical #1 but the end results are what matters.

 

As for the topic. I agree with those that say Rodon is a star in the making and Fulmer could be a star. In the end I think Rodon will be the better pitcher but also believe Fulmer will be very good in his own right. Maybe in a few years we can make a more fair comparison between the two after Fulmer has had a chance to show what he can do in the majors but for now, its clearly Rodon.

[Balta1701]

I just do not understand the lack of appreciation for Q by some fans. Q does not have the sexy strike numbers but he makes all his starts and continues to put up a low to mid 3 ERA every year while pitching in a very hitter friendly ball park. Imo, Q is not that different from Buehrle, whom was the #1 for the Sox for quite a few years. Q is not the prototypical #1 but the end results are what matters.

 

As for the topic. I agree with those that say Rodon is a star in the making and Fulmer could be a star. In the end I think Rodon will be the better pitcher but also believe Fulmer will be very good in his own right. Maybe in a few years we can make a more fair comparison between the two after Fulmer has had a chance to show what he can do in the majors but for now, its clearly Rodon.

Of course, whether "Mark Buehrle is an ace" is a debate that had something of a history at this website even before I started here.

[BlackSox13]

Of course, whether "Mark Buehrle is an ace" is a debate that had something of a history at this website even before I started here.

I can only imagine the debates that went on here,lol. I guess it comes down to an individual's perception of an ace. I never thought to Google this and will do so after I finish typing this post but is there an actual outline of what truely defines an "ace"? For the most part, what I see on the board is based on opinion/perception but nothing truely defined.

 

Before someone has a chance to say it, Google is my friend and will go use it now

[Balta1701]

I can only imagine the debates that went on here,lol. I guess it comes down to an individual's perception of an ace. I never thought to Google this and will do so after I finish typing this post but is there an actual outline of what truely defines an "ace"? For the most part, what I see on the board is based on opinion/perception but nothing truely defined.

 

Before someone has a chance to say it, Google is my friend and will go use it now

Here's an article I caught last year trying to qualify "average WAR" as a function of "spot in the rotation". Basically if you stuck Quintana's numbers into there he's roughly a strong #2 starter who is unusually reliable and healthy so far in his career.

[OmarComing25]

Here's an article I caught last year trying to qualify "average WAR" as a function of "spot in the rotation". Basically if you stuck Quintana's numbers into there he's roughly a strong #2 starter who is unusually reliable and healthy so far in his career.

Under that criteria (#1 as >6 WAR), this is the number of SP that qualified for that spot per season in the last decade:

 

2014: 4

2013: 5

2012: 2

2011: 6

2010: 3

2009: 7

2008: 5

2007: 3

2006: 3

2005: 6 (Buehrle missed the cutoff by 0.1)

 

This criteria eliminates basically everyone but 4 pitchers on average every season from being considered a #1 pitcher.

[BlackSox13]

Here's an article I caught last year trying to qualify "average WAR" as a function of "spot in the rotation". Basically if you stuck Quintana's numbers into there he's roughly a strong #2 starter who is unusually reliable and healthy so far in his career.

Thanks for the link, good read. What I found very interesting about using WAR is that for this season, Q is technically the ace of the staff with his WAR at 3.8 and Sale at 3.0. That does not mean Q is better than Sale, just that Sale has been roughed up more this year than years past. Thing is, neither pitcher qualify as an " ace" since neither have put up a 6+ WAR this year.

 

I stumbled across a writeup on fan graphs that defined ace or #1 as being a starter with three plus pitches. Sale certainly fits that build while Q has only two with his FB and CU. However, I think a case can be made for Q's Slider being a plus pitch on some days and I think that's when he begins to rack up some K's. Q certainly does not have Sale's stuff but like Buehrle, Q finds a way to get it done and I think there's something to be said about the end results.

 

The topic of Q being a #1 or #2 is very debatable and its easy to see why., although i think some fans make a bigger deal of than it really is. I'll put it this way. As long as Sale is on the Sox, Q will be a #2 regardless where he pitches in the rotation but if for some reason Sale were gone I would have no problem with calling Q the #1. At least until Rodon fully develops.

[Balta1701]

Thanks for the link, good read. What I found very interesting about using WAR is that for this season, Q is technically the ace of the staff with his WAR at 3.8 and Sale at 3.0. That does not mean Q is better than Sale, just that Sale has been roughed up more this year than years past. Thing is, neither pitcher qualify as an " ace" since neither have put up a 6+ WAR this year.

Check both fangraphs war and baseball-reference war. Sale looks spectacular on Fangraphs.

[OmarComing25]

It all really depends on what you define as a #1 pitcher. Some people see it as only pitchers who could compete for the Cy Young year in and year out, which makes it a very small group. Others see it as the top 30 SP in the game. Q qualifies in the second group for sure, but not by the first.

[BlackSox13]

Check both fangraphs war and baseball-reference war. Sale looks spectacular on Fangraphs.

Whoa, what a difference! So does fangraphs take info account USCF and the poor defense while BR does not?

 

Man, I really need to spend more time in the advanced stats thread.

[BlackSox13]

It all really depends on what you define as a #1 pitcher. Some people see it as only pitchers who could compete for the Cy Young year in and year out, which makes it a very small group. Others see it as the top 30 SP in the game. Q qualifies in the second group for sure, but not by the first.

Yep, agreed with this. For me, Q is a #1 despite the lack of sexy stats. Q just knows how to get the job done.

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

Check both fangraphs war and baseball-reference war. Sale looks spectacular on Fangraphs.

Baseball-Reference WAR means nothing to me honestly. Guys like Yovani Gallardo, Jake Odorizzi, Cole Hamels, etc all have a better WAR than Sale even though their stats are definitely not as good.

 

WAR as a stat really shouldn't hold as much credence just for the fact that it is so subjective. There is no right way to calculate it.

[Balta1701]

Whoa, what a difference! So does fangraphs take info account USCF and the poor defense while BR does not?

 

Man, I really need to spend more time in the advanced stats thread.

Actually they both take into account defense but they do so in different ways. It's really a remarkable difference and I've been struggling to explain it since it was pointed out last month - the White Sox pitchers are vastly worse on Baseball Reference WAR than in Fangraphs WAR while the defense it's the opposite.

 

This isn't just the defense, as other poor defensive teams don't show the same effect, it is something unique to the 2015 white sox. Somehow they're giving up a ton more hits and runs than you'd expect for a team giving up as few walks and getting as many strikeouts as they have.

 

Baseball-Reference generally is more "what actually happens on the field" while fangraphs is thought of more as "what should have happened", so you could say that they're just getting unlucky, but that's unbelievable for an entire staff for an entire season to me - that seems like something far more systematic. They're giving up more hits than they should. Some of my guesses are "poor defensive positioning", or "Pitchers that are really bad at pitching to their defense and are really stubborn" but honestly I'm still waiting for a good explanation.

[OmarComing25]

Actually they both take into account defense but they do so in different ways. It's really a remarkable difference and I've been struggling to explain it since it was pointed out last month - the White Sox pitchers are vastly worse on Baseball Reference WAR than in Fangraphs WAR while the defense it's the opposite.

 

This isn't just the defense, as other poor defensive teams don't show the same effect, it is something unique to the 2015 white sox. Somehow they're giving up a ton more hits and runs than you'd expect for a team giving up as few walks and getting as many strikeouts as they have.

 

Baseball-Reference generally is more "what actually happens on the field" while fangraphs is thought of more as "what should have happened", so you could say that they're just getting unlucky, but that's unbelievable for an entire staff for an entire season to me - that seems like something far more systematic. They're giving up more hits than they should. Some of my guesses are "poor defensive positioning", or "Pitchers that are really bad at pitching to their defense and are really stubborn" but honestly I'm still waiting for a good explanation.

I thought Fangraphs more or less ignored defense, because it assumes pitchers have no control over balls in play. To address your second point though, our whole staff isn't getting unlucky, Sale and Samardzija have FIPs much better than their ERAs (though Sale's gap is closing with all the bombs he's been giving up lately). However Rodon, Quintana, and Danks have relatively very little differences (Quintana is at 0.27, Danks and Rodon are at 0.02). Our bullpen is actually outperforming its FIP (3.64 ERA, 3.85 FIP), so you could actually argue that our relievers have been lucky.

 

But an entire staff could very well get "unlucky" if the defense is s*** in terms of underperforming their peripherals.

[BlackSox13]

Baseball-Reference WAR means nothing to me honestly. Guys like Yovani Gallardo, Jake Odorizzi, Cole Hamels, etc all have a better WAR than Sale even though their stats are definitely not as good.

 

WAR as a stat really shouldn't hold as much credence just for the fact that it is so subjective. There is no right way to calculate it.

So different sites have their own variables they take into account when factoring WAR? If so, that's even more confusing to me.

 

 

Actually they both take into account defense but they do so in different ways. It's really a remarkable difference and I've been struggling to explain it since it was pointed out last month - the White Sox pitchers are vastly worse on Baseball Reference WAR than in Fangraphs WAR while the defense it's the opposite.

 

This isn't just the defense, as other poor defensive teams don't show the same effect, it is something unique to the 2015 white sox. Somehow they're giving up a ton more hits and runs than you'd expect for a team giving up as few walks and getting as many strikeouts as they have.

 

Baseball-Reference generally is more "what actually happens on the field" while fangraphs is thought of more as "what should have happened", so you could say that they're just getting unlucky, but that's unbelievable for an entire staff for an entire season to me - that seems like something far more systematic. They're giving up more hits than they should. Some of my guesses are "poor defensive positioning", or "Pitchers that are really bad at pitching to their defense and are really stubborn" but honestly I'm still waiting for a good explanation.

I think your guesses about poor defensive positioning and pitchers not pitching to the defensive positioning could certainly factor in. I wonder if pitchers tipping pitches and/ or catchers tipping the pitches could somehow be a part of it. Maybe the Sox catchers signal calling have become predictable to hitters?

 

I never thought too much about the reasons behind the collective digression. I watch Sale pitch and to me he looks every bit as good as previous years and yet his numbers, K's aside, do not show it. When I watch Q, to me he seems to be a better pitcher than last year and yet the numbers do not reflect it. As much of a non fan of Samardzija as I am, he has much better stuff than his numbers reflect and should not have regressed nearly as much as his numbers indicate. This really is perplexing.

 

I'm starting to think that maybe teams have picked up on patterns between Sox catchers and pitchers.

 

 

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

So different sites have their own variables they take into account when factoring WAR? If so, that's even more confusing to me.

Yes. That's why I'm not a huge fan of sabermetric statistics. They're so subjective. Stats like wins, losses, walks, strikeouts, ERA, K/BB ratio, etc are concrete and will always be the same no matter that website you're on. Sabermetric stats aren't.

 

I guess I'm more of a traditionalist myself, but I just can't get behind supporting sabermetric stats until there is a clear way to make and evaluate them without there being a gray area.

[OmarComing25]

Yes. That's why I'm not a huge fan of sabermetric statistics. They're so subjective. Stats like wins, losses, walks, strikeouts, ERA, K/BB ratio, etc are concrete and will always be the same no matter that website you're on. Sabermetric stats aren't.

 

I guess I'm more of a traditionalist myself, but I just can't get behind supporting sabermetric stats until there is a clear way to make and evaluate them without there being a gray area.

It's baseball, there's more variance and randomness in this sport than any other (which makes it by far the most difficult sport to bet on). There will never not be a gray area, but sabremetrics has come a long way in being able to explain some of that gray area. Those stats you listed might stay the same on every site you're on, but there's a huge gray area in how baseball players come to get many of those stats. A 3.50 ERA for one pitcher is not the same as a 3.50 ERA for another pitcher, there's a lot of gray in how each pitcher reached that number.

Edited September 25, 2015 by OmarComing25

[BlackSox13]

Yes. That's why I'm not a huge fan of sabermetric statistics. They're so subjective. Stats like wins, losses, walks, strikeouts, ERA, K/BB ratio, etc are concrete and will always be the same no matter that website you're on. Sabermetric stats aren't.

 

I guess I'm more of a traditionalist myself, but I just can't get behind supporting sabermetric stats until there is a clear way to make and evaluate them without there being a gray area.

Same here. The typical stats are what I've always known since I was a kid. When Sabermetric stats came out I was more like, whaaaaaat?

 

I will read up on the newer stats so that I might learn more of what they are about. I'm sure they have a purpose and can be useful. I've just been too lazy to do so.

[Quin]

It all really depends on what you define as a #1 pitcher. Some people see it as only pitchers who could compete for the Cy Young year in and year out, which makes it a very small group. Others see it as the top 30 SP in the game. Q qualifies in the second group for sure, but not by the first.

 

He's a Top 10 pitcher.

 

That's what I see as an ace.

[Quin]

To add to that, if you consider any of these pitchers aces, Q has been better the past three years:

 

Jon Lester, Zack Greinke, Madison Bumgarner, Cole Hamels, Adam Wainwright, Jordan Zimmerman, Jake Arrieta, Dallas Keuchel, Stephen Strasburg, Matt Harvey, Justin Verlander, Anibal Sanchez, Gerritt Cole, Chris Archer

 

Who's been better?

 

Clayton Kershaw, David Price, Max Scherzer, Chris Sale, Corey Kluber, Felix Hernandez.

 

Jose Quintana is an ace.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Has to be Rodon. He is already in the majors and has had a pretty solid couple months. It's hard to go with Fulmer when he isn't even close to the majors yet.

[ron883]

Yes. That's why I'm not a huge fan of sabermetric statistics. They're so subjective. Stats like wins, losses, walks, strikeouts, ERA, K/BB ratio, etc are concrete and will always be the same no matter that website you're on. Sabermetric stats aren't.

 

I guess I'm more of a traditionalist myself, but I just can't get behind supporting sabermetric stats until there is a clear way to make and evaluate them without there being a gray area.

Grouping all sabermetric stats together and calling them all

"subjective" just shows that you probably haven't done much research on them and you have no desire to understand them.

 

Why do you think every single team uses these stats? Because it is a good way to evaluate talent. It's as simple as that. They wouldnt put resources towards sabermetrics if it was a sham.

 

I never understood the anti saber crowd.

[Jose Abreu]

I wonder who the lone Fulmer voter is...

[BigEdWalsh]

I wonder who the lone Fulmer voter is...

Haha. Gotta wonder. I just think at this point how the heck do we know how he will pan out? I think he'll be good for sure, but how good is anyone's guess.

 

[kitekrazy]

It's a nice discussion tho'

[hi8is]

Where's the Will Farrell option?