2018 Positional Power Rankings: Starting Rotation (#16-30)
Thanks to the magic of Statcast and PITCHf/x before it, the means by which to evaluate pitchers have grown exponentially. Beyond ERAs and per-nine rate stats — and beyond DIPS, FIP, and BABIP, too — we now quantify pitch usage, velocity, spin rate, movement, whiff rates, pitch tunnels, quality of contact and more. It can get dizzying, and you can find some way in which just about every pitcher this side of Clayton Kershaw is below average. Last year, 68 pitchers threw at least 120 innings and finished with an ERA- below 100. Only 54 finished with a FIP- below 100, as well. Raise the bar to 162 innings and the count falls to 32 pitchers, occupying 21% of the majors’ 150 rotation jobs. As balls fly out of the park at record paces, relatively few starters have enough stuff to dominate. The vast majority are just trying to command a fastball well enough to get a shot at fooling hitters with their offspeed stuff.
Given 30 major-league rotations, 15 have to be below average, and among them are all too many pitchers easy to ding for their middling velocity, lack of command, failure to get hitters to chase their breaking stuff, or inability to stay healthy. Their projections inevitably look dire or at least uninspiring, and writing about them can feel like shooting fish in a barrel. Yet even among these lesser rotations, tiny miracles that defy our projections occur all the time. A pitcher learns a new grip, or irons out his mechanics, or gets a competent defense behind him. Suddenly, he’s living up to the visions of the men who scouted him, or at least outpitching the numbers that tell us all of the ways in which he is lacking.
Based upon the projections, less than two wins separates the 16th-best rotation here (the Angels) from the 25th best (the Tigers). Much of the difference rides on our best estimates for the number of innings the top-eight or -nine guys in these organizations will throw — estimates that can be wiped out with the bad news about a single ligament, tendon, muscle or bone. Some of these rotations will be ghastly, but some will pull it together, defy our projections and perhaps even carrying their teams to playoffs thanks to a few tiny miracles. Projections, after all, are not destiny.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
someone teach Kershaw to also pitch right handed
he has 400 innings in him for sure
I wonder if teaching Mad-Bum to throw right-handed would get him back on the field faster. Could’ve just used him for all the innings in 2014 WS.
“Given 30 major-league rotations, 15 have to be below average.”
Nooooooooo.
Let’s say that I’m chilling with five of my friends at a bar, plus there is a bartender. In this particular case, half of us in the bar are below average in terms of wealth, and half are above average. Then Bill Gates walks into the bar. Suddenly 6 of us in the bar are below average in terms of wealth, and Mr. Gates who is above it.
I sincerely hope you use “below median” in regular conversation.
Sort of. The conventional phrasing is “below the median.”
The conversational phrasing is “below average,” because in conversation you don’t have to specify which average you mean. (Or refer to, ho ho.) Conventionally, the listener is expected to pick between “arithmetic mean,” “median,” and “geometric mean.” All of which are actually “averages,” and one of which clearly applies in this case.
Okay, so this was a fun little diversion but I actually honestly disagree that’s what people are saying. When people say “average” what they generally are trying to say is “arithmetic mean”, if only because they don’t have any idea what a median or geometric mean is. It is only a technical point that those three are all types of “averages” and not part of regular, conversational speech.
The real objection to saying “below the median” is that it makes the joke too obvious, thus making it not funny. On the other hand, if he had made a joke about central tendency, then that would have been technically correct and funny.
(Note: Only hire me for stats consulting, not to be a humor coach. I am not good at the latter)
He could have meant that half of them have a below average ranking. Which would be true. Also, I do like how you gave that long explanation when I’m pretty sure everyone who reads Fangraphs knows the difference between a median and an average, though sometimes people slip up in using those terms interchangeably.
That would have been too simple. The reason I didn’t say it was the same reason Jay didn’t–the word “median” isn’t funny or interesting.
(I also strongly disagree that when people refer to an “average” they are expressing anything other than the mean, but that’s for another day)
Technically both mean and median are averages or “measures of central tendency.” So his usage of average is just as valid as yours. If you’re going to be a snob and explain fourth grade math like it is complex, you should at least be right.
They are indeed both measures of central tendency, but that doesn’t make them interchangeable or appropriate in all cases. If the distribution of talent (or anything else) is not normal, mean ? median. Here are the relevant data.
It’s hard to get non-normal distributions in projections. In the case of starting rotations this year, FG depth charts have a mean of 12.89 WAR and a median of 12.45 WAR. This puts both of them between teams #15 (Rockies) and #16 (Angels), so the projected distribution is normal-ish, and the mean and the median are essentially interchangeable.
However, center fielders are projected to be slightly skewed toward the high end of values because Trout is, ahem, not normal. The median of 2.45 WAR is, of course, right between #15 (Dodgers) and #16 (Phillies). The mean is dragged up by Trout to 2.61 WAR, which is between #13 (Yankees) and #14 (Braves).
It’s all pedantic, but that’s probably why we comment under FG articles.
Use of “data” as a plural count noun, ten yard penalty, fifteen-love, jump ball.
…and we’re going to the penalty box for a restart with a full house corner kick. Checkmate!
Sorry man, I’m a scientist. That one was drilled into me at the start of grad school!
+1 for incorporating Michael Nelson Trout’s awesomeness into this conversation.
I was wondering how this already had so many comments.
Apparently, lots of Fangraphs commenters use the word “average” to refer the median. Who knew? I think this is the first time I’ve ever heard someone try to use it “correctly” outside of a situation where a grade is on the line.
So from this portion of the teams, Paxton looks like he may fetch quite the haul come the trade deadline if the Mariners are out of it, they decide to rebuild, and he’s healthy.
As a Mariners fan: They will be, they probably won’t, and he almost certainly won’t. But they’ll get a high draft spot, which they’ll use to pick the one guy in the first round who never produces any positive WAR, and/or never gets to the majors. Also, they’re ranked way too high here.
That Rangers rotation — ugh. And I speak as somebody who wants the Rangers to do well this season.
It’s surprising that the Rangers rotation doesn’t rank just above the Marlins rotation (it would of course be surprising if the Marlins rotation ranked any higher). I suppose it’s a matter of just adding up the collective expected WARs, but let’s be honest: if you are a fan of the Rangers, you are not going to pin your hopes on a #3, #4 and #5 of Moore, Minor and Fister, in any order. (And I desperately want all three of them to perform well.)
Reclamation projects are meant for the bubble between #5 and AAA — not for three of the starting rotation on Opening Day.
I was confused by the Duffy projection (4.04 ERA, 4.12 FIP) combined with the Duffy writeup (one of the AL’s best 25 starters) until I realized that only 19 AL starters had an ERA under 4 in 140+ innings last year. The power explosion is hard to get used to in weird ways. (For comparison, 34 AL starters got under 4 in 2014.)
Other positions have felt to me like they underrate the Ms (CF, RF, SS, 2b). This position massively overrates them, probably by enough to make the whole thing a wash. (170+ innings for Paxton? No listings of negative WAR for the 6th pitcher on down? C’mon.) I guess it’s a wash, overall.
I skipped right over the 1-15 post and came here because I wanted to read about the Phillies. I’ve never been so happy to be disappointed!