I got an interesting question today in the comments of my Steven Brault article, asking about the definition of number three and four starters. The question:
“One question I’ve wondered for awhile is the definition/ skills of the “#4, #3, etc” starter. I understand nothing is equal value across the board, but Dallas Kuechel for example has excellent control is athletic and has a great change up and deception, average fastball. Sounds like a #4 with the upside of a #3 right?
What’s the seperator for Brault to Keuchel? or #3 to a #1.”
I started thinking about a short answer, but really didn’t have one, other than pointing to my article from the start of the 2014 season, breaking down each rotation spot by ERA. And I didn’t want to just give stats as a reason in response to this question, so I turned to the scouting qualifications for each rotation spot, found each year in the Baseball America handbook.
One of my biggest pet peeves in baseball analysis is the lack of understanding of what a number four or number five starter actually is. That even extends in some cases to a number three, two, or one starter. There’s no official study here, but my perception is that the average fan is typically low by at least one rotation spot when evaluating a pitcher. A number four starter will be seen as a number five at best. A number five will be seen as a guy who doesn’t belong in the majors. I’ve even seen several comments saying Gerrit Cole isn’t a number one, when the numbers and the stuff say otherwise.
A lot of this comes from unrealistic expectations from each rotation spot, and the idea that all number ones pitch like Jake Arrieta in the second half, or that all back of the rotation starters on a contending team have a 3.50 ERA or better. I wanted to give a good, detailed breakdown of each rotation spot, not just to answer the question above, but also to have a reference for each spot.
I’ll be using a combination of the stats linked from the article above, along with the scouting qualifications from the most recent Baseball America Prospect Handbook. Note that I’m using ERA here, but the implication is that a guy will not only have an ERA in this range, but an xFIP to back it up.
Number 4-5 Starters
The Scouting: Baseball America groups these two together, while separating all of the other roles. The qualifications are:
- Command of two major league pitches
- Average velocity
- Consistent breaking ball
- Decent changeup
I put Brault in this category right now, and reading the descriptions, that’s fair. He’s got great command of his pitches and some deception that makes his stuff look harder. His velocity is around the average range (91-92), with the two-seamer sitting a bit below that range, and the four seam fastball starting to tick above that range. I’d say that both fastballs are major league pitches, although he’ll have to work on the slider and changeup to get them ready for the majors.
The Stats: I break the stats down by each individual spot. Here they are, individually.
Number 5 – Typical range is a 5.09+ ERA. Average of the top 15 rotations was 5.00. The best was 4.15.
Number 4 – Typical range is 4.19-5.09 ERA. Average of the top 15 rotations was 4.00. The best was 3.44.
We’re focusing on Brault in this example. His stuff matches a number 4-5 starter above, and I’d push him higher to a future strong number 4 starter, due to the command, movement, and deception that he has.
On a side note, I often mention that Jeff Locke and Charlie Morton are strong number four MLB starters, and this often draws criticism. These are the factors I use to make that determination. They’ve both combined for an ERA around the 4.00 range the last few years, with advanced metrics that back those numbers up. The dissatisfaction with them, I believe, is due to an unrealistic idea of what a number four starter actually is.
Number 3 Starter
The Scouting: Baseball America has the following breakdown:
- One plus pitch
- Two average pitches
- Average Command
- Average Makeup
Brault doesn’t have plus velocity at all. I don’t see his slider or changeup becoming plus offerings in the future. I think they could both fit the average role for the second qualification here. I also think his fastball combination, when considering the movement and the command, would be enough to check off that first category. Command is one of the qualifications, but I think his command and makeup are going to be better than average, making up for a lack in another area.
That’s the thing about these qualifications — they should be viewed as a guide and not a hard set of rules. You could get someone who doesn’t have a plus offering at all, but has really good command, makeup, and enough movement on his pitches that he could make up for the lack of a plus pitch with higher ratings in several other categories.
The Stats: The typical range for a number three starter is a 3.69-4.19 ERA. The average of the top 15 rotations was 3.53, and the best number was 3.01.
One thing I like about the stats is that it’s much cleaner. You don’t have to worry about how a player got there. If he consistently puts up these types of numbers, and the advanced metrics back it up, then you’ve got a number three starter. And if a pitcher is consistently putting up these types of numbers, there’s probably a reason for that which lines up somewhat with the list of qualifications above.
Do I think Brault could get to this point? Absolutely. The NL average was a 3.75 ERA, and it’s not too difficult to imagine him getting here. From the scouting standpoint, he could get there by improving his slider and changeup to at least average. As I said above, I don’t consider either of his fastballs to be plus offerings, but with the movement on the two-seam, and if he can consistently spot up the four seam with some increased velocity, I think he’s got a combo that makes up for the lack of a plus offering.
Number 2 Starter
The Scouting: Baseball America has the following breakdown:
- Two plus pitches
- Average third pitch
- Average Command
- Average Makeup
This is where I think we can leave Brault out of the discussion. As I mentioned above, I think he’ll have better than average command and makeup. And I think his slider and changeup could get to average quality, with his fastballs making up for the lack of a plus offering. I just don’t think he’s got the overall stuff to make up for the lack of two plus offerings.
That’s pretty important in terms of a number two starter. If you’ve got two plus pitches, that means you’d still have a dominant pitch if one of your plus pitches wasn’t on in a given night. And that’s something that’s absolutely common with every pitcher. The best ones remain consistently good because they have another dominant offering to fall back on when their best pitch inevitably fails in some outings.
I don’t think Brault has the stuff to qualify here. I will point out that Jameson Taillon (fastball, slurve) and Tyler Glasnow (fastball, curve) both fit here at the very least, as both have two plus offerings and the makings of an average third pitch with their changeups. They could also trend higher than this with better marks in command and makeup, which I’ll get to in the next group.
The Stats: The typical range for a number two starter is a 3.21-3.69 ERA. The average of the top 15 rotations was 3.27, and the best number was 2.69.
It would be a lot to expect someone like Brault to put up these types of numbers, and it’s absolutely okay if he falls short of this. Not every starter needs to be a number one or a number two, and there is definitely value in having number three or four starters, even if they tend to be under-valued by fans.
This is the category that Francisco Liriano has fit in the last three years. During that time, he’s combined for a 3.26 ERA, which is backed up by a 3.22 xFIP in that time. That puts him as a number two starter in a top rotation.
Number 1 Starter
The Scouting: Baseball America has the following breakdown:
- Two plus pitches
- Average third pitch
- Plus-Plus Command
- Plus Makeup
I mentioned above in the number three breakdown that these qualifications are just guides, and that a pitcher can get to this without checking off each point exactly. I mentioned Glasnow and Taillon above in the number two section. The difference between that and a number one is the upgrade in command and makeup. I think Glasnow and Taillon could both be number one starters in the future, but I don’t think either one will have plus-plus command (Taillon has the better shot here).
The thing is, they could both be above average in command and makeup, which puts them above the number two starter qualifications. I think their pitches could also be better than plus. In terms of velocity, a plus rating is typically in the 93-94 range. They both sit in the mid-90s, and can touch as high as 99 with their fastballs. Taillon added some great downhill movement on the pitch in the last year, and Glasnow has always had that, albeit with some big (but improving) control issues throughout his career.
Their breaking pitches are also plus offerings, and while there is some subjectivity involved in the evaluation of breaking stuff, the fact that they have some of the best breaking balls in the system and in baseball would put their pitches above plus if they command them well. Taillon is currently ahead of Glasnow in the command department here too, although Glasnow can improve if he can learn to throw his curve for strikes early in the count — a big focus for him in 2015.
The Stats: The typical range for a number one starter is a 3.21 ERA or better. The average of the top 15 rotations was 2.70, and the best number that year was 1.80.
Gerrit Cole made the jump into this range in 2015. He had a 2.60 ERA, and while the advanced metrics didn’t fully back that up, his 3.16 xFIP put him in the number one range. He also fits the scouting qualifications, with at least two plus offerings (fastball, slider), and an average third pitch (his two-seam and changeup would probably both be above average). For as much as his stuff moves, he’s got great command of the pitches, although he has been improving in this area throughout his career with the fastball (keeping it down) and the slider (throwing it for strikes low in the zone or getting hitters to chase).
Once again, the stats are a cleaner way to look at things, and this is what I mainly look at when envisioning a top of the rotation upside for Glasnow and Taillon. Obviously the stuff is a big factor here, and they wouldn’t be getting this type of consideration without their combination of plus offerings.
The original question asked about Keuchel, who I am very familiar with, as he was my breakout pitching pick in a few long-running keeper leagues this year. A big reason for that pick was because he generated some of the softest contact in the league, despite having stuff that would make you look over him as a top of the rotation guy at first glance. His fastball velocity would be about a 40 grade, but the movement on the pitch elevates it some. His off-speed stuff checks off the plus pitch qualifications, once again featuring a lot of movement. And he gets great grades in the command and makeup areas.
This is a rare situation where a guy doesn’t lead with a plus fastball, but has number one stuff all around. It’s difficult to do, because you need really strong secondary pitches, along with great makeup and some of the best command in the game. Keuchel has that. While he shares some similarities with Brault in terms of being athletic and not having the best fastball, the off-speed stuff for Keuchel is way ahead of Brault, which is what makes him a number one, and caps Brault off as a number three at best.
**Steven Brault Moving Beyond Relying on Control and Deception. My article on Brault today. I don’t want to come across as arrogant here, but you’re going to read a lot of articles about Brault this off-season that explain his success and how he has surprised without great stuff. We wrote that article many times throughout the season. Because of that, I wanted to take the next step and build on that coverage.
I could have written about Brault succeeding with his control and deception, but I would have just been repeating my articles from the first half of the season, or Sean’s articles from the second half. My goal when covering the AFL was to find out what players were doing different, and how they were continuing their improvements. In Brault’s case, there was a clear focus that moved the story beyond the “control and deception” idea. Overall, this continues the goal of providing information on prospects well before any other outlet has that same information. The same approach will be taken with the other AFL features, with some great information that was gathered to make this a successful trip.
**Trevor Williams Trade Was a Compensation Deal. This isn’t a surprise. I asked Neal Huntington about this after the trade, and he didn’t confirm, but didn’t deny it. And it explains why the deal was so lopsided, without having to elevate Richard Mitchell above non-prospect status, or assume that there’s something the Pirates missed with him that Benedict saw (the reality is Benedict probably never worked with him at all, since he wouldn’t be spending time coaching GCL relievers).
**AFL: Reese McGuire Reaches Base Four Times in Glendale Loss. My AFL coverage is finished, but the featured articles will continue throughout the next week.
**Winter Leagues: Adam Frazier Helps Team USA to Victory. I was disappointed I didn’t get to see Frazier in the AFL. I saw him last year and was really high on him, despite the lack of numbers in Bradenton. I didn’t get to see him in Altoona, but got great reports from Sean all year. He continues doing well, both in the AFL and with Team USA, and that’s good to see.
