Would you go after Tanaka

He certainly looks like a #1 starter He's exceeded my expectations for sure.

Props for accurately predicting the success and value Tanaka would have.

With 20/20 hindsight if I were owner of the Rangers I would authorize $200 mil or possibly more to bring him in. Yankees definitely did the right thing there.

On the #1 verses #3 thing you have to have context. Are you talking about a generalized definition of the quality of a pitcher. #1 could be one of the best in baseball (top 10?) or one of the top 30 as someone in another thread defined it. Is #3 the third best pitcher on a given team? Or is that an average MLB starter since 3 is right in the middle of 1-5?

Case in point the Rangers. Robbie Ross is not even in the rotation if Harrison did not have a setback at beginning of spring training and Holland had not tripped over his dog. With the return of Lewis he was probably considered the #5 starter. With all the injuries now though he is probably the third best starting pitcher on the team. Does that make him a #3 starter? Does it mean he is now an average MLB starter? If Colby's hip does not hold up and Yu gets injured Ross will be the top starter on the team. So potential #1 or ace designation in that event?

These number things are all about context. They can mean totally different things depending on whether you are talking about the ranking order of a particular rotation. I usually consider that rather meaningless though once a season starts. Or they can mean a more generalized league or MLB wide stratefication. #1 might then be top 30 regardless of team which would mean Tigers have 2 #1s as do the Dodgers. #2 would then be pitchers ranked 31-60, #3 61-90. So if #1 is the top 30 starters and the Tigers and Dodgers have 2 each then there are at least 2 teams who do not have any #1s. But on those teams someone will be their best starter and thus within that context could be considered their #1 starter.

And if one only considers the top say 8 or 10 who could argue for being best in league or future HOFers as #1 or ace then that context changes the discussion even more. Because now you have that top tier and then a second tier that has how many pitchers? The next best 10? next best 20? next best 30 next best 50?

So it is a different meaning whether you are talking about rankings on a team or general talent level tiers. Take any given statement made with the though of one in mind and try to apply it to the other context and everything changes. A statement meant for one of the contexts cannot be fairly applied to the others.

I would not spend that much future guaranteed money to procure ANY player.

Props for accurately predicting the success and value Tanaka would have.

With 20/20 hindsight if I were owner of the Rangers I would authorize $200 mil or possibly more to bring him in. Yankees definitely did the right thing there.

On the #1 verses #3 thing you have to have context. Are you talking about a generalized definition of the quality of a pitcher. #1 could be one of the best in baseball (top 10?) or one of the top 30 as someone in another thread defined it. Is #3 the third best pitcher on a given team? Or is that an average MLB starter since 3 is right in the middle of 1-5?

Case in point the Rangers. Robbie Ross is not even in the rotation if Harrison did not have a setback at beginning of spring training and Holland had not tripped over his dog. With the return of Lewis he was probably considered the #5 starter. With all the injuries now though he is probably the third best starting pitcher on the team. Does that make him a #3 starter? Does it mean he is now an average MLB starter? If Colby's hip does not hold up and Yu gets injured Ross will be the top starter on the team. So potential #1 or ace designation in that event?

These number things are all about context. They can mean totally different things depending on whether you are talking about the ranking order of a particular rotation. I usually consider that rather meaningless though once a season starts. Or they can mean a more generalized league or MLB wide stratefication. #1 might then be top 30 regardless of team which would mean Tigers have 2 #1s as do the Dodgers. #2 would then be pitchers ranked 31-60, #3 61-90. So if #1 is the top 30 starters and the Tigers and Dodgers have 2 each then there are at least 2 teams who do not have any #1s. But on those teams someone will be their best starter and thus within that context could be considered their #1 starter.

And if one only considers the top say 8 or 10 who could argue for being best in league or future HOFers as #1 or ace then that context changes the discussion even more. Because now you have that top tier and then a second tier that has how many pitchers? The next best 10? next best 20? next best 30 next best 50?

So it is a different meaning whether you are talking about rankings on a team or general talent level tiers. Take any given statement made with the though of one in mind and try to apply it to the other context and everything changes. A statement meant for one of the contexts cannot be fairly applied to the others.

Valen, I addressed this all in my post on the "Tanaka" forum, which you are still clearly apprehensive to respond to, and you're actually repeating points I made there and expressing them as your own...which is really lame. You know from that post that I already know the difference between using "#1-5 starters as different quality types and using #1-5 starters to denote the first--through--fifth best starters on a staff...since I explained those two definitions to you myself...although your fourth and fifth paragraphs (sigh) show you still have the definitions conflated and confused.

Since you forget this, let me refresh your memory of that post and how it went:

1, I noted how I predicted that Tanaka was going to be better than a #3 starter
2. You ranted about how the debate about whether he was a #3 starter or a #1 starter was irrelevant since the terms were completely relative to each team and everybody pitched every 5 days anyway.
3. I pointed out the hypocrisy of your rant since I showed the post from another forum where you said your greatest concern about Tanaka was whether he would be a #3 starter paid ace money"
4. I explained to you the differences between using #1-5 starters to denote five different qualities of starters, and using #1-5 starters to denote the best to worst starters on a staff.
5. I explained to you that your rant erroneously claimed I had used the second definition when I was actually using the first.

Now, to this post of yours:

Although you claim to know the difference between the two definitions of #1-#5 starters, you still have them confused, so I will explain again. The terms number #1-#5 starter denoting the 5 quality types of starters does not
change or shift because of a pitcher's ranking on his staff; it is not dependent on "context." They are shorthand non-contingent terms baseball people use as consistent notions of different quality starter types. Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz were all #1 starters; being on the same staff did not change that. They may have (arguably) been the 1,2,and 3 starters on the staff, but they were all #1s in quality type. And baseball people do not factor in "tiers' or "stratifications"--i don't know where you got these ideas from--when defining these 1-5 quality types, since that would make these non-relative terms relative.

On the flip side, the terms "1-5 starters" denoting the best to worst starters on a team are completely relative to each baseball team. As I discussed before, Zack Greinke is the number two (second best) starter for the Dodgers, although he is a #1 starter (quality type) and would be the number one (best starter) for most other teams. In the same vein, Philip Hughes is the number one (best) starter on the Twins, but he is (at best) a #3 (quality type) starter and would be the #5 (worst) starter on the Dodgers' rotation. So the "dilemmas" you posited in your fourth and fifth paragraphs aren't actually dilemmas. As long as a team has five pitchers who can start, it will have 1-5 (ranked) starters. It just might not have any 1,2 or 3 starters of quality type.

I hope this all clarifies things for you and clears up the misconceptions you expressed above. I must say I really thought you would have maturely admitted to your hypocrisy in that "Tanaka" post by now, but perhaps my expectations are too high.

This is a petty argument I do not wish to have. As posted in another thread time to move on.

This is a petty argument I do not wish to have. As posted in another thread time to move on.

And as I posted on the other thread, the only petty post was your original haughty, hypocritical rant. You're not going to maturely admit you were wrong and that's fine. Everyone can read both forum threads and judge for themselves.

As to my post above, it wasn't just an argument. It clearly explained the two definitions of 1-5 starters as well as clearly explaining how you confused and conflated the two definitions in both the Tanaka forum and your post above. Since you're (not surprisingly) not countering what I said, we'll assume you agree with me on the matter and...as you say..."move on."

Strike three.

Notice the vote counts are going up.
It is easier to decide on this after seeing him dominate MLB hitters.

"Strike Three"?...really, Valen, is that the best you can do?....that is so lame (and a bit odd). I know I debunked all your arguments and called you out on your embarrassing hypocrisy, but even I expected better from you. Also, if you're going to announce to the forum that you're not going to engage in "petty arguments' and that it's time to "move on," it's best to actually move on and not spew sad, petty bromides like "Strike Three".....whatever that means...