Tanaka

While there were doubts about whether Tanaka would be more than a #3 starter, he's been pitching like an ace. After his shutout last night--admittedly against the Mets--he is 6-0 with a 2.17 ERA, an 0.91 WHIP, 10.8 K/9inn., and a 9.43 K/BB ratio. With the 29-year-old Scherzer looking for a 7 year+/170 million+ contract, the Yankees contract with the 25-year-old Tanaka is starting to look a lot better.

Any thoughts on Tanaka's performance....or any other baseball stories this year like Charlie Blackmon, the Milwaukee Brewers and/or Jose Abreu?

I never had doubts (I really wish the Angels would have tried for him). If you use K/BB as a measuring tool, of their time in Japan, and compare that with each Japanese pitcher that has come over, it lines up almost perfectly with how well they have done in the US. Tanaka has the best Japanese League K/BB of them all. Again , there isn't a lot of data that correlates with success in US, that was the only one that did.

Although I wasn't sure he was going to be an ace, I was pretty sure he was going to be better than a #3 starter. Along with his great success in the high level of competition of the Japan league, he had established great command of a substantial repertoire while his fastball rested at 92-93 mph and touched 95-96 mph. Considering what the Phillies are paying Hamels, the Giants are paying Cain, and somebody is going to pay Scherzer, I think the Tanaka deal looks pretty good...and that other teams now wish they had matched (or even topped) the Yankees offer.

Not to be a smart arse, but did you guys see Tanaka pitch in Japan? ...I don't know, maybe you did, or maybe you saw a highlight reel. But I just don't see how you can predict how a guy will do until it happens. I mean obviously scouts went to Japan and saw him pitch, but even then few things are guaranteed. ... I guess you did do a good job of explaining how the K to BB ratio can be a real indicator.

I really do like the international component to MLB baseball and I am excited for the Cuban players who are getting to shine and show their talents.

By the way, when will we see the next great position players come out of Japan?...

Pretty much in line with geekor.

Not to be a smart arse, but did you guys see Tanaka pitch in Japan?

No. Clearly only saw highlights and read things written by scouts who did see him pitch a lot in Japan. There was not much doubt he was going to be good.

The debate of whether he would be a #1 or a #3 was irrelevant. A #3 merely means you have 2 other good pitchers. For a contending team a #3 pitcher in rotation is still pretty good.

Who is #3 on Detroit? Dodgers? Oakland?

Too much is made of who is 1,2,or 3 when it really does not matter a week in to season when everyone pitches the same, once every 5 days.

Not to be a smart arse, but did you guys see Tanaka pitch in Japan? ...I don't know, maybe you did, or maybe you saw a highlight reel. But I just don't see how you can predict how a guy will do until it happens. I mean obviously scouts went to Japan and saw him pitch, but even then few things are guaranteed. ... I guess you did do a good job of explaining how the K to BB ratio can be a real indicator.

I really do like the international component to MLB baseball and I am excited for the Cuban players who are getting to shine and show their talents.

By the way, when will we see the next great position players come out of Japan?...

No, I never saw Tanaka pitch in Japan--I haven't seen most of the American prospects we talk about either--and that's pretty much irrelevant. All of us, including yourself, go by what scouts and other baseball people tell us about all prospects, whether they be Japanese ones like Tanaka, Cuban ones like Abreu, or American ones like Trout pre-2012, to inform our predictions on those players...As you should know, no prospects are "guaranteed"

Now there were three things primarily auguring Tanaka's success in the big leagues:

1. His performance in the highly competitive Japan League, which he dominated.--He finished the 2013 season 24-0 with a 1.27 ERA and, as Geekor pointed out, he had an incredible K/BB ratio (which he has continued in the majors)

2. His Stuff--As I mentioned in my post above, Tanaka has excellent command of a 4-pitch repertoire--including a lethal splitter and a 92-93 mph fastball that touches 96--that amazed American scouts when they scouted him and led them to actively pursue him.

3. The recent success of other Japanese pitchers--The substantial American success of Japanese pitchers such as Darvish, Kuroda, Uehara, and Tazawa has shown that pitchers' excellence in the Japanese League is a sound predictor for excellence in the Majors....and Tanaka dominated the Japan League more than the others.

So, taking this information into account, the Yankees, Geekor and I (and I assume others) all successfully predicted success for Tanaka. I would say that shows how smart we are...and maybe it does...but we were just logically using the information given us to make our sound predictions. And we didn't even have to go to Japan to do it...


P.s. I also picked Jose Abreu to win AL ROTY in my predictions forum thread. Considering I never went to Cuba, and your placing so much importance on seeing a player before evaluating him, you should be considerably impressed.

Pretty much in line with geekor.

Not to be a smart arse, but did you guys see Tanaka pitch in Japan?

No. Clearly only saw highlights and read things written by scouts who did see him pitch a lot in Japan. There was not much doubt he was going to be good.

The debate of whether he would be a #1 or a #3 was irrelevant. A #3 merely means you have 2 other good pitchers. For a contending team a #3 pitcher in rotation is still pretty good.

Who is #3 on Detroit? Dodgers? Oakland?

Too much is made of who is 1,2,or 3 when it really does not matter a week in to season when everyone pitches the same, once every 5 days.

Don't be such a hypocrite. You, yourself, considered the "debate of whether he would be a #1 or #3" relevant in the last Tanaka forum*, where you said your "greatest concern about him" was whether he would be a "#3 starter" paid ace money. So, you obviously do give the starter ranking terms credence, and you really shouldn't haughtily carp about others using them.

Also, you know very well that the general terms "#!-#5 starters," which denotes 5 varying quality types of starters, are different from the terms "number 1-5" starters that denote the best to worst starters on a staff...Zack Greinke is arguably a #1 starter, but he is the number two starter on the Dodgers. So your hypocritical tirade against the terms "#1-5 starters" was erroneous (and a bit silly), since it complains about the irrelevance of the first group (the ones I was actually using), while the examples it gives are from the second one (the ones I wasn't). Yes, all starters may pitch on the first, second or third day, but that does not mean all pitchers are #1 or #2 or #3 starters.

And these terms are relevant, by the way. They are useful ways of ranking and categorizing starters for both professional baseball people (e.g. GMs and scouts) and fans. Baseball America--based on scouts' consensual views of the matter--has actually defined the five terms by attributing the assortment of qualities particular to each. For example, a #1 starter (e.g. Seaver) has: two plus pitches, an average third pitch, plus/plus command and plus makeup. And a #2 starter (e.g. Weaver) has: two plus pitches, an average third pitch, average command, and plus makeup...and so on.

So, while the #1-5 starters on a staff vary in quality from team to team, the terms #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 starters are relatively constant terms MLB baseball people use to generally evaluate a starter's abilities and communicate those evaluations to others. And since baseball people currently use those terms, there's no reason why we fans shouldn't either...as your appropriate use of them in that previous forum well proved.


*...I quoted (in a May 16, 12:14 PM entry) that post of yours that worried whether Tanaka was a #1 or #3 starter and
placed it at the end of your "Would you go after Tanaka" post (Sun, Apr 6, 11:46 PM). You and others are free to check it out.

I admit, I thought Tanaka would be an effective starter, but I sure didn't expect him to be THIS good!
As far as labeling a starter a #1 or #2, I do that but to me a #1 is at least on of the top 30 starters in baseball, regardless of which team he's on. For instance, the Dodgers clearly have two #1 starters. Maybe trim it back from 30, there are probably only about 20 guys I'd consider a "true ace" right now.

Based on the standards for the term I've read and professional uses of the term I've encountered, I would say there are only 8 aces or "#1 starters" in MLB right now:

Clayton Kershaw (the only lefty)
Zack Greinke
Max Scherzer
Justin Verlander (who will drop to a #2 if this season continues to echo last years drop)
Yu Darvish
Jose Fernandez (poor kid)
Matt Harvey
Felix Hernandez

Tanaka and Sonny Gray are #1 starters in performance and talent, but need some more starts to cement their status. Stephen Strasburg should be a #1 starter once he finds himself in a fully healthy season. And David Price needs back to back ace-like seasons, and less seasons like this one to be a true #1(ace)

I'm sure there will be many disagreements with this list, as well as my standards for making it, but I would welcome them as well as any other thoughts on what makes a true ace and who the true aces are. But I would rather hear about any cool developments in MLB this year. I for one am very intrigued about LaRussa's new position with the Diamondbacks. Although everyone knows he's one of the greatest managers ever--and I consider him the best of the Modern Age--many people forget that he was one of the first managers (or GMs) to computerize his analyses...way before Billy Beane. He should be very successful...once he gets rid of Towers.

I agree with your list except I'd add Bumgarner as a #1 as well