Tanaka

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

Have read a lot of different definitions of ace or #1 starter. I kind of like this one. Though as you get closer to that 30th slot we probably start getting a lot of debate on who makes the list and who doesn't. But as a working definition this makes sense.

I heard a lot of debate last year locally on whether Darvish was really an ace or not. Sadly a lot of those debates followed a 1-2 or 2-1 loss where he got roasted for not throwing a complete game shutout. All I knew was I was glad he was a Ranger and if you run him out of town because he was not an "ace" it would be a long time before you got someone better.

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

Have read a lot of different definitions of ace or #1 starter. I kind of like this one. Though as you get closer to that 30th slot we probably start getting a lot of debate on who makes the list and who doesn't. But as a working definition this makes sense.

Well, Valen, at least you now admit to using the term "#1 starter." However, you keep avoiding addressing my last post...the one where I called you out on the hypocrisy of your ranting against using the terms "#1 and #3 starters" while you use them yourself. But, considering I both debunked that hypocrisy and showed how your rant was fallacious, I understand your apprehension... .

Also, you really should reconsider defining "a #1 starter/ace" as the "top 30 starters in baseball" if you actually want to use the term somewhat accurately. If you accurately listed--in this or almost any other year--the #15-#30 starters in baseball, you would clearly see that they do not meet the consensual industry criteria for "#1 starters/aces", nor would they meet the standards held by most well-informed fans...which you probably consider yourself to be.

As you know, I gave you a better way of separating #1 and #2 starters (e.g. Seaver and post-1969 Koosman) in my post I mentioned above. You really should go back and look at it, then read the whole Baseball America ranking system, and look at other ways baseball people define "#1 (and 2,3,4, and 5) starters." You'll see the "top 30" method you like really doesn't cut it.

I do not see any "hypocrisy" in Valen's statement.

Then you need to read my last post (and the thread's previous posts) more closely.

The hypocrisy I mentioned was in Valen's first post, where--as i mentioned above--he railed against using the terms "#1 and # 3 starters" when he had used them before himself. I showed his hypocrisy in my response following that post, where I showed he had used them before in a previous forum thread (to which I gave access). Everyone who looks at those two posts of Valen's can see he was being hypocritical. If you don't consider ranting against doing something you yourself do hypocritical, then you need to re-read the definition of the word.

Go look at those posts, then get back to me. If you still don't think Valen was hypocritical, I would like to hear your actual argument for why he was not. If you don't get back to me, I'll assume you saw his clear hypocrisy and agree with me. Outside of that, I'd look forward to any of your views on Larussa, the resurgent Tigers, Abreu or any other MLB developments intriguing you.

You know I really do not care. Not going to continue this discussion on 1 verses 3 starters. Life is too short for these type petty arguments. I attempted to explain in a respectful manner and now I am through. It ends here or I simply block future posts so I do not even know an argument is going on.

You know I really do not care. Not going to continue this discussion on 1 verses 3 starters. Life is too short for these type petty arguments. I attempted to explain in a respectful manner and now I am through. It ends here or I simply block future posts so I do not even know an argument is going on.

In other words, you know you were hypocritical, but you just can't admit it. That's cool, since the truth on the matter is already clear for all to read, and further discussion on the matter is not needed. But the only thing petty, Valen, was your original haughty, hypocritical rant...

Strether does it really matter.Or are you someone who has to be right

Doug, I said in the post above that I'm fine to move on, apparently you want to continue the discussion. But no, I don't have to be right (although I was)...I actually admit when I'm wrong. Also, If you're going to criticize me for "needing to be right,"...as you say...you really should show me if and how the argument I was actually pursuing was incorrect. If you can actually show that, I'll admit I was wrong and apologize to Valen. Otherwise, as Valen wanted, we should move on.

I don't care whether you were right or wrong,that it's just petty how far you go to be right.I didn't say you were wrong if you reread my post.I just got frustrated with you trying to prove your point,and are you some expert on pitching.I have a little bit of experience in coaching pitching for over 35 years getting many of my pitchers scolarships to many schools in the States.And to have over 10 of them drafted.3 of them had pretty decent careers in the majors.

I don't care whether you were right or wrong,that it's just petty how far you go to be right.I didn't say you were wrong if you reread my post.I just got frustrated with you trying to prove your point,and are you some expert on pitching.I have a little bit of experience in coaching pitching for over 35 years getting many of my pitchers scolarships to many schools in the States.And to have over 10 of them drafted.3 of them had pretty decent careers in the majors.

Now you are clearly being the one who has to be right, since you keep continuing this argument even though Valen and I agreed to stop it. Although if you actually thought my arguments were incorrect, I'm sure you would call me out on it to finalize the discussion. And I was not "petty," nor did i go "too far" in making my argument. After I responded to Valen's initial post and pointed out its hypocrisy, he posted again without responding to my post. So I reminded him once in each forum that he was evading answering my post and beckoned for him to address it. Two reminders hardly constitute pettiness...although Valen's initial haughty hypocrisy definitely did so.

Also, I never claimed to be an expert on pitching...you really need to reread my posts. I clearly stated that my definitions of #1-#5 starters came from what professional baseball people and writers covering those baseball people have to say on the matter, not standards I constructed myself.

And kudos to your impressive coaching career and the pitchers you have helped to the majors, although I'm really not sure how those facts counter any of my arguments or the fact I never claimed to be a "pitching expert." But I'm sure that it does mean you know something about pitching and the MLB. So, if you would like to contribute to any of the previous discussions about MLB pitchers or anything else about the current season, I would look forward to your input.