Why do starting pitchers who suck find jobs year after year?

[Cowtipper]

Mike Morgan, Steve Trachsel and Jeff Suppan, for example. These are guys who have never been winners and have rarely even been "solid." (And when they are winners, it's because they're lucky or they have high scoring teams).

They eat innings, sure, but why are teams content with that? Shouldn't they be trying to get guys who can win, not just "eat innings"? If a team is going to throw away that starting spot to a loser anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to try out some prospects instead?

[chicagowhitesox1173]

I always wondered about that too. My only reasoning is maybe these teams feel they might get lucky with these types of pitchers.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Look at just about every 4th or 5th starter in MLB history - most are far, far worse than Suppan, Trachsel, etc. These guys find jobs because there is value in having a 4th or 5th starter who is not outright awful since most 4th and 5th starters are well, downright awful. Unless you only watched the 1990's Braves, you cannot expect a HOF pitcher as your 3rd pitcher, a good pitcher as your 4th pitcher, and a mediocre pitcher as your 5th. Regardless of how ho-him the guys you mentioned were, they were almost always better than the replacement pitchers in their systems and way cheaper (until Suppan got that crazy contract from Mil. after his 2006 postseason) than the pitchers who were better.

As far as specifics, Suppan's career ERA is just short of league average for his career (97 ERA+), which would make him more of a #3 starter during his career than #5. Same with Trachsel and his league-average ERA (99 ERA+). Morgan's was also just short of league average (97 ERA+). And this is after all three had some terrible seasons at the very end. All three men hovered between slightly below to slightly above average over their careers. Again, still a heck-of-a-lot better than whoever would be replacing them.

Bottom line - if you can throw 180-200 innings with a league average* ERA - you are a very valuable pitcher. Most pitchers cannot do that. If you can stay healthy doing just that, you will stick around in the league for a long, long time. That is the whole point behind awarding replacement value to players in WAR, etc.

Also, Morgan was on pretty poor teams his whole career. Outside of the 3 years with STL, Suppan was on bad teams. Trachsel had a few good teams with the Mets, but was on bad teams his whole career too. If anything, their W/L records should look better than what they do.

*Keep in mind too, that "average" in baseball considers the mean, not the median. A qualifying pitcher with a league average ERA is significantly above the half-way mark in terms of value since the best pitchers with the best ERAs pitch a grossly disproportionate number of innings. So as pitcher with a league average 100 ERA+ and 200 innings may be the league's 50th best pitcher, not true mean of 150th.

So let me ask you a question: In 2004 a 34 year-old Trachsel posted a typical Trachsel type season. 200 IP, a 107 ERA+, the 3rd best Mets starter behind Glavine and Lieter. What option did the Mets have as their # 3 starter that would have worked better than Trachsel?

[Cowtipper]

Look at just about every 4th or 5th starter in MLB history - most are far, far worse than Suppan, Trachsel, etc.

Also, Morgan was on pretty poor teams his whole career. Outside of the 3 years with STL, Suppan was on bad teams. Trachsel had a few good teams with the Mets, but was on bad teams his whole career too. If anything, their W/L records should look better than what they do.

But they still wouldn't be good.

So let me ask you a question: In 2004 a 34 year-old Trachsel posted a typical Trachsel type season. 200 IP, a 107 ERA+, the 3rd best Mets starter behind Glavine and Lieter. What option did the Mets have as their # 3 starter that would have worked better than Trachsel?

That's one season, an atypical Trachsel season at that. Not a great season to be referencing considering the majority of his career wasn't anything like that.

[scorekeeper]

Mike Morgan, Steve Trachsel and Jeff Suppan, for example. These are guys who have never been winners and have rarely even been "solid." (And when they are winners, it's because they're lucky or they have high scoring teams).

They eat innings, sure, but why are teams content with that? Shouldn't they be trying to get guys who can win, not just "eat innings"? If a team is going to throw away that starting spot to a loser anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to try out some prospects instead?

What it appears you don’t get is, if there were better pitchers available, don’t you think they’d be in the ML pitching? So you’ve either got to admit that the scouts and others are doing a lousy job of identifying the “best”, or the idea that there’s all kinds of great pitchers around is just some pie in the sky wishful thinking.

Someday it will dawn on those running the game that choosing pitchers based on the numbers on a radar gun is not the best way to go. Doesn’t anyone wonder how ML pitchers were found before “guns”?

[Bothrops Atrox]

But they still wouldn't be good.




That's one season, an atypical Trachsel season at that. Not a great season to be referencing considering the majority of his career wasn't anything like that.

Finding a #3 starter - a guy who can give you 190 innings with an ERA around league average is a very good thing.
Unless a team wants a payroll of $250 million, you cannot field a team of only good (above average) players. This is why being better than replacement even if not great is valuable - you have to have guys like that on your team to win.

As far as Trachsel: had 13 healthy seasons in the MLB. In 6/13 of those seasons, Trachsel had 200+ IP and an ERA+ 95 or higher. Trachsel posted an ERA+ over 100 in 7/13 of those seasons. Trachsel had a 107 or higher ERA+ in 5/13 full (incl. shortened 94 and 95) seasons. According to WAR, 2004 was his 5th best year.

Anyway, I never said it was a "great season". But what you still don't seem to understand, is that a season does not have to be "great" to be very valuable.

Bottom line again: any team in the league would have loved to have Trachsel on their team for a reasonable price.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Let me put it this way: if you replaced 2012 Santana, Niese, and Gee/Hefner with an average Suppan, Morgan, and Trachsel season (180 IP w/98 ERA+), the Mets would have a better record this year. That is what being better than replacement does for you.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I think a lot of scouting and coaching subjectivity has to do with it, too. Team management officials may see something in a pitcher they believe can be fixed if they get enough playing time. There have been some real doozies over the years, including the constant call-ups of Chan Ho Park and Dontrelle Willis.

[Cowtipper]

Well, clearly the answer is the league has to contract to 20 teams so as to ensure guys like Trachsel can't continue to find work.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Well, clearly the answer is the league has to contract to 20 teams so as to ensure guys like Trachsel can't continue to find work.

If the league contacted to 20 teams - there would still need/have to be a lot of (what are now considered) average players in the league. They would just be the newer replacement level players. Trachsel and Suppan would still have jobs in a 20-team league...they would just be the worst players. It would be the 5th staters, wost bullpen pitchers, and worst bench players that would get the axe. Not guys with 100 ERA+ and 200 IP per season in their primes.

[Cowtipper]

Time to go drastic. It needs to be an eight team league.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Time to go drastic. It needs to be an eight team league.

Yes, that would get rid of Suppan, etc.

[Cowtipper]

We should draft a plan and submit it to MLB. I suggest getting rid of the entire AL and the NL Central. That leaves us only two teams to get rid of. I'm thinking Colorado and Arizona.

[Bothrops Atrox]

We should draft a plan and submit it to MLB. I suggest getting rid of the entire AL and the NL Central. That leaves us only two teams to get rid of. I'm thinking Colorado and Arizona.

I am thinking they would get rid of teams with little relative success over their histories - like the Mets for example.

[ian2813]

Yes, that would get rid of Suppan, etc.

And then a lot of the guys we consider good starting pitchers now would become the new Suppans.