craig

Thanks. Even if it's still not precise, wouldn't that still be an improvement? So both control and command have gotten somewhat better and improved to some degree?

This is probably dumb, Tom or anybody, but can you explain the relevance of the distinction in this context? On the "better command" spectrum, should not any improvement in command also result in an improvement in control? And how can control improve if command does not improve? I get that "command", the ability to locate within the strike zone, is more advanced than "control", the ability to throw strikes reasonably often. [But without precision that better-command guys have.] But yeah, shouldn't any improvement in control depend on some improvement in command? And if pitch-lab can't improve command, even in the anti-awful direction from 10th percentile to 20th percentile or whatever, how can it improve control?

With Breslow out, I wonder if the Cubs have added any new coaches to the pitching? Or if Jacobsen has any new ideas to implement that Breslow maybe didn't prioritize? Obviously part of the walk thing is just decision as to how willing you are to throw more strikes and allow more contact. Every pitcher (and coach) is always deciding between challenge-and-nibble. If you can't throw fastballs for strikes, obviously that's trouble. But I wonder if Brown and Hodge might need to adjust a little bit in the "challenge" direction?

Brown and Hodge are both fascinating. I'd like to keep them both and see if they can improve. Two guys with stuff that could be mainstays in Cubs pitching group over their team-controlled years. I'd assume they'd have appeal in trade. In hypothetical Tampa/Glasnow talks, for example, Tampa is supposedly interested in young pitching. I suspect other smart organizations see Cubs wildmen and figure they can get more control out of them than can the Cubs development system? Cubs infrastructure has shown no capacity to help control, but I assume some better systems are confident they have developmental ideas for control-refinement that the Cubs just don't know how to do? Might be a kindness by the Cubs to trade kids to somewhere else that can better help them? Brown's BB-rate spiked up from 3.2 and 3.4 in A+/AA to 6.3 at Iowa. I'd like to think the jump reflects some random flukiness, and that perhaps coming back with a reset and a rested healthy arm, that it won't stay so bad? The delivery probably does make make fastball-command harder than average, but his walk rates below AAA don't seem hopelessly bad. Hodge has jumped from 4.7 (Myrtle) to 3.6 (South Bend) to 5.5 (Tennessee). Obviously it only went from bad to worse in relief, and was worse at end-of-season than at beginning, so the relief thing didn't show any hint of reducing the control problems. (A theory is that in relief a guy will sometimes improve his control by just throwing his best 2-3 pitches, rather than working on his worst and wildest pitches.). At South Bend, his control wasn't awful; lots of guys who had 3.6 in A-ball improve and aren't wildmen in the majors. We shall see. But yeah, perhaps some other team can see ways to help him that the Cubs can't see or do, and he'd be better off in a new place with some fresh ideas? Hopefully just some regression to the mean, some improved focus, perhaps some mechanical tweaks will help him to get past the control problems and he'll have a strong season and strong career moving forward.

The Varsho analogy is good. That might be what he turns into. Defense is valuable everywhere for sure; but I think NY's note is legit, that he won't save as many runs in Wrigely as he could in a bigger field. The Kiermaier analogy is also good, although that's not as automatic/floor as we might think. Kiermaier has career OPS+ of 98, with a bunch of seasons as an above-average offensive player to go with his defense. Who knows with PCA longterm, or short. I'm sure hoping he eventually develops into a pretty solid, good offensive player. Maybe even a very good hitter, an asset both ways? That's why he's #1 prospect, he might hit. But for sure there is risk that he'll always be a lineup liability. I hope he's not kinda Jason Heyward, a liability in the lineup most years. (Jason's Cubs OPS+ were 84-94-100-129 [Covid]-69-59.)

Back to old discusison, but Yup, we'll just see. I like Shaw ahead of Caissie, because contact hitting takes away so much of the risk with HR/K guys; because I think there's a reasonable chance he'll do OK at 3b, a position of great opportunity; and whether it's 3rd or someplace else, he'll eventually find a position. (If not at 3B, though, it may not be with us.). Caissie is an excellent prospect, but K/HR guys are guy kinda hard to project. He was 164K/22HR, 8:1 K/HR is higher than you want. Most guys the K/HR ratio gets worse in the majors than in AA, so the risk is nontrivial. As prospects, Caissie and Canario both fall under the K/HR profile. At big-league level, same for Wisdom/Morel. All four have plenty of BP-power. Wisdom's K/HR ratio is just a little too high. It's often kind of a slender thread that differentiates K/HR guys who hit enough HR's to justify, and those who fall a little short, or a lot short. Morel this year has a 5:1 K/HR rate, 116 OPS+, .821 OPS. If he can sustain that, he's going to be an asset in big-league lineups for years. Previous year, he was 8.5:1, .740 OPS, not that appealing. Wisdom was in the 5-6:1 K/HR range two of last three years, the years with OPS of .789 and .823. But when that K/HR ratio drifted up over 7:1 in 2022, his OPS was .725 and you didn't really want him in the lineup. It's just really hard for me to anticipate how the HR's will survive against the best pitchers in the world, for guys who are highly K-prone. Mervis was 3:1 K/HR in 2022, with the 36 HR. That made for a .984 OPS, fantastic. This year he was 5:1 at Iowa, good to support .932 OPS. But Cubs, it was 10:1, resulting in the .242 OBP and .531 OPS. It's tougher in the majors. Hopefully Caissie will get better and better, and Canario too, and Mervis. And Morel will sustain or get better. Would just love to have 2 or 3 of those prospect guys just mashing away, with good K/HR rates, and have Morel sustain his HR-production as well. But really hard for me to project with surety who will survive and thrive in the majors, and who will get wasted.

As mentioned, add Taillon to that rotation, Hoyer has no intention of having him not be a part of it. But take Smyly out. He was HR-fodder in rotation, but was solid in relief, and the pen is really short on lefty relievers. Smyly is better suited for relief than in rotation, and the roster has more need for him in that role. I agree on the plausibility of 6-man talk. I thought Steele looked tired at times late in season; and it probably would have been worse without being on the DL in June. After only a month in rotation Assad did too. In years past, vet starters would often have "dead arm" periods. Wicks has obviously been a 6-day rotation guy, and Horton. Agree that aquisition names (Glasnow, Bieber, Yamamoto, Imanaga...) are not prepared for 180-inning >30-start grind. I think having a depth of guys who can start, so that regular starters all get some breaks, is very desirable. And as Hoyer continues with the rebuild and involves home-grown pitchers, they'll want to handle those guys with a lot of care.

Just to add on: With prospects I do a lot more "hoping" than being-sure-of. I *HOPE* he proves able to play an acceptable 3B, but I don't assume so. I *HOPE* he hits a decent number of HR's, but I'm not sure. I *HOPE* he does great this summer and by August that he's a preferable 3B than Wisdom, Mastrobuoni, or Madrigal, but I'm not "gifting" him that or assuming that. I "HOPE" he takes enough walks to support an asset OBP, but that has yet to be seen. Just like I hope Ballesteros ends up able to catch, and that Caissie, Alcantara, and Canario make enough contact to get to their prodigious power and hit so many HR's that they become asset players. Like 1908, I'd put Shaw #3, ahead of Caissie and Alcantara. In my experience, a lot of SS's are able to transition to 3B, even without rockets, so his probability of become acceptable at 3rd seems probably higher than Ballesteros of becoming acceptable at catcher, for example. I also think guys who are gifted contact hitters have an easier time making modifications, whether to boost walk rates or fly-ball rates or pull-frequency or whatever, compared to guys who have trouble making contact. Very optimistic. But there is no guarantee he'll be an asset starting 3B. And yeah, I do consider the opportunity factor. Caissie may develop into an acceptable LF, as good or better than guys like Schwarber or Castellano or Manny Ramirez back in his day. But Happ and Suzuki are under 3-years of contact and are both good all-around players. So there isn't a direct path to the Cubs lineup for Caissie. Caissie might have a strong season and seem kinda ready, but not take Happs starts. But *IF* Shaw has a strong season and seems kinda ready, I think taking Madrigal's starts is not implausible.

I think we're basically in similar place. I get the "non-linear" and don't-obsess-over-small-trend blips. My original post, which was faulty, had been that post-April months looked like almost random-scatter in terms of K/AB. Your more accurate K/PA shows otherwise, and shows that there was a meaningful reduction, on the 5%-reduction scale. Tacky/regular does not erase the K-rate as a yellow-flag. Any guy who's K'ing >27% in AA, even on regular ball, it's still high risk. I'm partly wanting to self-avoid telling myself "Oh, K's aren't a problem; that was tacky-fall fluke. But K's are fine otherwise." As you say, things are complex. His best HR's month was in tacky-ball era. His K-rate dropped some, but the regular-ball did not result in uptick in HR-productivity. Exit-velo helps BABIP for sure, but there was surely some non-trivial luck involved in .407. So wRC+ was boosted to some degree. Beats me how much. How does any of this relate to his future potential? Beats me! As I noted, like Alcantara and Ballasteros he's a high-risk guy with also a pretty high ceiling. . Big-league pitching is way better than AA; a guy who's 27.1% K-rate at his best, after adjusting and after the regular-ball switch, might have that spike up a LOT in the majors. Or, young guys often progress and adapt, and maybe he will. This challenge may never get any more problematic, and maybe he'll chip away at it over upcoming years, at little cost to his HR-power or his walk rate. Who knows? Maybe he'll end up being able to sustain a >.250 average in the majors someday, with lots of HR's and lots of walks? I think he'll probably need to improve? Some guys do, a lot, beyond his current age. Others kind of plateau, and others actually try to adjust and sometimes lose their best qualities in trying. But I'm guessing that as he was this past 2nd-half, that won't be good enough to succeed. As with almost all young players, he needs to keep getting better. Big-league position is a question. Strictly DH? 1B? Or not bad in LF/RF? A platoon DH who can mash, I'll take that for sure. But being decent at one or more positions can help. How much HR production? Having 70/80 power is fun, but how often will he get to it? Schwarber didn't hit .200, but he still got to 47 HR. Had he gotten to 27, he'd be in a different place. Will Caissie get to enough to make his composite value excellent? Time will tell. I'd like him to be up in Schwarber, Alonso area, and 80-grade power allows for that possibility.

Yes. But given that we're supposedly walking into a contending window, we don't have any 3B prospects close. We all know this, of course, but having Shaw hypothetically work at 3B could be super transformative for the future. Not having to poke along with Wisdom/Madrigal at 3rd.... Not having to drain trade capital and/or financial capital to fill that hole, would really change a lot. Getting a good-hitting, acceptable-defense 3B for years of club control including 3 super-cheap pre-arb years, that has all kinds of beautiful implications for the rest of the roster. I feel that same way about Ballesteros and Amaya. **If** Ballesteros can get in shape and stay in shape and handle the position defensively, and you get 6 years of cost-controlled asset, it impacts everything.

I get exit velocity leading to high BABIP. Still, .407 seems a little beyond the pale even with that. My hypothesis is that it's a combination of BOTH some BABIP-luck AND the good exit-velo. I don't expect him to be BABIP-ing north of .370 next year or in the majors. Thanks for the K-rate. That definitely does show real progress versus mostly random scatter. Still, doing the tacky-non split is obviously skewed by April. Lots more than tacky-ball contributing to 43% April. Tacky May-June is low-30's, July-August is high-20's. 5% kind of drop is great and real, but it's not like the K-issue is gone. 29% in August is still bad, and not **that** much below 31.7% in June. The 24% September, that's down quite a bit. But that's also a 1-HR month. Is 14:1 K/HR what we want? I hypothesize that every HR/K guy is constantly doing HR-vs-K balancing act. He got hot in July, between regular new-ball and coincidence. August, K-rate climbed back up; September it dropped. Perhaps he really was learning to make contact in September... Or maybe after high-K August, he cut back a little bit on his swing, and sacrificed some HR bash? Dancing on the K-bash balance line may always be a challenge. I fully agree, *IF* he can "control" the K's, he can be a good hitter. But how well he "controls" it will impact "elite" versus "good". Schwarber was analogized, and as a mid-40's HR guy, he's found a balance that works for him. 47 HR, 215 K's, .197 BA, that's fine for his balance to stay at .817 OPS. But 47HR's is hard. I hope Caissie blossoms into a mid-40's HR guy like Schwarber, but I'd love it if he could control the K's enough to stay north of .230 BA and match or exceed Schwarber's HR-walk/based .340 career OBP. Maybe unfair to hope for, but I'd love to hope for somebody BETTER than Schwarber, both defensively and in terms of K-control and overall offense.

Caissie, Alcantara, and Ballesteros at 4, 5, and 8 reflect the massive amount of risk within the system. Each of these three guys are huge-risk guys with failure pathways. Will Ballesteros really be able to catch at a big-league level? Maybe yes, but that isn't safe at all. If he can't, he's not a high-value prospect. Caissie and Alcantara both have huge contact risk. Alcantara with the huge long levers, it wouldn't shock if his power deteriorates against better velocity and fewer mistakes . K-ing half the time in the no-pitching AFL reflects the risk. He may hit like Brennen Davis by the time he hits AAA, who knows? Hopefully he can get smarter and make enough adjustments so that he can make enough contact to make it work. But yeah, certainly the risk is there that offensively he'll be Patrick Wisdom with less game power. This season will be a good test for Alcantara, to see if the contact and OBP can improve, and the HR's. It's fun to talk about his hypothetical power, but last year he hit 13 HR's. Projecting power is fun, and BP-power is fun. But you have to hit the ball solidly off of game-pitching to hit real-game HR's. It's time to see more in-game HR power start to show. Caissie: Do you guys think he's too unathletic to play 1B? Given Happ/Suzuki, Caissie's going to be blocked for a while, and obviously 1B is wide open. I know it would waste his strong arm. And 1B defense is super important, much more so than RF or LF or 3B, so if he stinks at 1B that wouldn't be a pathway. Just trying to think about options. I wonder how fluky some of Caissie's 2023 was? .289 average and .398-OBP seem lovely for a HR-hitting slugger. And we've gotten the exit-velocity excellence. But even with good exit-velocity, is a .407 BABIP real and sutainable for a slow big man? Replace his .407 BABIP with an above-average-but-not-extraordinary .320 BABIP and he would have been a .235-BA guy. 1908, I'm not really a believer that his K-rate was so severely tacky-ball sourced. If I just do his monthly K/AB, it was an extraordinary 52% in April, obviously that got better. But for May-June-July-August, it was 37%-38%-32%-36%. (I'm not doing per-AB because milb doesn't tabulate PA per month.). Anyway, my point is that I'm not seeing a huge pattern beyond kinda random after April. He's up in the 32-38% range. I wonder what adjustments if any he will make this season. If he's holding the .400 BABIP, maybe he'll have no reason to mess with success? Maybe with another year of experience, he'll be actually better at HR's? He's big and strong enough that you'd think he might jump his HR's from 22 to 32, or some nice step like that? Every HR is a hit, so a bunch more HR hits is great for BA, OBP, and slugging. He might also adapt by swinging earlier in the count? The obvious adjustment for most K-guys to reduce the K's is to swing earlier and try to resolve more counts before reaching two strikes. Nobody gets hit or HR's with 2-strikes, so perhaps he can trim his scary K-rates some by swinging earlier. But, obviously that's a balance. Average, HR's, and slug would probably benefit; but walks would take a dive and OBP as well. My guess is that he will reduce his K-rate (and walk-rate) to some degree by swinging more aggressively. HR's will improve; OBP will drop; my guess is BA was so BABIP-lucky that even with a more aggressive approach, that his BA will still drop despite making contact more often.

Key questions for me: How much HR power? 3B-defense? Pull? 1. I'm less concerned with the low-walk swing-away approach. If he swings at strikes, and hits them, his walk totals will be modest. If he's chasing everything, that's a problem, but not swinging-at and hitting strikes. Eventually I'd like to see fair share of walks, but I think that's a much more adjustable thing for a guy who isn't K-oriented. Hits are better than walks, HR's are better than singles. 2. Short term, the 3B-question is central. I get that his arm isn't great, and it's not like he's a stud SS anyway. But, I assume most guys who played SS can adapt to playing 3B, even if not necessarily at a high level, and even without an excellent arm. *IF* the bat is there, he doesn't need to be gold-glove. 45th-percentile 3B defense is OK with an .800-OPS bat. Obviously 3B is the open spot in our lineup. I hope Cubs don't mess around with the SS/2B/3B/LF usage this spring. Put him at 3B and do nothing but 3B, 3B, 3B. *IF* he can get that to work, he's got a straight shot to be a regular in a good contending Cubs lineup. 3B is the way. I wonder if the Cubs tossing $2.75M to bring Wisdom back doesn't suggest they don't also hope that Shaw will be the 3B of the future? They are willing to roster-fill pathwork 3B this spring, in hopes that Shaw is the future, and perhaps as soon as August he'll be up and helping a 2024 playoff team? If he hits, he doesn't need to be Chapman or even Madrigal at 3B. 3. Power? Obviously the defensive-acceptability threshold shift with the bat. I wonder how much HR-power he's really got, versus more advanced pitching? 15HR versus 27HR, that's a big difference. A bunch of hits and BA/OBP, a bunch of bases and slug, an extra dozen HR's is a whole bunch of OPS, like 100 OPS points. Is this a guy who's going to hit and slug enough where he'd be an asset DH, or asset OF, or asset 3B even with somewhat below-average defense? Or maybe more like Hoerner with a little more power, a low-walk contact hitter, maybe with 12-15 HR (Hoerner hit 9), but not a guy well into the 20's? HR-level really matters. 4. Pull? I didn't see all of his HR's. But my recall is that many of the ones I saw were opposite-field, RF-line pokes. No big-league HR guys are hitting 20 HR's down the opposite line, so I'm a little nervous that his power is small-sample fluky. I'm curious how much pull-capacity he has or will develop, and think he'll need to be able to yank some. 5. LF seems like a reasonable fallback position if he fails at 3B. Obviously the opportunity and the hitting-expectation changes if he needs to be a winner in LF. 6. 2B: Obviously I want an asset starter for my team, and soon. Shaw won't be that at 2B. But yeah, if he fails at 3B, obviously you an hope he becomes capable at 2B and becomes a 2B/DH trade candidate. 7. Overall I like him ahead of Caissie/Alcantara. Hitting is the hardest thing, and if he can hit for contact, his chance of being a total fail is reduced. He seems like a much safer guy than Caissie/Alcantara.

Have they actually said that control can't be taught? I know Breslow said stuff/velocity first, control 2nd. Originally when there was all the pitch-lab buzz, I had hoped control could be a somewhat natural outflow. If you track all of the finesse details of slot and release point and optimal stride length, etc., I'd thought all of those things could help a guy to reproduce his delivery more consistently. Reproducible, consistent delivery would naturally result in better control. Maybe that has worked a little, and improved some 2nd-percentile guys to 15th-percentile, or something. There's a huge continuum from awful to excellent, so maybe guys are sliding up to variable extend along the anti-awful continuum. But empirically it hasn't seemed to really convert wildmen to average-or-plus control.

Yeah, disagree. How many big-leaguers succeed with 8.5/9 free baserunners? Few. How many guys who are 8.5/9 in A-ball develop into successful control later? Few. I imagine some teenage wildmen work out some control over time. Few, but some. But when a guy's had three years of pro coaching and pitch-lab, and is aleady 21 without improving more, I worry more, not less. Tom, if wildman isn't important at age 21 for a multi-year pro, at what age when do you start to think control is important?

Interesting that Ramirez made a top-10. HOpe they're onto something, and that his end-of-season hot-streak at Myrtle holds up. Cubs need some of these depth guys to work out. Most hitters have some hot and cold patches. I think it helps prospect status to finish hot.

Wildman, 71 wild-on-base in 75 innings (59BB, 12HB). Control is the hardest thing to fix, If he can fix that, sounds like the curve is legit. But haven't seen Cubs prospects this wild get it fixed. Hope he's the exception.

Most guys do it sooner. He had access to top-level equipment and pitch-lab resources in college, even before access to what the Cubs have, and he was probably smart enough and motivated to get the most out of them. Optimizing velocity is Breslow's early stage goal, so I assume they've done most of what they could. Wicks' will turn 25 this season. For most guys, going from 7- or 6-day rotation to 5-day rotation doesn't normally increase velocity. So yeah, I'm guessing that if there was more velocity to be had, they'd have found it before now. Probably. But each guy is his own development project. Perhaps as a fast-track college 1st-rounder, the early priority for Wicks was on changing all of his pitch shapes (other than the change)? Maybe velocity optimization really hasn't been a priority, so only now is he giving primary attention to trying to eek out another 1-2 mph?

Wicks is an important variable. He's got a chance to be a solid-average starter, and we know how expensive solid-average can be. Will be interesting to see how he gets used, and how he progresses. I'm very optimistic, although perhaps a bit more cautious than the consensus here. Some of the questions/variables: HR's. No problem; better-than-leave average; or variably above-average HR-rates? Growth potential. Tom sees growth potential guy, and mentions "2-3 new pitches". Often smart control guys are best able to tweak up stuff to optimize their pitch mix. How much improvement is ahead and how good will Tom's "2-3 new pitches" get? Will any become elite? Velocity improvement seems unlikely at this point. Swing-and-miss. Or will his swing-and-miss and K-rate be just fine? Or is he going to need to make it as a contact guy? Scouting. If change remains signature pitch, will scouting enable hitters to lay off? Consistency: He can win when he's locating the change, the fastball, and the curve. How consistently can he do that, versus having off days when the change isn't exceptional, or fastball location isn't sharp, or the curve is hanging or missing? And how resourceful are his workarounds when one of his pitches isn't sharp? Fatigue: He's been on 7- and 6-day rotations in college and minors. How will his stuff hold up in a 5-day rotation? 1908 mentioned he was fatigued and ineffective in his last starts. When he'd been on a 5-or-6 day rotation for one month, and was clearing 110 well-rested innings on the season. *IF* he's asked to work 5-day rotation for 6 months, and to clear 140 innings, will he get fatigued and lose some effectiveness?

Agree, Kantro and Nichols have earned the benefit of the doubt. They scouted Wiggins as worth a substantial superslot; gave him top-60 bonus; and managed their other draft picks to enable that level of superslot bonus. They did that knowing both his surgery, and knowing his previous wildness. For sure between injury and wildness most pitchers who get $1.4 bonus don't end up being successes. But Kantro's a smart guy, and I don't see any reason to assume his cost-risk decision there wasn't a perfectly appropriate decision. Post-draft, Kantro was pretty effusive about Wiggins, mentioning TORP potential, athleticism, and stuff. As 1908 notes, there were accounts that Wiggins had looked great in fall ball, and that Nichols had seen progress with his control. Time will tell. But would be super fun if they got lucky with a high-ceiling guy.

Yeah, Tom, Wiggins is very interesting. Really a "who knows?" ceiling guy. Brown and Horton came back from surgery; Frisch, Burgman, Brailyn, MacAvene either didn't come back at all, or came back as shell. Hopefully Wiggins comes back fine, but not certainty. Kantro really buzzed his athleticism, and stuff, and also claimed that he'd shown some progress with his control. But, the control will be a huge question. His was awful, he's got a LOT of control improvement ahead to be a good big-leaguer. Hope that happens.

Thanks, 1908. That's helpful input.

Agree that HR-vulnerability for Horton will be worth watching, and could be a challenge for him. 7HR/88 innings last year doesn't seem too bad, but it's not excellent. Horton pitched most of his college draft-season without the signature slider, and was just off of surgery, so not sure how predictively-meaningful his HR-vulnerability then is? I'm glad that you don't see Brown's command that far behind Horton's. Encouraging that even if it's not excellent, it may be well up the anti-awful continuum.

100% agree, sooner or later. I admit for short term, I'd not mind if the Cubs rotation is so deep and great, and Brown pitching so well at Iowa, that he gets brought up this summer in relief to help a 95-win team! Heh heh, Yamamoto is signed and pitches great :):):); Steele and Wicks are both terrific; Hendricks and Taillon are both pitching at their best. Horton is looking like an ace prospect, and Assad is pitching excellently in whatever role. We're just so overloaded with capable starters that Brown is blocked and gets to thrive in relief.

Agree to disagree, which is fine. And I'm not sure I'm really disagreeing that much. I'm not sure his stuff is really that overwhelmingly good that he couldn't be a a relatively average starter, a #4 guy with a 4.3-level ERA. Good curve and 98, yes. But he's not averaging and locating 98, most of his fastballs are NOT that fast, right? Fastball is good, but he's not some exceptional flamethrower. The combination of variably above-average stuff with variably below-average control could leave a guy around average overall. Every guy's actual production is some composite result of his stuff and his control. There's a whole continuum between great control and awful control. Maybe his fastball control will be prohibitively bad. But maybe on the fastball-control continuum, he's 48th percentile or 42nd percentile? A little below average, but not prohibitively bad like a 1st-percentile Dillon Maples? Perhaps modest enough to prohibit being a top-of-rotation starter, but not bad enough to prevent being a #4-caliber starter? "Ben Brown either is going to be consistent enough to stay in a rotation, or he won't.." Agreed. I'm basically saying he might be consistent enough to sustain a 3.5 ERA or perhaps a 4.3 ERA, who knows? But unless the team is stacked with good rotation guys, it might be fine with a 4.3-ERA 4th starter, and consider that consistent enough to stay in rotation. It's not like if his ERA is slipping above 3.5, he's not giving TORP performance so he's got to get kicked out of the rotation. winning teams rarely have 5 TORP-performance starters. For a 150-inning starter, the difference between a 3.5-ERA guy and a 4.3-ERA guy is two bad games. (Like, maybe one dead-arm game in June where he gives up 7 runs in 3 innings, and another 7-runs-in-3-inning outing in September. If the other 25+ starts are 3.5-ERA, would that make Brown unacceptable to be your #4?)