In Reply to: Clayton Kershaw looks like a #3 starter? posted by OldBruin on July 21, 2009 at 14:07:26
Off the top of my head, I took a look at some of the top #1 starters in the NL (Haren, Carpenter, Lincecum, Santana). I'm sure there are others.
These guys have some things in common:
-- This group averages 7 innings per game
-- They are veterans (Lincecum is young, but I think a Cy entitles him to that label)
-- Each has no more than 1 shelling over the season to date
-- Each has double digit wins (exception is Carpenter, who has 5 fewer starts due to injury, and "only" 8 wins over 14 starts)
-- Each has ERA's hovering around 2, in this post-steroid era. (Exception is Santana who has an era just slightly under Kershaw's at 2.92)
I agree Kershaw and Billingsly are both having nice season, but at best, maybe they're #2's, but not necessarily the proverbial "stoppers" yet. In comparison to those other pitchers, above:
-- Kershaw averages 5 2/3 innings per game - not the mark of a #1 guy. Billingsly is better at 6 1/3, but still below what one would prefer
-- Billingsly might be considered a "veteran", but collapsed in the playoffs last year, and needs to shake that before he's a playoff #1. Kershaw is certainly not a vet.
-- Each has been shelled 3 times this year - not as consistent as one would like in a #1
-- Neither has 10 wins, though Billingsly is closing in at 9, admittedly. We're well over the half-way point of the season, though. Not sure with the IP issue that either will eclipse 15 wins.
I think you get too literal in your response to posts such as mine, rather than focusing on the general point, you like to nit-pick.