Chase Anderson - Trade candidate?

[mlloyd10]

I know it's been only 4 starts, but he looking pretty good. Being 29 yrs old, he might be one that is moved instead of Nelson or Peralta. What type of value could he fetch?

[patrickgpe]

right now i think it would be minimal, if he still has an ERA less than 3, the brewers could probably move him for a top 100 prospect or 2.

[brewcrewdue80]

Chases has been a trade candidate since the day Milw acquired him. 2years and counting. He's a rebuild pitcher, not someone you trade for a playoff stretch. If his velocity was higher and 3rd pitch stats were improved maybe then he's someone you look in to, but if he's the same pitcher statistically, he's not getting anything from a playoff team

[tmwiese55]

Drew Pomeranz would probably a fair comparison last year, traded from Padres to Boston for a fairly highly rated prospect. you'd need an ideal situation for it to make sense, where a playoff team needs someone for depth in season but knows they won't be relying on the guy in the playoffs. Actually Cubs with Lackey and Anderson as their 4 and 5 would be a possibility if one or both gets hurt or sucks and a strong system to deal from, of course dealing in division is tough though. Outside of that I don't know, seems like TX and HOU are always looking for something at bottom of their rotation and we trade with them often enough.

[MrTPlush]

There is no point to starting these threads already. You can't possibly even guess what his value is because a huge chunk of his potential value lies in the hands of what other players do and who else is available at the time. We won't know any of that until very close to the deadline.

 

Pomeranz seems like a pretty poor comparison. Pomeranz was a highly touted top prospect himself and a big reason why he got a good return. He also had pretty good results after leaving Coors Field. You could make a claim that he was breaking out at the still young age of 27. I don't think one could make the same claim for a near 30 pitcher with nearly 3 seasons of mediocre performance. The right market and Chase Anderson could nab a good deal, but I doubt it and we won't really know until July.

[tmwiese55]

There is no point to starting these threads already. You can't possibly even guess what his value is because a huge chunk of his potential value lies in the hands of what other players do and who else is available at the time. We won't know any of that until very close to the deadline.

 

Pomeranz seems like a pretty poor comparison. Pomeranz was a highly touted top prospect himself and a big reason why he got a good return. He also had pretty good results after leaving Coors Field. You could make a claim that he was breaking out at the still young age of 27. I don't think one could make the same claim for a near 30 pitcher with nearly 3 seasons of mediocre performance. The right market and Chase Anderson could nab a good deal, but I doubt it and we won't really know until July.

 

IDK, both not young and Pomeranz was very mediocre before that first half in a massive pitchers park last year. I mean his previous innings pitched were 86, 69, 21 and started a total of 23 games the previous 3 seasons and you're talking like he was a proven top pitcher or something. One good half season in a pitchers park and he got a legit prospect. Gets to a hitters park and has done poor since. I guess I wouldn't say I know enough about him but yea maybe your point about him being a former touted prospect was key and being a couple years younger. Your first point about not knowing what other players do etc is spot on though, pretty much need a perfect situation to happen to create a demand for a mediocre guy like Anderson. Somewhat like happened with Boston in Bucholz going to crap for Boston while they were a contender.

[pogokat]

Anderson had a pretty good second half last year---not as good as he is currently pitching, obviously, but this is looking like a pretty decent run of sustained success. I think he would make a decent trade candidate for someone.

[JohnBriggs12]

Anderson had a pretty good second half last year---not as good as he is currently pitching, obviously, but this is looking like a pretty decent run of sustained success. I think he would make a decent trade candidate for someone.

 

He's got a 2.81 ERA in 89 2/3 IP since the 2016 All Star break. He's not a workhorse though and that will hurt his value. No need to trade him just to trade him as he's controllable through 2020. If any starter gets dealt, Peralta still seems to me to be the most likely. But a lot depends on the market and who else is out there.

[jerichoholicninja]

Anderson finished 2015 pretty solid too. He's a #3, borderline #2 at his best, he just needs to figure out how to be more consistent. Honestly, he has to have the most trade value of anyone in the rotation right now.

[brewcrewdue80]

In now way does Chase Anderson possess a #2 borderline. He's nowhere near 7IP giving in starts consistently. When you hand over the funal 9outs to the bullpen thats a #3 at best. Off to this great start but 1 game he went 7IP. He needs to consistently put out 7IP to be borderline #2. Guerra was and is the only Brewer Starter that has a borderline ability for #2 stats. Everyone else are #3s or borderline 3s as #4s.

[brewerfan82]

I could smell a semantics driven "what's a true ace? who's a #2 vs #3 pitcher? etc." argument brewing, so out of curiosity I took last year's playoff teams top 5 starters based on inning pitched, sorted them by ERA+, and then averaged out the "#1" through "#5" starters for each team. This is for all 10 MLB playoff teams:

 

[pre]Rk Age W L ERA CG SHO IP HR BB SO ERA+ FIP WHIP H9 HR9 BB9 SO9 SO/W

1 26.9 15.2 7.2 2.82 1.5 0.7 196.8 18.9 50.1 193.4 156.3 3.26 1.09 7.5 0.8 2.3 8.9 5.0

2 29.7 13.5 5.6 3.19 1.5 0.5 166.0 18.0 46.5 155.9 134.6 3.66 1.17 7.9 1.0 2.6 8.3 3.4

3 27.6 11.3 8.4 3.82 0.4 0.1 164.8 18.5 51.8 147.0 113.0 3.88 1.24 8.4 1.0 2.8 8.0 3.0

4 30.2 9.0 8.4 4.36 0.2 0.0 149.5 17.8 46.6 129.3 100.0 4.03 1.29 8.8 1.1 2.9 7.7 2.8

5 31.4 8.8 9.1 4.76 0.0 0.0 138.0 21.8 46.6 112.6 90.4 4.71 1.37 9.3 1.4 3.1 7.3 2.7[/pre]

 

Here are just the NL teams in case you were worried about the AL skewing results (surprisingly they're kind of worse, but it's also an even smaller sample size):

 

[pre]Rk Age W L ERA CG SHO IP HR BB SO ERA+ FIP WHIP H9 HR9 BB9 SO9 SO/W

1 27.4 15.8 6.4 3.24 1.2 0.4 201.9 22.4 55.2 190.2 138.6 3.66 1.16 8.0 1.0 2.5 8.5 3.8

2 31.4 13.2 5.8 3.46 1.2 0.4 157.1 18.6 49.0 130.6 129.6 4.10 1.19 8.0 1.1 2.8 7.4 2.8

3 27.8 10.2 8.2 4.20 0.4 0.0 167.1 20.4 55.6 142.4 108.4 4.18 1.30 8.7 1.1 3.0 7.6 2.7

4 26.8 7.8 9.2 4.75 0.4 0.0 150.0 17.6 54.2 125.2 95.0 4.26 1.37 9.0 1.1 3.3 7.4 2.3

5 32.2 8.8 9.2 4.83 0.0 0.0 143.9 25.8 49.0 105.8 93.2 5.15 1.37 9.1 1.6 3.2 6.7 2.7[/pre]

 

Anywho, thought it was interesting to take a look at.

[nate82]

I could smell a semantics driven "what's a true ace? who's a #2 vs #3 pitcher? etc." argument brewing, so out of curiosity I took last year's playoff teams top 5 starters based on inning pitched, sorted them by ERA+, and then averaged out the "#1" through "#5" starters for each team. This is for all 10 MLB playoff teams:

 

[pre]Rk Age W L ERA CG SHO IP HR BB SO ERA+ FIP WHIP H9 HR9 BB9 SO9 SO/W

1 26.9 15.2 7.2 2.82 1.5 0.7 196.8 18.9 50.1 193.4 156.3 3.26 1.09 7.5 0.8 2.3 8.9 5.0

2 29.7 13.5 5.6 3.19 1.5 0.5 166.0 18.0 46.5 155.9 134.6 3.66 1.17 7.9 1.0 2.6 8.3 3.4

3 27.6 11.3 8.4 3.82 0.4 0.1 164.8 18.5 51.8 147.0 113.0 3.88 1.24 8.4 1.0 2.8 8.0 3.0

4 30.2 9.0 8.4 4.36 0.2 0.0 149.5 17.8 46.6 129.3 100.0 4.03 1.29 8.8 1.1 2.9 7.7 2.8

5 31.4 8.8 9.1 4.76 0.0 0.0 138.0 21.8 46.6 112.6 90.4 4.71 1.37 9.3 1.4 3.1 7.3 2.7[/pre]

 

Here are just the NL teams in case you were worried about the AL skewing results (surprisingly they're kind of worse, but it's also an even smaller sample size):

 

[pre]Rk Age W L ERA CG SHO IP HR BB SO ERA+ FIP WHIP H9 HR9 BB9 SO9 SO/W

1 27.4 15.8 6.4 3.24 1.2 0.4 201.9 22.4 55.2 190.2 138.6 3.66 1.16 8.0 1.0 2.5 8.5 3.8

2 31.4 13.2 5.8 3.46 1.2 0.4 157.1 18.6 49.0 130.6 129.6 4.10 1.19 8.0 1.1 2.8 7.4 2.8

3 27.8 10.2 8.2 4.20 0.4 0.0 167.1 20.4 55.6 142.4 108.4 4.18 1.30 8.7 1.1 3.0 7.6 2.7

4 26.8 7.8 9.2 4.75 0.4 0.0 150.0 17.6 54.2 125.2 95.0 4.26 1.37 9.0 1.1 3.3 7.4 2.3

5 32.2 8.8 9.2 4.83 0.0 0.0 143.9 25.8 49.0 105.8 93.2 5.15 1.37 9.1 1.6 3.2 6.7 2.7[/pre]

 

Anywho, thought it was interesting to take a look at.

 

If you look at last year Chris Sale was the only pitcher to average 7 IP per game started. The game has definitely changed for the starting pitcher IP no longer really matters in terms of what constitutes an Ace, #1, #2, etc.

 

With your first set of stats your #1 guy who gets about 33 starts per year barely gets to the 6 IP mark. That 6 IP mark on average is basically what teams are looking for their starters to go with the way the bullpens are put together and how they are used.

[monty57]

In now way does Chase Anderson possess a #2 borderline. He's nowhere near 7IP giving in starts consistently. When you hand over the funal 9outs to the bullpen thats a #3 at best. Off to this great start but 1 game he went 7IP. He needs to consistently put out 7IP to be borderline #2. Guerra was and is the only Brewer Starter that has a borderline ability for #2 stats. Everyone else are #3s or borderline 3s as #4s.

 

Okay, so 30 starts x 7 IP/start = 210 IP in order to be a borderline #2. Seems a bit high to me.

[nate82]

In now way does Chase Anderson possess a #2 borderline. He's nowhere near 7IP giving in starts consistently. When you hand over the funal 9outs to the bullpen thats a #3 at best. Off to this great start but 1 game he went 7IP. He needs to consistently put out 7IP to be borderline #2. Guerra was and is the only Brewer Starter that has a borderline ability for #2 stats. Everyone else are #3s or borderline 3s as #4s.

 

Okay, so 30 starts x 7 IP/start = 210 IP in order to be a borderline #2. Seems a bit high to me.

 

It is extremely high.

[brewcrewdue80]

You're forgetting starts 31, 32, and 33. but yes to me a #2 is giving 210IP whether in 30 or 34 starts with ERAs/Fip below 3.45

 

As a #2 he shouldn't struggle to go 7IP as 8IP and a CG or 2 should occur as such designation. In which case those extra outs make up for a 5-6IP start.

 

You understand that production graph was to Playoff Teams of Last season only. Injuries/ Innings Limits are a part of that 1 year figure.

 

Now if you don't provide 210 IP because you don't reach 30-34 games Started, you should be on that trajectory if you did get 30 starts.

 

Chase is on a 180/30 GS pace as of current. Just that right there should indicate he's nowhere near a #2. Not getting to 200IP? A #2 is going to ask for 18-25mil per season. Maybe more. Tell me you think paying Anderson that is remotely realistic.

 

I could argue would you consider Jose Quintana an Ace? because to me he fits the mold of what a #2 produces. But since I'm off, you're telling me Jose Quintana is an Ace then. Chris Sale dwarfs him in production, a True Ace by the numbers. Quintana, the #2 I am calling #2s.

[trwi7]

You're forgetting starts 31, 32, and 33. but yes to me a #2 is giving 210IP whether in 30 or 34 starts with ERAs/Fip below 3.45

 

9 pitchers pitched 210 innings last year. 24 pitchers had a 3.45 ERA or below. 9 pitchers had a FIP below 3.45.

 

The list of pitchers to have 210 IP, an ERA and a FIP below 3.45 last year are the following.

 

Johnny Cueto

Max Scherzer

Madison Bumgarner

Corey Kluber

Rick Porcello

[brewcrewdue80]

Again, or be on average for that number. Making 21Starts like Kershaw did last season eliminates him from that, yet we all know he's the #1 Ace out there.

[pogokat]

your list narrows it down to both cy youngs, kershaw, a former cy young, and two other top line aces.

 

only 46 guys threw 180 innings last year. I think you need to rethink your measure based on actual standards in 2017; the numbers you are giving are unrealistically high.

 

a 2/3 starter should be able to pitch 180-190 innings hopefully and give you a sub 3.90 era. Which might also be wishful thinking, since only 36 pitchers managed to do that last year.

 

in fact, 180 ip with a sub 3.90 era= 29 dudes.

 

so, I guess that makes you a number 1 starter. lol. I hate these arguments because they are all semantics. Everyone here wants Chase Anderson to be better than my hypothetical #1 starter baseline, but I give those number to show just how rare pitchers that perform better than that have become.

[nate82]

 

You understand that production graph was to Playoff Teams of Last season only. Injuries/ Innings Limits are a part of that 1 year figure.

 

 

Yes I do and you do realize that only Sale averaged 7 IP per start last year right? In 2016 there wasn't even a pitcher other than Sale that matched your qualifications as a #2. So yes your expectations of a #2 is extremely off base.

[brewcrewdue80]

 

You understand that production graph was to Playoff Teams of Last season only. Injuries/ Innings Limits are a part of that 1 year figure.

 

 

Yes I do and you do realize that only Sale averaged 7 IP per start last year right? In 2016 there wasn't even a pitcher other than Sale that matched your qualifications as a #2. So yes your expectations of a #2 is extremely off base.

 

 

Already that is false. Kershaw averaged more than 7IP a start. Maybe I should infer pitches in to the 7th inning, and not leaving 9outs for the bullpen.

[nate82]

 

You understand that production graph was to Playoff Teams of Last season only. Injuries/ Innings Limits are a part of that 1 year figure.

 

 

Yes I do and you do realize that only Sale averaged 7 IP per start last year right? In 2016 there wasn't even a pitcher other than Sale that matched your qualifications as a #2. So yes your expectations of a #2 is extremely off base.

 

 

Already that is false. Kershaw averaged more than 7IP a start. Maybe I should infer pitches in to the 7th inning, and not leaving 9outs for the bullpen.

 

 

So only 2 pitchers in all of MLB are #2 starters? Kershaw was also injured last year and he would have finished with 32 starts at about 200 innings which would have put him under 7 IP per start.

 

This 7 IP for a #2 is just way to high. If there are only 2 pitchers in one year that are averaging 7 IP per start so again your expectations for a #2 are extremely off base.

[LouisEly]

Brewcrewdue80, my recommendation would be for you to pick your stats, then list how many pitchers fit those parameters. The stats that define who is a #1/#2 will vary from person to person, but if you pick your stats first then do analytics on those stats you will find out objectively whether they are on-target or not.

 

What is not subjective is that there are 15 #1 pitchers in the NL and 15 #2s. If you want to average those 15 to define what a #1/#2 is, fine, but whatever you do the top 30 define what a #1 and a #2 are.