It has been 20 years, maybe more, since a numbering system for ranking starters became popular in baseball conversation. And there are annually 20 teams that hear the same thing:
"The _ _ _ _ _ don't have a true No. 1 starter.''
The problem when observers say this is that, generally, they are applying a ridiculously high standard for what constitutes a No. 1 starter.
Max Scherzer and Chris Sale and Zack Greinke and Clayton Kershaw aren't No. 1 starters … they are superstar starters.
Suggesting that you don't have a No. 1 starter if you don't have someone that terrific is the equivalent of saying a team in the '80s didn't have a true leadoff hitter because it didn't have Rickey Henderson or Tim Raines.
The Twins have shocked no one more than me in these past four weeks. On Aug. 3, the Twins lost 4-1 to Texas at Target Field. This put the Rangers ahead of the Twins by a fraction in the American League – for 10th place.
The Twins were 51-55, compared to 52-56 for the Rangers. The Twins were 5 ½ games behind the Yankees for the first wild card and 4 ½ games behind Kansas City for the second. And the Rays, Mariners, Angels and Orioles were also ahead of Texas and the Twins in the wild-card race.
I awoke the next morning inspired to write a blog ridiculing the idea that the Twins were ever worth being taken seriously as a postseason contender.