What IS a Big Three?

By John Franco

Growing up on Long Island, I remember the Mets’ promotion of “Generation K” – a trio of young arms that would vault the team back into contention. Of course, things didn’t exactly work out that way for the Mets, as Jason Isringhausen, Paul Wilson and Bill Pulsipher didn’t exactly set the world on fire when they arrived. Generation K serves as a cautionary tale for Pirate fans, who already have Gerrit Cole, Jameson Taillon and Luis Heredia penciled into a pennant-winning 2015 rotation. Recent history shows that the Pirates won’t get three aces from their trio of prospects, but what is a realistic expectation?

Going back to 1990, Baseball America has archives listing their top 100 prospects for each season. In 1995, they ranked Pulsipher as their #12 prospect, Wilson as their #16 prospect, and Isringhausen as their #37 prospect. Three top-40 prospects makes a pretty good Big Three. (The Mets also had Rey Ordonez at #20 and Edgardo Alfonzo at #31 that year).

In the 1996 season, the Cardinals had their own quasi-big three: Alan Benes at #5, Matt Morris at #56 and John Frascatore at #97. While a top-5 prospect certainly looks good, the other two arms in the big three aren’t really pulling their weight.

Later this week, I’ll be looking at some previous pitching trios and the results they posted when they reached the major leagues. The Pirates are obviously hoping that Cole/Taillon/Heredia will produce better results than Generation K, but 20 years of history should offer a bit more perspective.

To assemble a list of historical comparisons to the Pirates’ (and Mets’) big three, I’ll need to establish some guidelines. What makes a big three? I’ll go with one pitcher in the BA top 15 and an average rank of 30 or less. (A Pirate trio with Cole #10, Taillon #20 and Heredia #60 – all numbers I made up – would meet those criteria.) I might have to be flexible and exclude trios that don’t meet that criteria, but that seems like a reasonable guideline. Stay tuned later this week for the results of my research.