Here at FanGraphs, Ben Clemens ranked Kyle Gibson 25th on our Top 50 Free Agents list, 12th-highest among starting pitchers. I can’t imagine that produced much controversy, and a quick search of the comments section and Ben’s Top 50 Free Agents chat suggests the same.

Of all the other major baseball publications’ top free agent lists, though, none had Gibson ranked as highly. Sports Illustrated was the only other site to feature the veteran righty on its official top 50, ranking him 18th among starters and 33rd overall. To be fair, Jordan Shusterman of Fox Sports had Gibson 22nd on his list of the top 30 starting pitchers, though he left him off the overall Fox Sports top 30. Similarly, The Athletic only included 40 players on its staff consensus list, but Gibson likely would have landed somewhere between 41–50 had they continued on; Jim Bowden and Keith Law each included him as the final starter on their personal rankings.

Moreover, as I’m sure Ben would tell you, the precise ranking for each player isn’t always significant, especially the further you move down the list. I’d argue that the difference between the players ranked one and two on our list is bigger than those ranked 25–50. Following that logic, there isn’t necessarily a meaningful difference between ranking Gibson 25th and leaving him off entirely.

But I can’t help but wonder why so many industry experts saw Gibson as little more than an afterthought, especially considering some of the names that did appear on every (or nearly every) list. I read through the rankings from eight other websites — The Athletic (top 40) , Baseball Prospectus, CBS Sports, ESPN, Fox Sports (top 30 starters), MLB.com (top 25, plus honorable mentions*), MLB Trade Rumors, and SI — and took note of every starting pitcher they named:

Aside from Shohei Ohtani, ten starters appeared on every ranking. Nine of those names are unsurprising; they were the top nine on our list:

The tenth name, however, was not one I would have expected: oft-injured 35-year-old Kenta Maeda. On average, he ranked about 13th among starters, and only one site had him above 12th, but his name appeared on every list. Maeda is a tier or two (or three) below those other nine starters, so it was noteworthy to see such consensus.

After those ten, three additional pitchers were named on eight of nine lists. Seth Lugo and Michael Wacha were included on every site except the truncated ranking at MLB.com — one or the other ranked among the top ten starters on almost any given list — and Jack Flaherty appeared on every list except for CBS. Lugo and Wacha don’t surprise me, and indeed, they ranked just behind the top nine here. But I was mildly shocked to see Flaherty included on so many lists, especially in light of Gibson’s snub.

FanGraphs was the only site to rank Gibson ahead of Maeda; FanGraphs, SI, and Fox also had Gibson ahead of Flaherty. As much as I hate to nitpick slight differences in rankings, especially those as nonscientific as top free agent lists, I can’t help but feel like Gibson has been overlooked. After all, he is the only one of those three who didn’t move into the bullpen down the stretch.

When it comes to ranking free agents without explicit criteria, there are two primary questions to answer. The first is how to weigh a high ceiling compared to a high floor. Look at it this way: Aaron Nola is a safer bet than Yoshinobu Yamamoto, but the sky is the limit for the young Japanese star. Most rankings from the major sources ultimately preferred the latter’s upside, but there’s a reason the analysts at SI and The Athletic chose to rank the durable MLB veteran above the unproven NPB arm.

The second question is how to weigh expected production in the long-term against expected production in the immediate future. I’d rather have Sonny Gray than Jordan Montgomery in 2024 (and possibly ’25), but the further I look into the future, the more I lean toward the younger pitcher instead. I’d be surprised if anyone anticipates Gray will sign for more guaranteed money than Montgomery, but the writers at BP, SI, and MLB.com all ranked the older pitcher one spot ahead.

Strangely, none of the sources that preferred Nola’s floor to Yamamoto’s ceiling made the same choice with Gibson and Maeda. Similarly, only one list that went with Gray over Montgomery — SI — also went with Gibson over Flaherty. Ranking Maeda ahead of Gibson is choosing upside over safety; going with Flaherty ahead of Gibson is choosing long-term potential over short-term gain. But when it comes to ranking back-end starters, I’m not sure those are the right priorities.

Maeda and Gibson will play their age-36 seasons in 2024. Each is projected for about 2 WAR, though they’re expected to get there in different ways. Steamer has Gibson making 31 starts and averaging 5.2 IP per outing. Maeda projects to have a lower ERA (low-fours instead of mid-fours) but in just 24 starts and with slightly fewer innings per game. Ultimately, that’s the difference between these two. Maeda is the better pitcher on a pitch-by-pitch basis; he has No. 3 upside, and his career average performance is that of a high-end No. 4. On the other hand, Gibson is more like a No. 5 with No. 4 upside. But he has been remarkably durable throughout his 11-year MLB career, leading all pitchers in starts since making his big league debut in 2014. Conversely, Maeda has only qualified for the ERA title twice in his career: once in 2016, his MLB rookie season, and again during the shortened 2020 campaign.

Neither is a top-three starter for a club with serious postseason aspirations. Any team that adds either would be signing him to help them get through the slog of the regular season. That being the case, I’d think teams would prefer the guy who is most likely to give them as many innings as possible. Specific teams with a plan to maximize Maeda’s upside and keep him healthy might prefer him to Gibson, who is as finished of a product as they come. But by and large, I think Gibson’s services will be in (slightly) higher demand.

As for Flaherty, his youth is his biggest asset. Although he’s coming off a worse season than either Gibson or Maeda, he should be able to sign a multi-year deal for more guaranteed money than either one, if that’s what he’s after. But I can’t see a team offering him a three- or four-year guarantee unless it comes at a significantly reduced annual salary. At 28 years old, it’s a safe bet he won’t fall apart in that span, but how many teams are looking to lock up a fifth starter for the next several seasons? Back-end starters will always be available in free agency or at the trade deadline. If I were ranking free agents by total production over the course of their next contact, I’d put Flaherty ahead of Gibson, but if I’m picking a pitcher for 2024, the latter has better projections, and he’s coming off a better year — not to mention he’s a much safer bet to stay healthy all season.

I can only guess what each individual writer was thinking when they ranked Gibson below Maeda or Flaherty, or left him off their lists entirely. But I presume his below-average rate stats had a sizable influence.

If you ever took a cognitive psychology course, you might have learned about the Lake Wobegon effect. The term, which comes from Garrison Keillor’s fictional town of Lake Wobegon, where “all the children are above average,” refers to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority, or the tendency to believe that we or those around us are better than the average person at a given task or skill. A closely related phenomenon is the belief that being below average is bad. Fans want their team to be above average; therefore, they do not want any below-average players on their favorite team.

I think this phenomenon has been exacerbated by the most popular sabermetric stats, particularly wRC+/ERA- and WAR. The former use league average as a starting point, and the latter uses replacement level. When we aren’t thinking too carefully, it’s easy to conflate those two baselines, but there’s a big difference between “below average” and “below replacement.” In theory, no team needs to carry players with negative WAR, but even the best rosters will have some below-average contributors.

On a pitch-by-pitch or inning-by-inning basis, Gibson is below average. In almost every year of his career, he has given up more runs per nine than the average pitcher. It’s easy to be turned off by such numbers; you don’t watch Gibson pitch and think, “That’s the guy I want on my team!” But his subpar ERA shouldn’t make him undesirable. Nearly every team could use a below-average pitcher at the back of the rotation.

It’s easy to understand why people would lean toward names with more upside; even Gibson’s best is not that good, and given his long track record of mediocrity, he is almost certain to be below average once again in 2024. The offseason is a time to dream; anything is possible next season. Why not pick the players with a fighting chance to post an ERA below four?

But here’s where the difference between “below average” and “below replacement level” really kicks in: Enough below-average performance can accumulate to make an above-average player. Gibson may have a career 107 ERA-, but he has been worth 2.56 WAR per year over the last five full seasons. Neither Maeda nor Flaherty can say anything close to the same. Gibson is so good at being below average that he’s actually above average at the same time. He’s only a No. 5 starter, but he has a good chance to be the most valuable No. 5 starter in the league.

Unfortunately, being a durable back-end starter is just about the least interesting way for a player to accumulate value, and Gibson is pretty boring, as far as free agents go. He’s going to ink another one-year deal and give his new team 30 or so starts with an ERA in the mid-fours. Once he signs, we could probably copy and paste his write-up from last offseason, change the title, and run it again. But when it comes to back-end starters, boring is one of the best things you can be. His ceiling is so low that he’s easy to overlook, but Gibson is still a free agent who deserves your attention.

Source