ZoomSlowik

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 05:57 PM) See what happens when you don't look up the stats? Either you're trying to be cute or you can't detect sarcasm. The stats have nothing to do with it, I'm just sick of writing really long posts about something really far off the original topic. You're never going to convince me that there are more than a few good starting rotations every year, that the 2002 Angels, the Cards, the Red Sox, or the late 90's Yankees got there because of their pitching, or that a 4.50 ERA is good. I'm also obviously not going to convince you of the opposite. I keep trying to quit, but you keep making more comments that don't really apply that well to the topic. While you got me posting again, there are three major flaws with all you numbers concerning people's ERA's that make them useless, besides the fact that the NL numbers don't really represent what I said, that a pitcher's rank in ERA doesn't mean that's where they rank among major league starters in general, and that because there isn't a perfect distribution, using any averages useless. 1) You're only using one year's worth of numbers, which means good years, bad years, and injuries drastically skew the numbers. 2) You're assuming that half of the starters in the league can actually pitch and that the median players are league average pitchers. That a statistical fallacy by definition, because the median and the average are not the same thing. There's no way that there are exactly 75 good pitchers and 75 bad pitchers in starting rotation spots. In fact, given the state of the bottom half of the league, I'd say it's more like 40-110 or 50-100 at the most, meaning that it doesn't really matter how many pitchers actually fit the criteria that I put forth. There's no quota that says that there can only be so many bad pitchers in the league. 3) The numbers didn't really prove anything. I never said that a somewhat competitive team can't have some bad starters. In fact, that was my whole point to start with: teams don't necessarily need dominant pitching if they make up for it it other areas. I never said they mathematically can't have a 4.50 ERA guy as their 4th starter, I said that it's a major issue if they do. That obviously seems to be the case with some of these teams, and other teams have other similar issues in other areas.

I just gave my response to a lot of those points in my last post. I'm done. You win, everyone has great staffs and no team could possibly have 5 bad starters.

QUOTE(VenomSox @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 05:02 PM) I'm maxed out on Yahoo leagues. Okay, although you could just get another ID like some of our other addict-level players. On another note, does anyone know what is going on with League #8 (IndyWallin' is the commish)? I've got no info, and that might help me a bit.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 05:42 PM) The last 15 posts in this thread have been by Zoom and WC. Why don't you guys just agree to disagree. I reached that point about 4 posts ago, but obviously I have a little too much time on my hands.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 05:24 PM) There are 16 teams in the AL and there were only 31 starting pitchers with an ERA below 4.50 last year. If pitching talent were equally distributed, every team's #3, #4, and #5 pitcher would be "bad" by your definition. And by your recently-made-up definition of "OK" for starting pitchers in the AL (4.25), only 25 exist (not even two per team if talent were distributed equally). And even though pitching talent is not equally distributed, 12 of the 16 teams own one of the Top 20 pitchers in the AL. Your definitions of "good" and "decent" are not supported by the statistics. It's not an even distribution though, which is the whole point. The Sox had 4 pitchers qualify as decent starters, regardless of the numbers, and there are numerous other teams that did as well. The bottom feeders mostly have one starter or less that fits that criteria, which drags down the average as well. I'm also not basing top 20 or top 30 on ERA, since that fluctuates. There are also numerous starters that would normally qualify that were hurt, like Curt Schilling and Roy Halladay. You should have abou 5 teams per year with that fit that category, which is roughly the case. It's not that hard to find teams that have several starters that fit that category. There are several every year as I listed, and there are bound to be more that I would find if I actually cared. Besides that, the NL equivalent for decent starters (roughly equal to the 4.25 number I threw out) is more like 4, which increases the numbers. Obviously you've got less exacting standards for starting pitching than I do, which I'll have to live with. If you're going to start throwing the 2002 Angels and the Cards' of the last 2 years as great staffs, then about a quarter of the league has great starting pitching, which just isn't the case. Can we just let this die? We're both basically wasting space at this point and are far off topic.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 05:08 PM) Food for thought... In the NL last year, only 12 pitchers (160 IP+) had ERAs under 3.50. Only 20 had ERAs below 3.75. There are only 16 teams in the NL. Do the math. In the AL, only 21 pitchers (160 IP+) had ERAs below 4.00. Only 31 pitchers had ERAs under 4.50. There are only 16 teams in the AL. Again, do the math. Yeah, your point? How many really good pitchers do you think there are out there? I'm actually kind of surprised it's as high as one per team, given how crappy the staffs are on a lot of them are. I'm too lazy to check, but I'd bet most of those pitchers are on teams that are actually contenders, since the bottom ten teams probably wouldn't be there if they had more than one.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 04:55 PM) Because you seem to think that any pitcher with an ERA of over 4.00 (or 3.75 by your NL standards) isn't that good. I'm saying that your standard of "good" is ridculously high. My "benchmark" was designed to show you that, on even very good pitching staffs, it's very difficult to find four or more starters with ERAs below 4.00 (by AL standards). I believe I said over 4.25. I also picked a few guys that had ERA's over 4 that I thought were pretty good. I also never said you had to have 4 starters quite that good, although it would be nice. Want to twist what I'm saying around a bit more? You've been doing that pretty well in your last few posts. Obviously I also don't think that those staffs were all that good. I've said that numerous times. If you've got 3 guys that can give you over 200 innings with an ERA under 4 in the AL or under 3.75 in the NL, then that's pretty darned good, but neither team had that. 190 is pretty good too, but obviously one of your guys either has shorter starts or missed a few then. Or if you've got two guys that are a bit more domiant and another credible guy (like sub 4.25 with a good amount of innings), then that works too. That's not all that uncommon, in fact I'm pretty sure all the staffs I mentioned that I thought were good did. Hell, the A's had 3 guys finish below 4 with over 200 innings, and Rich Harden, probably their best starter, was hurt for most of the year.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 04:23 PM) Schmidt and Sabathia are #1s. Why are you comparing top-of-the-rotation players like that to middle-of-the-rotation guys like Marquis, Suppan, and Morris? I'll take Santana over Vazquez! That would've been true two or three years ago, but Johnson and Mussina clearly aren't the pitchers that they used to be. A 4.50 ERA is perfectly acceptable for a #4 or #5 AL starting pitcher. First you say that having a strong rotation isn't important, and then impose these ridiculously-stringent ERA constraints on what you consider to be a "good" rotation. You flip-flop more than John Kerry. Show me an AL team that has four or more starters with at least 150 IP and ERAs below 4.00 and I'll show you a very good pitching staff. I'm saying that despite the fact that their ERA's are higher than their St. Louis counterparts, I'd still take those guys. I'll agree on Mussina, although he can still be decent at times. Randy wasn't that bad last year. He posted a 3.79 ERA in his first season in the AL in quite some time. Considering that was his first "bad" year in a while, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. That still doesn't really change the fact that the Yankees' pitchers in the 1998-2000 stretch weren't much better, at least if Pavano is healthy or Chacon is a passable pitcher. I'm using ERA because it's the only way you can really judge a pitcher with any sort of accuracy. What would you expect me to use when trying to quantify production? ERA isn't everything, but there isn't exactly a better method of measurement for a pitcher's performance. I could just say "this guy sucks," or "this guy is better," but that doesn't really do anything. I also didn't use any ERA constraints on what I thought was a good rotation at any time. By your own criteria, the 2002 Angels wouldn't qualify anyways. What I find funny is neither did the Cardinals, since Marquis and Morris were over 4 last year and Morris, Suppan, and Williams were the previous year. Why mention some sort of benchmark when it doesn't support the argument you're trying to make? 150 innings is a bad benchmark for how much guys pitch anyways. I'll put it this way, Mark Prior and Josh Beckett threw more than 150 innings last year. Usually at least 180 is a better inning requirement, since most competent, durable pitchers would reach that, and generally over 200 is considered a lot of innings. Plus I'd say 3.75 is a better benchmark for decent contributions in the NL, since their ERA's are typically lower, with under 3.50 being good.

By my list, the following players are still looking for a league: Jimbo's Drinker Venom Sox (second league) Pauly8509CWS B Firebird chitownsportsfan SoxFan420 sox4life14 Unfortunately, there isn't much I can do right now. With the possible exception of one spot, the leagues are full, and I don't have enough people left to start another one right now.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 03:07 PM) My head hurts. My fingers hurt. I gotta stop doing this. Man, major tangent.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 02:01 PM) So, a starting pitching staff where only one pitcher's ERA was above 4.00 is "a little above average"? Given that the mid-'90s Braves staff was arguably one of the best in MLB history, your standards are ridiculously high. Especially after you conceded that their bullpen was elite. So, if one's rotation doesn't feature Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, and Dizzy Dean in their primes, it can't be dominant, right? :rolly The Sox had what I would consider a "dominant" staff last season, yet not one of them was a "shutdown starter". A collection of very-good-but-not-future-HOF pitchers can be dominant. I'd take Capenter, Mulder, and Isringhausen any day. He just won a freaking Cy Young and had an excellent (15-5, 3.48 ERA) season in '04! Remember that it took Garland six years to develop into a top-of-the-rotation-starter as well. Not if it's your #4 or #5 guy playing in the AL during the steroid era. A 4.50 ERA means that one would give up an average of 3.5 runs over 7 innings. I'll take a performance like that from my #3-#5 pitchers any day. Then you'd have the 2005 Cardinals rotation, which you said "wasn't that good." Randy and Mussina both had some very bad outings in the regular season and absolutely sucked balls in the playoffs. So, no, those two aren't as good as Clemens, El Duque, and Pettitte back in '99-'03. Agree about Pavano, but he wasn't healthy enough to pitch for most of last season. If 36-year-old Mariano is going to pitch two-inning saves three or four times a week this season, his arm will fall off. The Yankees are SORELY missing the set-up men that they had during the WS years (Mendoza, Nelson, Stanton, Grimsley, etc.). Or a choke of epic proportions from their opponent's old, injured, and overrated pitching staff. Schilling in '04 playoffs: ALDS BOS ANA W 1 1 2.70 ALCS BOS NYY W 2 2 6.30 WS BOS STL W 1 1 0.00 Pedro in '04 playoffs: 2004 ALDS BOS ANA W 1 1 3.86 ALCS BOS NYY W 3 2 6.23 WS BOS STL W 1 1 0.00 With the exception of the ALCS, both pitched extraordinarily well. Nice attempt at cherry-picking, though. He pitched 27 innings and put up a 4.00 ERA in the playoffs, including goose eggs in the World Series. Stamina shot, my ass. Comparing Jenks to established, successful closers like Foulke and Rivera is ridiculous. The '05 Sox and '95 Braves won WS titles, despite having poor offenses. Teams with the opposite problem almost never win. Way to make me go against what I said in the last post. ERA's aren't everything. It takes a little more than a mid-3's ERA for one or two seasons to be a good pitcher, or at least in my book. Not every pitcher that posts a good ERA is a good pitcher, and not everyone that posts a higher ERA is a bad pitcher. I wouldn't particularly want Marquis, Suppan, or Morris, but I'd take guys like Jason Schmidt, Javier Vazquez and C.C. Sabathia (not necessarily on the Sox staff, just in general). They all have a lot of talent and can absolutely shutdown an opponent on a given day. So do Buehrle, Garcia, and Contreras. All of them did it at some point during the playoffs. Buehrle is one of the most consistent starters in the league, and Contreras pitched as well as anyone in the second half. I'd take those two long before the Cards' starters (outside of Carpenter). No, I wouldn't call the Angels or Cardinals a dominating staff. To do that, I'd say you need two of the top 20 or so pitchers in baseball and at least one other decent starter, or 3 of the top 30 or so starters, or something like that. The Angels had none, the Cards have one. They're decent pitching staffs, but they're not exactly world beaters. I never said you needed 5 hall of famers to have a great staff, but it'd be nice to have better than a few middle of the road starters. Besides, I only listed teams that won it all that had a dominating staff. Houston had one last year, the A's did for a while, The Cubs did in 2003, the Marlins were pretty good in '04, and there are probably a few more that I'm forgetting. I don't know why you'd want guys with an ERA of 4.50, that's pretty bad for anyone that is actually competitive unless it's their 5th starter and they have better options, especially if it's in the NL. Statistically, Randy, Mussina, and a healthy Pavano compare pretty favorably to the NYY teams in 98 and 2000. Just because Pettitte and Clemens were name guys doesn't change the fact that they didn't pitch all that well. Granted I'd rather have them than guys with similar or even slightly better numbers that are no-names, but it wasn't exactly a strong pitching team. Did I say that Schilling or Pedro pitched poorly in the WS? I don't recall saying that. They sure did pitch poorly in the ALCS though, which was my whole point. You'd never have even seen them pitch in the WS if their offense didn't bail their ass out. Plus I wouldn't call that 3.83 ERA from Pedro pitching "extremely well," that's merely decent. "Extremely well" would have to be under 3.50 at least. A 4 ERA is not that good, and even if it were, what does that have to do with stamina? Most of that year he was pitching only 6 innings per start because he couldn't pitch as deep into a game as he used to. That started at the end of the 2003 season, where Little left Pedro in too long and cost his team a trip to the series. Yes, Jenks was an extreme example, that's why I used it. There's still a big difference between Rivera and Foulke though. Rivera has been one of if not the best closer in the league for about 8 years. Foulke has 3 years that would put him among the best closers in the league (and one other as a setup man) and two more that were solid. Hell, he lost his job for the Sox in 2002 and he's still hurt after last year's problems. He's definitely not one of the top 10 closers in the league right now. I wouldn't call the Sox offense last year or the Braves one poor. They managed to put up runs when they needed them, so they couldn't have been that bad. The Sox put up some pretty good run totals against a very good Houston staff in the series. If we're talking poor staffs now, who was so great on the 1993 Blue Jays' team? Their top two starters were Juan Guzman and Pat Hentgen, neither of which had an ERA under 3.80, and the only reliever that was any good was Duane Ward. Guzman was better the year before, but he fell off pretty quickly. The 1987 Twins had only two pitchers on their roster with an ERA under 4, and one of them was a rather mediocre reliever. That's even more depressing considering that was before the steroid era started. Bert Blyleven was still around, but he was well past his prime and didn't pitch all that well. That's two that I'd consider pretty weak staffs, and I didn't even really try to dig that deep.

Considering I've seen the Yankees at better than 4:1 for the past 5 years (and IIRC as low as 5:2), I don't really see the issue.

By the way, let's include all of the scores from that 2002 World Series: Game 1: 4-3 Game 2: 11-10 Game 3: 10-4 Game 4: 4-3 Game 5: 16-4 Game 6: 6-5 Game 7: 4-1 There's not a single domiant start in that whole series either, with Lackey having the best (5 innings, one run). Even in the lower scoring games the starters were getting knocked around. There were 5 homers in that first game, and there were over 10 hits per team in game 4. My apologies, I'm done hijacking this thread.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 11:58 AM) If you don't think that the '02 Angels pitching staff was pretty freaking good (only 644 runs allowed), your perspective is waaaay off. Only ONE starter had an ERA over 4.00. Three of of their relievers had ERAs under 2.60, one of whom had 40 saves. And this was in the AL before steroid testing. And it's not like Lackey, Washburn, Donnelly, and K-Rod were one-year wonders, either. :rolly Since when is a 4.50 ERA bad in the AL during the steroid age? It's certainly not bad for a #4 or #5 pitcher. That's because Garland was projected to be an ace, not a #4 or #5. And it took him six freaking years to to develop into someone worthy of a #1 or #2 slot. . The Yankees pitching from '96-'03 had two important things going for them: (1) Veteran starters who pitched well in the post-season. Regardless of their regular-season stats, Clemens, El Duque, and Pettitte were absolutely clutch in the playoffs. Wells and Cone weren't bad, either. We saw the same thing with the Sox last year: Contreras didn't pitch particularly well before the All-Star break, but was almost unhittable afterwards. El Duque was more or less a failure during the regular season, but delivered one of the most clutch pitching performances in Sox playoff history. We haven't seen that with the Yankees teams over the past two years. Their big-money, stud veterans (Johnson, Mussina, Brown) have pitched some horrendous playoff games. (2) The earlier Yankees teams had a ton of depth in their bullpens. During the World Series years, they could go to Mendoza, Stanton, Grimsley, or Nelson if a starter faltered. What quality long-relief options have they had over the past couple of years, besides Gordon? Felix Heredia? Tanyon Sturtze? And they came back and completely shut down Rolen, Edmonds, Walker, and your boy Pujols in the WS. They didn't give up more than 2 runs per game in three of four games. And if you think that the '04 Red Sox won only because of their hitting, you're wrong again. Their top two starters are (arguably) future HOFers (Schilling, 3.26 ERA; Pedro, 3.90 ERA), the former winning the AL Cy Young. Arroyo (4.03 ERA) was a very decent third option. Having a semi-stud closer (Foulke, 2.17 ERA, 32 saves) was key as well. However, you're correct that the '04 Red Sox didn't have a tremendous amount of pitching depth on their team. That's why the Yankees had to blow a 3-0 lead in the ALCS (one of the biggest chokes in playoff history) for the Red Sox to even get to the WS. Sure, if you discount Schilling, Pedro, and Foulke. :rolly And if you think that the '02 Angels had an "average" pitching staff, you have a lot to learn about baseball. The '02 Angels and '05 Cards sure as hell did have "well above average" staffs. To suggest otherwise is pure ignorance. Wrong again. Sure, you could sign an over-the-hill Orel Herscheiser and hope that your lumber-company offense delivers in the post-season, like the '97 Indians did. But you're probably not going to win a WS. Pitching is still the best way to do it. One can do it by either having a number of really-good-but-not-great pitchers ('02 Angels) or a couple dominant studs that they can run out four times in a seven-game series ('04 Red Sox, '01 D-Backs). Pujols is a great player, but he's not God. If one player could do it all himself, the Giants would've easily won the '02 WS. And, for that matter, the Sox probably would've won a WS back in the early/mid '90s. "Borderline Top 10 starter"? He won the freaking Cy Young! . If you think that the '02 Angels or '05 Cardinals pitching staffs were mediocre, you have a lot to learn about baseball. No, I wouldn't call the Angels' staff "pretty freakin good," and I wouldn't say the Cardinals' staff is that great either. The Angels had a solid pen, but their rotation wasn't exactly the mid-90's Braves. Maybe it's a little above average, but I wouldn't call it a rotation that I'd hate to face in the playoffs. None of them are shutdown-starters, they're all decent guys that are enough to get by considering their bullpen strength and their efficient offense. The Cardinals are the same way, and they didn't win anyways. None of them are guys that I would be dying to have on my staff right now. Even Carpenter is a bit iffy in my book right now. I'm supposed to be impressed with one decent year, and one really good one? There are starters with more extensive track records that I'd rather have. If he puts up another solid season or two from here on out that's one thing, but right now there are at least 2 starters in his own division that I'd rather have. They're passable rotations, but if either had an '04 Dodgers or '05 White Sox type offense instead of the ones they had, they're a 3rd place team. Yes, a 4.50 ERA is pretty bad. That means you're talking about a highly mediocre pitcher that gets hit around quite a bit. There are very few guys that I would want on my roster that have an ERA above 4.25, and if they do that consistently it's even worse. As for Garland versus Yanks, don't you think the Yankees are expecting a bit more from their starters as well? How much are/were Mussina, Brown, and Pavano making? I won't argue that the Yankees didn't get better pitching in the playoffs when they were winning, but their starters weren't that much better than the ones they have now. Randy has been a staff ace in numerous playoff appearances, Mussina has quite a few post-season starts in his career, and Pavano got a ring as a starter for that Marlins' team. Plus with Mariano at the back you don't need as much pitching depth when he's posting 2-inning saves in the post-season. He is losing his touch a bit in the playoffs, but they also seem to have a bit more depth in the pen this year. The Red Sox didn't win entirely because of their hitting. No team does. But there's no way they make it past the ALCS without some clutch performances from their lineup, because they were dead and buried, getting destroyed by a team with an inferior staff nonetheless. Curt and Pedro did nothing for them in that series. They only had two dependable starters, and one of them was hurt, the other was having a bad year. 3.90 isn't exactly a dominant starter, especially when your stamina is shot like his was. If that were someone besides Pedro, that's a pretty mediocre #2 starter, but with his track record people had more faith in him that year than he deserved. They managed to get a couple of good starts from Lowe, he of the 4.70 ERA, and Pedro and Schilling came up with a good start each in the series. Foulke didn't help them until the WS either. He wasn't exactly a game-changing closer like Rivera usually is either, although he managed to get the job done. Jenks did pretty well too, does that mean he's suddenly Rollie Fingers? A couple of well-timed starts doesn't mean that their pitching is suddenly better than it really was. Pitching helps, but it isn't the be-all-and-end-all. You don't need a dominant starting staff to win, or even a particularly good one if you look at two of those Yankees' teams. You need some balance to win it all. I wouldn't call the Yankees the WS favorites given their pitching, much like I wouldn't call the Angels one because of their lineup. The only teams that I'm convinced are without a doubt better than the Yankees going into this year are the Sox, Cards, and Indians, and I think the Yanks might beat the Tribe head to head. I also like Boston a little better because they're a bit closer to having a good starting staff if things go their way (that's not a certainty though). Outside of that though, every other team has equal or more significant issues (with the possible exception of the A's, I gotta see how their lineup works).

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Mar 23, 2006 -> 01:57 AM) For them to get anywhere in the playoffs they need RJ to get back to the RJ of old, and for one other starter like Mussina or Pavano to pitch amazingly well. I'd give them a 25% chance at best of that happening. I don't know if you necessarily need the Diamondbacks' era Randy, but he's got to be a bit better. That's highly possible. As for the other starters, it's a bit of a crap shoot, so it'll take a while to figure out. Mussina hasn't pitched to his abilities the last couple of years. Even if he puts up another mid-4 ERA he could still end up pitching well at the right time. I think Pavano will be better than Mussina if by some miracle he is actually healthy, but we all know that's a bit of a longshot. I don't expect much from Wang or Small, but Chacon could conceivably be a solid pitcher. He's always had some talent, but he's been stuck playing for a bad team in a real hitter's park. They need to avoid playing the Sox or the A's in the playoffs. I think both of those would end poorly for the Yanks because they've both got decent offenses and strong pitching. If they play the Angels again I think the result is similar to last year: a 5 game series that is basically a toss-up. That could change in the Angels' favor if they find another hitter or two or go the other way if guys like Escobar, Santana, and Carrasco don't pan out well. Colon and Lackey are solid, but I don't think those two are quite good enough to create a significant advantage on their own. I think they have a slight advantage if they play Cleveland because the Indians don't exactly have a rotation that strikes fear in opponents either, and the Yankees are a bit more solid in the pen thanks to Rivera and have a better lineup.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 08:24 PM) Oh, probably not. But I still think they would've made the playoffs, given the depth of their pitching staff and how badly the Astros sandbagged April and May. I'm not trying to diminish what Pujols has contributed to the Cardinals' success. He obviously does mean a lot. I was merely debunking this idiotic theory that the Cardinals "slugged" their way to 100 wins last year and that their pitching was mediocre. Nothing could be further from the truth. I absolutely guarantee you that the Cards wouldn't have made the playoffs without their "journeymen" pitchers (Carpenter, Suppan, Marquis, Isringhausen, Tavarez, King, Eldred, etc.). Without Pujols, the Cards are definitely not finishing that high. They'd be a lot worse than Houston without him. As for the pitchers, I'd first like to say that I wasn't throwing Carpenter in with the other guys, or Isringhausen if you're going to add the relievers. He's been good, although he's still probably a borderline top 10 starter at best. It's the other guys that aren't all that impressive. All of them are passable at best, and none is exactly a dominating pitcher. Mulder was a few years ago, but he seems to be losing it pretty fast. A lot of mediocre guys can perform reasonably well if you put them in the NL on a team like the Cardinals that puts up some pretty good offensive numbers and plays better than average defense. I really don't think they'd lose much if they lost Suppan, Marquis, Morris (who actually is gone), and most of their bullpen, because none of those guys are that hard to replace. Most of them were retreads that they picked up from other teams that didn't want them. If you gave them moderately successful guys from AL teams to replace them like Jamie Moyer, Kenny Rogers, Tim Wakefield, Brendan Donnelly, Cliff Politte, and Justin Speier, I don't think they really lose much, if anything. I'm not even sure you need that much talent, and there are also probably other similar guys on NL teams that they could grab. None of the Cards' pitchers or the other guys I mentioned are that good or that expensive. It'd be one thing if they had a couple of flame-throwing youngsters with potential filling out their rotation, but none of them are exactly oozing talent. If/when any of these guys ends up on another team making more money, don't be surprised if they return to their previous career arc.

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 06:46 PM) Best teams never to win the championship actually a little more fun: Think Houston (above), the Kenyon Martin Cincinatti team, and of course the fab five at michigan I mentioned another one in 1999 Duke, which might have been Coach K's best team. Another one that the experts seem to like is the 1974 Maryland team. They were pretty solid, but they didn't even get to go to the tournament because they lost a nail-bitter in the ACC tourney to eventual champ NC State. Back then there weren't really at large bids like there are now. Some other teams that were good that lost were 1991 UNLV, the 83 and 84 Tar Heels, 87 Syracuse, 68 Houston, and the 89 Flying Illini (maybe not great historically, but they were probably the best team in the country, and won 2 out of 3 against National Champ Michigan).

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 07:46 PM) Wow, you didn't do your homework... '02 Angels: Appier - 3.92 ERA Ortiz - 3.77 ERA Washburn - 3.15 ERA Lackey - 3.66 ERA Percival - 1.92 ERA Weber - 2.54 ERA Donnelly - 2.17 '02 Giants: Reuter - 3.23 ERA Schmidt - 3.45 ERA Ortiz - 3.61 ERA Hernandez - 4.38 ERA Nen - 2.20 ERA Witasick - 2.37 ERA Zerbe - 3.04 ERA "Less than stellar", my ass. Schilling was hurt, but still pitched... and did so brillinantly. And I didn't realize that an ERA of 3.90 was bad. Arroyo's ERA of 4.03 wasn't too shabby, either. Oh, and there was Foulke's 2.17 ERA and 32 saves and Williamson's 1.26 ERA as a set-up man. They didn't have much depth to their pitching, but they were able to run Schilling and Pedro out twice in a seven-game series. One can get by with a couple of studs in the playoffs (like Johnson and Schilling in '01). You don't need an entire rotation of studs if you have enough depth (several pitchers with ERAs of, say, 4.50 or under). They had more than one quality starter and much more depth in their bullpen back then... Yankee pitchers who were regularly used with ERAs under 4.50: 1999: El Duque, David Cone, Rivera, Grimsley, Nelson, Stanton, Mendoza (great bullpen) 2000: Clemes, Pettite, El Duque (4.51), Rivera, Nelson, Stanton 2001: Mussina, Clemens, Pettite, Rivera, Stanton, Choate 2002: Mussina, Wells, Clemens, El Duque, Pettite, Lilly, Rivera, Standon, Karsay, Mendoza 2003: Clemens, Pettite, Mussina, Wells, Rivera, Hammond, Osuna 2004: Lieber, Brown (got hurt and tanked in the playoffs), El Duque, Gordon, Rivera 2005: Johnson (sucked in the playoffs), Wang, Chacon, Rivera, Gordon You're picking and choosing stats on a few players that were decent. I'm pretty sure that they had more than 7 guys on each of their staffs. I could go back and fill in several others that weren't very good. Plus none of them were exactly Cy Young material as it is. So a couple of highly mediocre pitchers played fairly well in one season (and I do mean fairly, they weren't exactly Pedro in his prime), that doesn't mean that their pitching was good and that's what carried them through the playoffs. Plus if you watched the games their pitching had little to do with it. Every game in the Angels-Giants serie was like 7-5 or 8-7, not exactly pitchers' duels. And on the Yankees' staffs, since when is a 4.50 ERA good? Wouldn't a slightly more impressive level of measurement make more sense? That's pretty brutal, and we constantly ripped on Garland for doing not much worse than that. How many of those guys finished between 4.00 and 4.50? By my count most of them, and that isn't that much of a difference. Their staffs were pretty weak as a whole, but it didn't matter because their offense got them through the season and El Duque pitched well in the playoffs. It also helped that they had Rivera for close games. You really think the Red Sox won it because of their pitching? Their vaunted pitchers failed them miserably in the ALCS, and the only reason they won was that their monster offense bailed them out on several occasions. The great Schilling and Pedro lost, putting them in a tough bind that Big Papi had to get them out of. I'd call those staffs average, but it didn't matter in their cases. I'll put this another way, how many of the teams that won it all can you say had well above average staffs? Since 1990 I've got 4: The Sox, The Diamondbacks, the first Yankees' title team, and the Braves. No one else had what I would call ace-level pitching, and only the Angels really had an elite bullpen out of the other teams. Even then they were depending on a rookie for a lot of the playoffs, and the Yankees' pen isn't exactly terrible. There are a lot of different ways to put together a successful team. Not all of them have stellar pitching, and in the past teams have won even with mediocre pitching. It isn't exactly a pre-requisite for success, and it isn't all that great an indicator for who will win the series. Neither is offense either, but at least for getting to the post-season it has been more reliable. As the Yankees and Red Sox have proven the last couple of years, it's a bit easier to get by in the regular season when your offense is averaging over 5 runs a game. Yeah, their pitching will limit their chances in the postseason, but how many teams have staffs that are drastically better? Outside of the Sox, Cardinals, A's, and Angels, there aren't any. Plus 2 of those teams are a step back in offensive production, which levels the playing field a bit.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 06:43 PM) Because up until about two years ago, the Yankees had top-notch starting pitching. And even when their pitching started to go south last year, they had enough cash to spend on the big hitters (A-Rod, Sheffield, etc.). That way, they could slug their way to division titles by beating up on their crappy divisional opponents (Devil Rays, Orioles, and Jays). But what have the Yankees done since losing their quality pitching? Blowing a 3-0 lead in the '04 ALCS? Getting hammered by the crappy Angels hitters in the '05 ALDS? Anybody can slug their way into the playoffs. But if you don't have the pitching to go along with it, you're most likely going to pay the price in the playoffs. I can't think of a team with mediocre pitching that won a WS. You can't aruge with their low ERAs. They've pitched fantastically over the past two years, even by NL standards. The Cards to the NLCS last year because of pitching, not because of Scott Rolen or Jim Edmonds. Oh really? Who was pitching so well after about 98? They got decent performances here and there from Clemens and Pettitte, but they never really had more than one solid starter, much like now. So now they can beat their division into submission by slugging them to death, regardless of their pitching? Guess it doesn't really matter that much. They still made the playoffs, didn't they? That's more than you could say for 22 other teams in the league. Plus, as I said before, they didn't exactly get hammered by the Angels. Okay, so now you're admitting that you can get into the playoffs without pitching. That was my entire point, it's not really as crucial to success as you think it is. Yes, I can argue that their ERA's weren't that good, outside of Carpenter. None of them finished in the top 15 in ERA in the NL, which would generally be a good thing if you've got such great pitching. They put up a ton of runs, which was a major factor in the regular season. Do you really think they'd still be winning if Pujols wasn't there? They can get by with less because they score so much. The Astros couldn't do that. Let's see, there's the Red Sox, who had very mediocre pitching outside of Cy Young winner Schilling, who was hurt. Their bottom 3 starters were brutal, and Pedro's ERA was almost 4. There's the Marlins, who's pitching largely underacheived until the playoffs. There are the Giants and Angels, who played each other in the series with less than stellar pitching. The 2000 Yankees won it all with only one starter with an ERA under 4, and that was Clemens at 3.70. The 1999 Yankees did that too, with only Cone under 4 (3.44). Is that enough examples?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 06:34 PM) The Angels were clearly better than the Yankees, IMO. Even with their lineup slumping badly, they tatooed Yankee pitching. Same with the Cards and Astros. The Braves only won 90 games, but played in a much more competitive division (PHI - 88 wins; FLA - 83 wins; Mets - 83 wins; Nats - 81 wins). I think that the Red Sox and Yanks were about even and the Indians were slightly better at the end of the season (but probabably not earlier in the season). I agree that the Cards were a better team than the Astros. But it was Astros pitching (Lidge notwithstanding) that made the difference. Oswalt, Clemens, and Backe were huge in the NLCS. Yeah, the Angels were so much better that they needed 5 games to beat the Yankees. They didn't exactly tatoo the Yankees either, considering that they only scored more than 5 runs in one game. Anyways, their lineup didn't really start slumping until they played the Sox. How exactly did the Cards and Astros destroy the Yankees' pitching? I don't see how you're concluding that they were better. Houston's lineup was brutal, I don't know if I would have liked their chances against the Yanks head to head. As for the Braves, I don't understand how you're that impressed with the Braves. They were playing like 5 rookies, they had only 2 legit starters, and no bullpen. There's a reason that they've been losing in the first round so much.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 06:19 PM) Um, have you looked at the stats? Kevin Millwood ('05): 2.86 ERA Cliff Lee ('05): 3.79 ERA (18-5) C.C. Sabathia ('05): 4.03 ERA (15-10) Chris Carpenter ('05): 2.83 ERA (21-5) Chris Carpenter ('04): 3.46 ERA (15-5) Mark Mulder ('05): 3.64 ERA (16-8) Jeff Suppan ('05): 3.57 ERA (16-10) Jeff Suppan ('04): 4.16 ERA (16-9) Matt Morris ('05): 4.11 ERA (14-10) (Not bad for a bunch of "journeymen", eh?) Josh Beckett ('03): 3.04 ERA Dontrelle Willis ('03): 3.30 ERA Mark Redman ('03): 3.59 ERA Brad Penny ('03): 4.13 ERA Carl Pavano ('03): 4.30 ERA Much more often than not, top teams have strong starting pitching. Those ERA's aren't that stellar for the NL teams. Because of the pitcher batting in the NL, their ERA's deviate as much as half a run. Plus Beckett missed some time and Willis wasn't called up until later. You also conveniently only posted 3 pitchers' ERA's for Cleveland's team. You also might as well leave off the records, those are pretty much irrelevant to the pitcher's performance. Do you really think guys like Marquis and Suppan would be winning 16 games for crap teams? If you're so convinced that pitching is crucial to good teams, then tell me why the Yankees make the playoffs every year and why the Red Sox have done it as of late, and give me a response for my statement at the my last post.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 04:52 PM) I'll have to go with 2001 Duke because that's the best team in the group that I saw. Double digit wins in every tournament game is impressive, and who can forget the comeback against Maryland. That's probably not even the strongest Duke team I've seen. Those 91-92 teams were better, and the 1999 team that lost to UConn was probably more talented as well.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 05:58 PM) Don't forget the other 3 brackets as well on the link. You can click on each different bracket to get there at the top. I didn't really think I had to link to each individual bracket.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 05:23 PM) This isn't really true. It was posted in an earlier thread - if you look at the team ERA numbers from last year, 4 of the top 5 teams MLB were playoff teams (plus CLE who almost made it), and in the AL, the playoff teams were 1(t), 3, 9 and 11. Looking at team OPS, on the other hand, there were four playoff teams in the top half of the league, and 4 in the bottom half. Runs scored? 5 in top half, only 2 in top 5. To say having a strong lineup is more advantageous than strong pitching just doesn't hold up. Way to use one year as an example. :headshake I just said in my last post that last year had some weaker lineups than normal. Besides, it's not entirely accurate. Cleveland tied for the lead with the Sox and fell short, and the Twins finished at 3.71 and didn't make it. Boston made the playoffs with a 4.74 ERA, and so did the Yankees at 4.52. Plus the Padres were at 4.13. I can't find it right now, but one of the stat-heads wrote an article a while ago saying not only is having a strong offense statistically more advantageous during the regular season, but that having the best pitching staff doesn't equate to a playoff win as often as you'd think. If strong pitching really was the deciding factor, the Braves would have more than one ring, the Cubs would have won in 2003 :puke , and the A's actually would have won something.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 03:58 PM) EDIT: Upon further review, I suppose that it's not really necessary for a Top 5 team to have Top 5 pitching. A good example would be the '97 Indians. (Of course, they also played in a weak division and didn't get hot until late in the season.) My point was that one typically needs very good pitching to be an elite team. Not really. In fact, it's usually more advantageous to have a strong lineup during the regular season, since you have 5 starters instead of 4 and your top guys don't always face each other. The Yankees have made the playoffs regularly without strong starting pitching. The Red Sox have done it largely with their lineup of late. The Indians' pitching was highly mediocre last year. The Cardinals have gotten by with several journeymen and slugged people to death. The same was true of the 2000 Sox and the Angels and Giants the year they met in the Series. Even the Marlins' staff wasn't very good during the regular season when they won it. The only teams that really had strong pitching that made the playoffs without at least a decent offense of late were the White Sox and the Dodgers 2 years ago. I guess the Astros and Angels count too, but the latter was producing a little better during the regular season. Even the Twins were decent at putting runs on the board in past years. They had to be since their starting staff wasn't very good outside of Johna. Granted good starting pitching is a major benefit once you make the playoffs, but it isn't the be all and end all, and the best staff doesn't always win.