Could we be watching the best Sox pitching staff?

[BFirebird]

I was watching Contreras dominate the hapless Royals on tv the other day and thought to myself...is this the best staff ever?

 

I remember the '93 staff being on of the best in the league, wasn't old enough to remember the '83 team (born in '81) and didnt know that much about the Hitless Wonders of '06 or the last championship team '17. So I decided to do a little research and thanks to Baseball-Reference.com and ESPN.com I was able to put together some stats.

 

When looking at them you have to take into consideration the different eras of baseball and the way pitchers were used. In the early days complete games were more prevalent and closers were not. I also included how they ranked in the league for that year in most categories so that should give a good feel of how to compare them.

 

White Sox Pitching Comparisons

 

In a nice little table for your viewing pleasure!! (If it gets a little out of the table just refresh it...dont know what happened to it)

 

One thing that is really stands out to me is the number 1 or 2 in ERA all those years, no real dominate closer in 83 or 93 and having a 20 game winner in all of them except this year (so far).

 

But on the sheer numbers alone...this staff is definitely one of, if not the best in Sox history!!!

[ceffa2000]

Wow, 1906 was lights out. s***, 2 starting pitchers below 2.00 ERA?

 

Buerhle's an inning eater? Maybe by modern standards. But Eddie Cicotte had 340+ IP!!!

Edited September 8, 2005 by ceffa2000

[WilliamTell]

This is the best 5-man rotation in club history, but the 5-man rotation hasn't been around all that long.

[LVSoxFan]

It's the best I've ever seen; although my Sox history starts in the 80s.

[SoxFan562004]

I think on ESPN radio last night I heard the '64 Sox have the greatest difference between team ERA and league ERA, it was roughly 1 run less...

Edited September 8, 2005 by SoxFan562004

[ceffa2000]

I think on ESPN radio last night I heard the '64 Sox have the greatest difference between team ERA and league ERA, it was roughly 1 run less...

Thats a good comparison. I never thought of that.

[sayitaintso]

Wow, 1906 was lights out.  s***, 2 starting pitchers below 2.00 ERA?

 

Buerhle's an inning eater?  Maybe by modern standards.  But Eddie Cicotte had 340+ IP!!!

With 4 pitchers with 15+ wins.

[Balta1701]

Wow, 1906 was lights out.  s***, 2 starting pitchers below 2.00 ERA?

 

Buerhle's an inning eater?  Maybe by modern standards.  But Eddie Cicotte had 340+ IP!!!

Dead ball era. Totally different story.

[The Critic]

Dead ball era.  Totally different story.

Well, the thread DOES say "...in club history", so all eras qualify.

This is a damn fine rotation, though.

[Balta1701]

Well, the thread DOES say "...in club history", so all eras qualify.

This is a damn fine rotation, though.

Of course all eras qualify...but that doesn't matter...what does matter is that it's totally impossible to compare stats from the recently-post-steroid era to the dead-ball era and come up with a meaningful conclusion about overall quality with out all sorts of massaging of the data.

[scotty22hotty]

Best. Pitching staff. Ever.

[WilliamTell]

I think on ESPN radio last night I heard the '64 Sox have the greatest difference between team ERA and league ERA, it was roughly 1 run less...

 

 

Yeah I never thought about that stat either, I think that's the best way to compare throughout the history of baseball.

[wsox08]

I don't know about ever but it is certainly one of the top ones...

[Balta1701]

Yeah I never thought about that stat either, I think that's the best way to compare throughout the history of baseball.

Actually that doesn't work well between different era's in baseball either, because as the total ERA goes up, the difference in ERA between the top and bottom teams would also go up...

 

i.e. if the league ERA were 2, and you were 1/2 of a run below it...and then the league ERA increased to 4 and you were still 1/2 of a run below it, the former case would be far more impressive than the latter.

 

And also, if you have to deal with the effect of things like your team pitching in a smaller ballpark than other teams, it becomes even more complex (by that scale, if the Rockies put out Pedro from 99, Randy Johnson from his prime, Clemens from this year, Santana from the 2nd half of last year, and Zito from his Cy Young year, they might have the best pitching staff in history, but they'd probably still have an ERA above the league average).

 

In other words...there are probably more variables in this than we know how to control for...which is why it's nearly impossible to compare pitching staffs across different eras just from stats.

[Jordan4life_2007]

The only staff comparable in my time as a Sox fan is 1993.

 

Jack Mcdowell: 22-10, 3.37 era, 10 cg's.

 

Alex Fernandez: 18-9, 3.13 era.

 

Wilson Alvarez: 15-8, 2.95 era.

 

Jason Bere: 12-2, 3.47 era.

 

Tim Belcher: 12-11, 4.44 era.

 

That was a damn good rotation. I recall Alvarez and Bere simply dominating down the stretch that year. Too bad we ran into one of the all-time great offenses in the Blue Jays in the playoffs.

[Felix]

Wow, 1906 was lights out.  s***, 2 starting pitchers below 2.00 ERA?

 

Buerhle's an inning eater?  Maybe by modern standards.  But Eddie Cicotte had 340+ IP!!!

uh.. completely different era's. Also note the 49 starts. He averaged a little over 7 innings a start.

 

Well, the thread DOES say "...in club history", so all eras qualify.

This is a damn fine rotation, though.

Just to point out, the league average ERA in 1906 was 2.53.

So saying "wow, 2 people under 2.00 ERA" isnt really that amazing.

Edited September 9, 2005 by Felix

[Texsox]

For me, and I don't want to rain on this parade. I want to enjoy the moment and worry about how this all fits in Sox history over the winter.

[witesoxfan]

The only staff comparable in my time as a Sox fan is 1993.

 

Jack Mcdowell: 22-10,  3.37 era,  10 cg's.

 

Alex Fernandez: 18-9,  3.13 era.

 

Wilson Alvarez: 15-8,  2.95 era.

 

Jason Bere: 12-2,  3.47 era.

 

Tim Belcher: 12-11,  4.44 era.

 

That was a damn good rotation.  I recall Alvarez and Bere simply dominating down the stretch that year.  Too bad we ran into one of the all-time great offenses in the Blue Jays in the playoffs.

 

That's exactly the staff that came to mind when I read the topic.

 

Then again, it says pitching staff...the '93 pen, compared to this team's pen, was garbage.

[JoshPR]

I was watching Contreras dominate the hapless Royals on tv the other day and thought to myself...is this the best staff ever?

 

I remember the '93 staff being on of the best in the league, wasn't old enough to remember the '83 team (born in '81) and didnt know that much about the Hitless Wonders of '06 or the last championship team '17.  So I decided to do a little research and thanks to Baseball-Reference.com and ESPN.com I was able to put together some stats.

 

When looking at them you have to take into consideration the different eras of baseball and the way pitchers were used.  In the early days complete games were more prevalent and closers were not.  I also included how they ranked in the league for that year in most categories so that should give a good feel of how to compare them.

 

White Sox Pitching Comparisons 

 

In a nice little table for your viewing pleasure!!  (If it gets a little out of the table just refresh it...dont know what happened to it)

 

One thing that is really stands out to me is the number 1 or 2 in ERA all those years, no real dominate closer in 83 or 93 and having a 20 game winner in all of them except this year (so far).

 

But on the sheer numbers alone...this staff is definitely one of, if not the best in Sox history!!!   

 

Even tho they didn't make the playoffs the 1967 staff was dominating and far from Shabby. 3 Pitchers in the top 5 in ERA

[Yossarian]

I think on ESPN radio last night I heard the '64 Sox have the greatest difference between team ERA and league ERA, it was roughly 1 run less...

I was going to vote for that staff as the best in my lifetime. The 1964 team is all but forgotten. They finished one game behind the Yanks. There were no divisions or expanded playoffs back then. The Sox just couldn't handle the Yanks, losing the first 10 times they played them and 12 our of 18 overall. The starting rotation featured two hard throwing lefties, Gary Peters and Juan Pizarro. Joel Horlen, Ray Herbert and John Buzhardt gave additional strength. The bullpen was anchored by two knuckballers, Eddie Fisher and Hall of Famer Hoyt Wilhelm. For one year excellence no pitching staff can compare to the one in 1964 in my lifetime. Overall 1917 gets my vote.

 

1964 CWS Pitching Staff

 

STARTERS W-L ERA SV

L Gary Peters 20-8 2.50 0

L Juan Pizarro 19-9 2.56 0

R Joe Horlen 13-9 1.88 0

R John Buzhardt 10-8 2.98 0

R Ray Herbert 6-7 3.47 0

R Fred Talbot 4-5 3.70 0

BULLPEN

R Hoyt Wilhelm 12-9 1.99 27

R Eddie Fisher 6-3 3.02 9

L Don Mossi 3-1 2.93 7

L Frank Baumann 0-3 6.19 1

L Frank Kreutzer 3-1 3.35 1

[Soxfest]

Staff in 60's was very good always finished 2nd to Yankees. Lets win a playoff series before we get carried away.

[TLAK]

The 1964 pitchers rule, one of the best pitching staffs of all time.

 

Putting Bfirebird, Balta, WilliamTell and everyone else’s comments together, I’m showing the Sox ERA and WHIP versus the league ERA and WHIP year by year. To adjust for the relatively smaller differences in dead ball era I’m taking the Sox result as a percent of the league result. Because there is continuing argument over whether ERA or WHIP is a better measure I just combined them used the product to rank the teams. And since Bfirebird started the thread talking about the rotation but many replies covered the overall staff I’m showing them separately.

 

SoxPitching

 

I also looked to see how they stacked up all time using this formula. The 64 Sox (2.72 ERA 1.10 WHIP against the AL 3.63 and 1.29) rank 6th. The all-time best was the dastardly cub team of 1906 with 1.75 and 1.05 against 2.62 and 1.21. No team has been better since the 64 Sox. The 1939 Yankees (3.31 and 1.31 V 4.62 and 1.52) are the only post 1920 team ahead of them.

 

In Sox history, this year's team ranks in the mid teens. It will probably land in the top 10% all time. It reinforces what we have seen all season: there is no one thing that makes this team tick. Above average pitching plus above average defense plus just enough runs is hard to beat. Team ball.

[VAfan]

I was going to vote for that staff as the best in my lifetime. The 1964 team is all but forgotten. They finished one game behind the Yanks. There were no divisions or expanded playoffs back then. The Sox just couldn't handle the Yanks, losing the first 10 times they played them and 12 our of 18 overall.  The starting rotation featured two hard throwing lefties, Gary Peters and Juan Pizarro. Joel Horlen, Ray Herbert and John Buzhardt gave additional strength. The bullpen was anchored by two knuckballers, Eddie Fisher and Hall of Famer Hoyt Wilhelm. For one year excellence no pitching staff can compare to the one in 1964 in my lifetime. Overall 1917 gets my vote.

                           

1964 CWS Pitching Staff

 

STARTERS W-L ERA SV 

L Gary Peters  20-8 2.50 0 

L Juan Pizarro  19-9 2.56 0 

R Joe Horlen  13-9 1.88 0 

R John Buzhardt  10-8 2.98 0 

R Ray Herbert  6-7 3.47 0 

R Fred Talbot  4-5 3.70 0 

BULLPEN

R Hoyt Wilhelm  12-9 1.99 27 

R Eddie Fisher  6-3 3.02 9 

L Don Mossi  3-1 2.93 7 

L Frank Baumann  0-3 6.19 1 

L Frank Kreutzer  3-1 3.35 1

 

I also thought of the mid-60's Sox staffs that were sunk by having no offense. The phrase "Hitless Wonders" may or may not have been coined for those teams, but it certainly applied. Of course, these teams also pitched before they lowered the mound after Yastremski won the AL Triple Crown hitting below .300.

 

So maybe the question should be - which is the best pitching staff on a Sox playoff team?

 

On that score, I'd say the 1983 and 1993 teams starting rotations were as good, but their bullpens were weaker.

 

But if this staff can win one or more playoff series, then they will immediately vault to the top of the heap in my book!

[Yossarian]

The 1964 pitchers rule, one of the best pitching staffs of all time.

 

Putting Bfirebird, Balta, WilliamTell and everyone else’s comments together, I’m showing the Sox ERA and WHIP versus the league ERA and WHIP year by year.  To adjust for the relatively smaller differences in dead ball era I’m taking the Sox result as a percent of the league result.  Because there is continuing argument over whether ERA or WHIP is a better measure I just combined them used the product to rank the teams.  And since Bfirebird started the thread talking about the rotation but many replies covered the overall staff I’m showing them separately.

 

SoxPitching

 

I also looked to see how they stacked up all time using this formula.  The 64 Sox (2.72 ERA 1.10 WHIP against the AL 3.63 and 1.29) rank 6th. The all-time best was the dastardly cub team of 1906 with 1.75 and 1.05 against 2.62 and 1.21. No team has been better since the 64 Sox.  The 1939 Yankees (3.31 and 1.31 V 4.62 and 1.52) are the only post 1920 team ahead of them.

 

In Sox history, this year's team ranks in the mid teens.  It will probably land in the top 10% all time.  It reinforces what we have seen all season: there is no one thing that makes this team tick.  Above average pitching plus above average defense plus just enough runs is hard to beat. Team ball.

Really great and informative post. Looks like I was right about 1964 and that I overvalued 1917 somewhat. They did actually win a WS and Eddie Cicotte was truly awesome that year.

[BFirebird]

Not to toot my own horn on this one but when I was watching the game tonight I thought back to this post I started and thought to myself........this team is rapidly climbing the charts not for regular season statistical reasons but for it's postseason accolades.

 

Since the midway point in September, even though they lost a couple of those games due to no offense, this staff has been dominate. Count in both starts, Mark and now Jon have all been lights out when it has matter the most.

 

This has definitely been the best summer/fall of my life seeing over 30 games myself in person and I hope to see a couple more!!!!

Edited October 15, 2005 by BFirebird