2006 Power Rankings

[ZoomSlowik]

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).

Edited March 23, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[ZoomSlowik]

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.

Edited March 23, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[WCSox]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I'd take Capenter, Mulder, and Isringhausen any day.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.?

 

Then you'd have the 2005 Cardinals rotation, which you said "wasn't that good."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.).

 

But there's no way they make it past the ALCS without some clutch performances from their lineup,

 

Or a choke of epic proportions from their opponent's old, injured, and overrated pitching staff.

 

Curt and Pedro did nothing for them in that series.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

Comparing Jenks to established, successful closers like Foulke and Rivera is ridiculous.

 

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.

 

The '05 Sox and '95 Braves won WS titles, despite having poor offenses. Teams with the opposite problem almost never win.

Edited March 23, 2006 by WCSox

[ZoomSlowik]

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.

Edited March 23, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[longshot7]

My head hurts.

[ZoomSlowik]

My head hurts.

 

My fingers hurt. I gotta stop doing this. Man, major tangent.

Edited March 23, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[WCSox]

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).

 

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!

 

Statistically, Randy, Mussina, and a healthy Pavano compare pretty favorably to the NYY teams in 98 and 2000.

 

That would've been true two or three years ago, but Johnson and Mussina clearly aren't the pitchers that they used to be.

 

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.

 

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.

Edited March 23, 2006 by WCSox

[ZoomSlowik]

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.

Edited March 23, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[WCSox]

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?

 

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).

[WCSox]

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.

 

Food for thought...

 

In the NL last year, only 12 pitchers (qualified) 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 (qualified) 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.

Edited March 23, 2006 by WCSox

[ZoomSlowik]

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.

[ZoomSlowik]

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.

[WCSox]

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.

 

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.

Edited March 23, 2006 by WCSox

[ZoomSlowik]

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.

Edited March 23, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[Jordan4life_2007]

The last 15 posts in this thread have been by Zoom and WC. Why don't you guys just agree to disagree.

[ZoomSlowik]

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.

[WCSox]

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.

 

The distribution is not as skewed as you think. The Rangers had a Top 10 pitcher last year (Rogers) and two in the Top 30 (Young). Tortonto had two in the Top 15 (Towers and Chacin). The Devil Rays and Orioles had two in the Top 10 (Kazmin and Chen). The lowly Tigers had FOUR (!) in the Top 37 (Robertson, Johnson, Bonderman, Maroth).

 

Assuming five-man rotations on the 16 AL teams, there are 80 starting pitchers in the league. Using your definition of 4.50 being a "bad" ERA, 49 of those pitchers (61%) fall into that category. Given that performance is rated relative to how others pitch, there's no way, by definition, that 61% of American League starting pitching could be below average. The 61st percentile should fall into the "average" category.

 

and there are bound to be more that I would find if I actually cared.

 

If you don't care, why are you still responding to my posts? I'd rather take the time to actually look at the data than be proven wrong time and time again by the facts.

[ZoomSlowik]

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.

Edited March 23, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[WCSox]

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.

 

See what happens when you don't look up the stats?

[ZoomSlowik]

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.

Edited March 24, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[WCSox]

I just gave my response to a lot of those points in my last post. I'm done.

 

Oops, guess not! :rolly

 

Either you're trying to be cute or you can't detect sarcasm.

 

And you have a really bad habit of making statements without any statistical data to back it up.

 

1) You're only using one year's worth of numbers, which means good years, bad years, and injuries drastically skew the numbers.

 

Sorry, but some of us have jobs. I've been at work for almost 13 hours today and don't feel like compiling more stats for you. But unlike you, I at least cite some statistical data to back up my assertions.

 

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.

 

Of course not, but they're typically not miles apart, either. But it's a moot point anyway, since you define starters with a 4.50 ERA or higher as "bad". They may be bad in YOUR mind, but the fact remains that only the Top 31 starting pitchers in the AL did better than that. If I were to fill in the remaining 49 roster spots with the best pitchers available (skewing the data to fit your argument in the process), 61% of AL starting pitching is still "bad" by your definition. Statistically, that's just ridiculous. Do the words "average" or "mediocre" mean anything to you? Wouldn't you be a bit pissed if your professors gave 61% of your class failing grades?

 

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,

 

Again, pure speculation on your part, rather than actual data. :headshake

 

3) 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.

 

Then I guess the Astros must've had some major issues with their starting pitching last year, especially considering that they're in the NL. Oh, wait...

 

:rolly

Edited March 24, 2006 by WCSox

[ZoomSlowik]

Oops, guess not!   :rolly

And you have a really bad habit of making statements without any statistical data to back it up.

Sorry, but some of us have jobs.  I've been at work for almost 13 hours today and don't feel like compiling more stats for you.  But unlike you, I at least cite some statistical data to back up my assertions.

Of course not, but they're typically not miles apart, either.  But it's a moot point anyway, since you define starters with a 4.50 ERA or higher as "bad".  They may be bad in YOUR mind, but the fact remains that only the Top 31 starting pitchers in the AL did better than that.  If I were to fill in the remaining 49 roster spots with the best pitchers available (skewing the data to fit your argument in the process), 61% of AL starting pitching is still "bad" by your definition.  Statitically, that's just ridiculous.  Do the words "average" or "mediocre" mean anything to you?  Wouldn't you be a bit pissed if your professors gave 61% of your class failing grades?

Again, pure speculation on your part, rather than actual data.    :headshake 

Then I guess the Astros must've had some major issues with their starting pitching last year, especially considering that they're in the NL.  Oh, wait...

 

:rolly

 

So citing poor statistics that are only partial, have numerous flaws, and don't support your argument is better? Besides, I used them where applicable. One year's worth of stats suddenly proves that a 4.50 ERA is suddenly a good total? Using the same logic I could argue that Jim Thome is a rather useless player that we drastically overpaid for. Plus you're continuing to cite your numbers in this post even though I already told you that you messed up on the NL staters. You need to add another 7 NL starters to make it accurate, which throws off you percentage that is useless anyways because of the reasons I listed in my previous post.

 

You're also trying to make it seem like they're two entirely different pools of talent that are mutually exclusive, which isn't the case. Another major issue is that many of the players that you're throwing in the "bad" pool aren't there because of performance, but durability in this particular year. Is Roy Halladay bad? or Ben Sheets? Or Rich Harden? Curt Schilling? I'd say that's pretty far from the truth.

 

Is there really any difference between the words average, mediocre, and bad? They're all subjective anyways. If you're guys are putting up a 4.50 ERA, then you could replace them pretty easily with someone that is putting up similar numbers. Those guys aren't exactly an asset to your roster.

 

Way to make a comparison that makes no sense as well. They're entirely different fields that don't apply to each other in any way. In one case you're a really good hitter if you succeed 3 out of 10 times, in the other 60% is a failing grade. Would you consider a C a good grade? I sure wouldn't, at least not in my academic career. So there are different degrees of sucking, big deal.

 

When did I say that having a 4th starter with an ERA above 4.50 necessarily meant that your pitching sucks? So now my previous comments that you don't necessarily need 4 good starters if your other ones are really good doesn't matter? You're going to start picking and choosing which statements matter when? One pitcher isn't going to turn a generally good staff into a poor one, or a poor one into a good one. Once you get up to a couple of guys, that's another story. I said it's a concern, and it definitely was for the Astros because they didn't get much production out of the back-end of their rotation. Combined with an often anemic offense, that's why they just barely snuck into the playoffs despite their 3 dominant starters and a solid bullpen.

 

I keep trying to let this thing die, but obviously I have a hard time letting poorly conceived attacks against many of my points go without comment.

 

If you've got so many better things to do, why are you still on here arguing with me? I'm only half of the reason this thing is still going. I'm more than happy to let this thing die right here. Feel free to keep using your precious time on this argument though, you're clearly getting close to changing my mind.

 

Can one of the admins please do me a favor and lock this? It's the only way that I'm going to stop. Plus nothing in the last 3 pages deals with the original topic.

Edited March 24, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[WCSox]

So citing poor statistics that are only partial, have numerous flaws, and don't support your argument is better?

 

I cited the most recent stats. You cited zero.

 

But here are some more complete stats for you...

 

2004 AL: Top 19 starters had ERAs under 4.50 (24%)

2003 AL: Top 26 starters had ERAs under 4.50 (33%)

2002 AL: Top 29 starters had ERAs under 4.50 (36%)

2001 AL: Top 28 starters had ERAs under 4.50 (35%)

2000 AL: Top 19 starters had ERAs under 4.50 (24%)

 

Those are all fewer than last year (39%). Thanks for strengthening my argument.

 

  Is Roy Halladay bad? or Ben Sheets? Or Rich Harden? Curt Schilling? I'd say that's pretty far from the truth.

 

When they're on the DL they're not very effective pitchers, are they?

 

Is there really any difference between the words average, mediocre, and bad?

 

Yes, there is. Look them up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.

 

If you're guys are putting up a 4.50 ERA, then you could replace them pretty easily with someone that is putting up similar numbers. Those guys aren't exactly an asset to your roster.

 

Funny, starters with 4.50 ERAs were about the best that the Sox could do back from '97-'99. They don't exactly grow on trees. Ask the Astros, who had a difficult time finding a decent #5 pitcher last year.

 

Way to make a comparison that makes no sense as well. They're entirely different fields that don't apply to each other in any way. In one case you're a really good hitter if you succeed 3 out of 10 times, in the other 60% is a failing grade.

 

Your arguments are beyond stupid.

 

Would you consider a C a good grade? I sure wouldn't, at least not in my academic career. So there are different degrees of sucking, big deal.

 

At most academic institutions, a grade of C+ is considered "average". Therefore, a C would be "slightly below average". That's far from "bad".

 

When did I say that having a 4th starter with an ERA above 4.50 necessarily meant that your pitching sucks?

 

You said that a 4.50 ERA was "pretty bad". Don't try to change your argument now.

 

I keep trying to let this thing die, but obviously I have a hard time letting poorly conceived attacks against many of my points go without comment.

 

Yes, you've failed miserably at letting this topic die. I'll give you that.

 

If you've got so many better things to do, why are you still on here arguing with me?

 

I'm very good at multi-tasking. And debunking your poor arguments doesn't take much time or energy.

 

I'll give you the opportunity to shut up now. We'll see if you can pass my test. Given your inability to prove me wrong thus far, I'm not sure that I like your chances.

Edited March 24, 2006 by WCSox

[ZoomSlowik]

Considering you've started ignoring about half of my points and have started applying what I've said in ways that I never used, fine.

Edited March 24, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[WCSox]

Wow, Zoom couldn't drop it. What a shocker!

 

Considering you've started ignoring about half of my points .

 

Wrong.

 

and have started applying what I've said in ways that I never used

 

This is a desperate attempt to bury your characterization of a 4.50 ERA as being "bad." You've said it several times already.