OK, let's start with some history. There are two teams in baseball history that had four pitchers who made at least five starts and went to the Hall of Fame. It's a fun piece of trivia. But it's just that -- trivia. To be honest, it's never really happened that a team had four Hall of Fame starters.
Look: The 1930 New York Yankees had Lefty Gomez, Waite Hoyt, Herb Pennock and Red Ruffing. That's four Hall of Famers. The Yankees that year actually had FIVE starters who went to the Hall of Fame because Babe Ruth started a game (he threw a complete game, allowed three runs and won). But those Yankees didn't really have four Hall of Famers pitching for them. Lefty Gomez was just a 21-year-old kid and he was just called up and he made only six starts. Pennock was 36 and no longer an especially effective pitcher. And though Waite Hoyt was only 30, he did not pitch like a Hall of Famer that year or hardly ever again (except for a brief renaissance in Pittsburgh). That team had players who would go to the Hall of Fame, but they did not have not great pitchers. And that team finished third.
The 1949 Cleveland Indians also featured four Hall of Fame starters -- Bob Feller, Bob Lemon, Early Wynn and Satchel Paige. Lemon was in his prime, Wynn was about to enter it and Feller at age 30 still had a couple of good years later. But Paige was a "rookie" of indeterminate age and he only made five starts. Incidentally, that team also finished third.
So no, it has never happened that a major league baseball team had four Hall of Fame starters all at once, all in or around their prime, all an equal and essential part of a pitching staff.
It could be happening now. Well, wait, let's not get carried away. It's way too early to talk Hall of Fame for the Phab Phour Phillies -- Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, Roy Oswalt and Cole Hamels. Of the four, only Halladay seems a Hall of Fame lock at this point. But when the Phillies shocked everyone by signing Cliff Lee, they put together the most spectacular four man rotation since ... well we'll get to that in a minute.
First, let's take a quick look at the resumes of the Phillies pitchers:
Halladay (33): Two Cy Young Awards, seven-time All-Star, dominant performer coming off perhaps his best year.
Lee (32): One Cy Young Award, postseason pitching beast, coming off season with 185-18 strikeout to walk ratio.
Oswalt (32): Former ERA champ, five times in Top 5 in Cy Young voting, perhaps most underrated pitcher of his era.
Hamels (26): The 2008 Championship Series and World Series MVP, not even 27 yet, throws one of the best change-ups in baseball.
Not bad, eh? Most people around baseball would tell you that there are probably fifteen true No. 1 starters in baseball at any given time. A quick list might look like so (and we are assuming health):
-- Zack Greinke, Kansas City Royals
-- Roy Halladay, Philadelphia Phillies
-- Felix Hernandez, Seattle Mariners
-- Ubaldo Jiminez, Colorado Rockies
-- Josh Johnson Florida Marlins
-- Cliff Lee, Philadelphia Phillies
-- Jon Lester, Boston Red Sox
-- Tim Lincecum, San Francisco Giants
-- Roy Oswalt, Philadelphia Phillies
-- David Price, Tampa Bay Rays
-- C.C. Sabathia, New York Yankees
-- Johan Santana, New York Mets
-- Justin Verlander, Detroit Tigers
-- Adam Wainwright, St. Louis Cardinals
-- Jered Weaver, Angels
Now, you could add a few guys to this list if you want -- Matt Cain, Francisco Liriano, Dan Haren, Mark Buehrle, Chris Carpenter, Cole Hamels, young guys like Clay Buchholz and Clayton Kershaw, there are others -- but I suspect that most people would go the other way and say some of the top guys listed are not true No. 1 starters. People tend to be pretty strict on the question of what makes a TRUE No. 1 starter. Point is that that while 30 teams have someone they CALL their No. 1 starter, the truth is that fewer than half of the teams in baseball have a real ace.
The Phillies now have two aces for sure with Halladay and Lee, a third (I think) in Oswalt if he's healthy and pitches the way he did down the stretch (and as he has for most of his career). Heck, Hamels has a chance to be one as well. It's staggering. At least it feels that way now, in December, with Opening Day a few months away.
* * *
So I asked Bill James what he thinks about all this. Well, the first thing -- we talked about the greatest rotations since World War II. As it turned out, we agree that the best rotation is the 1993-98 Atlanta Braves. No team in baseball history has ever had three sure-fire Hall of Famers -- Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz -- pitching together in their prime for that long. It is absolutely amazing. We will get back to the Braves in a minute but here's a fun way to show you just how dominant those three starters were over those six years:
Cy Young Winners from 1993-1998:
1993: Greg Maddux (Tom Glavine finished third)
1994: Greg Maddux
1995: Greg Maddux (Tom Glavine finished third)
1996: John Smoltz (Greg Maddux finished tied for fifth)
1997: Pedro Martinez (Maddux finished second, Braves teammate Denny Neagle finished third)
1998: Tom Glavine (Maddux and Smoltz tied for fourth)
Now, of course, Cy Young voting is flawed and you don't want to base too much on it -- but that's still a lot of fun. The Braves won five of the six Cy Young awards and usually played two in the voting. Another way to look at the Braves Three is to simply at their composite numbers over six seasons:
The Braves Big 3 from 1993 to 1998:
Greg Maddux: 107-42, 2.15 ERA, 1087 Ks, 199 walks, 196 ERA+.
Tom Glavine: 100-45, 3.07 ERA, 877 Ks, 464 walks, 137 ERA+.
John Smoltz: 89-51, 3.25 ERA, 1,204 Ks, 382 walks, 130 ERA+.
We're also going to talk about Wins Above Replacement in a minute -- let's just say that only one team in the last 85 years has had three pitchers with a WAR 5.5 or above in a single season. That was the 1996 Braves.
OK, but because we're talking about the Phillies, we really need to talk about FOUR man rotations. And the Braves were really a three-man rotation. Yes, a couple of times a fourth pitcher emerged with a good year (you see the 1997 Denny Neagle year). But, in general, it was really Maddux-Glavine-Smoltz.
So, what were the best four-man rotations since World War II? Bill says three come to mind:
- 1971 Orioles. That team is usually the first one people think about because all four pitchers -- Jim Palmer, Mike Cuellar, Pat Dobson and Dave McNally -- won at least 20 games. That only happened once before, way back in 1920, when four Chicago White Sox' starters (Red Faber, Eddie Cicotte, Lefty Williams and Dickey Kerr) all won at least 20. Few remember that because, of course, Cicotte and Williams were two of the Eight Men Out and they were were banned from baseball after the season. Anyway, 1920 was a different era. And now we see that 1971 was a different era too. We have not had four starters in BASEBALL win 20 games since 2008.
-- 1966 Dodgers. Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale were the stars, Claude Osteen was the excellent third starter (he would go on to win 196 big league games) and the fourth starter was a 21-year-old rookie named Don Sutton. He would pitch for another 22 years after that and go to the Hall of Fame.
-- 1955 Cleveland Indians. The 1954 Indians rotation is more famous because that team won 111 games (and lost to Willie Mays' Giants in a World Series sweep) and had an aged but still feisty Bob Feller pitching along with Lemon, Wynn and the very good Mike Garcia. But we both think 1955's rotation was a bit more impressive in retrospect. Feller was not really that team's fourth starter in '54 -- their fourth starter was Art Houtteman, who had a few good years. But in 1955 -- with Lemon, Wynn and Garcia still going -- Houtteman was replace by a 22-year-old phenom named Herb Score, who promptly led the league in strikeouts. Lemon and Wynn, as mentioned, are in the Hall. Garcia wasn't quite that good, but he was very good. Score had his career famously derailed, but not before becoming one of the greatest young pitchers in baseball history.
There are other interesting four-man rotations like the 1985 Royals (Bret Saberhagen, Charlie Liebrandt, Danny Jackson, Mark Gubicza), the 1973 Oakland A's (Catfish Hunter, Vida Blue, Ken Holtzman, Blue Moon Odom), the 2005 Chicago White Sox (Mark Buehrle, Jose Contreras, Freddy Garcia, Jon Garland) and even this year's San Francisco Giants (Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Jonathan Sanchez and Madison Bumgarner, who at 20 only made 18 starts).*
*And, since we're already winding all over the place, it's worth taking a detour to look at the 1967 CIncinnati Reds. That is not remembered as a great pitching staff for clear-cut reasons, but it actually had a chance to be something remarkable. The team was led by 19-year-old Gary Nolan who, along with a young guy named Tom Seaver, looked to be the next great pitcher in the game. Jim Maloney was a big star who had thrown two no-hitters in 1965 and some say he threw even harder than Koufax. Milt Pappas was mostly known as the other guy in one of the worst trades in baseball history -- "who can forget Frank Robinson for Milt Pappas, for god-sakes" -- but he won 209 games and was a good pitcher for many years. And the fourth starter was Mel Queen, an outfielder turned pitcher who for one year threw some serious gas. He had only one pitch, his fastball, but he could throw the heck out of it, and that one year he finished fourth in hits per nine innings and fifth with a 137 ERA+. He won six games for the rest of his career.
Still, if you are talking about great four-man rotations, you probably stick with with the '71 Orioles, '66 Dodgers and '55 Indians. Thing is, none of those staffs really matches up with this year's Phillies. The 1971 Orioles were obviously terrific, but Pat Dobson while good that year was not a great pitcher over his career. The 1966 Dodgers were more of a fortunate coincidence than anything -- that was Koufax's last year and Sutton's first, they just barely crossed paths. The 1955 Indians had four terrific pitchers, but the timing was off. Lemon was close to the end, Garcia was close to the end, and, of course, Score was just starting his fateful path.
We don't know about the timing of these Phillies yet. But we do know that all four pitchers:
1. Are already bonafide.
2. Seem to still be in their primes.
Let's look at this this way -- I told you we would look at Wins Above Replacement (WAR). Well, here are the four pitchers' 2010 WAR (according to Baseball Reference):
-- Roy Halladay: 6.9
-- Roy Oswalt: 5.1
-- Cole Hamels: 4.7
-- Cliff Lee: 4.3
What do those numbers mean? Well, to give you an idea: Halladay's 6.9 WAR was second best in baseball (behind hot-starting Ubaldo Jiminez) -- you will, on average, get one or two pitchers a year in baseball who post a WAR around 7. Post a number around 7 and you probably have a good shot at being the Cy Young winner. Every now and again you will get a pitcher who had an absurdly great year and might post an 8 or 9 or even 10 WAR (the last 10 WAR was Pedro Martinez in 2000, the one before that was Roger Clemens in 1997 and then you have to go all the way back to Dwight Gooden in 1985).
OK, so a 7 is a great WAR number, and so is a 6. A 5 WAR generally ranks you as one of the best pitchers in the league. And a WAR above 4 is more or less All-Star caliber. Last year, 25 pitchers in both leagues posted a WAR of better than 4.0. The year before that, 26 pitchers did. In 1997, there were 23. In 1980, when there were four fewer teams, there were 16 pitchers with a 4.0 WAR. And in 1968, the year of the pitcher, there were 26.
Point is a 4.0 WAR pitcher is pretty much without exception a very, very good pitcher. Matt Cain last year was just under 4.0 -- he was 3.9. The point here is not to sell you on the merits of WAR but just to give you an idea how good all four guys were last year.
Anyway, only five teams in baseball history have had four starters with a better 4.0 WAR. Two of them -- the 1909 Athletics and 1912 Red Sox -- played during deadball and don't really match up.
One of those teams was the 1967 Reds I referenced in the italics above.
The other two are 1990s Braves teams ... and we finally come around full circle.
* * *
Yes, something like this Cliff Lee thing did happen once before. That was 1993. That was the year the Braves signed Greg Maddux to go along with the Braves already great rotation of Tom Glavine, John Smoltz and Steve Avery. There was some of the same hype then as there is for this Phillies team now ... and rightfully so. The Braves had won back-to-back pennants. Glavine had won a Cy Young award, Smoltz had led the league in strikeouts, Avery was just 23 and (like Hamels) seemingly limitless in potential. And Maddux was already Maddux -- he had won the Cy Young for Chicago in 1992 and his 2.18 ERA was the lowest for a Cubs starter in almost 30 years.
Bill: "You know, when the Braves signed Maddux, they already had the best rotation in the National League, and people started talking immediately about it being the greatest rotation of all time. I remember telling a friend that they would bomb, because that seemed like that was how those stories always end; when expectations are THAT high, you always bomb."
Of course, as Bill quickly points out -- they didn't bomb. They exceeded expectations and became perhaps the most enduring rotation in baseball history. But it is true that things did not go off without a hitch. There was the Steve Avery fall. Avery was widely viewed as more or less the equal of Glavine or Smoltz. And he followed this up with a very good 1993 season (that 1993 Braves team has an argument as the best four-man rotation in baseball history too). But he was never again even a serviceable pitcher. He had an arm injury, and he threw A LOT of pitches when he was young, and those things could have sparked his problems. Or maybe it was something else. In any case, the Braves had to go on without him. And, of course, they did.
If you want to be realistic, you have to figure something like that could happen to the Phillies four too. That's baseball. That's pitching. Hamels had a bizarre 2009 season when he struggled, you can't know for sure what will happen with him. Oswalt and Lee and Halladay are all in their young 30s, and the odds suggest all three won't be successful pitchers in their mid-to-late 30s. But, yeah, the simple truth is that this rotation has a chance to be remarkable.
The Braves went the playoffs all five years of their amazing pitching run (with 1994, obviously, being a non-year). They won two of five pennants, lost the other three in the NLCS. They won 100 games three of the four seasons that were not shortened by strikes. And, of course, they won only the one World Series ... which has (fairly or unfairly) left those Braves branded with the black mark of UNDERACHIEVER.
What will happen to these Phillies? It's hard to say. Their lineup IS getting old -- every player in the lineup except Dominic Brown figures to be 30 or older. Their shortstop and soul Jimmy Rollins has been on a pretty steady decline since winning the MVP award back in 2007. Their second baseman and best player Chase Utley is coming off an injury plagued season and a postseason where he simply did not look like himself. Their power and glory guy, Ryan Howard, had a down year too, his power numbers were down, and his five-year $125 million deal doesn't start until the year AFTER next. And so on.
But, oh, that rotation. Bill says he doubted that amazing Braves rotation but after seeing what they did, "I am less skeptical now, almost twenty years later. That's some kind of a starting rotation, that's for sure." I think so too. With Halladay, Lee, Oswalt and Hamels the Phillies are clear cut favorites in the National League. They now have the burden of potentially great teams, meaning that they can only do two things: Win or disappoint.
The '71 Orioles' pitching staff had a historically great season; I don't know if they belong up there with those other great staffs. Their top ERA+ was Palmer's 126. All four men pitched well, but that they all finished with 20 wins was a testament not only to the quality of their pitching but also to their durability and the very good team around them.
ReplyDeleteWhat is truly fascinating about this Phillies group isn't necessarily that they are a group of 4 great pitchers. As noted above, there have been a number of rotations that have performed as well as these four Phillies can be expected to perform.
ReplyDeleteNo, what is truly sensational about this Phillies rotation is that you only have to got back, what, a year and a half to find ALL FOUR guys anchoring different rotations. That is why they are truly 4 aces. They've all been #1's on good teams and they were all #1's on different teams *last year.*
That is wild.
Has that happened before?
I'm not sure those '97 Braves get enough credit.
ReplyDeleteHere's a comparison between the '97 Braves and the combined numbers for Halladay, Lee, Oswalt and Hamels last season:
Braves:
135 GS, 68-28, 21 CG, 10 SHO, 105 QS, 20.9 WAR
Phillies:
126 GS, 58-43, 19 CG, 7 SHO, 88 QS, 21.0 WAR
Braves ERA+ numbers:
189, 141, 140, 138
Phillies ERA+ numbers:
165, 143, 132, 130
Also note that the league average runs per game in the 1997 NL was 4.60 (4.93 in the AL). Last year it was 4.33 (4.45 in the AL).
Braves:
962 IP, 2.80 ERA, 1.087 WHIP, 7.81 H/9, 1.97 BB/9, 6.94 K/9, 0.64 HR/9
Phillies:
883.1 IP, 2.84 ERA, 1.061 WHIP, 7.88 H/9, 1.67 BB/9, 8.23 K/9, 0.87 HR/9
And just for fun, here are the combined career numbers for Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz and Neagle prior to that 1997 season:
1000 GS, 463-325, 6882 IP, 124.6 WAR, 14 All-Stars, 6 Cy Youngs (ERA+s of 140, 116, 116, 103)
And the career numbers of Hallady, Lee, Oswalt and Hamels up to this point:
990 GS, 481-275, 6666.2 IP, 138.0 WAR, 13 All-Stars, 3 Cy Youngs (ERA+s of 136, 135, 123, 112)
It's impressive that their career numbers compare that well. Though of course Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz were productive for the next decade. These were their numbers after 1996 and all three were still pretty good in 2006. I doubt Halladay, Lee and Oswalt will still be any good in 2020.
Anyway, as for this season, I think the Phillies will be capable of matching the '97 Braves, but I think they'll fall a bit short. You could make the argument that it's likely they'll all be really good, but not quite as good as they were this year. Lee might not be able to repeat that historic K/BB ratio. Oswalt was better last year than he'd been in a few years. Hamels could easily fall to somewhere between his '09 and '10 production. And even if Halladay has a Cy-caliber or near-Cy-caliber season, it still might not be as good as last season.
It's hard to believe baseball-reference only credited Lee with 4.3 WAR in '10. Fangraphs, which is more serious about isolating outcomes within a pitcher's control (for better or worse) had Lee leading both leagues with 7.1, half a win ahead of Halladay. And he did it primarily against AL lineups.
ReplyDeletePhilly.com used a combination of two stats this site doesn't use. I see why nobody likes them, but, heck i have it memorized and it sounds good
ReplyDelete1) Over the last three seasons, 14 pitchers in the major leagues have started at least 90 games and posted an ERA of under 3.50. Four of them now pitch in the Phillies rotation.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteDidn't you write an article a few months ago saying how no one appreciates Liriano, whose FIP and xFIP and WAR were much better than many of the pitchers you mentioned?
Another way of looking at how to build a good rotation was offered here last week:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kingkaufman.com/2010/12/07/for-the-want-of-league-average/
Basically, Kaufman states that a good way to build a solid rotation is to find 5 league average pitchers. He says that the Phillies would have been significantly better last year if they had simply acquired a league average 5th starter.
Obviously getting Lee will put them over the top, but its an interesting point, and backed up reasonably well. By this argument, having a good four man rotation with a lousy 5th man is not as good as having a decent rotation with an average 5th. Something to think about.
We'll see if all four of them can stay in form for another season or two.
" People tend to be pretty strict on the question of what makes a TRUE No. 1 starter. Point is that that while 30 teams have someone they CALL their No. 1 starter, the truth is that fewer than half of the teams in baseball have a real ace."
ReplyDeleteSomehow I'm reminded of a line my buddy told me:
"There are guys who start on opening day, and then there are opening day starters."
Was wondering why we hadn't heard from you all day, Joe, what with all the coverage of Cliff Lee. Should have known what you were up to.
ReplyDeleteAwesome stuff, as usual, and well worth the wait. Thanks!
IdahoMariner
Thanks so much, Joe. Great post!
ReplyDeleteThe 2004 Cubs, "Five Aces" fell way short, by Baseball-Reference WAR...
Carlos Zambrano 5.5
Matt Clement 3.3
Greg Maddux 2.8
Kerry Wood 2.6
Mark Prior 2.1
The Phillies won a WS when Cole Hamels was their ace. Now they have 4 better pitches- Lee, Halladay, Oswalt, and Hamels true talent has gone up.
ReplyDeleteSure the offense probably won't be as good, but in that league and division, they should win 100 with health.
Off topic, but great story about 1960 AL expansion draft.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/12/027919.php
I think the Philly pitchers are too old to be as dominating as a group as they have been individually in the past.
ReplyDeleteOn the league average 5 starters thing:
ReplyDeleteThat's essentially what the Cubs have done the last two years. They tied for the league lead in quality start percentage this year and were second last year.
The ERA+ of Cubs starters in '09/'10 (minimum 15 starts)
'09: 122, 144, 118, 109, 146
'10: 113, 102, 106, 131, 113, 103 (Lilly was traded midseason).
WAR numbers (B-R):
'09: 4.0, 3.2, 2.8, 2.7, 1.3
'10: 2.9, 2.7, 2.7, 2.0, 1.8, 1.8
Obviously the record was really bad but here is where the Cubs rank in overall ERA+. (This includes the entire pitching staff, not just starters):
'09: Tied for 3rd with Atlanta at 116.
'10: 8th at 103.
Besides showing one of the reasons for the Cubs large dropoff in 2010 this shows that a league average staff puts up pretty good numbers. The problem, particularly in '09, was the offense not the pitching.
I haven't finished the article yet, but I'm going to take small issue with two things:
ReplyDelete-That Cliff Lee is a "postseason pitching beast".
I'm calling "small sample size" on this one. While his numbers are great, he's only pitched in 10 games (76 innings) and his numbers in his four WS games aren't great. Yes, I am partially discounting his SSS with an even smaller SSS, but you get the point.
-That Matt Cain is somehow not a clear-cut #1, or an afterthought to the argument.
True, the idea of numbering pitchers is silly, but if you've got Jered Weaver there (ERA+ of 117 and 135 in '09 and '10), you need Cain (148 and 130) there.
I know these two asides are not the point of the article, but I bring up the second point (nit-picky though it is) because you say Oswalt is very underrated. It seems like people completely forget Cain because of Lincecum (Cain actually was quite a bit better last year than Lincecum).
Cliff Lee has single-handedly been the #1 guy on what, 4 teams in 3 years?
ReplyDelete1973 NY Mets rotation had aan amazing WAR total of 23.9 leading by Tom Seaver (9.5 WAR) Jerry Koosman (5.7) Jon Matlack (4.6) and ending with George Stone (3.1). They, at least, should mentioned in any list of outstanding four man rotations regarding WAR perfomances.
ReplyDeleteGARRETT HAWK says;
ReplyDeleteBill James himself has called the 1971 Chicago Cubs rotation "the best of the decade," even though that was the same year that the O's had their four 20-game winners.
But I think that their 1970 staff comes closest to fitting your criteria of "four guy with 4.0 WAR:"
Fergie 7.0
Bill Hands 6.2
Ken Holtzman 5.2
Milt Pappas 3.9
Pappas comes oh-so-close to making it a historical staff, and even he was phenomenal: he had a 167 ERA+ that year (!).
@Stephen,
ReplyDeleteCliff Lee not a postseason beast? Categorically disagree on that mate.
Look most players don't get to play much in the postseason, so 76 innings (~1/3 of a season) is actually quite a lot for anyone not on the yankees c. 1996-2010
In those 76 innings, he has a 10:1 K:B ratio and a WHIP < 1, >K/Inn, an era in the 2s - even after being hit about a bit in the WS; those are pretty freaking elite numbers. Yes it is even better than his career, and even his recent elite career, but I think it is fair to say he is excellent in the postseason.
For the Cain versus Weaver thing, I think the Weaver love stems from his low walk rate, and hence excellent K:B ratio over the last 2 years, resulting in a good FIP, hence fWar;
Cain is not so loved because his walk rate is quite high, and he gets penalised in that his low H/9 rate is discounted as luck in many pitcher value calculations - I think Cain does deseves more credit than FIP indicates, though I'd probably still take Weaver if I had to pick between them
Give me Mario Soto, Bill Gullickson, John Denny and Tom Browning in 1986. Unfortunately Mario's arm had thrown too many great pitches for bad teams already. If not a great set of number 1's, a wonderful set of number 2's.
ReplyDelete...which explains why they finished in second behind the Astros. But in a bench clearing brawl, with Soto and Denny, they were unbeatable.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous last night said:
ReplyDelete"The Phillies won a WS when Cole Hamels was their ace. Now they have 4 better pitches- Lee, Halladay, Oswalt, and Hamels true talent has gone up."
Well, the funny thing about that is that each time they've added an ace to their rotation, they've done worse in the post-season.
2008: Hamels alone - won World Series.
2009: Hamels + Lee - lost World Series.
2010: Hamels + Halladay + Oswalt - lost NLCS.
So we can safely assume that with Lee they will lose in the NLDS, and then next year when they add Grienke, they won't even make the playoffs.
I'm sort of kidding, but it's an interesting phenomenon. I would imagine that, at the very least, this rotation will lead them to another division title. But as well know it's a crapshoot after that.
The 1998 Yankees rotation wasn't too shabby. Maybe not as historic as some others mentioned, but they did have 6 different starters who started at least 14 games who were pretty respectable:
ReplyDeleteWells: 4.3 WAR (30 starts)
Cone: 3.7 WAR (31 starts)
El Duque: 3.3 WAR (21 starts)
R.Mendoza: 2.8 WAR (14 starts)
The Fat Toad aka H.Irabu: 2.5 WAR (28 starts)
Andy Pettitte: 2.0 WAR (32 starts)
...plus none other than Mariano Rivera at closer.
It'll be interesting to see how Brad Lidge can back up his team's rotation this season.
Late 80's Mets, early 80's Astros were pretty good.
ReplyDeleteNot to be argumentative, Joe - but if we are going to insist on using nebulous terms like number 1 pitcher, number 2 pitcher, etc., I would argue that, by definition, cutoff your innings pitch at such a level until you have 160 pitchers (5 per team), then simply list them in order of WAR. The top 32, by my definition, should be considered "number 1 pitchers", the next 32, "number 2s", etc.
ReplyDeleteAt least that way, we have something less nebulous and easier to understand. By using the descriptive terms, readers are free to interpret as they wish, leading to pointless arguments.
Great article. I was waiting for someone to do this correctly. I cringed when I saw Jayson Stark write an article with the same basic premise, "How good are they historically." But it was very thin. Basically just Leo Mazonne, awkwardly trying to compare them to the 1993 Braves by handedness and approach and weak.
ReplyDeleteIts amazing that the ESPN stats and info guys just don't come through more for the big name writers on ESPN. The guys on Fangraphs and Joe do a much better job when they are just randomly interested in something.
@Anonymous 2:32 AM (I really wish people would select the "Name/URL" thing and put a name rather than "Anonymous"; I mean, it's RIGHT ABOVE it and you don't have to put in real info; sorry if I seem ornery, it's not my intention):
ReplyDelete-About Lee: After 101.1 innings this year, Ubaldo Jimenez looked like the greatest pitcher of all time. Then he pitched the rest of the season, and "regressed" to his normal amazing self. Lee's pitched only 10 postseason games. If you want to talk about that small sample size, then please, once again, check his World Series numbers, especially this past season's, when he got smoked by the horrid Giants offense. Lee's great, but he's not any better in the postseason than in the regular season and, given enough time, this will bear out. Sure, he's "excellent" in the postseason, but that's because he's "excellent" in the regular season.
-Cain: Fair enough, but please note that this past season, Weaver's FIP and xFIP were way lower than his career's. He did cut down on the walks, but I'm interested to see if this is a trend (i.e. him turning a proverbial corner) or just an anomaly.
Btw, looking at Cain's stats, it's amazing how much he's gotten shafted on the W-L record throughout his whole career.
Thanks, I love it when you write a long meandering examination of anything baseball.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to preserve those stats are with baseball cards and the best deals can be found at http://pearsonsportscards.com/
ReplyDeleteRe: Anonymous @ 7:35 am
ReplyDelete"Not to be argumentative, Joe - but if we are going to insist on using nebulous terms like number 1 pitcher, number 2 pitcher, etc., I would argue that, by definition, cutoff your innings pitch at such a level until you have 160 pitchers (5 per team), then simply list them in order of WAR. The top 32, by my definition, should be considered "number 1 pitchers", the next 32, "number 2s", etc.
At least that way, we have something less nebulous and easier to understand. By using the descriptive terms, readers are free to interpret as they wish, leading to pointless arguments."
--I just did a quick check on Baseball Reference in regards to this. There were 126 starters that started at least 20 games in 2010. As luck would have it, 25 of them had a WAR of 4.0 or higher. So those 25 can be called our #1 starters (126/5 = 5.04, so that's perfect for a 5-man rotation) for the sake of this discussion. Some of the names may surprise people:
1. Jimenez 7.1 WAR
2. Halladay 6.9
3. J.Johnson 6.4
4. Felix 6.0
5. Wainwright 5.7
6. CC 5.4
7. T.Hudson 5.4 (less IP than CC)
8. J.Weaver 5.4 (less IP than CC/Hudson)
9. Buchholz 5.4 (less IP than CC/Hudson/Weaver)
10. D.Price 5.3
11. Oswalt 5.1
12. Lester 5.0
13. Danks 4.9
14. Hamels 4.7
15. B.Myers 4.6
16. Pavano 4.6 (less IP than Myers)
17. Liriano 4.6 (less IP than Myers/Pavano)
18. C.J. Wilson 4.6 (less IP than Myers/Pavano/Liriano)
19. Kershaw 4.4
20. Johan 4.4 (less IP than Kershaw)
21. C.Lee 4.3
22. Mark Guthrie 4.3 (less IP than Lee)
23. Gio Gonzalez 4.3 (less IP than Lee/Guthrie)
24. Verlander 4.2
25. T.Cahill 4.1
I find it amusing that Lee is "only" #21 on the list. That still makes him a #1 starter in terms of this discussion...but it also puts him in the same territory as Mark Guthrie and Gio Gonzalez.
Also, I find it interesting that Tim Hudson was left off of Joe's list of #1 guys, not even making it on the list of "others". Joe listed 23 pitchers and Hudson didn't make that list, despite the 7th best WAR this season (not to mention finishing 4th in this year's NL Cy Young voting, as well as 5th best active WAR for starting pitchers and the 3rd best active winning % for starting pitchers). I know some people like to downgrade wins to the point of irrelevancy...but Hudson excels in wins AND WAR. And he can't even get a mention in an article like this.
Humbly submitted into the discussion if not for the title of 'best 'would be the 1986 Houston Astros. Nolan Ryan, of course, and the Cy Young winner Mike Scott. But also another guy who had as many complete games as Scott and Ryan combined, and then a fourth guy, a rookie, who struck 8 per nine innings. Overall, 4 starters who ended up with an ERA+ north of 100.
ReplyDeleteWAR appears only to love Scott, but anecdotal evidence like the fact that over one three-day period, the team's starters pitched 26 of 27 innings while giving up all of 3 hits is as persuasive as that kind of evidence can possibly be . . . .
Oswalt has a mutual option for 2012. The Phab Phour could just be one-year wonders.
ReplyDelete@rastronomicals --
ReplyDeleteNo, that would be "as persuasive as that kind of ANECDOTAL evidence can possibly be".
As in, not very.
In 1980, I saw Mark "Boom Boom" Bomback start three games for the Mets; he gave up 14 hits and 2 runs in 24.1 innings. So, based on my anecdotal evidence, he was *clearly* the Cy Young winner for that season (or should have been).
Unfortunately, he pitched in another 33 games that year -- and in those he totaled 138.1 innings with 72 earned runs (4.68 ERA; league ERA 3.60; ERA+ 77) and 177 hits (11.52/9I). I guess that's why he didn't win the award.
There's a reason it's called "anecdotal" evidence.
Purely tangential, but I had no idea that HOF pitcher Hal Newhouser was on the 54 Indians. 7-2 with 7 saves, a 2.51 ERA and a 147 era+.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between these Phillies and the 90's Braves is that, when the Braves acquired Maddux prior to 1993, their "big 4" were 27, 27, 26, and 23 year old. The Phillies "big 4" are going to be 34, 33, 32, and 27. The YOUNGEST Phillie is gonna be the same age as the two oldest Braves (Maddux and Glavine).
ReplyDeleteAvery fell off, but then they just replaced him with Denny Neagle, and then they replaced him with Kevin Millwood. Everyone's acting like this Phillies rotation is the greatest ever based on what they've already done, but except for the second half last year, we've never seen more than 2 of them in the same rotation at the same time. Why don't we give them a year and make sure none of them (or all of them) fall off before we declare them the best pitching staff ever. Baseball has a funny way of surprising us.
David in NYC--
ReplyDeleteYes I know it's anecdotal; I used the word first. Would you disagree that the starting four of the team was formidable? Does my anecodte at all bolster that particular argument?
Do I ever claim that the anecdotal evidence is the *best* support for that staff's formidability?
I simply used a colorful example to humanize an argument that the ERA+ made convincingly enough.
I'm sure guys like you think it's too bad they have to actually play the games.
These Philles should be excellent next year, and probably for a couple of years after that, but they're not gonna go down in history like the 90s Braves. They're just too old.
ReplyDeleterastronomicals - if you're gonna use '86, why not use the team that outpitched (and outhit) those Astros in the playoffs? (I hope this formats ok)
ReplyDeleteDwight Gooden: 17-6, 2.84, 126 ERA+, 4.4 WAR
Ron Darling: 15-6, 2.81, 127 ERA+, 4.6 WAR
Bob Ojeda: 18-5, 2.57, 140 ERA+, 4.7 WAR
Sid Fernandez: 16-6, 3.52, 102 ERA+, 2.7 WAR
Rick Aguilera: 10-7, 3.88, 93 ERA+, 0.3 WAR
Aguilera brings them down a bit, but he was at least serviceable. It's just too bad Dwight couldn't have had his 1985 season (11.7 WAR) in 1986 - that team would have won 120 games...
I'm not sure what time frame to look at this with - in a longer sense, how can you deny the 1966 Dodgers? Or as someone pointed out (and yes I understand defense is a factor) isn't total starting ERA+ a better measure - a bad 5th starter can indeed kill a team.
ReplyDeleteBut for one season - I guess we won't know until a year from now. Potentially they are, sure. But I'd worry about Lee's track record, Hamels' inconsistency, Oswalt's decline - and that they all stay healthy. That's a lot of potential variance.
Anyway, I want the Giants' rotation to be better, so I will live in denial at this point. And Cain is going to the Hall - you'll see.
Milt Pappas is best known for blaming Bruce Froemming for blowing the ball/strike call in his perfect game turned no-hitter.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned Tim Hudson in my above post and that got me to thinking...why aren't any of the early 00's A's teams on this list?
ReplyDelete**2001**
--Mulder: 5.2 WAR - #7 WAR for MLB SP's (2nd in Cy voting)
--Hudson: 4.4 WAR - #12 WAR for MLB SP's (6th in Cy voting)
--Zito: 4.3 WAR - #15 WAR for MLB SP's
--Lidle: 3.3 WAR - #33 WAR for MLB SP's
TOTAL WAR: 17.2
**2002**
--Hudson: 6.6 WAR - #4 WAR for MLB SP's
--Zito: 6.5 WAR - #5 WAR for MLB SP's (1st in Cy voting)
--Mulder: 4.3 WAR - #16 WAR for MLB SP's
--Lidle: 3.3 WAR - #33 WAR for MLB SP's (this is not a typo, as 3.3/33rd applies for both 2001 & 2002)
TOTAL WAR: 20.7 (the 4 2011 Phillies had a 21.0 WAR in 2010; of course, they didn't do that on the Phillies and together)
And that was at the height of the steroid era, in the American League. I wonder if the 2011 Phillies can match the 2001/2002 A's.
For A's teams, I like 1980:
ReplyDeleteFrom B-R:
Mike Norris, 5.8 WAR
Matt Keough, 3.2 WAR
Rick Langford, 2.6 WAR
Steve McCatty, 0.4 WAR
Brian Kingman, -0.2 WAR
Now that's not outstanding, I know. But if you look deeper, that rotation threw 93 complete games. Nobody threw fewer than 211 innings (Kingman) and Norris and Langford threw more than 280. Langford completed 28 games in 33 starts.
What I don't get about WAR is that Brian Kingman threw 211 innings and had an ERA+ of 98 (3.83). But his WAR was -0.2. How in the world does a guy who pitches at league average level and throws 211 innings (with 10 complete games) have a negative WAR? He's below replacement level?
At least Fangraphs has him at 2.0 WAR. But I think B-R's WAR calculations are a tad off.
The Phils will have a great rotation next year but perhaps not even the greatest in the history of Philadelphia baseball. That 1909 A's team was pretty amazing. They had 4 pitchers post ERAs below 2. If you prefer ERA+ to adjust for the deadball era you have: Harry Krause (171), Chief Bender and Cy Morgan (145)and Eddie Plank (136)
ReplyDeleteSomehow this team which also had Eddie Collins and Home Run Baker finished in second place.
I read a column by Tom Boswell of Wash Post this morning that blew me away because of a HUGE mistake, either by writer or editor. He wrote about the '71 Orioles staff and credited them with one World Series title - in 1971! If only the Pirates and Clemente hadn't beaten them in 7 games. The O's beat the Reds in '70 WS so perhaps it was just a typo but I don't think it was. I couldn't believe what I was reading - has Boswell had a lobotomy?
ReplyDelete@Surreality: Those 1909 A's weren't even the best rotation in baseball in 1909. The Cubs also had 4 pitchers with ERA's under 2, with better ERA+'s: Mordecai Three-Finger Brown (193), Orval Overall (179), Ed Reulbach (143), and Rube Kroh (155) - they also had Jack Pfiester and his 105 ERA+. In terms of WAR, it wasn't even close, the Cubs 5 starters racked up 26.8 WAR to the A's 21.7. Take out the 5th starter for each, and it's 24.5 to 18.9.
ReplyDeleteThe amazing thing is that neither of those teams made the World Series that year. The A's lost to Ty Cobb's Tigers and the 104-win, two-time defending champ Cubs lost to Honus Wagner's 110-win Pirates. The A's just went out and won the next two World Series. The Cubs, well...
@Mark Daniel
ReplyDeleteI was about to say that the best 4-man rotation was the one that never got a chance to be... the 1980 A's, because they were ruined by Billy Martin, who allowed them to throw all those innings and complete games at such a young age.
3 of them never threw more than 100 innings in a season after 1982, despite being under 30. Langford managed to keep going with 100+ inning seasons until 1984, again more or less done by age 30.
Martin just wore them into the ground. I contend that the 94 complete games is a record that will last longer than DiMaggio's hit streak and longer than Ripken's games played streak.
Martin just never took his starters out. Matt Keough threw a 14-innning complete game in which he threw 187 pitches! And, believe it or not, they had 3 other 14-inning CGs that season!
If a manager left a pitcher in that long today, the Players Association would file a grievance, the agent would demand a trade, and the league would have to conduct an inquiry, at the very least.
That group also should have had back-to-back Cy Youngs, with Norris (149 ERA+ and 22 wins) getting robbed by Steve Stone (123 ERA+ and 25 wins) in 1980, and with McCatty (150 ERA+ and 14 wins) getting robbed by Rollie Fingers (great year, but only 78 IP).
@rastronomical --
ReplyDeleteNo doubt you are basing your perjorative last sentence on more of your anecdotal evidence. Let me just briefly observe that your knowledge of "guys like [me]" is even less than your knowledge of what constitutes evidence*.
*Seriously -- if I were not of fan of the actual game, why in the world would I have gone to enough Met games in 1980** to have seen Mark Bomback start 3 times?
**Also the season I saw, in person, all of an 18-inning game between the Mets and the Padres (the battle for the worst record in baseball!). Most of my friends just assumed I was a masochist.
To answer your questions:
-- "formidable" is quite open to interpretation, so I cannot honestly say I agree or disagree because I don't know precisely how you mean it.
-- No, your anecdote is not dispositive of anything, any more than my Mark Bomback anecdote is (which is why I used it).
-- No, you did not claim it was the "best" evidence. Did I say you did?
Having 4 starters with an ERA+ of 100 or more is not particularly impressive (there have been 142 staffs since expansion with at least 4 100+ starters, including 8 with 5), nor is the fact that the team had an impressive string of 3 games out of 162.
It's a lovely story about those 3 games, but it does not prove or even indicate anything substantive.
@Chris M: Yes the Cubs of that era had some great rotations too. It is really amazing that two teams with such lights-out pitching staffs missed the playoffs. Just shows I guess that Phillies fans this year should take nothing for granted.
ReplyDelete