What is an ace worth?
It started with Sabathia and Sheets. Cain, Greinke, and Nolasco followed. Most recently, Peavy has been discussed as a possible acquisition target for the Rangers this off-season. Each of these pitchers is undoubtedly a better bet to pitch well in 2009 than anyone on the Rangers current 40-man roster. However, each of these pitchers will come with a significant cost. Signing either of the free agents will require the Rangers to use 20-25% of their annual payroll on a single player. The four trade targets would likely require the Rangers to give up 3-4 quality prospects or young, inexpensive major league players. Which begs the question – What is the value of an ace? Or put another way, does having a legitimate #1 starter affect a team’s chances to contend for a playoff berth?
To address the question of whether an ace increases a team’s chances of reaching the playoffs, I used data from the past five seasons to determine the correlation between teams with aces and teams that made the playoffs. Identifying the aces was a bit tricky since there’s not a clear definition for an ace. I wound up selecting two classes of aces – those who have ranked among the top pitchers in their league for several seasons and those who ranked among the league leaders during the season being assessed. The former group included pitchers like Halladay and Webb while the latter class included pitchers like Matsuzaka and Lincecum who have only recently ascended to acedom.
The Perennial Aces
To identify pitchers who are consistently among the league leaders, I used ERA+ to rank AL and NL starters with at least 100 innings pitched for the 2003-2008 seasons. 20 pitchers finished in their league’s Top 20 in at least three of the six seasons that I evaluated (Halladay, Sabathia, Buehrle, Clemens, Cook, Hamels, Kazmir, Lackey, Lowe, Oswalt, Santana, Schmidt, Sheets, Smoltz, Peavey, Hudson, Carpenter, Mussina, Webb, and Zambrano). The primary problem with this list is that injuries and occasional bad seasons make these perennial aces less than stellar in some years. In fact, only Halladay, Santana, Oswalt, Webb, and Zambrano posted an ERA+ greater than 115 in each of the 6 seasons used for this analysis. To account for this issue, I dropped pitchers from this list for the seasons that they pitched fewer than 100 innings or posted an ERA+ that was league average or worse.
Annual Leaders
The second group of “aces” used for this analysis included the ten starters who pitched at least 100 innings with an ERA+ that was among the top ten for the league in which they pitched. There were ten different lists of annual leaders (2 for each league for each of the five years used in the study). The annual league lists included pitchers from the perennial aces list as well as Greinke, Lincecum, Hernandez, Lee, Volquez, Lester, Guthrie, and others.
For each of the two groups of aces, I asked a simple question: What percentage of playoff teams and what percentage of non-playoff teams during the past five years had an ace on their staff. One would assume that great pitchers or pitchers having great seasons would improve their team’s record and thus improve their team’s chances of making the playoffs. If true, the net result would be that the percentage of playoff teams with aces would significantly outpace the percentage of non-playoff teams with aces. Surprisingly, the percentage of playoff teams with at least one ace of either category only slightly outpaced the percentage of non-playoff teams with an ace on-staff for each of the five years used for the study (see below). The average percentages for the five years for playoff vs non-playoff teams were 53% vs 49% for the teams with perennial aces and 60% vs 47% for the teams with annual leaders.
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Playoff teams w/perennial aces 37.5% 75% 37.5% 75% 37.5%
Non-playoff teams w/perennial aces 45% 45% 59% 30% 45%
Playoff teams w/annual leaders 50% 62.5% 50% 62.5% 75%
Non-playoff teams w/annual leaders 45% 50% 50% 45% 45%
These data reveal that having an ace is neither necessary nor sufficient for a team to make the playoffs. Furthermore, it appears that having an ace on staff does not substantially improve a team’s chances to make the playoffs. Because I was surprised by this result, I reviewed the records of teams that have the best pitchers in baseball in games started by their aces and compared it to the same teams’ records in games started by everyone else. As noted in the table below, teams are better when playing behind great pitchers, but the difference is rarely sufficient to change a team's playoff fate. Presumably, that is why there is only a slight enrichment of aces on teams who make the playoffs.
Team/Pitcher Record in games w/ace Record in other games Overall
BlueJays/Halladay 21-13 65-63 86-76
Angels/Lackey 15-9 85-53 100-62
Cubs/Zambrano 20-10 77-54 97-64
Astros/Oswalt 20-13 66-62 86-75
Mets/Santana 22-12 67-61 89-73
One compelling argument that has been made in favor of adding an ace is the benefit that a team receives when they make the playoffs. Teams typically go to 4-man staffs and thus an ace has an opportunity to impact 25% or more of the games in a 5 or 7 game series. Using the same five pitchers as above, is there data to support this argument? Though the number of games for each of the pitchers is relatively small, there does not appear to be a particularly strong correlation between regular season dominance and post-season success (see table below).
Pitcher GS ERA Record Team Record
Halladay 0
Lackey 9 3.39 2-3 4-5
Zambrano 5 4.34 0-2 1-4
Oswalt 7 3.66 4-0 4-3
Santana 5 3.97 1-3 2-3
Curious about the regular season and playoff impacts of the six pitchers that have been the source of various Rangers fans’ obsessions? Below are the 2008 regular season and career playoff records of Sabathia, Sheets, Cain, Greinke, Nalasco, and Peavy.
Player 2008 record w/ace 2008 record w/others Playoff- Starts ERA Rec
Sabathia 22-13 ?? 5 7.92 2-3
Sheets 18-13 72-59 0
Cain 14-20 58-70 0
Greinke 16-16 59-71 0
Nolasco 21-13 63-64 0
Peavy 12-15 51-84 2 12.10 0-2
What is an ace worth? An extra 3-5 wins per season for an average to above average team; less for a below average team. If those 3-5 wins cost you two or three young players with all-star ceilings and/or 20-25% of your payroll, I have a hard time seeing how a smart, medium payroll team can justify the expense.
15 recs |
140 comments
Comments
The Rangers don't really need an ace
They need three or four top-of-the-rotation types who can consistently give them innings. Teams with one very good pitcher are as likely to miss the playoffs as make them. During the past five years, teams with more than one starting pitcher with an ERA+ greater than 115 have been far more likely to get to the playoffs than miss them. One very good starting pitcher on an average to slightly above team can get you ten games over 500. Two such pitchers can get the team to twenty games over 500 and into the playoffs.
Unfortunately, you typically need more than two very good pitchers to ensure that you get two very good performances in a given year. That is why I think that the Rangers need to have 3-4 top-of-the-rotation arms if they want to consistently compete for a championship.
by spurdynasty on Oct 26, 2008 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wonderful analysis
At this rate, he’ll be throwing 107-110 by 2012
by trident on Oct 27, 2008 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
autorec
In reference to how good the Steelers have been in their history: "No one is even close to them."- Steal Home
by hinduplaya on Oct 26, 2008 9:03 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
hey spurs dynasty
i have been wondering thsi for a long time…and its possible to do with baseball-reference pro or whatever they call it but what would cain, greinke, sabathia, etc’s stats been with the rangers offense this year?
(really anyone who has b-r pro)…
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 26, 2008 10:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Interesting idea for a short research project, KOK
Unfortunately, I don’t have B-R Pro. For comparison’s sake, Padilla had an ERA+ of 93, an ERA of 4.74, and a record of 14-8. With an ERA+ of 123 (Greinke), 116 (Cain), 134 (Peavy), 162 (Sabathia), you’ve got to believe that the pitchers you mention would have won twenty games with Texas’ offense supporting them, though there ERA’s would have likely taken a bit of a beating.
by spurdynasty on Oct 26, 2008 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
most def
i was jw
where do you compile your info from? stats-wise and such
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 26, 2008 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I use a lot of different sources to create my own data sets
I use milb.com and the Baseball Cube when I want minor league stats, Baseball Reference and mlb.com for major league stats, and THT for win shares.
by spurdynasty on Oct 26, 2008 9:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is an ace worth?
It all depends on the situation of your organization. If the Rangers where 1 stud pitcher away from competing for a pennant then I would give up the 3 or 4 prospects it would take to get an ace.
However I think we can all agree that it will take more than one starter for this team to win the AL West. So imo you have to stick with the philosophy of the last 2 years and keep the young kids and develop them. I truly believe that of all the pitching prospects the Rangers have that at least two of them will turn out to be “ace” worthy, and at least a couple others should be good as well. Stay the course.
I do agree with you Spurdynasty, that a team doesn’t have to have that “ace” to make the playoffs, but rather a solid staff as a whole. However I think to get anywhere in the playoffs you do need to have that one guy that you can turn to that you know can win you a crucial game. Nice post.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Oct 26, 2008 10:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
out of the likes of Feliz, Holland, Main, etc., there should be at least 2 who develop into a true ACE
In reference to how good the Steelers have been in their history: "No one is even close to them."- Steal Home
by hinduplaya on Oct 26, 2008 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The benefit of numbers
As I tell the kids on the soccer and basketball teams that I coach, more shots on goal almost always equate to more scores. I agree that Holland, Feliz, and Main give the Rangers an excellent chance to add an “ace” or two to the rotation, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if one or two of Hurley, Harrison, Hunter, Poveda, and Kiker didn’t also turn out to be mid- to top-of-the-rotation types that can give you the innings and wins necessary to become a playoff team.
by spurdynasty on Oct 26, 2008 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's an ace worth?
Not much when the rest of your hand is jokers. If Baseball were pinochile, the Rangers arms were all 9’s in 2008.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 26, 2008 10:45 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
A single deck
pinochle player…I like your style
by groundingout on Oct 26, 2008 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
For the Rangers it would be a lot more.
Considering we have great hitting and there is a huge drop off between, say, Roy Halladay and the best ML pitcher we have. Having an ace would give us many more wins, and that ace could help out the rest of our pitching rotation, and have a guarantee to save the bullpen every fifth day.
by Save us on Oct 26, 2008 11:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
bullpen
then you better get an ace who actually pitches past the 6th inning
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
by ab03 on Oct 26, 2008 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you think an ace is someone who pitches past the 6th inning?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 26, 2008 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think he meant
that’s what an ace does.
by tyd3311 on Oct 26, 2008 6:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes u got it exactly, i think that anyone who pitches past the 6th inning is an ace
even if they give up 30 runs. THEY ARE STILL AN ACE. you got it, son
by Save us on Oct 26, 2008 7:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
fucking idiot
read exactly what you wrote
and going by some of your other logic, that would seem to fall right in there with drafting for need (only pitchers) and everything else
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 26, 2008 9:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, because a team needing to improve their league-worst pitching
is on the same level as thinking aynone who pitches past the 6th innning is an ace
by Save us on Oct 26, 2008 10:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you think tis smart to draft based on a need and everything else you have said, its def. within the realm of possibility…
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 27, 2008 1:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
most teams dont draft on n
most teams dont draft on need because they don’t know what their need will be in 2 years but we know what our need will be every year
by Save us on Oct 27, 2008 7:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that is fucking idiotic
in 2 years we have MANY pitchers who will be at the upper levels of the minor leagues/at the major league level
hell in 2 years its impossible to say what we may or may not need.
to say we need the same thing every year is also fucking dumb. for example, this year we could have improved defense and it would have directly improved pitching.
to say that you have a need forever is dumb.
and teams dont draft for need because they dont know what their need will be, they have looked at stats and see how often drafting for need fails. you draft BPA…
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 27, 2008 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you seriously think the need wont be pitching in 2010?
or even 2011?
if you didn’t know, some minor league stars fail in the bigs and most minor league stars dont start out good their first year
by Save us on Oct 27, 2008 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK
But how would a 2008 draft pick help the rotation in 2010 or 2011 if like you said they struggle off the bat?
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Oct 27, 2008 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if we get a good college pitcher then it would help a little in 2010 and in 2011
by Save us on Oct 27, 2008 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
Because as you said they struggle their first year in the pros
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Oct 28, 2008 8:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
which would mean they would be a bust
the beavan rule
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 28, 2008 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
He said we will need pitching in 2010 and 2011 so we should have taken a pitcher in the first round of the 2008 draft. But he says they struggle their first seasons in the pros. But then he says they wouold be able to help out in 2010 and 2011. So I guess he wanted us to draft a pitcher who would rise from being drafted to being in our Opening day rotation next year so they could get their lumps that first year and be ready to help in 2010.
Who was drafted last year that will be ready to be in a ML rotation in april?
Nobody
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Oct 28, 2008 8:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
orrrrrrrrrr
we could have drafted a college pitcher who pitches half of a season in the minors in 2008, then a full minor league season in 2009, and then in 2010 starts out in the rotation in the majors, struggles for a while then “HELPS A LITTLE” and in 2011 is ready to go
sooo no, dumbass, thats not what i’m saying, i dont want anyone starting out in the ML rotation the year after they are drafted
by Save us on Oct 28, 2008 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only problem
Is that the player we would have had to reach to take at 11 isn’t going to make it to the majors in a year and a half. Add in the fact that they probably don’t sign until Aug 15th and you lose that first half season. They probably pitch in A ball and maybe a little in AA in 2010. Then are not ready until mid way through 2011 at the very earliest. You seem to think that every college pitcher drafted in the first round makes it to the majors and succeeds in 2.5-3 years.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Oct 28, 2008 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
when did i say that?
i know that josh fields and ryan perry will succeed. just watch. and we could put both of those guys on the fast track.
by Save us on Oct 28, 2008 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you know?
and both of them would haveb een a hell of a reach at 11
fields hasnt even signed yet…lol
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 29, 2008 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
whats the lol for
you think they were WORTH skipping a top 5 talent in the draft?
you think that fields would have suddenly been a “quick sign” for us at 11? hell no.
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"That wasn’t rain, that was a band of angels pissing on your awful city. Shut the hell up and play." - robert_d_wilfong
by knockoutking on Oct 30, 2008 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
we could have signed him
and the lol is for how all you care about is draft pick. I think you should take the player who will help your team the most. Fields to a pitching place like texas would help much more than another hitter.
and if we need hitters then we can sign some free agents because WE PLAY IN TEXAS or we can trade because most hitters wont turn down Texas.
by Save us on Oct 30, 2008 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so we should have taken a guy who had HUGE signability
concerns over a guy who was a top 5 with some signability concerns
…good to see tha fields helped SEA a lot this year.
yes, i like fields
but the point is that fields is not good value at 11, while smoak is VERY good value at 11. its like cole at 28 and the yankees. cole was VERY good value at 28, he didnt sign but thats how it works out sometimes. you take BPA
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"That wasn’t rain, that was a band of angels pissing on your awful city. Shut the hell up and play." - robert_d_wilfong
by knockoutking on Oct 30, 2008 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
has beavan even made the pros?
hes throwing in the 80s, i dont see him being good especially since he is Ranger
by Save us on Oct 28, 2008 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
again
its WELL documented that high school pitchers lose velo their first year in the majors
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 29, 2008 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and
we should definently trust the Rangers in pitching development because we have such a historical amount of success in that department
by Save us on Oct 29, 2008 10:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm
we should trust MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL-wide things that happen
its not like its ONLY rangers highschool pitchers who lose velo their first year as pros…
i guess teams like pittsburg should just quit since they have been historically bad?
or thep hillies should just dismantle their team since they lost the most games ever, right?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"That wasn’t rain, that was a band of angels pissing on your awful city. Shut the hell up and play." - robert_d_wilfong
by knockoutking on Oct 30, 2008 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ummmm just wow
the phillies just won the world series and now have 2 WS. The Pirates used to be good.
and it is ONLY the Rangers who can’t win a playoff series or who can’t develop any pitchers.
so once again why should we trust the Rangers even if things like this occasionally happen in other places
by Save us on Oct 30, 2008 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
because we have such a historical amount of success in that department
ok ill give you a better example. should the cubs quit since they havent won a WS in 100 yeasr?
and to say they cant “develop pitchers” is absurd. to an extent they “developed” chris young, john danks, armando gallaraga (assist to washington) and john danks – but do you give them any credit for that?
your the kind of person who would find a problem with anything that dealt with pitching and the rangers. if they signed sabathia you wouldnt be happy because he would break down in the heat. you wouldnt be happy if he got hurt in a freak injury (reaching for his alarm clock a la harden). you wouldnt be happy if he won 20 games and had a 3.00 era because he didnt win the cy young/lead the rangers to the world series
i seriously doubt you would even be happy if they signed 2 of sabathia or sheets or dempster or AJ burnett because they would still be going with padilla/millwood/minors guys
you dont seem to get that “historically” most teams suck…look at the yankees, as good as they were in the 60s and 90s, how bad were they when steinbrenner paid for them?
really and truly you can say that right now you would rather have ryan perry than josh fields, even though smoak will probably be a top 50 prospect.
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"That wasn’t rain, that was a band of angels pissing on your awful city. Shut the hell up and play." - robert_d_wilfong
by knockoutking on Oct 30, 2008 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i know
i continuosly complain about all those dang ranger pitchers with ERAs in the 3.00s and 20 wins.
and im always saying that they should win the CY Young.
oh and no, we didnt develop those guys
by Save us on Oct 30, 2008 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
we didnt
remind me who drafted them
remind me what org they played with in the minors
remind me who they broke into the majors with (young)
yes, with danks you can say that whoever showed him how to throw the curve made him as good as he was but yes, when a team drafts someone and they play to the upper minors, then yes thats who developed them
john danks has thrown ZERO innings at the minor league level for the white sox
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"That wasn’t rain, that was a band of angels pissing on your awful city. Shut the hell up and play." - robert_d_wilfong
by knockoutking on Oct 31, 2008 8:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
we didn’t draft galarraga or young, lmao
and those guys have ZERO production for the Rangers
by Save us on Oct 31, 2008 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
also would you be happy if this time next year we packaged
smoak and say beltre for nolasco? or joba? or lincecum? or cain?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"That wasn’t rain, that was a band of angels pissing on your awful city. Shut the hell up and play." - robert_d_wilfong
by knockoutking on Oct 30, 2008 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
how many times do i have to say this?
JD cant trade for pitchers
Jon daniels cant trade for pitchers
The rangers GM cant trade for pitchers
The texas ranger’s GM cant trade for pitchers
Jonny boy cant trade for pitchers
The Rangers cant accquire good pitchers
by Save us on Oct 30, 2008 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
he cant trade for pitchers?
feliz – sucks
beau jones – sucks
aki otsuka – that guy was HORRIBLE
armando galarraga – never will be successful
hell, even your boy michael main was “traded for” when they sent nix/coco for cruz/lee
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"That wasn’t rain, that was a band of angels pissing on your awful city. Shut the hell up and play." - robert_d_wilfong
by knockoutking on Oct 31, 2008 8:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
feliz-nothing in the bigs yet
beau jones- nothing in the bigs yet
aki- really dude? he was pretty good but if you haven’t heard, we gave up Chris Young and Adrian Gonzalez
armando galarraga- yeah hes doing good ohhh wait hes on the tigers
main- not a trade and nothing in the bigs yet
by Save us on Oct 31, 2008 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"pros" to this idiot
means the majors
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Oct 28, 2008 9:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Minor leaguers
are paid professionals, genius.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 28, 2008 5:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think that every team in the major leagues needs pitching
so lets get this right, beavan is a bust after one year, but “most minor league stars dont start out good their first year”
whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 27, 2008 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i was referring to peavy
who some consider an ace
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
by ab03 on Oct 26, 2008 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting analysis
I wonder if the days aren’t gone when a couple of complete game pitchers could be the winning difference in a post season series. Like Drysdale and Koufax, or Spahn and Sain. Hard to think about other examples, however.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Oct 26, 2008 11:27 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
johnson schilling?
they weren’t complete game pitchers but they were a big reason arizona won
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
by ab03 on Oct 26, 2008 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Having two dominant starters can be a huge advantage for a team in the playoffs
But it doesn’t guarantee success. Just ask Atlanta.
by spurdynasty on Oct 26, 2008 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess that's where the power pitchers vs finesse pitchers
argument comes into play.
by tyd3311 on Oct 26, 2008 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It hadn't occurred to me that Atlanta had the wrong kind of aces
I just looked it up and sure enough, Smoltz has a winning record in the postseason while Maddux and Glavine do not.
by spurdynasty on Oct 26, 2008 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bah
Sample size, even with someone like Maddux who has been there. And Maddux’s postseason ERA is 3.27, while his career regular season ERA is 3.16. Doesn’t seem like he tanked in the postseason to me.
I think the only way to gauge that kind of question (pitching style) is to take an aggregate of hundreds of pitchers and compare performance in the postseason vs. regular season for both types. Way too much variance for an individual, even if they make the postseason numerous times like Maddux and Glavine.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 26, 2008 10:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think part of Atlanta's problem was having two pictchers with smaller frames.
I think Maddux especially, and Glavine to a degree, lost a bit more juice over the course of the season than, say, Smoltz did. They weren’t awful in October, they just didn’t quite have the reserves that helped them dominate for much of the regular season.
by philkid3 on Nov 1, 2008 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Playoffs
I do agree that you can make the playoffs with 3 or 4 good pitchers, but I do believe that you need that number one guy to help you advance in the playoffs. That great power pitcher who can strike people out when necessary. Just look back at the last few world series winners. The Red Sox last year had Josh Beckett, the Cardinals had Chris Carpenter, the White Sox had Jose Contreras who was lights out that year, the 2004 Red Sox had Schilling and Pedro Martinez, and the Marlins had Josh Beckett. The 2002 Angels are the only team I can think of going back to the strike that didn’t have the number one pitcher. Even this year the Phillies are two wins away from a World Series primarily because of Cole Hamels. So, while you can make the playoffs with just good pitchers to win in the playoffs you need that guy who can put up zeroes against the other teams best pitcher and give you a shot to win.
by soonermike19 on Oct 26, 2008 2:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
fwiw
they had jarrod washburn and his 141 era+
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ANA/2002.shtml
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 26, 2008 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not calling washburn an ace
just he was their best pitcher
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 26, 2008 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In my book, Jarrod Washburn in 2002 would have been considered an "ace"
141 ERA+ with 200+ innings.
Consistent with the notion that a dominant starter can get you to the world series, each of the last last ten teams in the world series have had at least one starting pitcher who could be classified as a “perennial ace” or an annual leader based on the definition put forth in the FanPost. To me, that is the most important advantage to having a legitimate #1 starter on your team. The problem is in distinguishing aces who perform in the postseason from those who don’t. As noted in the FanPost, regular season dominance is not a particularly good indicator of postseason success.
by spurdynasty on Oct 26, 2008 9:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's why ERA+ kind of sucks.
It’s basically just ERA, which a very flawed method for evaluating a pitcher’s overall skill.
It’s park and league adjusted, but it doesn’t take anything else into account.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 26, 2008 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Washburn was a very good pitcher from 2000-2002
I would be very surprised if he were not among the league leaders for those years using almost any stat that attempts to capture global performance/production. I can’t remember your pitching stat of choice Dirkatron, but would be very interested to know where Washburn ranked among American League pitchers in 2002.
by spurdynasty on Oct 26, 2008 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like FIP way better than ERA+ and tRA way better than FIP.
I can only find tRA stats going back to ‘03, but Washburn’s FIP’s were as follows.
00: 5.78
01: 4.37
02: 3.71 (13th in the AL)
03: 4.97 (w/ a 5.44 tRA)
Basically he’s had two good seasons in his career. ’01 when he was pretty okay and ’02 when he was pretty darn good, though not “acely” in my opinion.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 26, 2008 10:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn't sure what FIP was exactly
but i found a 2005 Hardball Times article “FIP and the Long Ball” and i think it demonstrates how good a stat it really is.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/fip-and-the-long-ball/
by tyd3311 on Oct 26, 2008 11:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a lot more reliable than ERA +.
I’m not quite sure what to think of tRA. But the Lookout boys seem to cum their pants over it.
GREINKE HO!!!!!
by oc on Oct 26, 2008 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Beyond the Boxscore crew seem to get pretty greased up over it, too.
I think it’s the best I’ve found, though there are some limitations/questions, such as just how much control a pitcher has over his LD% and IFFB% and things like that.
But overall I think tRA is pretty darn good.
Certainly it’s better than ERA+.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 26, 2008 11:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who publishes
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 27, 2008 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm
tRA? was the first thing I typed in the body above but it disappeared when I hit post. Gremlins or maybe a rogue Smurf I guess.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 27, 2008 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, I think it's pretty clear who stole your words, T.
I twas those damn kids. First they are on your lawn, then the next thing you know they are stealing words out of your lonestarball posts. Kids didn’t used to be like this before the hip-hop music came along. Before that they were very polite, iirc.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 27, 2008 12:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh..
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1020081ball1.html
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
by benmor78 on Oct 27, 2008 1:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ERA+ vs FIP
Lists of the league leaders using the two stats are very similar. In 2008 -
FIP Top 12
Lincecum
Lee
Sabathia
Haren
Halladay
Lowe
Webb
Santana J
Billingsley
Sheets
Dempster
Burnett
ERA+ Top 12
Sabathia
Lee
Lincecum
Santana J
Halladay
Dempster
Hamels
Sheets
Billingsley
Lester
Webb
Haren
FIP leaves out Hamels and Lester while ERA+ drops Lowe and Burnett.
by spurdynasty on Oct 27, 2008 9:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyway, my question was
who publishes tRA?
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 27, 2008 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cool
Is this a new site? I’ve never run across it before.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 27, 2008 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty new.
They were rocking the word “beta” all over the site until a few weeks ago.
It’s definitely in the baseball folder of my bookmark bar.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 27, 2008 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like how you can easily see
stats for the minors as well.
I know Holland had a pretty limited sample at AA, but his tRA was 1.89… he was the only AA pitcher under 2.00
by tyd3311 on Oct 27, 2008 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those are valid concerns,
which is why tRA* exists, which takes all the components that go into tRA and regresses them toward league average based on how much control (determined by year to year correlation studies) a pitcher has over that stat.
So for instance, groundball rates (.84) are incredibly stable and carry over year to year very well so they will not move much. LD (.56) and IF (.53) rates are actually decently stable as well, though nowhere near groundball/flyball, but because of their lower correlation factor will have about half the difference between the pitcher and league rates chopped off.
Or to use concrete numbers as an example, if a pitcher had a 30% LD rate and the league average was 20, tRA* will say, 56 of the pitcher’s LD rate is attributable to the pitcher himself and 44% of it is not so take 20% x 44% + 30% x 56% and you get the regressed LD rate of 25.6%.
by Matthew on Oct 27, 2008 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting stuff.
Thanks.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 27, 2008 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The one thing it's missing. . .
. . . is strength of schedule, which I think is pretty important in evaluating pitchers.
But that also seems like something that, by tRA’s nature, would be a relatively easy next step.
by philkid3 on Nov 1, 2008 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who needs an ace?
When ya got a franchise face?!?
Well done sir, I wouldn’t mind having Tim Lincecum as our ace but I’d gladly trade that for 4 or 5 solid starters.
Steal Home R.I.P. 9/10/08
by LAMuscleFag on Oct 26, 2008 5:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Quick question for all of you ace lovers out there.
Off hand, what do you think Texas’ defensive BABIP was this year?
I’ll give you a hint, it’s the highest in MLB.
Cause if you know, then you have to think twice about assuming we need to grab an ace. No one can be an “ace” on a team where everything that’s not hit directly at someone becomes a base hit. We need to shore up the defense first, then the pitching will take care of itself through the minor league studs and maybe a smart trade or signing.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 26, 2008 5:41 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
yea
even roy halliday would have been much worse had he been in texas
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"I'm more happy to be a Dallas Cowboy than when I got my first bike" - Roy Williams (WR)
by knockoutking on Oct 26, 2008 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
.322 is the answer, fwiw.
The Rays were the best @ .285.
Think a Cliff Dweller like Kazmir would’ve been quite as dignified and acely with our D behind him?
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 26, 2008 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and this is why
Chris Davis cannot play 3rd base next year.
by tyd3311 on Oct 26, 2008 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is why I drool at the thought of a Cruz/Bourbon/Hambone L-R OF and a FFace/Andrus/Kinzler/Davis 3rd-to-1st IF.
We’re gonna rule the known universe come ’10.
We’d do it sooner if we’d go out and grab some one year stopgaps for SS and CF with studly defense. But we’re not going to do that, so I should stop dreaming.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 26, 2008 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be even better if you put Smoak at first and Davis the DH.
by Kinslerhomer on Oct 26, 2008 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Prolly
Though I hesitate to pencil the Smoak Monster into the ’10 lineup before he gets an AB over Low-A ball.
If he’s slugging in Frisco by mid-summer then we can talk.
But as for right now I’d like to see a little more before I go all sorts of butt wild about the guy’s chances to make the club out of ST in ’10.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 26, 2008 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Davis at 1B
Is that really plus D?
Already commented above, but Smoak’s the better option at 1B. Job’s his to lose.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Oct 27, 2008 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Davis wasn't as bad as you would expect
Duran, Vazquez and Metcalf where what made 3B so awful in Bill James eyes in the fielding bible.
Duran a -7 in 223 innings at 3rd
Vazquez a -10 in 533 innings at 3rd
Metcalf a -6 in 130 innings at 3rd
Davis -9 in 276…
None are good options, with Davis getting the benefit of the doubt just from lack of time there before this season. The other 3 are middle inf, not 1st basemen.
by laxtonto on Oct 26, 2008 9:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not that i thought he was horrible
as much as i just want a + guy there, especially with Young at ss.
by tyd3311 on Oct 26, 2008 10:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I find this experiment flawed.
Why did you set your standard for innings pitched at 100? Why not 150? 175? You’d expect your “ace” to throw a lot of innings… what’s so special about 100?
Secondly, you’re trying to define something that is undefineable. Maybe it’s just me, but I certainly didn’t think John Burkett was an ace, or Kenny Hill, or Aaron Sele, or Kenny Rogers. None of those pitchers are even close to being in the same league as guys like Beckett or Sabathia, or Randy Johnson.
Yeah, the Rangers made it to the playoffs with those guys… but, they got their asses bounced each time. They never had that one pitcher that put them over the top…
And anyway… this off-season isn’t about trading for an “ace.” It’s about finding a consistent top-of-the-rotation starter… even if it’s a No. 2.
The current incumbents can barely pass as 3’s.
GREINKE HO!!!!!
by oc on Oct 26, 2008 11:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Also... congrats on becoming the winner of the most bullshit recs this side of Royals Review.
GREINKE HO!!!!!
by oc on Oct 26, 2008 11:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec for me now
for spite, and because it’s a pretty good fanpost.
by RangersOCD on Oct 27, 2008 1:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It could be worse
we could be getting posts recced about smoking a bowl, eating a sandwich and taking a crap.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
by DJCahill on Oct 27, 2008 7:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the critique, OC
As you point out, the 100 innings that I used as a cutoff was purely subjective. I selected that cutoff before reviewing the data, so I did not use the cutoff to bias the data. I just took a quick look at the data and I would have dropped the following pitchers had I used a 200 inning cutoff:
2003 – Oswalt, Martinez, Schilling
2004 – Peavy
2005 – Halladay, Harden
2006 – Liriano, Clemens, Sanchez, Kazmir
2007 – Bedard, Billingsley, Hamels
2008 – Lincecum, Matsuzaka, Peavy, Danks
Using 100 innings as a cutoff instead of 200 altered ~15% of the data that was used. Noteworthy is that it didn’t enable the inclusion of a bunch of stiffs.
I can accept your argument that you can’t define what an ace is. What I’ve done is provide data for two groups of pitchers using the two criteria in the FanPost. You can call those groups what you like. Regarding Burkett, Hill, Rogers, etc., I’m unsure what point you are trying to make. Can you clarify?
Regarding your recommended plan to add a top-of-the-rotation starter this offseason, I am curious to know what you think such a pitcher is worth in terms of salary or prospects.
by spurdynasty on Oct 27, 2008 8:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regarding Burkett, Hill, Rogers, etc., I’m unsure what point you are trying to make.
These pitchers are mentioned to counter your argument about whether having a legit No. 1 makes a difference.
I don’t know that there’s a more obvious example than the ’08 Phillies.
It’s no secret that I’m the only person here that would overpay for Greinke. But, if you build a good package around Davis (the bat that they desperately need)… by multiplying the number of years he could control a few young players, I think you could talk Moore into giving him up.
If you haven’t figured it out yet… yes, two years of Greinke is worth it.
Davis, Feliz, Andrus and Holland are the four guys at the top of his wishlist . For Greinke, I’d give up only one. And I’d only consider giving up two as long as they weren’t pitchers.
GREINKE HO!!!!!
by oc on Oct 27, 2008 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correction: two years of Greinke entering his prime.
GREINKE HO!!!!!
by oc on Oct 27, 2008 11:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the explanation, OC
To be clear on my position:
I think that the Rangers need at least one #1-type pitcher during the window of 2010-2015 to have a legitimate shot at winning a championship. I would prefer that they have 2 or 3 such pitchers. There are three ways to get said pitchers:
(1) Sign them
(2) Trade for them
(3) Grow them
The problem with option #1is that it eats up too much of the team’s budget which makes it difficult to field a quality line-up and bullpen.
The problem with option #2 is that it requires overpaying with prospects which affects a team’s ability to maintain a reasonable payroll while keeping its talent level high.
The problem with #3 is that #1’s don’t grow on trees.
The Rangers are in the unique position of having 3-5 pitchers in their minor league system with top-of-the-rotation stuff (Holland, Feliz, Main, Perez, Font). They have another 3-5 pitchers at AA and up with the potential to develop into #3’s or better (Hurley, Harrison, Hunter, Kiker, Poveda). Approach #3 is clearly the one that makes the most sense for the team. As has been stated by others at LSB, now is the time to take a patient approach and recognize that the team’s time is still a year or two away.
by spurdynasty on Oct 28, 2008 5:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know... just once would I like a proven commodity in my rotation.
Not somebody who’s a couple of years away… not somebody who you hope bounces back… not somebody who’s always injured…
Just a guy who can go out there and give you a 75-80% chance to win every fifth day.
None of the pitchers we have now are like that. They won’t be like that next year and it’s unlikely these prospects will blossom into that mold in ’10.
So yeah, fuck that… I’ve been patient.
This team has enough resources to be able to trade for somebody while continuing to develop.
GREINKE HO!!!!!
by oc on Oct 28, 2008 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is real cutting-edge commentary.
GREINKE HO!!!!!
by oc on Oct 27, 2008 9:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Burkett sure as hell pitched like an ace in '96.
And Darren Oliver had only allowed one run through 8 when Oates sent him back out for the 9th.
That ‘96 team should’ve won the World Series… I get depressed every time I think about it.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 26, 2008 11:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
Your Gabe Gross = my Mike Henneman.
by ghostofErikThompson on Oct 27, 2008 5:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
An ace is worth...
1 or 11 in Blackjack, depending on whether the 11 would bust you or not.
Stars in a Texas Night Sky, a Dallas Stars blog from a fan's perspective.
by rangers85 on Oct 27, 2008 12:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
aces are often overpaid compared to #2 and #3 starters, meaning their teams will be a little less successful with some money wasted
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 27, 2008 1:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
another quick analysis
assume 180 IP, replacement-level ERA of 5.75, and an ERA as below for each rotation slot
1 3.25
2 3.75
3 4.25
4 4.75
5 5.25
each slot is worth (5.75 – ERA) / 9 * IP runs over replacement, or:
1 50 runs
2 40 runs
3 30 runs
4 20 runs
5 10 runs
since ten runs results in about one additional win, moving one slot up in the rotation is worth a win. therefore upgrading from a fifth starter to another third starter is just as valuable as upgrading from a third starter to an ace. and the first upgrade is probably a lot cheaper. (although, teams actually usually upgrade from a fifth starter to an ace.)
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 27, 2008 1:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Regular season vs. post season
Following this logic, you would assume that a team of five #3s will win the same number of games as a team with typical 1-5 mix of pitchers. But, during the regular season, the #5 started will often get skipped. I don’t know if that happens enough to skew the numbers and it probably depends on how the manager manages his staff.
Also, in the post-season, the #5 (and possibly the #4) wont be used, making having a couple of good pitchers to front the rotation very important to in the postseason.
On another line of thought, do you need to take into account the skill level of the hitters in the postseason? Presumably, the hitters faces in the postseason are better than the average lineup and would tear up an average to below-average pitcher. IF the old adage it that great pitching can shut down great hitting, then having an ace or two on your staff is even more important in the playoffs.
by NorCalRangersFan on Oct 27, 2008 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd agree with that
And add that ir reinforces the notion that two better than just good pitchers are needed to survive post season play, albeit about four league average starters could well get you into post season play.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Oct 27, 2008 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep,
using the terminology of Sky, give me 2 #1, a #3, and 2 #5s over a 1,2,3,4, and 5.
In the playoffs you end up pitching your 2 1s, and your 3 for the bulk of your starts.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
by DJCahill on Oct 27, 2008 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
except remember the cost of the #1's (assuming you have to pay for them instead of developing them)
personally, i think it’s easy to find decent #4s for “free” — there are tons of guys with good skills but inflated ERAs due to park/defense/bad luck/etc. (heck, pilfering the Rangers for a couple guys would be a good option). then i’d pass on the #1s and focus on the number twos, saving a lot of money. so my “ideal” rotation considering talent and cost would be 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, with the savings spent on an underrated SS/2B/CF with a solid bat and excellent defense.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 27, 2008 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, the IP difference is important
you could do something like go from 220 IP down to 160 over the five rotation spots — something that adds up to about 900 – 1000 IP
and the playoff point is a good one, too.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 27, 2008 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, i salute the analysis
but the fact is, one season, really wont tell you all you need..
I think its pretty clear you need a team to win… but having a shut down ace or two is HUGE.
Look at teams like the 2001 Dbacks, who basically sucked outside of Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling, but thats all they needed, because when you have 2 pitchers who can pitch 5 games of a series and hold you to 1,2 runs, your gonna win most of those games.
Thats an extreme example, and the fact is, it depends… because not every regular season ace, has shown to be a shut down postseason pitcher, and wiht small sample size problems its hard to tell.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
by jbluestone on Oct 28, 2008 7:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Compositions of Team Rotations in 2008
Sky’s suggestion about how a team can maximize its return on investment regarding its starting rotation led me to investigate the makeup of the various starting rotations in baseball. In deference to those who know better than me, I used tRA* to rank the performances of all of the major leaguers who pitched at least 100 innings. I rated the top 30 pitchers as 1’s, the pitchers ranked 31-60 were rated as 2’s, the pitchers ranked 61-90 were rated as 3’s, the pitchers ranked 91-120 were rated as 4’s, and the pitchers ranked 121-130 were rated as 5’s. I sorted the pitchers by team and then averaged the rating for the pitchers for each team. For those teams with fewer than 5 pitchers rated as 5 or better, I added 5.5 to fill in a five person rotation. The results are shown in the table below. Worth noting is that Sabathia was counted twice since he pitched more than 100 innings for both Milwaukee and Cleveland.
Team #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 Avg
D’backs 1 1 1 2 3 1.6
WhiteSox 1 1 2 2 3 1.8
BlueJays 1 1 2 3 3 2
Dodgers 1 1 1 2 5.5 2.1
Angels 1 2 2 2 4 2.2
Brewers 1 1 2 3 4 2.2
Rays 1 2 2 3 4 2.4
Rockies 1 1 2 3 5.5 2.5
Braves 1 2 2 3 5.5 2.7
Cubs 1 2 2 3 5.5 2.7
Indians 1 1 3 4 5 2.8
Royals 1 2 3 4 4 2.8
RedSox 1 1 3 4 5.5 2.9
Mets 1 3 3 4 4 3
Cardinals 2 3 3 3 4 3
Reds 1 2 3 4 5.5 3.1
Astros 1 2 3 4 5.5 3.1
Padres 1 2 3 4 5.5 3.1
Twins 2 2 3 4 5 3.2
Phillies 1 2 4 4 5 3.2
Giants 1 2 3 5 5 3.2
Marlins 1 3 4 4 5.5 3.5
A’s 2 3 4 4 5.5 3.7
Pirates 1 3 4 5 5.5 3.7
Nat’s 2 3 4 4 5.5 3.7
Yankees 2 2 4 5.5 5.5 3.8
Tigers 3 3 3 5 5.5 3.9
Mariners 2 4 4 5.5 5.5 4.2
Orioles 3 4 5 5 5.5 4.5
Rangers 4 4 4 5.5 5.5 4.6
As expected, the Rangers were at the bottom of the list and they were joined by a lot of other non-playoff teams. There were more than ten teams with fairly conventional rotations comprising a 1, 2, 3, and some combination of 3-5’s including the Phillies. The Cards have a variant of Sky’s recommended financial optimum (2/3/3/3/4). Interestingly, teams with some of the best rotations in 2008 failed to make the playoffs.
by spurdynasty on Oct 28, 2008 10:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Sorry about the formatting
I haven’t figured out how to format numbers from a table in one of these responses. If you want to fight throught it, the first five numbers after each team’s name are the ratings for that team’s fiev starting pitchers. The last number is the average of the provious five ratings.
by spurdynasty on Oct 28, 2008 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is awesome!
can i use it for a BtB post? email me at skyking162@gmail.com
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 29, 2008 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Feel free to use the information
I’m travelling on business today but will ship you the table and associated information when I get back home tomorrow.
by spurdynasty on Oct 29, 2008 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that would be great, thanks
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 30, 2008 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who's the "3"
in the Red Sox Rotation? I would think Beckett, Dice-K, and Lester would have all earned 2s or better based on tRA*.
"They shouldn't throw at me. I'm the father of five or six kids."
-Tito Fuentes, after getting hit by a pitch.
by Haeger Champ on Oct 29, 2008 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's correct
Beckett is at 3.83, Lester at 3.96, and Matsuzaka at 4.33 with a tRA+ of 111. Matsuzaka had uninspiring perhipherals despite a shiny ERA.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 29, 2008 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
RedSox Top 3
Using tRA* for 2008, both Beckett and Lester ranked in the top30 and thus are rated as #1’s while Matsuzaka was ranked #67 in 2008 and would therefore be rated a #3.
by spurdynasty on Oct 29, 2008 11:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Above
did you mean 121 to 150 for the #5 guys?
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 30, 2008 12:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I only had tRA* data for the top 130 starting pitchers in baseball
Only 10 starting pitchers were designated as 5’s. Everyone below 130 was rated a 5.5.
by spurdynasty on Oct 30, 2008 8:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curious
I’ve seen gain valuation for having an ace pitcher vary per different studies. Some suggest he’s worth 3 to 5 additional wins, some say 5 to 6. And I can understand both, on an aggregated basis. My question is this: If an ace is supported by a very good offense, might not his win total gain be greater than +6 over a league average pitcher?
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Oct 29, 2008 1:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I would think the correlation is in the opposite direction
by tyd3311 on Oct 29, 2008 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's not the pitcher's win total that matters...
but the number of extra wins the team gets. if a pitcher pitches in front of a better offense, he doesn’t deserve credit for the offense — it’s the good offense that deserves the extra credit.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 29, 2008 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is kidn of what i was going nfor for matt cain
+ rangers offense on baseball reference pro
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
"That wasn’t rain, that was a band of angels pissing on your awful city. Shut the hell up and play." - robert_d_wilfong
by knockoutking on Oct 30, 2008 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 















