PDA

View Full Version : Which rotation is better? 1993 or 2005?


Frater Perdurabo
04-26-2005, 02:02 PM
The 1993 team didn't even have a rotation like this 1-5. And that team was good enough to win it all.

I thought this deserved its own thread and even a poll. I realize we're not even one full month into the season, but I thought this might make for some interesting discussion.

Which White Sox starting rotation is better: 1993 or 2005?

Mickster
04-26-2005, 02:07 PM
I voted '93 until we see what actually happens with this rotation over the course of a season.

Frater Perdurabo
04-26-2005, 02:10 PM
Based on the results so far, I have to go with 2005. They have carried this team in spite of the lack of offense. 1993's top four of McDowell, Fernandez, Alvarez and Bere were excellent, but they also got help from the potent Sox offense. Frank and Ventura absolutely slayed that year.

Ol' No. 2
04-26-2005, 02:12 PM
The 1993 rotation was good for a whole year. So far, this one has been good for three weeks.

Shammy Hater
04-26-2005, 02:13 PM
the 93 rotation had some sick numbers, but that was pre-home run era.

fernandez 3.13
mcdowell 3.37
alvarez 2.95
bere 3.47
belcher 4.40

05:

garland 1.80
el duque 2.35
mb 2.61
garcia 3.21
contreras 3.48

i'm going to go with 05 as of right now because of the age of home runs and home run ballparks. and when your 5th starter has the lowest era in the rotation, that's something special. at least so far. knocks on wood, crosses fingers.

SOXSINCE'70
04-26-2005, 02:15 PM
Both are close,but my vote goes to 2005.:cool:

The reason:PLAYOFF EXPERIENCE.

Garcia has plenty,El Duque won 3 rings with the Yankmees,
Hermanson and Politte are no strangers to big games as well.

Once the heat gets turned up,these guys will respond.

On the offensive side of things,AJ,Dye and Carl Everett
knowe what its like when the spotlight starts shining
white hot.:gulp:

pudge
04-26-2005, 02:17 PM
Put down the Kool Aid all you people who voted for '05.... we gots a LONG way to go...

Palehose13
04-26-2005, 02:19 PM
I'm going to add to the stat list:

1993

Mc Dowell 22-10, 3.37
Fernandez 18-9 , 3.13
Alvarez 15-8, 2.95
Bere 12-5, 3.47

"The 5 spot" (remember, Belcher was a mid-season acquisition)
McCaskill 4-8, 5.23
Stieb 1-3, 6.05
Belcher 3-5, 4.40

1-4 in 1993 was amazing, but there was a problem with the 5th starter. I think the 2005 rotation can be better than 1993 when all is said and done.

Frater Perdurabo
04-26-2005, 02:26 PM
Put down the Kool Aid all you people who voted for '05.... we gots a LONG way to go...

I know there is much baseball yet to be played, but at present, based on the numbers, how can you not recognize that the Sox starters have absolutely dominated? The Sox starting five as a whole is averaging better than a so-called quality start every game.

You know what stat is sickest of all? The Sox record when they score three runs or fewer: 5-1.

gobears1987
04-26-2005, 05:04 PM
too early to vote. Ask me in September.

Lip Man 1
04-26-2005, 05:52 PM
While I agree it's early what many Sox fans have forgotten is this fact, without Jason Bere, the Sox do not win that division.

Before the Sox called him up the back end of the rotation was as bad as the one's from the past few years. The Sox tried Dave Steib, they tried bouncing Kirk McCaskill back and forth from the pen to the rotation with mixed results. Bere stabilized the rotation giving the Sox four guys they could count on. Then they shifted McCaskill into the #5 hole as needed.

The 2005 rotation seems to have five guys who can keep you in the game...the 93 rotation has basically three before Bere. 2005 wins hands down.

Now if you want to compare the 05 rotation to 94? That one I'm not so sure of and don't even think of matching it up against the 59, 63, 64 or 83 rotations.

Lip

rmusacch
04-26-2005, 05:56 PM
I thought this deserved its own thread and even a poll. I realize we're not even one full month into the season, but I thought this might make for some interesting discussion.

Which White Sox starting rotation is better: 1993 or 2005?

Has Garland already won more games than the fifth starter slot last year?

MRKARNO
04-26-2005, 06:01 PM
I said 1993 because they came up with the results, but this kind of talk we should save for the offseason when we dont have actual games to talk about.

voodoochile
04-26-2005, 06:04 PM
Put down the Kool Aid all you people who voted for '05.... we gots a LONG way to go...

I think experience has a lot to do with the voting process. This year's rotation is expected to be solid, 1993 was an amazing ride, but most of those guys were so young...

Ol' No. 2
04-26-2005, 06:14 PM
Has Garland already won more games than the fifth starter slot last year?Maybe the last TWO years.

batmanZoSo
04-26-2005, 06:22 PM
I think this year has potential to better. We already have one more good starter than 93, which was my point to begin with. McDowell beats anyone on the staff but the rest can be debated. That year, Alvarez went 15-8 but he got hot toward the end and he was a surprise. Same with Bere.

It's far too early to truly have this discussion, though. If Garland wins 20 games and the Cubans stay healthy, it could be 05.

It's hard to argue with those 93 ERAs..man. Although that was a slightly different era in baseball. You saw a lot more ERAs like that back then.

A. Cavatica
04-26-2005, 09:05 PM
While I agree it's early what many Sox fans have forgotten is this fact, without Jason Bere, the Sox do not win that division.

Hey Lip, I assume you were against giving the job to Bere at the time. I mean, he was a rookie and all.

samram
04-26-2005, 09:18 PM
Based on the results so far, I have to go with 2005. They have carried this team in spite of the lack of offense. 1993's top four of McDowell, Fernandez, Alvarez and Bere were excellent, but they also got help from the potent Sox offense. Frank and Ventura absolutely slayed that year.

Actually, the Sox offense was only 7th in the AL that year. Frank and Robin had good years, but Ellis Burks only drove in 74 runs, good for 3rd on the team. However, that staff was 1st in the AL, and "stuff" wise, there's no comparison. Fernandez, Alvarez, and Bere all threw in the mid-90s at the time and all had teriffic second or even third pitches. I'm not trying to take anything from this rotation, I just think the 1993 one was better.

Bucky F. Dent
04-26-2005, 09:22 PM
Still way too early in the season to be handing out awards.

And while this years #1 & #2 may be better than '93's, '93 had a stronger #3 through #5, IMHO.

But I will be happy to be proven wrong.:D:

soxfan26
04-26-2005, 09:31 PM
Put down the Kool Aid all you people who voted for '05.... we gots a LONG way to go...

Ah, the Sox are working on the team's longest winning streak since 1977 tonight, what's wrong with a little kool aid now and then? :gulp:

GO SOX!

MILTMAY5
04-26-2005, 09:32 PM
1993 for 2 reasons. Black Jack won the Cy Young and they made it to the ALCS.Last time I looked the 2005 staff hasn't dne that (yet!).

Brian26
04-26-2005, 10:19 PM
That '93 staff was pretty good AFTER the Belcher trade.

RKMeibalane
04-26-2005, 10:25 PM
It's hard to say. I think that Buehrle and Garica are as good as Jack McDowell was that season, but I'd have to see how this season plays out before deciding on the rotation as a whole.

Lip Man 1
04-27-2005, 01:36 AM
Cavtica:

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a blue moon.

Brian:

I forgot about Tim but he came late in the season so I don't know how to measure that.

Lip

pudge
04-27-2005, 03:49 AM
I think experience has a lot to do with the voting process. This year's rotation is expected to be solid, 1993 was an amazing ride, but most of those guys were so young...

All I'm saying is, you cannot compare any 3 of our starters now to McDowell, Fernandez and Alvarez. And the supposed depth of the '05 rotation is yet to be determined based on health of old guys like Jose and Duque.

voodoochile
04-27-2005, 09:07 AM
All I'm saying is, you cannot compare any 3 of our starters now to McDowell, Fernandez and Alvarez. And the supposed depth of the '05 rotation is yet to be determined based on health of old guys like Jose and Duque.

OH come on... Buehrle, Garcia and Hernandez are the equal of that trio, easily.

JRIG
04-27-2005, 09:11 AM
OH come on... Buehrle, Garcia and Hernandez are the equal of that trio, easily.

In '93, McDowell had a 3.37 ERA, Fernandez a 3.13 ERA, and Alvarez a 2.95 ERA.

I know it's a bit more of an offensive era right now, but I'd make a friendly wager right now that Buehrle, Garcia, and Hernandez won't all finish with ERAs under 4.00, much less 3.40. That was a formidable trio.

voodoochile
04-27-2005, 09:16 AM
In '93, McDowell had a 3.37 ERA, Fernandez a 3.13 ERA, and Alvarez a 2.95 ERA.

I know it's a bit more of an offensive era right now, but I'd make a friendly wager right now that Buehrle, Garcia, and Hernandez won't all finish with ERAs under 4.00, much less 3.40. That was a formidable trio.

Different era too. That was before juicing really took off and before they rewound the ball to it's present cueball status.

I am probably biased because those guys all fell apart well before their "time" so am factoring in hindsight into the equation. I think this rotation will have better careers in the long term and I personally like this group better because I think they are looser.

Stats may not back up what I see, but I'll still take the 2005 squad.

tstrike2000
04-27-2005, 09:54 AM
The 93' pitching staff was the best I've seen next to the 83' staff of Hoyt, Dotson, Bannister, Burns and Koosman. Those are mainly because of what those staffs were able to do for a whole season. Buehrle and Garcia and definitely two top tier starters. But it's too early to tell for the staff as a whole after only 21 games, but they sure do look good!

pudge
04-27-2005, 11:55 AM
Different era too. That was before juicing really took off and before they rewound the ball to it's present cueball status.

I am probably biased because those guys all fell apart well before their "time" so am factoring in hindsight into the equation. I think this rotation will have better careers in the long term and I personally like this group better because I think they are looser.

Stats may not back up what I see, but I'll still take the 2005 squad.

The thing is, the era wasn't THAT different. It's not like we're comparing Ed Walsh and Lefty Williams to Buehrle and Garcia. The AL League ERAs in '93 and '94 were 4.32 and 4.80. In 2003 and 2004 they were 4.53 and 4.63.

I see what you're saying about overall career, maybe in that case you're right. But for the moment, you cannot say Garcia right now and Hernandez right now are as good as Fernandez and Alvarez were in that one season.

Now hey, if Garland keeps it up and Buehrle avoids outings like last night, I may turn out to be wrong.

batmanZoSo
04-27-2005, 12:36 PM
The thing is, the era wasn't THAT different. It's not like we're comparing Ed Walsh and Lefty Williams to Buehrle and Garcia. The AL League ERAs in '93 and '94 were 4.32 and 4.80. In 2003 and 2004 they were 4.53 and 4.63.

I see what you're saying about overall career, maybe in that case you're right. But for the moment, you cannot say Garcia right now and Hernandez right now are as good as Fernandez and Alvarez were in that one season.

Now hey, if Garland keeps it up and Buehrle avoids outings like last night, I may turn out to be wrong.

Wow, 4.32 in 93 to 4.80 in 94. Somethings was awry that year. Aside from possibly the 60s mound raising era or other early 20th century deadball/liveball events, has there ever been nearly a half a run jump in league ERA like that?

As for the rotations, here's how I look at it...

McDowell beats Buehrle, but it's moderately close. They're both guys I feel comfortable with starting Game 1 of a playoff series.

Alex Fernandez is a shade better than Freddy Garcia, but that's about it.

Garland so far is better than 93 Alvarez at this point in the season. I think those two should be compared because they're at similar junctures in their careers. Garland usually wins 12 or 13 games with mediocre performances, so I figure he'll easily get 17 or 18 wins in a good year. That beats out Alvarez. Still, Garland won't match the 2.95 ERA. Toss up.

Bere is probably as good as the two Cubans, but after Bere, there's nothing. We have TWO Cubans.

In a playoff series, I'd take 93 (minus tipping pitches). But over the course of a 162 game season, I believe ours is better. Here's what I think is our chance of winning by day in the rotation, 1-5...

2005:

Great
Good
Good
Good
Good

1993:

Great
Great
Good
Good
BAD

I don't think you can cancel out the bad with the great to make two goods in 93. Having 5 solid, winning starters is huge.

pudge
04-27-2005, 01:34 PM
2005:

Great
Good
Good
Good
Good

1993:

Great
Great
Good
Good
BAD

I don't think you can cancel out the bad with the great to make two goods in 93. Having 5 solid, winning starters is huge.

I think you're forgetting how nasty the '93 Alvarez was. He had some control problems that year, but he was downright nasty. I remember wishing Lamont would have made him the #1 in the playoffs, because he was our best arm. If you're giving McDowell and Fernandez a "Great" then Alvarez should also.

That's my whole argument. I think we had 3 "greats" in '93 and only one right now.