PDA

View Full Version : The Best Staff Ever


DSpivack
07-02-2006, 09:29 PM
McCarthy thread in the Clubhouse mentions that Hawk calls this staff one of the best he's ever seen.

So, what is the best pitching staff ever? 71 Orioles? One of the 1990s Braves teams?

Grzegorz
07-02-2006, 09:46 PM
Hmm, 1927 Yankees, 1970 Orioles, maybe the '48 Indians?

Of course the Braves of the '90s are in contention.

ndgt10
07-02-2006, 09:48 PM
[quote=DSpivack]McCarthy thread in the Clubhouse mentions that Hawk calls this staff one of the best he's ever seen.
quote]
Maybe it's the best staff on paper, but they sure haven't pitched like it through the 1st half.:mad:

DumpJerry
07-02-2006, 10:20 PM
Some of those 1970's Orioles staffs were scary good.

There were some 20's and 30's Yankee staffs that were pretty good.

Don't count out the 1917 White Sox.

Then there were the 1960's Detroit staffs with Lolich and McLain.

The 1994 White Sox were the best in AL that year. Good thing they did not get to play in the World Series and demoralize the National League. :angry:

Just to mention a few.

Tiger23
07-02-2006, 10:30 PM
2006 Detroit Tigers. :smile:



Seriously, I'm not very knowledgeable on baseball history. Where would the 05' White Sox rank? I know they were dominant last year, but were they good enough to be compared to some of the best of all time?

DSpivack
07-02-2006, 10:44 PM
2006 Detroit Tigers. :smile:



Seriously, I'm not very knowledgeable on baseball history. Where would the 05' White Sox rank? I know they were dominant last year, but were they good enough to be compared to some of the best of all time?
Teal alert!

I think they'd be very good, but certainly not the best ever; remember Shingo started as closer! I think we were very spoiled, though, Hermanson, Cotts, and Politte all had absolutely fantastic years in the 'pen, combining to allow 41 ERs in 184 IPs. Buehrle, Garcia, Contreras and Garland all had ERAs well under 4, so there is a perception that they're "struggling" now.

Corlose 15
07-02-2006, 10:49 PM
I believe Hawk has said that this is the best 5 man staff he's ever seen. So that would exclude those Orioles teams and the Yankees as well.

Obviously right now though they aren't even close.

chaerulez
07-03-2006, 01:11 AM
Maybe it's the best staff on paper, but they sure haven't pitched like it through the 1st half.:mad:

Yes I agree. Vazquez has been on the decline as of late, he might be the best guy in the league with "stuff" that doesn't translate into success. Garcia and Garland have just not been consistent. And we could use one or two upgrades in the bullpen.

oeo
07-03-2006, 01:20 AM
Teal alert!

I think they'd be very good, but certainly not the best ever; remember Shingo started as closer! I think we were very spoiled, though, Hermanson, Cotts, and Politte all had absolutely fantastic years in the 'pen, combining to allow 41 ERs in 184 IPs. Buehrle, Garcia, Contreras and Garland all had ERAs well under 4, so there is a perception that they're "struggling" now.
They are struggling. I didn't expect them to repeat 2005, but I did expect them to be better than they have been. I think they will step up in the second half, though. Buehrle is better than this, Garcia is better than this, and Garland had better numbers when he was Mr. Mediocrity. This staff has overall underachieved, and not according to their 2005 numbers, but according to their careers.

Frater Perdurabo
07-03-2006, 09:04 AM
The 1969 Mets merit some mention with both Nolan Ryan and Tom Seaver in their rotation.

FedEx227
07-03-2006, 09:21 AM
The Minnesota Twins in a few years...

Johnny Mostil
07-03-2006, 10:47 AM
It may not be the "best ever," but the Cleveland staff of the early to mid 1950s--Feller, Lemon, Wynn, Garcia, and, later, all too briefly, Score--was very, very good . . .

Brian26
07-03-2006, 11:01 AM
I believe Hawk has said that this is the best 5 man staff he's ever seen.

Better than Hoyt, Bannister, Dotson, Burns, and Seaver? :D: I'm pretty sure I recall him and JR/EE saying that 22 years ago.

soxfan13
07-03-2006, 11:14 AM
Cubs 2003 and 2004!!!

Paulwny
07-03-2006, 11:32 AM
It may not be the "best ever," but the Cleveland staff of the early to mid 1950s--Feller, Lemon, Wynn, Garcia, and, later, all too briefly, Score--was very, very good . . .

Yep, 54' Indians
Wynn 23-11 2.73 era
Garcia 19-8 2.64 era
Lemon 23-7 2.72era
Feller 13-3 3.09era

Lip Man 1
07-03-2006, 11:32 AM
With all due respect this staff doesn't even make the best White Sox staff of all time, let alone the best ever in baseball.

May I suggest you look through the records for the Sox pitching staffs from 1963 through 1967. Paying particular attention to the 1964 and 1967 ones.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
07-03-2006, 12:07 PM
With all due respect this staff doesn't even make the best White Sox staff of all time, let alone the best ever in baseball.

May I suggest you look through the records for the Sox pitching staffs from 1963 through 1967. Paying particular attention to the 1964 and 1967 ones.

Lip

I agree that those staffs were awesome, but it's difficult to compare numbers from today's pitchers to those back then.

Horlen, Peters, et. al. played in a cavernous Comiskey Park and pitched during an era when pitchers had the advantage of higher mounds and did not have to contend with the designated hitter. I'm not saying that this year's staff is better that the mid-60s Sox staffs, but rather that we have to consider the staffs in the context of their respective eras.

Furthermore, the 2005 Sox starters were better than the 2006 starters. Vazquez may have better stuff than El Duque, but last year el Duque and McCarthy combined for a better ERA than Vazquez. Garland also was much better in 2005 than he has been so far this year (as has Buehrle, for that matter).

Daver
07-03-2006, 12:08 PM
The Dodgers of the mid sixties had a pretty impressive staff.

TommyJohn
07-03-2006, 12:31 PM
I would say the 1967 White Sox have to rank up there.
Gary Peters
Tommy John
Joel Horlen

and out of the bullpen:
Bob Locker
Don McMahon
Hoyt Wilhelm
Wilbur Wood

How about the 1920 White Sox? Only one of two teams with four 20 game
winners. Impressive, even if two of them were crooks.

Best staff of ALL time is pretty hard to say, though. I would lean towards
the Braves of the '90's.

Tiger23
07-03-2006, 12:35 PM
About the mid sixties staff:

There was an argument about Inge as the Tiger's third baseman. A poster argued in his favor saying the 68 Tigers won with Ray Oyler, who had a very low batting average. Another poster countered by saying there was only one player in the entire majors that year who hit over .300. The point made above about the higher mound and such is dead on, as this was a dominant pitching era.

I believe there are statistics that figure the league average and ballpark dimensions into the equation. It honestly seems reasonable that someone could come up with a bonefide "best rotation ever" that has the support of these statistics.

slobes
07-03-2006, 12:55 PM
Wasn't it an Orioles team in the 70's that had four 20 game winners in a season? Granted it was a four man rotation, but still a pretty darn impressive feat.

buehrle4cy05
07-03-2006, 01:00 PM
'98 Braves:
Maddux 18-9, 2.22 ERA
Glavine: 20-6 2.47 ERA
Smoltz 17-3 2.90 ERA
Neagle: 16-11 3.55 ERA
Millwood 17-8 4.08 ERA

That's a record of 88-37, ERA of 3.04.

DSpivack
07-03-2006, 01:04 PM
About the mid sixties staff:

There was an argument about Inge as the Tiger's third baseman. A poster argued in his favor saying the 68 Tigers won with Ray Oyler, who had a very low batting average. Another poster countered by saying there was only one player in the entire majors that year who hit over .300. The point made above about the higher mound and such is dead on, as this was a dominant pitching era.

I believe there are statistics that figure the league average and ballpark dimensions into the equation. It honestly seems reasonable that someone could come up with a bonefide "best rotation ever" that has the support of these statistics.

I'm no stathead or FOBB, but that's why I like stats like ERA+ or OPS+, which measures against the rest of that particular league that season. I was perusing through Baseball Reference and trying to figure out the team with the best ERA+ ever, but couldn't figure out how to do that other than looking at individual team pages. That said, it's certainly not a perfect stat; as Pedro has the highest ERA+ of all time (for both ERA+ and OPS+, 100 is league average).

Johnny Mostil
07-03-2006, 01:07 PM
I agree that those staffs were awesome, but it's difficult to compare numbers from today's pitchers to those back then.

Horlen, Peters, et. al. played in a cavernous Comiskey Park and pitched during an era when pitchers had the advantage of higher mounds and did not have to contend with the designated hitter. I'm not saying that this year's staff is better that the mid-60s Sox staffs, but rather that we have to consider the staffs in the context of their respective eras.

Furthermore, the 2005 Sox starters were better than the 2006 starters. Vazquez may have better stuff than El Duque, but last year el Duque and McCarthy combined for a better ERA than Vazquez. Garland also was much better in 2005 than he has been so far this year (as has Buehrle, for that matter).

FWIW, the ERA+ for the '05 Sox was 123. The '64 and '67 Sox both had an ERA+ of 126. The '65 Sox had and ERA+ of 106, and the '66 Sox had one of 118.

Lip Man 1
07-03-2006, 03:37 PM
Frater:

And the Sox of the early / mid 60's also had less offense and were playing against better overall compitition in the major leagues weren't they?

Let's put it this way...if somehow guys like Peters, Horlen, John, Pizarro, Buzhardt, Wilhelm, McMahon, Mossi, Locker and Wood were able to pitch today they'd still be very, very good because they spent years in the minors learning their craft.

And that's not knocking the Sox staffs of 1983 or 1990 or 1993 or 1994.....I'm just saying don't devalue the staffs of the 60's because they played in a 'pitcher's park.' The guys in the 60's were proven winners, experienced pitchers who beat most comers.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
07-03-2006, 03:48 PM
Frater:

And the Sox of the early / mid 60's also had less offense and were playing against better overall compitition in the major leagues weren't they?

Let's put it this way...if somehow guys like Peters, Horlen, John, Pizarro, Buzhardt, Wilhelm, McMahon, Mossi, Locker and Wood were able to pitch today they'd still be very, very good because they spent years in the minors learning their craft.

And that's not knocking the Sox staffs of 1983 or 1990 or 1993 or 1994.....I'm just saying don't devalue the staffs of the 60's because they played in a 'pitcher's park.' The guys in the 60's were proven winners, experienced pitchers who beat most comers.

Lip

Oh I agree, Lip. I'm not devaluing the 60s staffs at all. I'm just saying that it's really difficult to compare staffs from just 40 years ago to those of today because of the changes to the game over that time. Heck, it's difficult to compare the 83 or even 93/94 staffs to the 2005/06 staffs.

It's too bad a couple of those 60s teams had to settle for second place behind the Yankees given that there were no divisions or Wild Cards back then. Of course, without divisions or Wild Cards the 1983 and 2000 White Sox would have made it to the World Series (so would the 2005 team, of course!).

ma-gaga
07-03-2006, 07:43 PM
I know this is a propellerhead suggestion, but you have to use Park Factors, or League Factors when considering this. The 1960's teams are all going to look damn good compared to 1998 teams.

ERA+ at a minimum.

Personally, I always hated the 1991 Braves staff, but that was BEFORE they signed Maddux. I think the 1993, 1994, 1995 Braves staff was pretty lights out. Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine, and Avery. They called them "the four aces". And I don't think they were far off...

holy crap, take a look at the 1998 Braves (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ATL/1998.shtml) staff... ERA+ of 130, Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux, Neagle and Millwood. Insane looking staff. The team won 106 games.

Too bad they got beat in the playoffs...

santo=dorf
07-03-2006, 09:04 PM
Look at the innings the 1980 A's pitching staff ate up.

SP Rick Langford (http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/langfri01.shtml) 3.26 19 12 290.0
SP Mike Norris (http://www.baseball-reference.com/n/norrimi01.shtml) 2.53 22 9 284.3
SP Matt Keough (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/keougma02.shtml) 2.92 16 13 250.0
SP Steve McCatty (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mccatst01.shtml) 3.86 14 14 221.7
SP Brian Kingman (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kingmbr01.shtml) 3.83 8 20 211.3

ma-gaga
07-04-2006, 12:41 AM
the 1998 Braves (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ATL/1998.shtml) staff...

crap, I hate it when I miss posts. B4Cy already cited the 1998 Atlanta team, and Mostil covered the ERA+ stuff.

The Yankees/Mariners staffs that won 115+ games MUST have been good. [checking stats] ... nah. ERA+ of 119/117 respectively. They won by balance.

hmm.. even the 1927 Yankees (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/1927.shtml) only had an ERA+ of 120. I guess I'd go with the Braves team.

areilly
07-04-2006, 01:15 AM
I'm only going to speak for teams that I watched during my lifetime, and in doing so I nominate the 1993 White Sox. :cool:


Just kidding. I always remember thinking the 1992 Jays rotation was tops: Jack Morris, Jimmy Key, Juan Guzman, Todd Stottlemyre, and Dave Stieb. Morris and Guzman really fell apart after that, but what a case of right place at the right time for all of them.

DSpivack
07-04-2006, 01:41 AM
I'm only going to speak for teams that I watched during my lifetime, and in doing so I nominate the 1993 White Sox. :cool:


Just kidding. I always remember thinking the 1992 Jays rotation was tops: Jack Morris, Jimmy Key, Juan Guzman, Todd Stottlemyre, and Dave Stieb. Morris and Guzman really fell apart after that, but what a case of right place at the right time for all of them.

Those two Jays teams were well balanced: the 1993 team (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TOR/1993.shtml) had an OPS+ of 109 and an ERA+ of 104. Guzman and Hentgen were their only above-average starters, though all 5 were guys (Guzman, Hentgen, Stottlemyre, Stewart, Morris) who could pitch deep into games. They had Jack Morris, but he certainly didn't have a good season. Olerud, Alomar, Carter, and Molitor provided a good O.

The 1992 team (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TOR/1992.shtml) was very good with Morris, Key and Guzman at the top, but Stottlemyre and Stieb were nothing special. Henke and Ward were their only good bullpen guys. OPS+ of 105, ERA+ of 105. Heck the 1991 Jays team (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TOR/1991.shtml) was a much better staff, an ERA+ of 121; Stottlemyre, Keys, Guzman, David Wells, and Candiotti.

PKalltheway
07-06-2006, 12:37 AM
The 1971 Orioles had FOUR 20 game winners. FOUR. I don't care if it was a four man rotation, that's still pretty amazing considering nobody else at the time could do it.

This man didn't think too highly of their "pitching staff" in that year's World Series though:
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8350/clemente0ec.png (http://imageshack.us)

Zisk77
07-06-2006, 09:10 AM
Better than Hoyt, Bannister, Dotson, Burns, and Seaver? :D: I'm pretty sure I recall him and JR/EE saying that 22 years ago.

Seaver didn't pitch with the Sox in 83' came in 84' after Hoyt was traded for Ozzie amongst others. Jerry Koosman was the other 83' starter. Also koos was on that 69 Mets team

Johnny Mostil
07-06-2006, 09:19 AM
Seaver didn't pitch with the Sox in 83' came in 84' after Hoyt was traded for Ozzie amongst others. Jerry Koosman was the other 83' starter. Also koos was on that 69 Mets team

Hoyt and Seaver were both on the '84 staff (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/1984.shtml). Hoyt was traded in December '84. The '84 staff had an ERA+ of 100; the '83 staff, 114.

ode to veeck
07-06-2006, 10:59 AM
The 1971 Orioles had FOUR 20 game winners. FOUR. I don't care if it was a four man rotation, that's still pretty amazing considering nobody else at the time could do it.

This man didn't think too highly of their "pitching staff" in that year's World Series though:
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8350/clemente0ec.png (http://imageshack.us)

One of the best WS ever

Ol' No. 2
07-06-2006, 11:58 AM
'98 Braves:
Maddux 18-9, 2.22 ERA
Glavine: 20-6 2.47 ERA
Smoltz 17-3 2.90 ERA
Neagle: 16-11 3.55 ERA
Millwood 17-8 4.08 ERA

That's a record of 88-37, ERA of 3.04.That's the only team since 1930 to sport FIVE 15-game winners.

Grzegorz
07-06-2006, 08:56 PM
One of the best WS ever

Roberto Clemente was one of the greatest ever to pull on a baseball uniform.

Hitmen77
07-06-2006, 09:35 PM
so, what is Hawk smoking if he thinks the '06 Sox 5-man rotation is the best he's ever seen.

Has he seen Vazquez pitch for the last month? What about Garland for just about all but the last 4 starts?

I enjoy Hawk's homerism to a certain extent, but come on.

Johnny Mostil
07-06-2006, 09:58 PM
so, what is Hawk smoking if he thinks the '06 Sox 5-man rotation is the best he's ever seen.

Has he seen Vazquez pitch for the last month? What about Garland for just about all but the last 4 starts?

I enjoy Hawk's homerism to a certain extent, but come on.

Actually, the original post claimed Hawk said this year's staff is one of the best he's ever seen. And the weird thing is, in one sense he may be right. He never played for a team with a great pitching staff. And even with the problems you rightly note, this is still one of the best he's seen in the years he's been associated with the Sox.

But yeah, he probably meant something more than that, but exactly what I don't know . . . :smokin:

DSpivack
07-07-2006, 12:29 AM
Actually, the original post claimed Hawk said this year's staff is one of the best he's ever seen. And the weird thing is, in one sense he may be right. He never played for a team with a great pitching staff. And even with the problems you rightly note, this is still one of the best he's seen in the years he's been associated with the Sox.

But yeah, he probably meant something more than that, but exactly what I don't know . . . :smokin:
I don't have the exact quote, but I think he said this is one of the best 5-man staffs he has ever seen. In that sense I believe he is right; even if some of our guys have ERAs around 5.00, it still is unusual to have five solid pitchers as the Sox do now. I don't know if any other team really does; perhaps Detroit if Zach Miner does well.

TheKittle
07-07-2006, 12:48 AM
Ryan was NOT a starter on the 69 Mets. He started 10 games but two other pitchers for the Mets, McAndrews and Cardwell started 20 or so games.

The Orioles 4, 20 games winners was very impressive but more impressive is:

3 of the starters pitched, 280 innings or more and the fourth pitched 224.

3 had ERA less than 3 and the fourth had a 3.08.

Only one, Palmer allowed 100 walks.

Can any staff match those numbers?

Johnny Mostil
07-07-2006, 07:38 AM
Ryan was NOT a starter on the 69 Mets. He started 10 games but two other pitchers for the Mets, McAndrews and Cardwell started 20 or so games.

The Orioles 4, 20 games winners was very impressive but more impressive is:

3 of the starters pitched, 280 innings or more and the fourth pitched 224.

3 had ERA less than 3 and the fourth had a 3.08.

Only one, Palmer allowed 100 walks.

Can any staff match those numbers?

I'm not sure if it's a match, but I'll go back to the '54 Indians:

Wynn, 23-11, 2.73 ERA, 270+ IP, 155 K, 83 BB
Garcia, 19-8, 2.64 ERA, 258+ IP, 129 K, 71 BB
Lemon, 23-7, 2.72 ERA, 258+ IP, 110 K, 92 BB
Houtteman, 15-7, 3.35 ERA, 188 IP, 68 K, 59 BB
Feller, 13-3, 3.09 ERA, 140 IP, 59 K, 39 BB

So three pitched at least 258 innings, three had an ERA below 3.00, and three went to the HoF. ERA+ for the entire staff was 132 (compared to ERA+ of 112 for '71 Orioles).

Ol' No. 2
07-07-2006, 01:36 PM
I don't have the exact quote, but I think he said this is one of the best 5-man staffs he has ever seen. In that sense I believe he is right; even if some of our guys have ERAs around 5.00, it still is unusual to have five solid pitchers as the Sox do now. I don't know if any other team really does; perhaps Detroit if Zach Miner does well.The five Sox starters currently have 45 wins, having played just over half the season. Garland has the fewest with 8. They could well become only the second team since 1930 to have FIVE 15+ game winners. ERA and run support be damned, that's a still quite an accomplishment.

kwolf68
07-07-2006, 01:39 PM
Remember after 1983.....

We had Lamar Hoyt, Floyd Bannister, Rich Dotson, Britt Burns I believe and we picked up Tom Seaver....some said that was going to be the best rotation ever and I think the 84 team flamed to about a .500 record.

Lets just play some baseball and count it all up at the end.

Johnny Mostil
07-07-2006, 02:50 PM
Remember after 1983.....

We had Lamar Hoyt, Floyd Bannister, Rich Dotson, Britt Burns I believe and we picked up Tom Seaver....some said that was going to be the best rotation ever and I think the 84 team flamed to about a .500 record.

Lets just play some baseball and count it all up at the end.

.500? I wish. That team finished 74-88. And it's debatable how enduring a mark any of those pitchers later left on the Sox (e.g., Hoyt was traded after the season, Burns and Seaver only pitched for the Sox one more full season each). Although I suppose the trade of Hoyt (by bringing Guillen here) did play some small role in the '05 Series win . . .

ode to veeck
07-07-2006, 02:54 PM
Lets just play some baseball and count it all up at the end.

Best post in the thread

TheKittle
07-07-2006, 03:09 PM
Remember after 1983.....

We had Lamar Hoyt, Floyd Bannister, Rich Dotson, Britt Burns I believe and we picked up Tom Seaver....some said that was going to be the best rotation ever and I think the 84 team flamed to about a .500 record.

Lets just play some baseball and count it all up at the end.

This is a great point since the 54 Indians and the 71 Orioles lost in the WS.

Lip Man 1
07-07-2006, 05:54 PM
The 84 Sox collapsed after the All Star Break (they had won seven straight heading into it and were in first place) and finished with a record of 74-88.

Lip