PDA

View Full Version : An interesting take on starting pitching


eastchicagosoxfan
01-23-2008, 04:01 PM
There's a good article in Sports Illustrated that really points out just how important five solid starters are to a team's success. The Sox have two solid guys in Buerhle and Javy, a proven yet shaky guy in Jose, and two big question marks in Danks and Floyd. The great teams get a ton of value from their starting five, and don't go to the well too often as aresult of injury or ineffectiveness.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/tom_verducci/01/22/rotation.stability/index.html

Daver
01-23-2008, 04:06 PM
I've been saying pitching is the most valuable thing a team can have for years here.

eastchicagosoxfan
01-23-2008, 04:10 PM
I've been saying pitching is the most valuable thing a team can have for years here.

I'm part of the chior you've been preaching to.

SoxNation05
01-23-2008, 04:12 PM
I've been saying pitching is the most valuable thing a team can have for years here.
Is this a serious post. Almost every person on WSI knows that pitching is the most important and valuable thing for a team.

Daver
01-23-2008, 04:20 PM
Is this a serious post. Almost every person on WSI knows that pitching is the most important and valuable thing for a team.

Then why is the GM trading it away for old short stops?

SoxNation05
01-23-2008, 04:24 PM
Then why is the GM trading it away for old short stops?
What the GM does is completely irrelevant. We do not have the chips to trade for a 1 or 2 starter and he is upgrading elsewhere to say he didn't make this team better for 08' and further you are wrong.

PennStater98r
01-23-2008, 04:36 PM
What the GM does is completely irrelevant. We do not have the chips to trade for a 1 or 2 starter and he is upgrading elsewhere to say he didn't make this team better for 08' and further you are wrong.

So I understand that the previous post that you're responding to is a rhetorical question. Further, I understand that what you're trying to say is a comment to what Daver implied with his rhetorical question.

That said, he's not wrong in the least based on what he posted. Our GM did trade away Starting Pitching for a Shortstop and good Starting Pitching is the corner of any good team.

If anything is wrong in this thread, it's posting that Daver is wrong in either of his statements.

eastchicagosoxfan
01-23-2008, 06:23 PM
Prior to the Garland trade the Sox had three solid guys, with Contreras and a question mark in the five spot. So, at worst, two question marks. Now they have two, and if you count Jose, three. The starters don't have to dominate all season long; they have to consistently eat innings and keep the team in the game. If Jose and the four and five spots pan out, KW is a genius. Nothing new here, it's been rehashed thousands of times on this board. But when you look at the teams that win it all, a team has to be rock solid 1-4, and they need a good work from five, and a strong candidate to spot start in case of injury. By trading Garland, they've opened a hole and created an opportunity. Time will tell.

A. Cavatica
01-23-2008, 08:07 PM
Then why is the GM trading it away for old short stops?

Because he's not on WSI. :smile:

SBSoxFan
01-23-2008, 09:58 PM
There's a good article in Sports Illustrated that really points out just how important five solid starters are to a team's success. The Sox have two solid guys in Buerhle and Javy, a proven yet shaky guy in Jose, and two big question marks in Danks and Floyd. The great teams get a ton of value from their starting five, and don't go to the well too often as aresult of injury or ineffectiveness.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/tom_verducci/01/22/rotation.stability/index.html

Prior to the Garland trade the Sox had three solid guys, with Contreras and a question mark in the five spot. So, at worst, two question marks. Now they have two, and if you count Jose, three. The starters don't have to dominate all season long; they have to consistently eat innings and keep the team in the game. If Jose and the four and five spots pan out, KW is a genius. Nothing new here, it's been rehashed thousands of times on this board. But when you look at the teams that win it all, a team has to be rock solid 1-4, and they need a good work from five, and a strong candidate to spot start in case of injury. By trading Garland, they've opened a hole and created an opportunity. Time will tell.

What's meant by a "great" team? How many teams are actually talented enough 1-5 that they get major contributions from only 5 starters. The 2005 White Sox and Cardinals were great teams; The White Sox had 5 guys make 152 starts, and only used one additional starter. The Cardinals had 5 guys make 160 starts that year, using 7 starters total. The 2007 Cleveland Indians, on the other hand, got a "whopping" 22 starts out of number's 6 and 7.

The above numbers would seem to give more support to the article's surmise. So, I wondered if you could find similar numbers for bad teams too. Well, the 2007 White Sox had all but 12 starts from 5 guys. That's only 2 more than the 2005 team. Also, notice how the 2007 Red Sox had 17 more "second-tier" starts than the 2004 Red Sox. So, perhaps it's more about being good (and deep) than being stable. :dunno:

fusillirob1983
01-23-2008, 10:45 PM
If you look at starting pitching stats for 2005 and 2007, you will see major differences across all playoff teams.

You can start with the Sox and Cardinals in 2005. Houston had a pretty stacked rotation too, not a good 1-5, but they proved to be dangerous 1-4 to carry that lineup to the World Series.

You can't really say there was a reliable 1-5 in all of baseball in 2007 that lasted throughout the season. Among playoff teams, the Red Sox and Angels probably came close in terms of having guys you'd be comfortable with starting a playoff game.