11 replies to this topic

[OttoC]

I split this out to highlight the effort and because I think it is an interesting discussion topic on it's own. - smastroyin

I decided to look at this year's starting staffs so I used espn.com's sortable player stats to call up all pitchers who had at least one start. After arbitrarily deciding that the pitcher with the most starts was the number one starter for his club, I assigned the number 1 to all those pitchers, the number 2 to the pitcher with the next most starts for the team, and so on down the line, breaking ties by most innings pitched.

Then, I computed stats for each group (#=number 1 pitchers, number 2 pitchers, etc.)

 #  #P   H/9   BR/9   HR/9   K/9  K/BB  Won Lost  Win%   ERA    G   GS   xGS Sv SvO     IP
  1  30   9.10  11.98  1.10  6.61  2.58  270  200  .574  4.08  644  644  21.5  0  0  4151.0
  2  30   9.17  12.56  1.07  6.32  2.09  258  183  .585  4.24  617  615  20.5  0  0  3779.7
  3  30   9.66  13.11  1.14  5.60  1.83  206  210  .495  4.80  591  547  18.2  1  4  3291.0
  4  30   9.72  13.29  1.27  6.06  1.88  149  193  .436  5.04  507  449  15.0  4  8  2651.0
  5  30  10.24  13.88  1.31  6.04  1.89  114  131  .465  5.18  411  335  11.2  2  2  1989.0
  6  29  10.20  14.48  1.29  5.86  1.60   62   86  .419  5.25  351  193   6.4  1  4  1267.7
  7  26   9.93  14.61  1.30  6.23  1.50   28   49  .364  5.40  233  107   3.6  2  3   729.3
  8  21  10.60  14.73  1.23  5.19  1.38   29   35  .453  5.09  214   64   2.1  2  9   546.7
  9  14  11.24  16.32  1.42  7.06  1.48    7   22  .241  7.13  105   34   1.1  0  0   241.0
10  11  11.11  15.73  1.88  6.01  1.44    5   15  .250  6.92   72   23   0.8  1  1   167.7
11   5  11.94  17.10  0.54  5.56  1.24    4    7  .364  7.06   24   11   0.4  0  1    66.3
12   2   7.94  12.39  1.59  8.58  1.93    1    3  .250  5.72   13    4   0.1  0  0    28.3

#P is how many teams had a pitcher in a given group (in other words, Seattle has only used five starters this year)
BR/9 is baserunners per nine innings (H+BB+HP)
xGS is average number of games started by a given group...the rest should be self-explanatory.

It's obvious that there is a fall-off after the number 1 and number 2 pitchers in terms of average number of games started and in performance. As the clubs have played about 100 games at this point in the season, one might expect to see each of THE five starting spots having approximately 20 starts apiece; however, number 4 starters only account for 75% of that share and number 5 starters, barely 50%.

Pitching is at a premium.

In the case of the Red Sox, their numbers 1 and 2 starters have combined for a 26-8 record, 18 games over .500. The club, itself, is only 21 games over. Two starting pitchers who can win two-thirds of their starts, supported by a .500 starter and two .450-starters, will get a club pretty far (about 89 wins). A good offense will help push that into contention area. As also can been seen, getting wins from pitchers in the 6-12 spots is not easy. A healthy David Wells, along with the seeming emergence of Jon Lester as a pitcher, should provide ample support for Schilling and Beckett regardless of who is in the fifth spot. The club probably is in more need of solid relief efforts than a high-priced (salary and cost of obtaining)number 3 or 4 pitcher. I would not be inclined to trade any of the top prospects for a starting pitcher.

[cliffintheDR]

Pitching is at a premium.

In the case of the Red Sox, their numbers 1 and 2 starters have combined for a 26-8 record, 18 games over .500. The club, itself, is only 21 games over. Two starting pitchers who can win two-thirds of their starts, supported by a .500 starter and two .450-starters, will get a club pretty far (about 89 wins). A good offense will help push that into contention area. As also can been seen, getting wins from pitchers in the 6-12 spots is not easy. A healthy David Wells, along with the seeming emergence of Jon Lester as a pitcher, should provide ample support for Schilling and Beckett regardless of who is in the fifth spot. The club probably is in more need of solid relief efforts than a high-priced (salary and cost of obtaining)number 3 or 4 pitcher. I would not be inclined to trade any of the top prospects for a starting pitcher.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was going to say the same thing, but without showing my work, like you did.

That's really impressive Otto.

In reference to the article listed a few posts back, the only pertinent information I took from it was "not unless they're faced with an offer too juicy to turn down".

I can't fathom why the Saaawx would give up any of their blue-chippers that have proven their worth at the ML level (albeit in a small sample - Hansen, DelCarmen et al) or any on the farm that have a path to a role in 07.

Per Otto's brilliance I say that Snyder is fine with me for now. If fortune gives us the opponents 4th or 5th starter, we have the guns to win 9-7 games.

I'm counting on a few starts from Wells, and Foulke may turn out to be a big lift - that a trade might also provide - but at serious cost. A trade would be a NEW part too. I thought Foulke showed some positive signs before going down. Further, I think he's deserving of a shot to contribute.

The Philly rumors are nonsense IMO. I'd really like to see Willy Mo stay, but he is definitely a worthy bargaining chip, that's the only player I can see moving for an "add-on".

[ToeKneeArmAss]

Per Otto's brilliance I say that Snyder is fine with me for now. If fortune gives us the opponents 4th or 5th starter, we have the guns to win 9-7 games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed - great analysis. But I'm not convinced I buy the conclusion, especially when it pivots on a sentence like this:

A healthy David Wells, along with the seeming emergence of Jon Lester as a pitcher, should provide ample support for Schilling and Beckett regardless of who is in the fifth spot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I for one am not willing to put my hopes for this season on a healthy David Wells. And we should all wake up every day, hit our knees, and give thanks to our favorite deity for Jon Lester ... and not be surprised if his great performance doesn't continue, as teams get a second look at him.

No disrespect to the brilliance of OttoC, but my perspective leans towards the brilliance of the great philosopher who penned my tagline:

Edited by ToeKneeArmAss, 28 July 2006 - 06:26 AM.

[OttoC]

...I'm not convinced I buy the conclusion, especially when it pivots on a sentence like this:

A healthy David Wells, along with the seeming emergence of Jon Lester as a pitcher, should provide ample support...

I for one am not willing to put my hopes for this season on a healthy David Wells. ...Jon Lester ... and not be surprised if his great performance doesn't continue, as teams get a second look at him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps I Should have said Wells, along with the seeming emergence of Jon Lester would provide.... However, since the return of Wakefield would give them a solid number 3 starter (and Clement may return effectively, too), I'd be inclined to maintain theh status quo.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Is the performance of Schilling and Beckett predictive to winning 2/3 of their starts, though?

[Tudor Fever]

Very nice piece of analysis. A couple of comments:

- I do have a problem with its excessive focus on won-loss record, which is to a large extent a function of luck. It also makes Beckett appear more valuable so far this season than he actually has been.

- The steadily ascending ERA from Starter #1 through Starter #7 jumps out at me, and provides excellent support for the points you are making.

- My takeaway from this analysis is that we shouldn't pay much for someone who would just be a fourth or fifth starter, but that it might be worth paying more for a stud who would round out the top three.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Another point here....

Based on the defintions, the Sox top 5 would be as follows...

1- Schilling
2- Beckett
3- Wakefield
4- Clement
5- Lester

So, the Sox are currently without their #3 and #4...doesn't that change things?

[ShaneTrot]

I am amazed at the fall off from the 2 spot. It seems hard to believe until you look at the third starter on a lot of teams. Plus this analysis includes teams who's number one starter, I am looking at you KC, Sea, Cle etc, that have no business being ranked with a Schilling, Mussina etc.

I still would rather have an upgrade over Snyder. He has had a lot of arm problems and consequently has not thrown a lot of innings. Plus he cannot reliably deliver more than 4 innings. Wells maybe the savior but we need to see him pitch a real game before we can say he's back or not.

Edited by ShaneTrot, 28 July 2006 - 08:03 AM.

[Paul M]

My favorite piece of this strong effort is the macro view. The dearth of pitching league-wide and how very few teams probably boast of a good #5.

I ran my scenario with basically .650 for 1/2 and .525 for the rest because we have a lot of home games.

A lot may ride on how long they think Wakefield is out, since getting over 50% from Lester, Wells, and Snyder might be tough.

[Rudy Pemberton]

My favorite piece of this strong effort is the macro view. The dearth of pitching league-wide and how very few teams probably boast of a good #5.

I think that is true..but this data isn't necessarily showing it. Since the determination of what # in the staff a player is is determined by number of starts, a good #5 in reality is almost surely going to move up to be a #4 or #3 if he stays in the rotation...because those who aren't good get pulled from the rotation, guys get hurt, etc.

The Sox #5 here is Lester..ideally he is a #5, but right now he's a #3 or #4.

If you look at the #5's in the AL based on this criteria, you get the following

BOS: Lester
NYY: Chacon
TOR: Chacin
BAL: Chen
TB: Shields

DET: Maroth
CWS: Vazquez
MIN: Baker
CLE: Jason Johnson
KC: Duckworth

OAK: Saarloos
LAA: Colon (Weaver is their #6)
TEX: Rheinecker
SEA: Felix Hernandez

Are any of these actually the current #5 on their team? Many are not even on active rosters right now, or in rotations at all.

[Paul M]

I don't mean it so literally; I mean there's a real bifurcation among the top (1/2) and the bottom (4-infinity).

At least it puts into perspective that

1. You truly can never have enough pitching
2. Most teams go through at least 7 starters
3. A weak 5th starter is normal and to be expected

Those teams that 4 or even 5 above average starters should be expected to win divisions, pennants, and World Series.

[OttoC]

A slightly different look at the pitching breakdown between my 1-5 starters divides each group into above .500, .500, and below .500 winning percentages. As can be seen, the better number 1 starters (or those pitching for better clubs) have a higher overall winning percentage than the corresponding number 2 starters group, which in turn is better than the number 3 group. There is an anomaly here with the numbers 4 and 5 groups, whose winning percentages higher than I would have expected. This may be due to call-ups such as Jered Weaver and Jon Lester who are filling in slots below where they will eventually end up.

You see the same type of progression among the below-.500 pitchers where the number 1s as a group are better than the number 2s, etc., in winning percentage. This probably all should be looked at with an eye towards the teams' winning percentages by group, but that will have to wait.

#  ------- >.500 ------| ---.500--- | ------ <.500 -----
1  179- 87 (.673)  x17 | 41-41   x5 | 50- 72 (.410)  x 8
2  208-120 (.634)  x22 | 25-25   x4 | 25- 38 (.397)  x 4
3  114- 72 (.613)  x13 | 26-26   x4 | 66-112 (.371)  x13
4   60- 30 (.667)  x 8 | 20-20   x3 | 69-143 (.325)  x19
5   55- 34 (.618)  x 9 | 22-22   x6 | 37- 75 (.330)  x15

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!

The analysis and this follow-up may not be the most sophisicated look at this matter, but I do think it shows what I intended: the dearth of pitching and the suggestion that teams might not need to set their sights so high in filling the 3-5 slots.