PDA

View Full Version : Best pitching staff in baseball



AppGuy04
May 11th, 2007, 08:47 AM
ok, GO...

Personally, I would have to go with Boston, with the Cubs a close 2nd

Col Hogan
May 11th, 2007, 08:56 AM
If we are talking facts, as in right now...

Red Sox hands down.

Beckett - 7-0 Best in the Majors
Wakefield - ERA of 1.79, Best in the AL
Papelbon - best ERA among Top 5 closers - 1.46


If we want to talk ifs or whens...then you're blowing in the wind...xcoffeex

AppGuy04
May 11th, 2007, 08:59 AM
I'm talking right now

Col Hogan
May 11th, 2007, 09:01 AM
I'm talking right now

Just wanted to make sure...some folks want to talk about when so&so gets better...or when so&so shows up...I won't say Yankees fans do that, but....xwhistlex

SunCoastBlueHen
May 11th, 2007, 09:02 AM
It is hard to argue against using team ERA as a measuring stick to determine best pitching staff, giving consideration to the fact that the AL would be expected to yield slightly higher ERAs due to the DH.

Here are the current top team ERAs as of today:

1. New York Mets NL 2.90
2. Oakland Athletics 3.07
3. Boston Red Sox AL 3.17
4. Los Angeles Dodgers NL 3.27
5. Milwaukee Brewers NL 3.33
6. Chicago Cubs NL 3.37
7. San Diego Padres NL 3.52
8. Los Angeles Angels AL 3.55
9. Arizona Diamondbacks NL 3.66
10. Minnesota Twins AL 3.69
11. Chicago White Sox AL 3.78
12. San Francisco Giants NL 3.93
13. Atlanta Braves NL 3.96
14. Cincinnati Reds NL 4.03
15. Houston Astros NL 4.08

Looks to me like the Mets and A's get the nod for best staff to date.

AppGuy04
May 11th, 2007, 09:03 AM
The Facts

ERA
Mets 2.90
A's 3.07
Red Sox 3.17
Dodgers 3.27
Brewers 3.33
Cubs 3.37

WHIP
A's 1.16
Red Sox 1.18
Padres 1.20
Cubs 1.21
White Sox 1.22
Mets 1.23

CCU97
May 11th, 2007, 09:03 AM
Although I am a Braves fan....right now the Mets have the best team ERA in the majors at 2.90 so I would have to say the Mets...It doesn't matter how many strikeouts you get, it doesn't matter how many hits you allow(which they allow the fewest), it doesn't matter how many walks you give up....the name of the game is keep the other guy from scoring more than you do....the Mets have much fewer saves than most teams...but that is because the games are won by more than 3....

Boston and the A's would be a very close second though. Right now Beckett is having a career year!

AppGuy04
May 11th, 2007, 09:04 AM
Just wanted to make sure...some folks want to talk about when so&so gets better...or when so&so shows up...I won't say Yankees fans do that, but....xwhistlex

Yeah, I know, there are a handful of teams you can make the argument for, but the Yanks are not one of them and won't be when Clemens comes on board

as a caviot, if it wasn't for Zambrano(who woulda thought that), the Cubs would be top 2 or 3 in all categories

Col Hogan
May 11th, 2007, 09:06 AM
It is hard to argue against using team ERA as a measuring stick to determine best pitching staff, giving consideration to the fact that the AL would be expected to yield slightly higher ERAs due to the DH.

Here are the current top team ERAs as of today:

1. New York Mets NL 2.90
2. Oakland Athletics 3.07
3. Boston Red Sox AL 3.17
4. Los Angeles Dodgers NL 3.27
5. Milwaukee Brewers NL 3.33
6. Chicago Cubs NL 3.37
7. San Diego Padres NL 3.52
8. Los Angeles Angels AL 3.55
9. Arizona Diamondbacks NL 3.66
10. Minnesota Twins AL 3.69
11. Chicago White Sox AL 3.78
12. San Francisco Giants NL 3.93
13. Atlanta Braves NL 3.96
14. Cincinnati Reds NL 4.03
15. Houston Astros NL 4.08

Looks to me like the Mets and A's get the nod for best staff to date.

But I think you also need to take into account what the teams have done...I'll give you the Mets, since they are 21 - 12 with that staff...but Oakland is barely above .500 (17-16), so I think you need to take more than ERA into account...JMHO....

AppGuy04
May 11th, 2007, 09:10 AM
Cubs staff:

Marquis- 5-1, 1.70
Hill- 4-1, 1.73
Lilly- 2-2, 2.78
Dempster- 2.50, 7 saves, 1 BS


Zambrano- 3-3, 5.83

SunCoastBlueHen
May 11th, 2007, 09:37 AM
But I think you also need to take into account what the teams have done...I'll give you the Mets, since they are 21 - 12 with that staff...but Oakland is barely above .500 (17-16), so I think you need to take more than ERA into account...JMHO....

Why should a pitching staff be held accountable because a team can't hit? The A's are 24th in the league in runs scored. You could argue that their above .500 record can be attributed solely to the outstanding pitching they have had.

CCU97
May 11th, 2007, 09:38 AM
But I think you also need to take into account what the teams have done...I'll give you the Mets, since they are 21 - 12 with that staff...but Oakland is barely above .500 (17-16), so I think you need to take more than ERA into account...JMHO....

The question was not who is the best team but who is the best pitching staff so you wouldn't...a team can have the worste record in baseball and the best staff....just no offense to win the games....a staff can have an ERA of 1 and still lose ever game 1-0. So ERA is the best judge of who has a better pitching staff...

Col Hogan
May 11th, 2007, 09:44 AM
Why should a pitching staff be held accountable because a team can't hit? The A's are 24th in the league in runs scored. You could argue that their above .500 record can be attributed solely to the outstanding pitching they have had.

Fair enough.....xpeacex

Gil Dobie
May 11th, 2007, 09:47 AM
There's lies, damn lies and statistics.

I'll take the Motor City Kitty's staff over anyone, even with two pitchers currently on the DL.

Dukie95
May 11th, 2007, 09:50 AM
As a Mets fan, I gotta tell ya, I'm fearing the Brewers starters this weekend.

They're putting up Suppan, Sheets and Capuano.

They've quietly put together a pretty impressive staff.

AppGuy04
May 11th, 2007, 09:52 AM
As a Mets fan, I gotta tell ya, I'm fearing the Brewers starters this weekend.

They're putting up Suppan, Sheets and Capuano.

They've quietly put together a pretty impressive staff.

and some of the best young talent out in the field to boot

SunCoastBlueHen
May 11th, 2007, 09:52 AM
There's lies, damn lies and statistics.

I'll take the Motor City Kitty's staff over anyone, even with two pitchers currently on the DL.

With a 4.24 team ERA, you can have 'em. :p

AppGuy04
May 11th, 2007, 09:54 AM
The Cubbies pitching staff is whats keeping me afloat in our fantasy league

bluehenbillk
May 11th, 2007, 10:10 AM
What sticks out to me is I could name the entire Red Sox rotation, their closer & most of their other relief guys really quickly, while I struggle to name more than 1-2 guys on the A's whole staff.

GannonFan
May 11th, 2007, 10:11 AM
What sticks out to me is I could name the entire Red Sox rotation, their closer & most of their other relief guys really quickly, while I struggle to name more than 1-2 guys on the A's whole staff.


East Coast bais - typical. :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

Col Hogan
May 11th, 2007, 10:24 AM
East Coast bais - typical. :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox :p

JoltinJoe
May 11th, 2007, 10:32 AM
It's pointless to have a discussion like this in May. It's a 162-game season. At this time last season, the "worst" pitching staff in the AL, by far, was the Minnesota Twins. But by the end of the year, the Twins had the league's best ERA.

Obviously this thread was intended to goad me into a response. So I'll just note that the Red Sox staff is loaded with what I call statistical front-loaders who don't carry their April brilliance over a 162-game season.

Here's some food for thought:

Curt Schilling (2006): Before All Star Game: 10-3, 3.61
After All-Star Game: 5-4, 4.58

Josh Beckett (2006) Before All-Star Game, 11-4, 4.75
After All-Star Game: 5-7, 5.32

Tim Wakefield (2006) Before All-Star Game: 7-8, 4.05
After All-Star Game: 0-3, 7.40 ERA

Jonathan Papelbon: 20 of first 20 save opportunities; 15 of 21 next save opportunities: 26 saves prior to All-Star Game; 9 saves after All-Star Game

whitey
May 11th, 2007, 10:42 AM
As a Mets fan, I gotta tell ya, I'm fearing the Brewers starters this weekend.

They're putting up Suppan, Sheets and Capuano.

They've quietly put together a pretty impressive staff.

I'm a Mets fan too. Yeah I'm not too happy with the pitching matchups this weekend either. But let's face it. The Brewers haven't really played anyone good yet, except for the Dodgers opening week. Of course that's a by-product of playing in the weaker league and the weakest division in that league.

It'll be interesting to see the result of this series. This is the first time that I've ever been excited to watch a Mets/Brewers series. Ever. That is saying something.

Next weekend it's Subway Series 2007 Part I and barring any rain delays or injuries the Mets will be throwing out there Glavine, Maine and Perez I believe.



As far as the best pitching staff in baseball...it's hard to tell at this point. The Mets staff has given up way too many walks this year and have probably been riding a little lucky in not giving up as many runs as they have. These things always have a way of evening out by years end, although the Mets staff is definitely going to benefit by having one of the best if not the best defense behind them. Pitching half their games in Shea won't hurt either.

The Red Sox and A's ERA in the American League is sick. What do you think their ERA would be if they played in the NL?....Even more sick, so I'm going to have to give them the nod right now.

Honorable Mentions would have to be: Brewers, Cubbies, Dodgers, Angels and Twins.

Gil Dobie
May 11th, 2007, 10:46 AM
With a 4.24 team ERA, you can have 'em. :p

I'll take first place in the Central, and 9-1 in the last 10 games. :D
Jones leads the major's in saves.

Col Hogan
May 11th, 2007, 10:54 AM
It's pointless to have a discussion like this in May. It's a 162-game season. At this time last season, the "worst" pitching staff in the AL, by far, was the Minnesota Twins. But by the end of the year, the Twins had the league's best ERA.

Obviously this thread was intended to goad me into a response. So I'll just note that the Red Sox staff is loaded with what I call statistical front-loaders who don't carry their April brilliance over a 162-game season.

Here's some food for thought:

Curt Schilling (2006): Before All Star Game: 10-3, 3.61
After All-Star Game: 5-4, 4.58

Josh Beckett (2006) Before All-Star Game, 11-4, 4.75
After All-Star Game: 5-7, 5.32

Tim Wakefield (2006) Before All-Star Game: 7-8, 4.05
After All-Star Game: 0-3, 7.40 ERA

Jonathan Papelbon: 20 of first 20 save opportunities; 15 of 21 next save opportunities: 26 saves prior to All-Star Game; 9 saves after All-Star Game

And your assumption is that this will happen again? xcoffeex

And that the Yankees piss-poor performance will blossom into a pitching staff to be feared once the Rocket lands?xrolleyesx

As of today, Oakland has the best staff in the AL followed by the Red Sox. Fact. Can't dispute it. Everything else is pure speculation...fun...but speculation.

NL's best is the Mets...no doubt...and yes, I'd fear the Bru-crew...

JoltinJoe
May 11th, 2007, 11:28 AM
And your assumption is that this will happen again? xcoffeex

And that the Yankees piss-poor performance will blossom into a pitching staff to be feared once the Rocket lands?xrolleyesx

As of today, Oakland has the best staff in the AL followed by the Red Sox. Fact. Can't dispute it. Everything else is pure speculation...fun...but speculation.

NL's best is the Mets...no doubt...and yes, I'd fear the Bru-crew...

My assumption that this will happen again? That's because it happens every year. The Sox get off to a nice start but the Yankees catch them by August. It happens every year.

I assume that the sun will rise tomorrow because it always does. I assume that the Yankees will finish ahead of the Red Sox in the AL East for the same reason: because they always do.:p

GannonFan
May 11th, 2007, 11:59 AM
My assumption that this will happen again? That's because it happens every year. The Sox get off to a nice start but the Yankees catch them by August. It happens every year.

I assume that the sun will rise tomorrow because it always does. I assume that the Yankees will finish ahead of the Red Sox in the AL East for the same reason: because they always do.:p

And the Yankees will then proceed to stumble out of the playoffs again short of the World Series Title - why, because they always do - well, at least in this millenium they do!!!! :p :p :p $1.2 billion dollars (soon to be $1.4B) and still no WS title!!!! :p :p :p :p

JoltinJoe
May 11th, 2007, 12:09 PM
And the Yankees will then proceed to stumble out of the playoffs again short of the World Series Title - why, because they always do - well, at least in this millenium they do!!!! :p :p :p $1.2 billion dollars (soon to be $1.4B) and still no WS title!!!! :p :p :p :p

Stumble out of the playoffs? Like they've done 26 times in the past?

How did the Sox do in the playoffs last year?:p

bluehenbillk
May 11th, 2007, 12:17 PM
My assumption that this will happen again? That's because it happens every year. The Sox get off to a nice start but the Yankees catch them by August. It happens every year.

I assume that the sun will rise tomorrow because it always does. I assume that the Yankees will finish ahead of the Red Sox in the AL East for the same reason: because they always do.:p

Except for the fact that the Red Sox have a ring more recently than the Yankees.

Except for the fact when Mariano Rivera comes into a game now it's a crap shoot, pretty much has been since he came into a game in the 9th inning with a lead in the game & a 3-0 series lead.

Actually, since the year 2000, the Yankees have squat to show for spending more than 1 Billion in payroll. May George die an angry old man.

GannonFan
May 11th, 2007, 12:18 PM
Stumble out of the playoffs? Like they've done 26 times in the past?

How did the Sox do in the playoffs last year?:p

Stop living in the last millenium already!!!!! It's 2007 and the Yanks haven't won a WS this millenium despite forking up over $1.2B in salaries for players alone. As for the Sox, what do I care, I'm not a Sox fan, White or Red. :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

UNHWildCats
May 11th, 2007, 12:19 PM
http://redsox.travisliles.com/

GannonFan
May 11th, 2007, 12:20 PM
Except for the fact that the Red Sox have a ring more recently than the Yankees.

Except for the fact when Mariano Rivera comes into a game now it's a crap shoot, pretty much has been since he came into a game in the 9th inning with a lead in the game & a 3-0 series lead.

Actually, since the year 2000, the Yankees have squat to show for spending more than 1 Billion in payroll. May George die an angry old man.

To quote the great Mel Gibson movie "Payback" ..."Man, that's just mean, that's mean, man!" xlolx

JoltinJoe
May 11th, 2007, 12:48 PM
Stop living in the last millenium already!!!!! It's 2007 and the Yanks haven't won a WS this millenium despite forking up over $1.2B in salaries for players alone. As for the Sox, what do I care, I'm not a Sox fan, White or Red. :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

What do I care what George pays his players? I'm not signing the checks. But if the so-called $1.2 billion in salaries is so important to you, then consider how much money George has made in those six seasons -- easily surpasses $1.2 B. Now also consider that in the last six seasons, George has also put together the most successful regional sports network in the world which, according to a recent issue of Forbes magazine, is worth in and of itself $1.2 B. And the Yankees themselves are worth $1.2B.

I think George is doing pretty well.

Heirs to the Throne?] (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jon_heyman/04/27/dolans.yankees/1.html)

The Yankees were recently estimated by Forbes magazine to be baseball's most valuable franchise, at about $1.2 billion, but that guess may be short. Even so, that represents a 120-fold increase over the approximate $10 million Steinbrenner paid CBS for the team in January 1973.

Experts have estimated the team's TV network to be worth close to as much as the team, meaning possibly another $1.2 billion.


bluehenkill: Papelbon or Rivera? Come September, you'll want Rivera. :p

P.S. -- I know the Sox got a "ring," their first in 86 years. But do you call yourselves "World Champions" when you actually finished in second place by a healthy margin?

bluehenbillk
May 11th, 2007, 12:59 PM
bluehenkill: Papelbon or Rivera? Come September, you'll want Rivera. :p

P.S. -- I know the Sox got a "ring," their first in 86 years. But do you call yourselves "World Champions" when you actually finished in second place by a healthy margin?

Please, Papelbon is the best closer in the game now & yes, you're World Champs because you won when it counted, or doesn't that 4 game collapse count in New York.....

Enough with last century & a couple years ago....the Sox are 7 up & climbing & the Yanks have been in panic mode for weeks!

JoltinJoe
May 11th, 2007, 03:12 PM
Please, Papelbon is the best closer in the game now & yes, you're World Champs because you won when it counted, or doesn't that 4 game collapse count in New York.....

Enough with last century & a couple years ago....the Sox are 7 up & climbing & the Yanks have been in panic mode for weeks!

Papelbon, the latest temporary pretender to throne. Within a year, we'll speak of him the same sentence as Gagne. xnodx

AppGuy04
May 11th, 2007, 05:22 PM
Papelbon, the latest temporary pretender to throne. Within a year, we'll speak of him the same sentence as Gagne. xnodx

yeah, cause you can blame Gagne for getting hurtxrolleyesx

JoltinJoe
May 11th, 2007, 06:52 PM
yeah, cause you can blame Gagne for getting hurtxrolleyesx

Does that mean you agree that Don Mattingly belongs in the Hall of Fame?;)