Comments on: 3+ Pitchers In Season With 25+ GS & ERA+ 100+ Since ’96 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9594 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: topper009 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9594/comment-page-1#comment-80497 Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:48:01 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9594#comment-80497 Please add the 2011 Milwaukee Brewers

]]>
By: redsock http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9594/comment-page-1#comment-80470 Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:40:54 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9594#comment-80470 From 1901-2010, there are only 5 teams with four pitchers with at least 25 GS and an ERA+ over 120:

1904 Boston Americans (won AL by 1.5 games)
1913 New York Giants (won NL by 12.5 games)
1997 Atlanta Braves (won NL East by 9 games)
2001 Oakland A's (102 wins, but 14 GB Seattle in AL West!)
2002 Atlanta Braves (won NL East by 19 games)

]]>
By: SocraticGadfly http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9594/comment-page-1#comment-80445 Wed, 05 Jan 2011 07:59:15 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9594#comment-80445 Raise the ERA+ to 110 and we'd probably sort out some real pitching staffs.

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9594/comment-page-1#comment-80429 Wed, 05 Jan 2011 04:01:39 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9594#comment-80429 (Please ignore this -- I'm just testing whether I can post anywhere right now. Three attempts on the Chet Lemon thread vanished when I hit "Submit".)

]]>
By: Frank Clingenpeel http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9594/comment-page-1#comment-80320 Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:55:09 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9594#comment-80320 ...and, Surprising us none at all, the Cincinnati Reds managed only a single entry on this list, dating back to the halycon days of the Schott regime.

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9594/comment-page-1#comment-80242 Mon, 03 Jan 2011 04:01:52 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9594#comment-80242 At first, I thought Steve's threshold was so low that all we could really tell from this list is which teams have not had good rotations in recent years. After all, more than two-thirds of the teams on the 1996-2010 list had exactly 3 qualifying pitchers. And how much can we tell about a pitching staff just from the fact that 3 pitchers met those minimal standards?

But when I checked the "3-pitcher" teams from the last 2 years, the results surprised me. Here is the team ERA+ and league ranking for each team:

2010 Giants: 121 ERA+, 1st.
2010 A's: 116 ERA+, 1st.
2010 White Sox: 107 ERA+, 3rd.
2010 Cardinals: 110 ERA+, 5th.
2010 Mets: 105 ERA+, 7th.
2010 Dodgers: 96 ERA+, 12th.
-- Two excellent staffs, two good staffs, and two that are close to average.

2009 White Sox: 113 ERA+, 1st.
2009 Braves: 116 ERA+, 3rd.
2009 Yankees: 108 ERA+, 4th.
2009 Cardinals: 112 ERA+, 6th.
2009 Tigers: 105 ERA+, 6th.
2009 Rays: 100 ERA+, 8th (tie).
-- Two very good staffs, 3 good staffs, and one average staff.

I wouldn't put too much weight on the numbers I presented, since it's less than one-seventh of the "3-pitcher-team" data pool; also, I looked at staff ERA+, not specifically starting pitchers. But since I'm not going to check all or even half the teams, I've seen enough to temper my initial skepticism about the value of the original list.

Therefore ... all hail, Steve!

]]>
By: LJF http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9594/comment-page-1#comment-80233 Mon, 03 Jan 2011 00:47:03 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9594#comment-80233 Um...the Cubs have as many years since 2004 as the Cardinals. Sure wouldn't put tem in the category of "doing a good job putting together starting pitchin staffs."

]]>
By: Shazbot http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9594/comment-page-1#comment-80223 Sun, 02 Jan 2011 20:06:28 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9594#comment-80223 That's ironic, considering how all of them seem to be favoring pitching right now.

]]>
By: DoubleDiamond http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9594/comment-page-1#comment-80221 Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:30:09 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9594#comment-80221 @2 I didn't see the Phillies there, either. It looks like there are 29, 30, or even 31 teams represented, because the Angels show up as both Anaheim and Los Angeles, with a large amount of alphabetical separation, the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals are both on the list, and Tampa Bay shows up as both the Devil Rays and the Rays, but back-to-back and thus easy to be seen as the same franchise. But there are only 27 franchises who have entries on this list.

In addition to the Brewers and the Phillies, the San Diego Padres are also missing from the first list.

]]>
By: Thomas http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9594/comment-page-1#comment-80219 Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:19:22 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9594#comment-80219 As a Phillies fan I was interested...

In 2001 they had three guys with 25 starts and ERA+ over 96 (meaning 2 over 100, the third a 96).
In 2005 & 2008 they had three over 25, all with ERA+ over 97 (meaning 2 over 100 and the third a 97).

]]>