Comments on: 4 BoSox hitters on pace for 6 Wins Above Replacement This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Carl Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:38:37 +0000 Pettitte had a pulled groin and the two extra days of rest moving from pitching in games 2 and 3 was hoped would help him heal.

By: Richard Chester Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:53:04 +0000 @17

There have been 21 pitchers who have won 10 or more games with an ERA of 6.00+ and 271 such pitchers with an ERA of 5.00+.

By: Johnny Twisto Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:26:21 +0000 I've forgotten what the issue was. I remember after the series was over, it was said that Pettitte probably would have missed his next start.

By: John Q Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:54:13 +0000 @49 Twisto

You're right about Lee, plus it would have stopped the Rangers from acquiring Lee. The Yankees are a very unique team in that they had 2 pitchers (Burnett & Vazquez) making about $27 million and they both barely played in the post season. Vazquez not at all and Burnett made 1 start.

Do you remember why exactly Pettitte didn't start game 2?

By: Johnny Twisto Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:44:10 +0000 Well, they had a deal made for Cliff Lee, but Seattle changed its mind at the last minute. I don't remember who else was plausibly available. The team was plenty good enough to win it all, they just didn't.

By: John Q Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:17:51 +0000 @46 Twisto,

I never said they shouldn't have started Hughes, I merely pointed out that Hughes' 18 wins had more to do with his major league leading 6.8 runs per game in support than him being a great or even very good pitcher. He was an average starting pitcher who benefitted greatly from luck and good fortune.

You're right he was their third best starting pitcher because Vazquez and Burnett were horrible last year.

There was also a decision to start him in game 2 which was costly. I forget the exact details but the Yankees decided to start Hughes over Pettitte in game 2 because of fatigue on the part of Pettitte?

The Yankees can be criticized for their decision not going out and acquiring a starting pitcher at the trade deadline.

By: micah Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:17:46 +0000 If great hitting teams tend to have pitching that folds in the playoffs, I highly doubt that it's because they're overestimating their pitchers. What really matters is an evaluation of relative talent, and inflated offense should make everyone look better (to the extent that you're using metrics under which it makes people look better at all).

A much more likely hypothesis would be that -- for the most part -- a team's resources are finite (even the Yankees can only grab the free agents that exist, and only have so many draft slots...), so a team with great hitting is apt to have intrinsically worse pitching.

By: Johnny Twisto Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:05:21 +0000 Well the problem with great hitting teams inflating their starting pitchers win totals is that it makes a mediocre or terrible pitcher look much better than they actually are. The problem can come to head when a team has to play much more talented teams in the post season. ... Phil Hughes won 18 games for the 2010 Yankees because he had insane run support but he was horrible in the ALCS and probably cost the Yankees a shot at the WS.

So the Yankees should have started...whom?

They didn't send Hughes out there because he won 18 games, they sent him out there because he was their 3rd best pitcher.

By: John Q Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:48:59 +0000 @44 David Rf,

No run scoring is definitely good. Taking the Rockies out of the point for a moment, if you led the National League in runs scored in the DH era you had a very good chance to win your division.

My point was that high scoring teams tend to overrate or inflate their pitching staffs worth because the pitchers win totals or win % tend to be very good or even great. A team with a good offensive can often make it's pitching staff look a lot better. This could be a problem in the playoffs when the competition gets better and there's less run support.

It seems like A staff with 2-3 good pitchers and a good bullpen can knock off a superior offensive team in a short playoff series. I think it's telling that there's only been one (1986 Mets) National League team to lead the NL in runs scored and win the WS in the last 30 years.

To go back to my Steve Trachsel example in 2006, Trachsel appeared to be having a good season with 15 wins yet it was kind of an illusion mainly because of his run support.

I'm reminded of the Mets pitching staff of the late 80's that seemed a lot better than they really were because of their wins totals and win% were relatively good.

By: DavidRF Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:04:06 +0000 @39-@42
So you're saying scoring runs is bad? I don't believe that.

I think we're getting off topic. My impression of what you were first saying was that a 95-win team with a great offense and average pitching had some inherent disadvantage in the playoffs because their pitchers' W-L records were being inflated. If you're the Rockies and you score the most runs but are being outscored by your opponents, then I wouldn't expect much from them.

The question is two 95-win teams. One with a great offense and average pitching, the other with great pitching and an average offense. If the great pitching is concentrated in one or two starters that get to pitch disproportionately more in a short series than I can see the advantage there. But if that's not the case I don't see the advantage. If you won 4-2 all season or 6-4 all season, what's the difference?