Crashburn Alley

By Heather on Jan 26, 2011

Baseballchik is a moron. She thinks the Giants have a better 4 man rotation.

By Aaron H on Jan 26, 2011

I think this conception comes from the results of the NLCS (and the Giants’ championship, to a lesser extent). If I remember right, before the series most commentators were thinking the rotation between the two teams were fairly equal, maybe with the Phils getting the edge. And if you had added Lee to that mix instead of Blanton? There’d be no question.

However, during the series, the Giants pitchers allowed fewer runs than the Phillies pitchers, and they did it against a superior offense-therefore, some would think the Giants’ pitchers are better. We all know, though, the uselessness of wins for measuring a pitcher’s effectiveness, especially after the unluckily lackluster performance the Phils’ offense put together during the NLCS.

By James K. on Jan 26, 2011

FWIW, here are the career home/road ERA splits for the Phillies’ 4:

Hamels: 3.29/3.78
Halladay: 2.89/3.20
Oswalt: 2.91/3.53
Lee: 3.58/4.10

So if Cain is being called overrated due to pitching better at home, than maybe the big 4 should too? Players perform better at home than on the road. Cain has consistently outperformed DIPS in his career — he’s a case of a pitcher who probably (but not definitely) has the ability to do that.

More on Cain: http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2011/1/14/1935265/an-open-letter-to-the-viceroy-of-stats

By Andrew on Jan 26, 2011

Matt Cain Is Not Overrated! Not At All! So Stop That BS! By The Way, Bottom Of The 9th NLCS Game 6, Remember When Ryan Howard Struck Out Looking! Good Times! Good Times!

By SJHaack on Jan 26, 2011

Matt Cain seems to outperform his peripherals every single year in the same way. He has an incredible LOB % and gets away with lots of fly balls that don’t leave the yard. He’s a very good pitcher, and at this point I am almost ready to chalk him up as an anomaly.

By Richard on Jan 26, 2011

I’m agnostic on the Cain question, if only because there seems to be a lot of work being done in SABR-circles about the types of questions raised by examples like Cain, so I’m reluctant to claim anything too definitively.

However, the response of lots of Giants fans to the idea that the Phillies should be considered to have the best rotation going into 2011 has been highly annoying. So, well done.

By sean on Jan 26, 2011

matt cain, ja happ(bring it fansince09) and chris young, all seem to just out perform their peripherals. i know young and happ have deception as the main “reason” for doing what they do, but what’s cain’s reason. from the look of it they succeed by their fastballs

By Greenman! on Jan 26, 2011

A lot of Giants fans seem to be way too confident in Matt Cain. I agree that he’s nothing but a Joe Blanton. They can both produce some pretty good starts but neither are phenomenal pitchers.

By James K. on Jan 26, 2011

“there seems to be a lot of work being done in SABR-circles about the types of questions raised by examples like Cain, so I’m reluctant to claim anything too definitively.”

Richard nails it. I think in Cain’s case simply pointing to DIPS and other peripherals to say he’s ‘one of the most overrated pitchers in baseball’ is lacking in nuance. And exactly the sort of thing that gives ammo to people who aren’t exactly warm to sabermetrics (but that’s sort of erroneous I guess).

Cain is consistently among the league leaders in IFFB%, a batted ball outcome that essentially as good as a strikeout. He was 3rd in the NL last season. This contributes to his lower BABIP and ability to outperform DIPS. Ted Lilly and Johan Santana are two others off the top of my head who generate a ton of infield flyballs and generally outperform DIPS.

By Richard on Jan 26, 2011

well, now I think we’re just splitting hairs on what “overrated” means. Yes, I strongly doubt he’s a “true” 3.19 ERA pitcher. But his road ERA is also much better than his road xFIP would suggest. So, I guess you could say he’s overrated by Giants fans and the MSM, which is fine.

on a related note, I look for a big season from Joe Blanton, who is generally underrated.

By KH on Jan 26, 2011

I don’t think its unfair to say Matt Cain is over-rated at all especially in the context of the subject at hand. There are a suprising ammount of fairly clueless people out there that think the Giants rotation is comparable or even slightly better then Phillies. The perception of Matt Cain as an ace type pitcher fuels a lot of it. So in that context he is certainly over-rated.

By Lefty's Curve on Jan 26, 2011

Bill:

Is there any way to get a seasonal spray chart of OF hits/outs against a particular pitcher? better yet, with home/away and LHB/RHB splits?

Then compare 2010 Phour Loco (using maybe Lee’s 2009 CBP data) with Giants mound kickers?

Just a thought.

By Dan P on Jan 26, 2011

Bill,

In regards to Cain…

Is it possible that Cain is simply an outlier? That he simply has the ability to induce weak fly balls?

Year after year, Cain is said the be among the luckiest pitchers in baseball. But at what point is the sample size large enough to make us stop and think… maybe he just has a knack for getting guys to hit the ball in the air without much pop?

By Frank K on Jan 26, 2011

Any team with good lefties in the starting rotation and then waiting in the pen can neutralize the Phillies’ offense as of this moment. Some, like the Giants, can downright embarrass them. My nightmares are still vivid in that area.

By James K. on Jan 26, 2011

I suppose it all depends on how you think others rate Cain. My general feeling is fans of all types see him as a really good pitcher behind a great pitcher in Lincecum. They see Cain as All Star caliber but not one of the top 5 pitchers in the league or anything. Giants fans like him more, especially of late considering the World Series, and who can blame them?

I’d say he’s a low #1 to high #2 starter. Even ignoring his ERA, here are his FIP and league rank by season:

2010: 3.65 (14th)
2009: 3.89 (20th)
2008: 3.91 (20th)
2007: 3.78 (10th)
2006: 3.96 (11th)

Not bad, considering there are 16 teams in the league. Theoretically, he was a #1 pitcher in 3 of his 5 seasons (based on FIP). xFIP seems a bit worthless in Cain’s case, considering his HR/FB rate is essentially equal at home vs. the road.

Again, this basically revolves around how you think others rate Cain, but unless you think others see him as one of the best 5 or 6 pitchers in the game I can’t possibly see how he’s one of the most overrated pitchers in baseball.

And full disclosure — I’m harping on this because of a perceived lack of nuance in analysis for outlier pitchers like Cain by a lot of saber-writers.

By sean on Jan 26, 2011

as dave cameron mentioned in his chat today, high flyball pitchers tend to be the ones that outperform their xFIPs, compared to GB pitchers.

I understand the reasoning behind using xFIP but i don’t agree with it because normalizing home run rates for pitchers that play in parks that suppress home runs is only useful if i’m considering trading for the guy. for some reason i can’t wrap my head around that concept that i’m making it an all else equal situation to explain how someone will perform in the future when i know the HR rate is not what it should be. I prefer FIP to xFIP for past data strictly for the reason of “well that’s what he did” instead of “well that’s what he did in a HR neutral park”.

of course stablizing the HR rate boils down to if you believe that suppressing home runs is a “skill” of pitchers. Cole hamels for example gave up 18 home runs in the first 3 months and only 8 the rest of the season, is that luck or just the refining the cutter decrease his home run rate? who knows

By Shannon on Jan 26, 2011

Matt Cain is overrated? Really? So in 2007-08 while his record was 15-30, his ERA was 3.71.

Here is another pitchers same stats from the same 2 seasons. 36-18, ERA of 3.23, less than 1/2 a run lower than Cain’s. Which is pretty negligible. Know who that pitcher is? Roy Halladay.

Why did Felix Hernandez win the Cy Young in 2010 with a record of 13-12? Because wins and losses as a pitching statistic are overrated. Suppose a pitcher goes through an entire season with an ERA of 3, but his offense only gives him 2 runs of support a game, and his closer blows 5 saves after he’s left with the lead, he may not win a game at all.

By hunterfan on Jan 26, 2011

“Because wins and losses as a pitching statistic are overrated”

@Shannon: I don’t see Bill or anyone else rational on this website arguing that fact.

The Giants rotation is worse than the Phillies’ for other reasons, mostly related fielding independent pitching stats, which indicate the Phillies are better.

By warren on Jan 26, 2011

Yes, Sanchez walks a lot of batters, BUT he doesn’t give up many hits, as witnessed by a league leading 6.6 per 9 (Hamels, 8.0 per 9).

And which rotation has the best chance of getting better; The Giants, ages 28, 26, 26 and 21. Or the Phils; 33, 33, 32, 27?

By awh on Jan 26, 2011

“However, during the series, the Giants pitchers allowed fewer runs than the Phillies pitchers”

Wow, I surprised that one slipped by everyone all day.

Aaron, I’ll keep it simple: You’re wrong.

Go check the stats from the series.

By awh on Jan 26, 2011

warren, are you saying that age is the only way of evaluating the chances whether a rotation can get better?

And, BTW, what was Bill evaluating, future potential or past performance?

Unfortunately for you, evaluating future potential is pure conjecture and opinion.

By Moose on Jan 26, 2011

@awh

I saw that too but didn’t feel like correcting him because I didn’t bring any substantive arguments to the table.

By Aaron H on Jan 26, 2011

Wow, completely botched that one-I was trying to dance around using NLCS wins as the way BaseballChik would evaluate the Giants-Phils pitching matchup, but guess I should’ve checked the facts first.

So hopefully an insightful comment to make up for it: thinking back to what sean and Bill referenced, is it necessarily bad to base a pitcher’s performance based on park factors? If a pitcher can control fly ball rates to a certain extent, as a GM/manager, I may want my pitcher to allow more fly balls in a spacious park, or with a great defensive outfield. Similarly, if you play in Yankee stadium with its short porch in right, you’d want your lefty hitters to pull the ball frequently.

In other words, Cain (and Sanchez, he of the career .68:1 GB/FB ratio and 7.7% HR/FB rate) may be only average if they pitch in a neutral park, but we know they are going to be pitching half of their games in a place that’s unfriendly to home runs, so why not take advantage of your personal confines?

By Shannon on Jan 26, 2011

@hunterfan, while no one else may be arguing that fact in writing, saying that Matt Cain is overrated and only looking at his ERA and the ballpark he pitches half his games in is missing the point. Give Cain the Phillies offense from 2008 and the Phillies band-box of a ballpark and lets see how his #’s change. Give Halladay the Giants 2008 offense and put him in a pitchers park and see how his win-loss total differs.

The other points that can’t be argued enough is the age and playoff factor. Oswalt (33), Halladay (33), Lee (32), and Hamels (27) will not be able to pitch together as a staff as long as Lincecum (26), Cain (26), Sanchez (28) and Bumgarner (21). By my math, that’s an average age of 31.25 (PHI) compared to 25.25 (SFG). I’ll take the rotation that’s 6 years younger on average as a better long-term investment.

And as a foursome, the Philles group has pitched exactly 0 games together, and only one of them (Hamels) has a ring. The Giants foursome pitched from late June through the playoffs and now they each have a ring. And oh yeah, they beat every one of the Phillies “Phearsome Phoursome”

By Shannon on Jan 26, 2011

also @hunterfan, maybe you missed this quote from the 3rd comment by Aaron H: “We all know, though, the uselessness of wins for measuring a pitcher’s effectiveness, especially after the unluckily lackluster performance the Phils’ offense put together during the NLCS.”

While, in context, he was actually arguing why the Phillies rotation is better, he was making my point about Cain for me. Pitchers cannot control whether their offense scores for them or not.

By Hurrayforthegiantshurray on Jan 27, 2011

Uh yeah? Straight up yeah? Hello? Uh……….YEAH? Let’s get one thing straight here guys and gals…. I’m a Giants fan…ok? Uh.. Yeah. It’s obvious that the Phillies are gonna burn everybodys damn sphincters out. It’s over. It’s over. I enjoyed the world series and all… But now I’m lotioning up to get my “you know what” blown the hell out. That’s all for me. Go Phils.

By awh on Jan 27, 2011

Moose, no prob. Aaron’s basic premise has validity, even if one detail needed to be cleaned up.

The losing pitcher in the deciding game (I witnessed it firsthand) was Madson. Maybe the B-chik can try to make a case that that had something to do with the SP matchup. Of the four Phillies’ losses, two were by relief pitchers (Madson, Oswalt in a relief role), so the reality is that the Phils’ SP matched up pretty well with the SFG SP.

By awh on Jan 27, 2011

“The other points that can’t be argued enough is the age and playoff factor. Oswalt (33), Halladay (33), Lee (32), and Hamels (27) will not be able to pitch together as a staff as long as Lincecum (26), Cain (26), Sanchez (28) and Bumgarner (21).”

Shannon, that statement is conjecture and has no basis in fact. You have no idea what will happen, especially in this era of free agency.

The reality is that age will have much less of an effect on keeping EITHER ONE of the rotations together than team finances. Lincecum is already getting paid big bucks. Wait until the other guys start to get the coin and see how long SF can afford it, especially with the Zito contract wasting resources.

The same is true of the Phillies. The first guy to go will probably be Oswalt because he’s only signed through 2012 assuming his option is exercized. After 2012 the Phillies will have to make a choice – Hamels or Oswalt. (Well, it’s not really a choice.)

Simply, neither team will be able to keep it’s rotation together for a really long term – mostly for financial reasons.

Now, if you want to make the case that having the younger rotation is better for other reasons, sure, I agree.

By greg on Jan 27, 2011

@Shannon
Your argument about age is, at best, reliant on luck and circumstance. Age is a number; not a indication of play. Yes, on average players do decline as they get older. BUT THAT’S WHY ITS AN AVERAGE, NOT EVERY PLAYER GETS WORSE. Will the current Phils rotation get worse? I donno, maybe? maybe not? Do you know?
Can you ensure Lincecum won’t pull a muscle through the 30 plus games he pitches? Or possibly Bumgarner straining a oblique? Its the same with the Phillies. I can’t prevent Lee from pulling a shoulder strain anymore then trying to prevent the sun from rising. NO ONE KNOWS HOW THE ROTATIONS ARE GOING TO DO IN A NEW YEAR.
As for your rotation, how do you know all the players are going stick around? Just cause you signed them for a while? Things happen; J.A. Happ was looking like a great youngster with a bright future in Philly. Then we traded him. Could happen to any of you pitchers too (OK maybe not Timmy, but you get the idea).
As for your completely irrational ring comment, from which I am getting the giants pitching rotation is better simply because they have 4 ring holders to the phillies 1, that has no base. Guess what? Joba Chamberlain has a ring. want him too? and he’s only 25!!!!! How bout AJ Burnett? HE’S GOT 2 RINGS, GRAB HIM NOW!!!!! Want me to continue?
Your 4 pitchers were proven winners, yes…. for one year. Halladay? Pitched for the Blue Jays in arguably the toughest divison for 10 years. You going to tell me Cain would maintain 3.71 ERA against the Yanks and Sox if he pitched for the Jays? Oswalt? Houston, which made it to the 2005 WS. Houston was never the same after. Lee? 2 WS, one with a team on a cinderella run (Texas btw). Hamels? another 2 WS, Plus a ring. You see a recurring theme here?
You want that giants rotation? Fine, take them, have them, love them to death. But as you so graciously pointed out, just as the Phillies rotation has played 0 games together, So to have the Giants rotation… this year. A new year, a new season, a new everything. Come talk to us after 162 games. As we learn every year, its a long season.
If the Giants make the playoffs, you may have a case. They win the divison, your arguement has more base. They go to the NLCS, you’ve got more ammunition. Heck, They just GO the the 2011 WS I would be inclined to agree that your rotation is better. BUT UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, all we have to base our arguements on is past results, no matter how random or varied they might be, because its all we’ve got. And guess what? Overall, the statistics are saying the Phillies have the edge.

By Brad on Jan 27, 2011

And I thought Mets fans were delusional. The Phillies rotation was better than the Giants rotation BEFORE the Lee deal.

By James Ammon on Jan 27, 2011

Not only are the Phil’s starting “four aces” the best in baseball, Blanton is the best #5 starter, if they choose to keep him.

It is interesting that Phils 772 runs scored in 2010 were their least in the last 8 years. Yet the +132 runs differential was the best in a long time (all time?) resulting in 97 wins, highest in baseball. This should only get better this year. It is all in the pitching.

By sean on Jan 27, 2011

which one is better is a matter of personal preference really. the age issue doesn’t prove anything about how either team will perform. old doesn’t mean injury just as age doesn’t mean injury. if i was going by who i trust the least, i’d say the giants have the two least trustworthy players in sanchez and bumgarner

By awh on Jan 27, 2011

Sean, didn’t Timmy regress last season, or was that an anomaly?

We don,t know.

By Scott G on Jan 27, 2011

Anyone else creeped out that Bill can tell where we are? haha

By Css228 on Jan 27, 2011

@ Shannon – you’re also comparing a time period where Halladay was pitching in the American League (so facing a DH), and more specifically the AL East (facing the Red Sox who won the World series in 2007 and the Rays who went to it in 2008 and the Yankees). So your argument is flawed on the basis that all ERA’s are created equal, given that Cain pitched in a spacious park during that time, and more importantly he got to pitch in the NL West, where the lineups are less power oriented and he doesn’t have to pitch against the Phillies often. So no Halladay isn’t overrated

By Css228 on Jan 27, 2011

Also a half a run isn’t a negligible difference. 2.50 is a hell of a lot better than a 3.00 ERA. 2005 Hardball Times article showed that from 2000 – 2004 average runs scored per game was 4.82 per team. Now by giving up a half run less per game, assuming your team scores at league average pace, you give your team that much better a chance to win. For our sake lets round to the nearest full number after we take away the half run from 4.82. So 4.82 rounds to 5 runs a game (since the pitcher will give up 5 or more runs more often than four or less) and 4.32 rounds to 4 (since the pitcher will give up 4 or less more often than they give up 5). When a team scores 5 runs in a game, from 2000 to 2004 they won 59.3% of the time. When they scored 4 runs, the team only won 47.1% of the time. By not allowing that extra run, the chances of the other team winning decreased by 12%. Kinda a big deal huh?
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/runs-per-game/

By Css228 on Jan 27, 2011

And one more thing, scoring has gone down since this period, making every half run even more valuable.

By Roger on Jan 27, 2011

The problem with most these comparisons it seems is that they tend to use the most recent results as trivial rather than a new pattern. The posts about Matt Cain make that very obvious. If you followed his career you would understand the lack of run support has been cronic in his short career. You would also know that in 2010 he was 12-5 from July on. That is no coiencidence. Matt added a fine changeup to his pitches last year and it took the first couple of months to blend it effectively in his game … once he did that he became an effective pitcher rather than a thrower. In the playoffs Matt threw three fine games and ended with a 2-0 record (the Giants won the other game he pitched)and had a 0.0 ERA. Matt showed what he is made of in those games as did Madison Bumgarner and Tim Lincecum. Jonathan Sanchez also pitched well in the second half of 2010 going 13-5 from July until the end of the regular season. Sanchez has some of the nastiest pitches in either league when he is on and his .204 OBA was the best in the league in 2010. Tim Lincecum’s first four years in the league have been stellar and his lifetime stats show he has been even better than Halladay … just compare their lifetime stats and you will see what I mean. Madison Bumgarner is another great talent and his pitching in the playoffs shows great confidence and maturity for a 21 year old kid. Barry Zito is overpaid yet he is a better pitcher than Blanton and his stats show that. The addition of a pitcher who has spent little time in the NL … Cliff Lee has been hugely over blown to somehow give advantage to the Phillies when comparing the most recent head to head battles between these two good staffs shows the Giants with a 8-4 record over the Phillie staff which seems to be completely ignored by Phillie fans and those “projecting” an outcome for a staff that has yet to throw a pitch.
You also leave out the comparisons where the Giants are better than the Phillie starters like K/9 innings and OBA stats for obvious reasons … and I understand the reasoning … why would you list things that the Giants are superior in when trying to show Phillie is better but there are stats that show the Giants can hold their own with Phillie including out-pitching and playing them for the NLCS which is of course no where factored in to the projection. Here are their lifetime stats in K/9 innings & OBA:

Lincecum – 10.1 lifetime K/9 inngs
Cain 7.4
Zito – 6.8
Sanchez – 9.4

Halladay – 6.7
Lee – 6.9
Hamels – 8.5
Oswalt – 7.4

Lincecum – .224 OBA lifetime
Cain – .229
Zito – .250
Sanchez- .233

Halladay – .258
Lee – ..260
Hamels – .242
Oswalt – .252
San Francisco recorded a 1.78 ERA in September, the lowest for any club in any month of 20 or more games since the 1968 Indians posted a 1.42 ERA in May. It also was the best September ERA since the 1965 Dodgers recorded a 1.59 figure. So in the last two months of baseball the Giants pitched better than any NL team in 45 years and somehow it isn’t seen as statistics that show a trend that can be used in projections of next years performance?
If you base the pitching statistics on the entire pitching staff the Giants DO show the statistics that led the league in many categories including the statistics you have disregarded … The Giants pitching led the MLB in ERA (3.36) Saves (57) Innings pitched (1461) Allowed the least hits (1279) allowed the least amount of earned runs (546) and led MLB in strikeouts (1331) and had the lowest opposing team batting average of .236 Those are real numbers of the 2010 leading pitching staff. The Giants staff is young and have shown improvement in each of the last three years so I think it is a sham to discount the Giants staff as somehow below the Phillies … when it came time to prove it in 2010 the Giants did exactly that! It should be a fun year!

By hk on Jan 27, 2011

Roger,

Basing the statistics on entire staffs from last year makes no sense because the comparison was of each team’s top 4 starters and because Oswalt was on the Astros for 2/3 of the season and Lee was in the AL last year.

Also, OBA (opponent’s batting average) is not a particularly important stat because it ignores walks, which works to Sanchez’s benefit as it ignores his control problems. I couldn’t find a website that listed career OOBP (opponent’s on base percentage) so I went with WHIP, which at least incorporates walks. For their careers, the pitchers in the conversation have the following lifetime WHIP’s:

Hamels 1.176
Halladay 1.181 (mostly facing DH’s in the AL)
Lincecum 1.182
Oswalt 1.183
Cain 1.218
Lee 1.255 (mostly facing DH’s in the AL)
Bumgarner 1.289 (albeit in minimal innings)
Sanchez 1.380

Advantage Phillies.

By Mark on Jan 27, 2011

If we’re talking about the Phillies winning the Pennant or ultimately the World Series, they have to be the favorites. That said, for one week the Giants rotation can certainly be better – or any rotation for that matter. Last year we saw them beat Lee in the World Series after beating the Phillies staff the round before. Odds are certainly on the Phillies side though.

By hk on Jan 27, 2011

A lot of people have commented about the Giants pitchers being younger as if that’s some sort of advantage. To the contrary, I think it will be a disadvantage in 2011. Recent history has shown a number of young pitchers struggle in the year immediately following the combination of a large increase in innings pitched and pitching deep into the post-season (and thereby having one less month to rest). Lincecum jumped from 225.3 IP to 249.3 IP, Cain increased from 217.7 IP to 244.7 IP and Sanchez made the huge jump from 163.3 IP to 213.3 IP. It would not be surprising to see them suffer in 2011 before coming back strong in 2012.

By Css228 on Jan 27, 2011

Just like Hamles in 09, great point HK

By TGWTWS on Jan 27, 2011

TGWTWS. That means that “The Giants won the world series.” So until 2011 is up and running and it’s been proved otherwise, the Giants have the best pitching staff in baseball. Because the Phillies hitting was certainly better than the Giants’, the Giants pitching must have been better than the Phillies’ for the Giants to win it all. And because Lee, Halladay, Hamels, and Oswalt have not pitched together yet, you can’t actually call them a proven rotation.

By Paul Boye on Jan 27, 2011

I don’t care if they pitched on the same team or on four different planets, I would call those four guys “proven” any day of the week and twice on Businesspersons’ Specials.

By awh on Jan 27, 2011

Roger, while September was certainly a stellar month for the Giants staff, and they deserve credit for their postseason performance, I’m really not sure you can use the last month of a previous season as being indicative of a trend. Seems rather suspect to me.

Why isn’t the most recent month an anomaly as opposed to a trend?

By awh on Jan 27, 2011

TGWTWS, you’re serious? Really?

By awh on Jan 27, 2011

Bill, LOL!

By sean on Jan 27, 2011

and what does “best era in a month” even mean let alone have to do with being the best! larger sample please.

@awh for timmy i have no clue, his true talent is obviously not august nor is it september.

By Max on Jan 28, 2011

Thanks, TGWTWS, you just made my day. At 12:15 in the morning. I really hope you’re a FanSince09 invention. You would make a great sarcastic recurring commenter here at Crashburn Alley.

By Roger on Jan 28, 2011

I knew that Phillies fans wouldn’t like my views but at this point of the season it is all either rationalized partisanship (being a fan and looking through that filter) or WAG’s really. I just find it interesting that people what to scrap the history of the last two months of MLB last year as some sort of pattern and a viable basis in which to “predict” what will happen in the next year. Yes the Phillies had much better hitting thru the 2010 season … and yes the Giants great young staff did show a gapping hole in the Phillies hitting good left handed relief which the Giants have a strength in followed by the most consistent closer in the last three years and the best closer in the NL in 2010. Yes Lincecum and Cain and Sanchez and Bumgarner did pitch more innings last year but look at the quality of their starts from September thru the World Series … they excelled and beat three better hitting clubs because of the quality of their pitching. Youth can be a good thing and if you look at how each of these young Giants pitchers are in a pattern of improvement why can’t that be an important and viable portion of “projecting” the next years performance? I do also have to laugh at those who what to insist that somehow the Giants MLB best in OBA and strike outs along with the least earned runs allowed combined is not a good indication of how good a staff is pitching. When you have pitchers either striking out or who are consistently keeping the opposition from getting a hit as dominately as the Giants did last year it shows a lot. The Phillies pitchers also allowed 34 more homeruns in 2010 … and I understand that the Phillies is a hitting ballpark and the Giants is the opposite but the Giants use their park to their advantage just like the Phillies do theirs … Utley would not be the power hitter in SF like he is in Phillie and both clubs use their park to their advantage as best as they can … its smart baseball.

You know they say about opinions … the are just like … well … you know where I am going with this
Yeah Phillie fans can get hyped at the media spin on their big four … thats fine and to be expected … but Giant fans have lots of reasons to be looking forward to 2011. In reality we know so very little of what will happen … each team has 25 guys with a wide range of posibilities of how the year will go … which runs into a 40 man roster of possibilities that will impact the upcoming season.

Who knows what will happen? Of course Philly fans want to plot it all out to give themselves some bragging rights for a season that hasn’t even begun on statistics and projections they choose to lay out for everyone … but one thing for sure … they do not take the most recent history we have to look at … last years playoffs or the best staff in baseball in Septmeber and October of 2010 very seriously at all. Instead of saying “we MAY have the best starting pitching in baseball” they want to impose their bias by stating that somehow by adding a pitcher the Giants beat twice in the World Series has made them a better staff than than the team that beat them in the NLCS in six games and as a pitching staff were out pitched in 162 games by the MLB’s top pitching staff while the Phillies were the sixth best in MLB. Lee is over hyped and that is fine. He is 7-4 with a decent 3.36 ERA and a 1.13 WHIP but there is no real extended history for predicting his success in the NL. The Giants and their meager hitting handled him just fine in the last two big games Lee pitched and I happen to like that pattern! A 0-2 record and a ERA of 6.94 … giving up 9 runs in 11.2 against the Giants in the biggest games of the year simply makes me smile right now just to think of it after reading and seeing and hearing the east coast spin and the Phillie fans spin on Lee eating up the Giants. Our most recient history tells me all the hype now is just like all the hype back in October.

By Roger on Jan 28, 2011

HK … basing a teams pitching strength on the complete staff which includes the bullpen and closer makes a lot of sense … of course not if you are a Philly fan but to the rest of the world it makes plenty of sense.

Much of a teams pitching strength IS how they as a total staff pitch 9 innings of baseball or the amount of innings it takes to complete a game.
The Giants bullpen and closer WAY out classes the Phillies non-starting pitching staff. We saw that in the deciding game six in Philly when Sanchez couldn’t keep his adrenaline in control and only pitched two innings. We also saw what having a dependable stellar closer means too … Wilson will give up a walk or two and at times I think it is simply to add drama … but he is head and shoulders above The Giants bullpen came in and shut the big Lidge as a closer. The whole Phillie lineup had no luck against Lopez and Affeldt. The gapping hole in hitting left handed relief by the Phillies was strikingly obvious in October and the Giant bullpen shut Phillie bats down! Zero runs in eight innings of relief pitching in the deciding game of the NLCS in their house was a statement … well for all those who where outside of the Phillie die hards anyway. That is an indication of how GOOD the Giants pen performed last year and especially in the last two months of play which is a rational and valid indicator of pitching going into the 2011 season … whether Phillie fans want to admit it or not.
Also taking the age of the Giants staff as a positive while using their history and pattern of improvement in each progressive year is also a valid projection tool whether you want to generalize with overall stats or not … when you use these specific talents and their progression it is a rational thought process to see them continuing with their improvement and project further improvement. Of course you want to disagree … it is a positive point in reference to a staff you are not fans of … so go ahead and discount it! I will continue to see age as a more viable possible detriment for the Phillies staff and say that there are just as good of odds that the aging Phillie staff might lose some velocity or control in their closing years rather than the younger Giants staff having that problem
All the rationalizing in the world means nothing in the end … it is what they do on the field that counts … thats why they play the game! Last year the Giants were given little to no chance by the same people posting that the Phillie have to be “the favorites” based on the same east coast spin that gave no chance to last years Champions. You were wrong last year … your stats and spin held no water … so why on earth would you think what the so called “experts” say means anything really? I’ll take last years best pitching staff and be optimisitc as can be and I will look at our youth and pattern of improvement to continue to get better as a good possibility. The game is played on the field and its the combination of the tangible and the intangibles that make the game interesting. The Giants have an advantage of a confidence and chemistry that Phillie fans are familar with when their team were World Series Champions … so who knows how that will affect this Giant team? I say it very well could be a very positve affect!
Go Giants!!!

By awh on Jan 28, 2011

“I just find it interesting that people what to scrap the history of the last two months of MLB last year as some sort of pattern and a viable basis in which to “predict” what will happen in the next year.”

Roger, if you can make reasonable and defensible arguments then it doesn’t really matter whether we “like your views”.

I simply pointed out that it’s extremely difficult to call one or two months’ performance a future trend.

No one is saying you “can’t” use two months as a predictor – go ahead.

What I am saying is that statistically you may have the same probability of being wrong as you do of being right.

Let me ask you this: Why is the last month of the season (September) any better a predictor of the future performance of a pitching staff than August? For that matter, why is it a better predictor than April? (Please answer directly.)

There are so many questions that would need to be answered. For instance: what was the level of competition? Where did they play – AT&T or a hitter’s park? Were most of the games in NL West parks where LAD, SDP and SFG have ballparks built for pitchers?

So, simply trying to use one or two months of ERA as an indicator has it’s problems.

Besides, you seem to contradict yourself. You say “Yes the Phillies had much better hitting thru the 2010 season”. But then, shouldn’t you be better able to predict a trend from a full season of hitting? And if so, then why didn’t that trend continue and the Phillies beat the Giants?

And are you seriously using two games that Lee pitched as some kind of indicator of the future?

Do you know what constitutes a statistically significant sample size? Do you know why Bill used SIERA in his analysis as opposed to the basic ERA number that you put so much stock in?

But as I’m sure you know, the Phillies DID OUTSCORE the Giants in the NLCS. So why did the Giants win? Well, for one, Cody Ross got hot, and played perhaps the best baseball of his career(good for him – he stepped up). But statistically – if your using RUNS SCORED to measure performance – the Phillies pitchers OUTPITCHED the Giants. The Giants won because in a short series anything can happen. Just ask the 1960 Yankees (Do you even know what happened then?).

Lastly, because it’s late, I’m tired, and I don’t really think you “get it”, I’ll put forth one more thought:

You obviously are a latecommer here, and are misconstruing what Bill’s thread is all about. It’s not about “some bragging rights for a season that hasn’t even begun”. It’s an academic exercize to compare two rotations.

By awh on Jan 28, 2011

Roger, nbefore I hit the sack, here’s an example of why it’s difficult to view one month as a trend:

In 2010, Cole Hamels pitched 5 times in April. at teh end of those 5 starts his ERa was 5.28. By your logic, that trend could (and should) be used to predict how the rest of his season would go, no?

Well, Cole started 28 more games through the end of September. His ERA was 2.68 for those last 28 games.

Do you really think one month is a trend?

By Css228 on Jan 28, 2011

I think after that brilliant pair of posts by AWH we just ought to call this a thread and move on to Bill’s next posting when it comes along. Well done sir.

By hk on Jan 28, 2011

Roger: HK … basing a teams pitching strength on the complete staff which includes the bullpen and closer makes a lot of sense … of course not if you are a Philly fan but to the rest of the world it makes plenty of sense.

No, the rest of the rational world would say that using 2010 team statistics are anywhere from minimally to totally irrelevant in predicting 2011 depending upon how significantly teams have changed in the off-season. Leaving our favorite teams out of the equation and looking at the NL Central, I ask…do you expect the Milwaukee Brewers to have the 5th best pitching staff in the division? They did last year, but that was before they acquired Marcum and Greinke.

By sean on Jan 28, 2011

plus before those 2 playoff games cliff lee had pitched against the giants twice and had a line of 1.06 era 2-0 in 17 innings 1 CG 17:3 k:BB ratio. roger i still don’t know why you insist on using OBA as the stat you want to base your arguments on, ignoring walks yet crediting strikeouts.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2010-is-not-a-constant-either-2/

By FanSince09 on Jan 28, 2011

With no Hammels and JA Happ, Phillies are a better rotation.

With Hammels and no JA Happ, Giants are a better rotation.

By PTN on Jan 28, 2011

I know this is unrelated to the current topic, but I would be interested in seeing a piece dealing with the lineup’s imbalance and just how far it will affect the team’s offensive output.

By Richard on Jan 28, 2011

PTN, fyi:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/top-of-the-phils-batting-order/

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/a-little-more-on-the-phillies-batting-order/

By Scott G on Jan 29, 2011

Bill,

I wasn’t serious about being creeped out. It was just kind of weird how you threw it in there.

By Scott G on Jan 29, 2011

I can’t even comprehend how this is a serious conversation right now. No one can honestly believe that on the whole, Lincecum, Cain, Sanchez, and Henry Rowengartner are better than Halladay, Lee, Hamels, and Oswalt.

The Giants may have the best of the 8 (even that is questionable), but I don’t think there is any question that the Phillies have the 2nd-5th best of the 8.

By PTN on Jan 29, 2011

Richard,

I haven’t checked fangraphs in a while. Thanks for pointing those articles out.

By awh on Jan 29, 2011

ScottG, that’s an excellent point.

Perhaps it should be viewed this way:

Who would MLB GMs pick? Or, rather, in what order would they pick them?

Even given Lincecum at #1, I suspect if all 30 GMs were polled, the order would look like this:

Lincecum
Halladay
Lee
Hamels
Oswalt
Cain
Sanchez
Baumgardner

By Scott G on Jan 29, 2011

AWH,

I’m definitely not normally one to just go on instincts and observations, but I feel like this is so obvious.

Salary being equal, I can’t imagine there is any intelligent baseball fan/GM out there that wouldn’t rather have Lee, Oswalt, and Hamels over any of Cain, Sanchez or Baumgarner. Halladay is a given (I hope).

By Roger on Jan 31, 2011

HK … “No, the rest of the rational world would say that using 2010 team statistics are anywhere from minimally to totally irrelevant in predicting 2011 depending upon how significantly teams have changed in the off-season.”

Interesting comment but I certainly would question you speaking for the “rational world” especially coming from someone wrapped up into being a Phillies fan and telling me last years team pitching stats mean nothing in predicting the next years pitching.
Sure teams trade and sign players and try and improve … and I understand why the Phillies went out and bought another ace … because they were out pitched in the NLCS by the Giants.

They were out pitched by starting pitchers of the Giants and the Giants bullpen out pitched the Phillies bullpen and the Giants closer was better than the Phillies closer. That should account for something in predicting the following season shouldn’t it? I say yes … but obviously some don’t. The Giants still have that bullpen and they still have that closer. Why wouldn’t that affect the projection of teams strengths and rating the for the next season?

The Giants young staff has pitched better in each consecutive year and are continuing to improve … a pattern.
They also had the best September than any staff has pitched in the last 45 years in the NL. That should account to something in predicting next season … as should their great pitching in October and November.

As far as GMs and who they would want … I am laughing at the arrogance of Phillie fans and am just fine with out staff in SF. Adding Cliff Lee who the Giants ripped apart in game one and beat handily in game five (both games Lincecum out pitched Lee)… adding Lee is certainly not the equalizer he is being made out to be.

Time will tell but don’t get too lost in those stats and projections … last year they told you Phillie was going to whoop the Giants and look what happened. East coast bias is real and rampid! That is why the play the game!

Oh … and why should a month or two in statistics be a valid indicator?
The goal in every sports team is to play good solid ball and get better each month and to peak at the end of the season so you are playing your best ball when it counts most.
The Giants did that … they played their best games the last two months of the 2010 season and ended up winning the World Series because they pitched the best and played good solid defense and they hit in the clutch better than the teams they played … which included the Phillies staff. The big addition to the Phillies staff is a guy the Giants beat twice in the World Series … the last two big starts in Lee’s career … and is that somehow factored in on all these visions of grandure by the statistics they bear out to Phillies fans?
Two things … I agree with the premise of Phillie going out and finding better starting pitching … they did so because they were out pitched by the Giants. I just question that adding a guy the Giants hammered big time in the last two big starts is somehow an equalizer.
AWH … the excellent pitching in September and October and November of 2010 is the last indicating months of MLB play. Peaking in those months are what its all about. I can and do use those numbers to predict an outcome and can do no worse than all those in the east who bought that the Giants had no chance in the 2010 NLCS.
You were wrong then and I say you are now in your projections.
The stats aren’t everything and they play the game to see who is best and its the human element … tangable and intandables … the dynamic of team chemistry and blend of players and the ability of the leaders to lead and the ability of players to focus to hit in the clutch are all factors in the end to how a team does.
If we look at the last two years can we say there is a trend that shows the Phillies don’t win the big ones anymore?
The last two years show that statement is true. The Yankees beat them in 2009 and the Giants did in 2010. Is their ability to choke in the clutch factored in your statistics in predicting 2011?
Were your predictions for 2010 accuarate?

So much for eastern bias BS spin

By Gaël on Jan 31, 2011

Roger, people might be more interested in arguing with you if you didn’t keep harping on the fact that “the Giants beat Cliff Lee” in his last two World Series starts as if it meant anything. Ever heard of the phrase “small sample sizes”? Those two games only mean that the Giants won the World Series (which is a great feat in and of itself, and no one’s saying you shouldn’t be proud of that), not that Cliff Lee will lose to the Giants every time he faces them.

(speaking of small sample sizes: Lincecum gave up four runs over 5 1/3 innings during game one of the World Series, surely it means he isn’t that great, right? See how that doesn’t work?)

By Brad on Jan 31, 2011

Besides the weak baseball arguments, the complete destruction of the English language is giving me a headache. Someone please define for me “rampid” and “intandables”.

Roger, seriously, good luck to you basing your 2011 projections on October 2010. If we would have done the same going into the 2009 season, we would have said that Cole Hamels would be unhittable (he wasn’t) and Joe Blanton would end the season with about 25 homeruns. Believe it or not, he didn’t.

Since you seem to have a very short memory, let’s discuss how the Giants might not have even been playing against the Phillies but for Brooks Conrad.

By hk on Jan 31, 2011

Roger,

Time does not permit to respond to all of your points, but I will respond to the following two:

You stated, “They were out pitched by starting pitchers of the Giants and the Giants bullpen out pitched the Phillies bullpen and the Giants closer was better than the Phillies closer.”

I ask, if all of that is true, how did the Phillies outscore the Giants in the series?

You stated, “Time will tell but don’t get too lost in those stats and projections … last year they told you Phillie was going to whoop the Giants and look what happened.”

My response is that I never thought the Phillies would whoop (whatever that means) the Giants. I did think that the Phillies were the better team; however, I learned a long time ago that the best team does not always win a baseball series or even win three straight including the World Series. This lesson was reiterated as recently as 2008 when the Phillies won the World Series despite not being the best team in baseball that year.

By Css228 on Jan 31, 2011

@Roger, the answer to your question why a month or two isn’t a valid sample size for predicting the future is really simple. Its called mathematics. They’ve proven when a players true potential can be valued by the amount of observations seen. Therefore, if you only look at the playoffs you have nowhere near enough data to make conclusions about anything, as a player probably wont even get 100 plate appearances in that time and definitely wont make more than 6-7 starts. Nowhere near enough data = nowhere near reliable. Its a simple statistical principle that i suggest you acquaint yourself with. If you’d really like to argue your point strongly bring trends that have held true for at least a reliable period of observation. If you can’t put up then shut up

By awh on Jan 31, 2011

“Besides the weak baseball arguments, the complete destruction of the English language is giving me a headache. Someone please define for me “rampid” and “intandables”.

Brad, roger is obviously a product of that excellent California school system.

By Css228 on Jan 31, 2011

Also someone here needs to debunk the myth that a guy can be good or bad against any one team. I mean even if a guy goes 9-0 against the Giants with a 2.31 ERA that doesn’t mean he has the Giants number, it just means that he played a good 9 games against them. There arent enough starts there to make any conclusions. Furthermore, chances are he wasn’t even facing the same lineup all of those times. So to say the Giants own Lee, when he a year earlier wasted them in their park means nothing. He’s had some great games against them and he’s sucked in others. I don’t know what else you can say but that. I mean Roger if you want to predict from that 2 game sample, I’ll take Cliff Lee’s averages over the past 3 years and project from those. I’ll even give you 4-1 odds that your projections are closer than mine. Because I guarantee if you think those 2 games in the WS were typical Lee starts then youre crazy

By Roger on Feb 1, 2011

I certainly understand that 2010 shouldn’t be the only data weighed to “project” a winner for the upcoming year. Nor should the last two or three months of 2010 be a sole point of projection yet I just question that when it comes to Phillie fans they give that little to no weight at all in their biased projections.
The Giants did out pitch the Phillies.
Their series ERA’s were identical yet the Giants won two more games in the series that needed only six games to decide who was best.
Lincecum out pitched Halladay in both games. Without a Huff error Lincecum very well could have been 2-0 in the NLCS series just like Tim did when matched up opposite Lee in the WS.
Oswalt was the Phillies most effective pitcher against the Giants and he was matched up against Matt Cain who pitched stellar with a 0.0 ERA and 1-0 against the Phillies and then Matt exceeded that performance against the Rangers.
Hamels edged Sanchez in performance and Bumgarner out pitched Blanton. The Giants bullpen did do a better job as did their closer.

As far as Lee is concerned he really has very little data for pitching in the NL. He was 7-4 with a 3.39 ERA and a decent 1.13 WHIP and OBA of .261 giving up one HR/9 innings. Those are not amazing numbers but numbers of a decent number 2 or 3 pitcher.
Lee has had three decent years and the rest pretty mediocre. Yes he has been effective in the post season before 2010 but his last postseason were not stellar performances and he took two loses with almost a 7 ERA for the series. Lee gave up 6 runs before he ran to the bench in the fifth in his first game and gave up three runs in the second game.
I think Lee is a decent pitcher. He is a lifetime 3.85 ERA a decent win percentage of .626% and a 1.256 WHIP OBA of .260 and a 1 HR/9 and 6.6 SO/9 Those are decent numbers but certainly not breathtaking numbers and numbers that Sanchez or Bumgarner are certainly capable of exceeding in 2011.

By Roger on Feb 1, 2011

Awh – Yes I screwed up spelling a few words (as if you are above it) … I had trouble sleeping so I wrote a reply without proof reading it so sue me.

When commenting on other peoples writing or responses and you are critical to a personal level it usually is a sign of immaturity and low esteem issues. I have not written any personal cuts or insults to anyone on this board and think it is a bit classless for you to do so without provocation. Does it make you feel better to be ripping someone else personally that you do not know? Rather shallow don’t you think?

Your WAG of what the majority of who GM’s would pick is simply more east coast bias BS spin and subjective guess work on your part.
The ages of these two staffs would be looked at a lot more than you give the GM’s credit for. The Giants average starters age of a little over 25 years old compared to the Phillies 32 is quite a difference and would influence more GM’s than the east coast media are willing to admit to. After seeing the way Lincecum(26), Cain(26) and Bumgarner(21) pitched there are plenty of GM’s that would jump all over picking those three at between six and twelve years younger. They have lots of years left compared to relatively few on Halladay(33), Lee(32) and Oswalt(33).

By Richard on Feb 1, 2011

Roger – the ages of the pitchers are only relevant if we’re talking long-term. We’re not.

As for the post-season, not only is it small-sample size, as you seem reluctant to acknowledge, but as such luck (in the technical sense, as well as not) plays a big role. For example, Lincecum didn’t pitch any better than Halladay in the LCS. He was getting hit rather hard in game one, but the balls were hit at fielders. (No complaints, that’s just the way it goes.) And in the World Series, he had one great game and one iffy game. He was just lucky that his iffy game came when Lee had his one bad game. Lee’s other game was dominant but for one pitch to Renteria.

Your repeated accusation of bias is not helping your case any either. You have been presented with all kinds of statistical evidence, which you refuse to engage with. Frankly, all kinds of baseball fans, whether Phillies fans or east coast fans or not, have been talking about the Phillies rotation for the upcoming season as being one for the ages, but it’s only Giants fans who feel the need to piss all over it. That is bias.

(Meanwhile, please note that no one is trying to take anything away from the Giants’ WS win. But you’re being ungracious.)

By hk on Feb 1, 2011

Roger,

Finally something on which we agree…personal attacks are not necessary and we welcome fans of the opposition. However, you are responding to a blog in which the question was asked which team will have the better rotation 4-man next year, so to base your argument on stats produced by other pitchers or on a small sample size like the post-season is not a case of East Coast bias, it is a case of you not providing much of a case. Also, as I’ve pointed out before, age will quite possibly be to the SF pitchers’ detriment this coming season as young pitchers throwing more innings than they have ever thrown before and having one less month to rest and recover have generally struggled the following season. If you are talking about 2013 and beyond – assuming that the Giants can afford to keep their rotation intact and the Phillies fail to retain Oswalt, you might be right that age works in the Giants favor. However, for 2011, none of the Phillies 4 has shown to be in a decline phase of their career and none has yet reached an age where pitchers begin to decline noticably.

While you call out others as immature or having low self esteem for using personal attacks, don’t you think this whole East Coast bias thing is borne of immaturity and low self esteem? We are all fans of particular teams and when you come on a Phillies blog, you’ll most likely encounter Phillies fans (i.e. East Coasters). That’s not to say that your view is not welcome here. To the contrary, this is one website that oft-times seeks input from writers from the other cities to hear what they think of their team and ours and also welcomes comments from fans of other teams. However, their arguments will only be taken seriously if they are backed up by legitimate statistics (sabermetric and otherwise) and claims. While you ponder the East Coast bias thing, find Buster Olney’s December poll of 16 talent evaluators on the question of which team’s rotation was the best in MLB. All 16 picked the Phillies first with 14 of 16 picking the Giants second. Or, since Olney works for ESPN and he’s from Vermont, do we assume he only sought out East Coast biased talent evaluators?

By Roger on Feb 1, 2011

HK … The east coast bias thing is real and if those who buy into it want to somehow discredit me for pointing out how obvious it is that is fine. You who are claiming it doesn’t exist are clearly living in the east because if you were from the central to west you would see it in your everyday media coverage.We saw and read and heard the spin last year that was just pitiful all throughout the playoffs last year (and every year for that matter.)
Olney is a big time Dodger fan who for quite a while was a Philadelphia sports writer who as you presented is from the east. He is a part of the eastern media. It is fine with me that he picks the Phillies as the top staff. He certainly didn’t pick the Giants to win it all last year just like the rest of those all wrapped up into Fox Sports and ESPN eastern bias. The media and the fans in the east gave no chance to the Giants and were blind to the way the Giants had been playing from September on. It is there whether those in the east want to admit to it or not. The so called experts in the east have failed in the predictions plenty … last season was a fine example of that.

I really am surprised that you can’t see the lack of west coast coverage in your media. I understand that western and central time zones make it late night news. They pretty much speed through any coverage outside of the teams on the east. I’ve spent plenty of time in the east and got little to no news other than a box of what the Giants were doing.
The top seven team payrolls were all east coast teams last year and somehow you think those organizations media people aren’t spending big money marketing to your local and national news and radio coverage? Seeing the bias in the east coast based media is certainly not immature HK. I guess it is simply less obvious to those who live by it and those seeing thru the fan filter that they choose to see thru. Yes I am seeing thru my filter yet not acknowledging the existence of a east coast bias is laughable to those who saw all those east coast sportscasters and so call experts completely dis the Giants the entire post season and be so wrong. All their numbers and spin was BS when it came down to what happened on the field. So instead of admitting it was faulty and they were wrong they simply claim it was luck and that is not ungracious?
I happen to be someone who gave credit to the Phillies for being there the last several years and knew they would be tough to beat last year but the Giants were up to the task. In 2008 the Phillies played great and earned the World Series championship and I gave them credit for that and not once did I try to make it about them being “lucky” as I continually get from Phillie fans now. I was in fact rooting for them to beat the Yankees in 2009.
Most of the people in the east didn’t see the Giants gel as a team and build their team chemistry that lead to their clutch hitting and ability to win close ball games. You can call it “luck” if you want and we can agree to disagree about that. We all have our views and if you want to insist that the better team lost that is fine with me … I will laugh and simply see it as exactly what you accuse me of … immaturity and due to your zest for the team you root for and lack in the ability to accept defeat with grace.

I did list some stats that were discounted based on subjective views on what statistics are meaningful. Having a starting staff that have a substantially better lifetime OBA statistic along with K/9 innings and who have improved in each of the last three seasons is something Phillie fans either discount or try to make a neglible statistic which is funny to me. They are not statistics that show a Phillie staff superiority so they are thrown out as if they don’t exist or called flawed indicators of a good staff. Projecting the best rotation is certainly subjective and of course I don’t expect Phillie fans to admit that the Giants could very well end up with the best pitching staff in 2011. Saying the Giants youth could be a detriment is as logical as my saying that the Phillies age will be there downfall … they are both subjective opinions.

Like I wrote last night … I never intended that the Giants excellent September, October and November to be the only factor in projecting the best rotation but is it a factor at all in Phillie fan projections?

I think not.

Is that flawed?

Well I think it may be a little bit but I’m not worried about it.

If Olney asked those same GM’s who the best total team pitching staff which included the bullpen and closer I think the Giants would have been favored by the majority of those GM’s.
The Giants Lincecum and Cain are in my opinion as good as the Halladay and Lee pair. Lincecum’s lifetime stats are better than Halladays. I think Sanchez is every bit as good as Hamels and Oswalt does edge the youthful Bumgarner. Like it or not Zito is a better number five starter than Blanton statistically even though he is way overpaid. The two staffs look pretty even to me but if Phillie fans want to claim some moral victory in January before they throw a pitch … fine. I happen to think the Giants youth will be an asset this year and that they will continue to improve as they have the last three years.

Css … so you are saying you will cover my bet of whatever I choose that the Phillie’s starters will out pitch the Giants this year at the odds of four to one? I might take you up on that How much are you willing to lose?

Also Css … there are plenty of examples that show there is no mathematical formula to calculate how well a player will perform from year to year and be accurate. Averaging and statistics are blown out in many days of baseball and they are just clues to what may happen. They play the game and great players slump and good teams get beat by lesser teams. Yes you can average the numbers and say it is a reasonable projection but in the end the variables to an athletes performance year to year is way beyond your statistical averaging. You can’t calculate a players focus or ability to come thru in the clutch. You can try but it is a WAG at best! You can average a players performance and way over extend or under appreciate a players season in the end.
An example of that would be Jimmy Rollins. He is a career .270 hitter but the last two years he has slumped to a .250 & .243 average. So statistically what do you project for Jimmy … to continue to slump as his last two years show or do you write it off to his age and that he was injury plagued or will he use HGH or some other non-tested PED to pull him up a notch him and its all better now and will he hit .270 at 20 something HRs?
The fact is no one knows how well Rollins will perform and the statistics may give you something to guess with but in the end it is a WAG.
The same goes for projecting the effectiveness of starting pitching.
If Phillie fans want to somehow claim superiority before a pitch is thrown … then so be it. All the statistics you can come up with will most likely be shown to be of little accuracy just as they did last year. The east said the Phillies had better pitching and they didn’t. The so called experts and all their stats said the Phillies would roll thru the Giants without a problem and that didn’t happen either! Things like Lincecum changing his workout regiment and then amping it back up or Bumgarner getting married and personal tragedy in his family affecting his conditioning or Sandoval having marriage problems during the regualar season and then going thru a divorce and his mother almost being blown up in a gas explosion are things that your statistics don’t capture and those are the things that make big impacts on how a player performs. The flow of life screws the mathamatics up daily in life. We can agree to disagree and that is fine … but to claim superiority in winter is comical. I look forward to seeing the Phillies again for the NLCS in 2011 and hopefully both teams will stay healthy enough to do so!

By k9_2458 on Feb 2, 2011

As a lifelong fan of the G-men, it bothers me none to acknowledge that the Phillies rotation is a historic one. But, the arguments against Cain are SILLY! Check out paapfly.com’s response Bill, and let us know what you think. Two of the last four years (2007 & 2009) Cain has a higher HR/FB rate at HOME then he does away, and the other two years the difference in both years is .4% (2008 & 2010). His ability to keep balls in the park is significant enough to be appreciated, rather than always be attributed to luck from park factor.

Again, I completely agree that Halladay is right up there with Lincecum, King Felix, CC & whoever you want to put in there for the top 5 pitchers in baseball. Also, that Lee, Oswalt and Hamels are STUDS. I personally think that the Phils rotation IS the best in baseball. The fact that the Giants is close behind them, IS NOT just a result of “luck” and “park factor” (for which the author conveniently ONLY used the factor for LHB HR rate) Baseball-Reference’s three year “Park Factor” actually grades AT&T park at a 101 which happens to be the same as Citizens Bank Ballpark!

By d to the p on Feb 3, 2011

http://www.paapfly.com/2011/02/matt-cain-ignores-xfip-again-and-again.html#more

just posting the link that k9_2458 mentioned.

it’s a good read …

By Richard on Feb 7, 2011

Bill, have you see the recent Fangraphs’ articles about Cain and the Giants?

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/can-matt-cain-sustain-his-low-hrfb-rate/

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/matt-cain-isnt-that-unique-after-all/

By Different Roger on Oct 13, 2011

Can someone explain to me why a larger ballpark would result in a LOWER babip? That seems completely counter-intuitive to me. Fewer home runs, sure, but I would think the extra ground to cover would result in more hits, and thus a higher BABIP on average.