Do the Astros have best pitching rotation in baseball history?

[DoitDickau]

This article from baseball prospectus make an interesting case that the trio of clemens, owsalt and pettite is on pace for the best season of any starting rotation trio in history.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4293

Can Of Corn
Tops among Top Three


by Dayn Perry
Printer-
friendly
Contact
Author

BASEBALL PROSPECTUS FREE PREVIEW

This article is normally only available to those with a Baseball Prospectus Premium subscription. From July 27 to August 3, however, everyone can access the great baseball content and stats that subscribers get year-round.

Monthly subscriptions are only $4.95 per month.

Please click here for more information, or click here to subscribe.



Coming into the 2005 season, the Houston Astros had lost middle-of-the-lineup forces Jeff Kent and Carlos Beltran, while franchise bulwarks Craig Biggio and Jeff Bagwell were another year older. On a park-adjusted basis, the '04 Astros, who made it to Game 7 of the NLCS, didn't have a terribly imposing offense, and now that unit was all the weaker. Indeed, this year's model leads the Wild Card chase despite ranking only 11th in the NL in runs scored.

As you might expect, the Astros are succeeding this season by keeping runs off the board; they rank second in the league in fewest runs allowed. More specifically, Houston's being ferried along to the post-season by an exceptional front of the rotation. Here's the cumulative line of Roger Clemens, Roy Oswalt and Andy Pettitte this season:



IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 H/9 K/BB R/G
446.1 7.0 2.02 0.50 7.5 3.47 2.46


The rest of the Houston staff? On the season they've worked 491.2 innings with a 5.73 R/G. As you can see from that latter figure, a tremendous amount of the team's value is concentrated in the troika of Clemens, Oswalt and Pettitte.

ERA is far from the most evocative pitching statistic around, but, laying its flaws aside for the moment, Clemens, Pettitte and Oswalt are thriving at it. Clemens' ERA of 1.46 would be lowest by a qualifier since Bob Gibson's unthinkable mark of 1.12 back in 1968. Needless to say, Clemens’ ERA this season easily would be the best ever for a 42-year-old (the current record for a qualifier of that age belongs to Warren Spahn, who in 1963 put up an ERA of 2.60). As for Pettitte, his park-adjusted ERA would be the tenth-best mark ever for a 33-year-old. Oswalt? His ERA of 2.46, relative to the league, is in the top 15 all-time for 27-year-old hurlers.

The question here is how great they are as a trio. To find an answer, we'll use a Baseball Prospectus metric called Runs Prevented (RP), which measures how many runs a pitcher has kept from scoring relative to a league-average hurler throwing the same number of innings. If trends hold, Clemens, Pettitte and Oswalt will combine for an RP total of 166.9. Here's how that would rank on the all-time trio single-season RP list:



Pitchers (Team) Total RP
1. R. Clemens, A. Pettitte, R. Oswalt (2005 Astros) 166.9*
2. P. Donohue, D. Luque, E. Rixey (1925 Reds) 161.8
3. T. Lewis, C. Young, G. Winter (1901 Red Sox) 159.4
4. C. Mathewson, J. McGinnity, D. Taylor (1904 Giants) 155.6
5. L. Gomez, M. Pearson, R. Ruffing (1937 Yankees) 154.3
6. G. Earnshaw, L. Grove, R. Walberg (1931 A's) 149.4
7. M. Brown, O. Overall, E. Reulbach (1909 Cubs) 148.7
8. B. Dineen, C. Young, G. Winter (1902 Red Sox) 145.7
9. R. Ames, C. Mathewson, J. McGinnity (1903 Giants) 143.1
10. R. Benton, E. Rixey, D. Luque (1923 Reds) 140.2


(* - Projected total)

Yep, the Astros' triumvirate is on pace to be the greatest in the annals of the game, by a fairly comfortable margin. In fact, if Clemens, Pettitte and Oswalt were to pitch not a single inning over the season's final two months, they'd still come close to cracking the top 30 all-time.

In the above list, modern trios are rather conspicuous in their absence, and instead the top ten is peppered with hoary, interred names like Cy Young, Christy Mathewson and Lefty Grove. If we confine the rankings to those toiling after World War II, here's how the list changes:



Pitchers (Team) Total RP
1. R. Clemens, A. Pettitte, R. Oswalt (2005 Astros) 166.9*
2. R. Clemens, P. Hentgen, W. Williams (1997 Blue Jays) 134.9
3. T. Glavine, G. Maddux, J. Smoltz (1997 Braves) 134.1
4. T. Glavine, G. Maddux, J. Smoltz (1998 Braves) 132.3
5. B. Lemon, H. Score, E. Wynn (1956 Indians) 130.2
6. D. Lowe, P. Martinez, T. Wakefield (2002 Red Sox) 129.7
7. G. Bearden, B. Feller, B. Lemon (1948 Indians) 128.5
8. R. Garces, D. Lowe, P. Martinez (2000 Red Sox) 128.2
9. R. Johnson, B. Kim, C. Schilling (2001 Diamondbacks) 127.2
10. A. Benton, M. Garcia, B. Lemon (1949 Indians) 127.0


Not surprisingly, the modern list contains a couple of Glavine-Maddux-Smoltz iterations. It's also striking just how dominant the current Astros' trio has been relative to others in the modern era. Of course, they're on target to be best of this or any era.

As great as Clemens has been this season, it's not as though he's schlepping two drastically lesser teammates to the top of list. Here's how they break down:



Pitcher RP RP MLB Rank
Clemens 46.2 1
Pettitte 25.0 10
Oswalt 36.9 3


All three have been among the ten best pitchers in all of baseball, as measured by RP. And not many would have guessed that Roy Oswalt, All-Star game afterthought, is within ten runs of Clemens in terms of RP. If they keep it up, the Astros will become the first team since the 1972 Orioles to have three different starters log at least 200 innings while maintaining an ERA of less than 2.75.

In any event, Clemens' individual brilliance notwithstanding, the top three Astro starters as a unit aren't getting the bandwidth they deserve. After all, they have an appointment with history that they'll likely keep.

James Click contributed research to this column.

Dayn Perry is an author of Baseball Prospectus. You can contact Dayn by clicking here or click here to see Dayn's other articles.

[msn]

DId anyone else expect to see Spahn, Sain, and some other guy in the list? Was their #3 really that bad? I just remember the common epithet, "Spahn and Sain, and pray for rain."

[DoitDickau]

DId anyone else expect to see Spahn, Sain, and some other guy in the list? Was their #3 really that bad? I just remember the common epithet, "Spahn and Sain, and pray for rain."


looking at stats from baseball-reference it look like sain and spahn never really had great seasons the same year. in '46, sain's best year, he won 20 game w/ an era of 2.21 and an era+ of 156, but spahn only pitched 125 innings and only won 8 games. Likewise, in 48, spains only other world class year he won 24, pitched 300+ innings, had an era of 2.60 and an era+ of 147, but spahn again struggled going 15 and 12 with a era of 3.71 and an era+ of 103.

There best combined year was 47 where their stat lined looked like this w/ their number 3 included (last number is era+):

---+-------------------+--+---+------+---+---+--+---+---+---+---+------+----+----+----+----+---+----+----+---+---+--+---+---+
SP Johnny Sain 3.52 21 12 266.0 111
SP *Warren Spahn 2.33 21 10 289.7 168
SP Red Barrett 3.55 11 12 210.7 110

their 3rd pitcher wasn't bad, but sain that was wasn't great either. after 48 spain never really had an above average year with boston

[A-Train]

It's hard to go against the '62 or '63 Dodgers with Drysdale and Kaufax...

[Hammer755]

It's hard to go against the '62 or '63 Dodgers with Drysdale and Kaufax...

Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz made quite a trio during the mid- to late-90's. 1998 in particuar was a good season for them - Maddux went 18-9 with a 2.22 ERA, Glavine went 20-6 with a 2.47 ERA, and Smoltz went 17-3 with a 2.90 ERA.

[Svpernaut]

If Oswalt and Pettitte continue on their current paces for their career, this is easily one of the best rotations of all-time... if not the best.

[codell]

If Oswalt and Pettitte continue on their current paces for their career, this is easily one of the best rotations of all-time... if not the best.

Clemens and Pettite need to get their win totals up for that to happen IMO.

They each have about 10-11 starts left a piece. Oswalt should get to 20 wins fairly easy. I think Roger and Andy can get to 16+ unless our offense goes down the tubes.

[GRENDAL]

Clemens and Pettite need to get their win totals up for that to happen IMO.

They each have about 10-11 starts left a piece. Oswalt should get to 20 wins fairly easy. I think Roger and Andy can get to 16+ unless our offense goes down the tubes.
It would take a major nose dive by the Stros offense for that to happen. I think both Roger and Andy will end up with very respectible win totals to go along with another 20 win season for Oswalt

[Svpernaut]

Clemens and Pettite need to get their win totals up for that to happen IMO.

They each have about 10-11 starts left a piece. Oswalt should get to 20 wins fairly easy. I think Roger and Andy can get to 16+ unless our offense goes down the tubes.

Clemens has 20 quality starts in 22 tries... that is freaking amazing. The reason Pettitte and Clemens win totals are so low is because of lack of run support, not bad pitching. Clemens' 1.45 ERA, Oswalt's 2.40 ERA and Pettitte's 2.58 ERA make them pretty tough to beat and definately one of the best trios of all-time in a single season. If the Astros had a half decent offense during the first two months of the season we could easily have three 20 game winners on our hands. You can't base their greatness on simply on the won/loss columns, if you look at the big picture they are damned near perfect.

[pgabriel]

I bet if you compare runs scored in those years and somehow factored that in the analysis, the '98 Atlanta staff would blow away most of the competition.

[MadMax]

This team...this pitching staff...all of it...clearly the GREATEST TEAM OF ALL TIME!!!!!




;) (i love them)

[DoitDickau]

I bet if you compare runs scored in those years and somehow factored that in the analysis, the '98 Atlanta staff would blow away most of the competition.

The statistics used in the article take that into account along with park effects. It's really been an amazing season.

[TheFreak]

If they do, heads will need to roll if they don't make the playoffs.

[meh]

I bet if you compare runs scored in those years and somehow factored that in the analysis, the '98 Atlanta staff would blow away most of the competition.

In 1998, the NL scored an average of 4.6 runs per game. So far in 2005, the NL scored an average of 4.5 runs a game. So no, the 98 Atlanta staff wouldn't blow away the competition.

[A-Train]

Atlanta's staff used to get some steroid injected strike zones, also...especially Maddox! They used to call strikes for them that were easily 5-6 inches off the plate

[Groogrux]

Atlanta's staff used to get some steroid injected strike zones, also...especially Maddox! They used to call strikes for them that were easily 5-6 inches off the plate

That's what made that game against Florida in 1997 even better! Did anyone hear Dierker talk about that on Saturday? He was saying how Glavine stopped getting that outside strike call since, you know, it wasn't a strike. Except that he never stopped pitching it and they decided on Saturday to start giving it back to him. :)

[Svpernaut]

Atlanta's staff used to get some steroid injected strike zones, also...especially Maddox! They used to call strikes for them that were easily 5-6 inches off the plate

If Roy O got HALF the calls that Maddox & Glavine got back then (hell even now), he'd easily have 100 wins by now(77 atm).

[BobFinn*]

Best pitching staff in modern times is the 1971 Baltimore Orioles

Dave McNally-- 21-5 -- 2.89

Pat Dobson--- 20-8---- 2.90

Jim Palmer----- 20-9 ------2.68

Mike Cuellar---- 20-9----- 3.08

[Svpernaut]

Best pitching staff in modern times is the 1971 Baltimore Orioles

Dave McNally-- 21-5 -- 2.89

Pat Dobson--- 20-8---- 2.90

Jim Palmer----- 20-9 ------2.68

Mike Cuellar---- 20-9----- 3.08

The Astros top 3 easily beat that... 2.68 is far from an amazing feat, especially in 1971... Roy O and Roger are way below that. Throw Zeke and Wandy's new found stuff and I'll take on anyone.

[meh]

Best pitching staff in modern times is the 1971 Baltimore Orioles

Dave McNally-- 21-5 -- 2.89

Pat Dobson--- 20-8---- 2.90

Jim Palmer----- 20-9 ------2.68

Mike Cuellar---- 20-9----- 3.08

The average ERA in the AL in 1971 is a 3.47. So that pitching staff's ERA isn't even close to being amazing. There's a reason why the article compares those pitchers' runs-saved vs. league average pitchers. Rather than simply use raw ERA.

As for the ability to have 4 20-game winners, the Baltimore Orioles had the best offense in baseball that year, by quite a nice margin. In addition, those 4 pitchers combined to start 142 games. This was back when they had 4-man rotations.

[redgoose]

Just imagine if we got Jamie Mayer? We'd have the best complete 5 man starting rotation with room to spare, especially the way Asctacio has been pitching lateltly. :cool:

[DoitDickau]

I also read on a post on orangewhoopass that if the season end today clemens would have an season era+ of over 300 which would rank as the best of all-time!

[bobrek]

Best pitching staff in modern times is the 1971 Baltimore Orioles

Dave McNally-- 21-5 -- 2.89

Pat Dobson--- 20-8---- 2.90

Jim Palmer----- 20-9 ------2.68

Mike Cuellar---- 20-9----- 3.08

Cheapskate Drayton wouldn't pay Cuellar :) and they had to trade him for Curt Blefary (trivia moment - Curt Blefary and Joe Morgan became the first interracial road roommates on the Astros - maybe in baseball).

Sorry to derail - back to the thread.

[BobFinn*]

The average ERA in the AL in 1971 is a 3.47. So that pitching staff's ERA isn't even close to being amazing. There's a reason why the article compares those pitchers' runs-saved vs. league average pitchers. Rather than simply use raw ERA.

When is the last time Clemens threw a complete game? When is the last time he won 20 games? LOL runs-saved, how many wins (10), that is the object of the game, right?

As for the ability to have 4 20-game winners, the Baltimore Orioles had the best offense in baseball that year, by quite a nice margin. In addition, those 4 pitchers combined to start 142 games. This was back when they had 4-man rotations.

Where do you get best offense by far? Detroit, Oakland and Boston had just as good offensive teams, their pitching was not as good.

Of those 142 starts they completed 71 of them, is that not impressive to you?

Of course the Astros staff (if you want to call Clemens and Oswalt a staff) will have better numbers, they don't throw as many innings. Look I like the Astros, but they are far from the greatest STAFF ever. Clemens and Oswalt are very good, but the rest of the staff (including Pettitte who missed a lot of starts the last 2 years) are not consistent over an entire season to stand up to that claim.

[MadMax]

Just imagine if we got Jamie Mayer? We'd have the best complete 5 man starting rotation with room to spare, especially the way Asctacio has been pitching lateltly. :cool:

yeah, john mayer is really good.

[Groogrux]

How many starts has Pettitte missed this year?

[DoitDickau]

[QUOTE=BobFinn*]When is the last time Clemens threw a complete game? When is the last time he won 20 games? LOL runs-saved, how many wins (10), that is the object of the game, right?

The object of the game for the TEAM is to win, however run prevented or even era is a much telling statistic for pitchers than wins because the object of the game is for a pitcher is to prevent runs; just like the object of a lefthanded relief specialist is to retire the one batter he faces; or like the object for a pinch hitter is to produce in the one at bat he gets. We don't hold a pinch hitter accountable for the team's loss if when he comes into the game his team is down 15-0 because he, righty, shouldn't be accountable for events outside of his control. Likewise, a pitcher who goes 9 innings, gives up one unearned run, and loses cause his team is shoutout(sound familiar clemens fans?), has done his job well, and even better than a pitcher in the same league who goes 5 inning gives up 8 runs and wins cause his offense is the reincernation of the 27 yankees. He has little to no control of what the offense and for that matter what the defense does. And offense and defense combined make up more than 50 percent of what determines who wins the game.

You are correct that innings pitched factor into the analysis favorably for the orioles when comparing the two staff, however, runs prevented takes that into account. (note that oswalt is 2nd in innings pitched in the league, clemens is 8th, and petttite is 20th). It also takes into account that the astros staff plays in a league which averages a run more per game than the american league in 1971 and pitches in a hitter's ballpark. It also takes into account that every single member of the astros trio has a better era than the best member of that baltimore staff. Clemens's era is well over a run lower that every single member of that staff. In the end, even taking into account innings pitched, the astros trio has just been better than the orioles and it's not even really close. The 71 orioles won all those game in large part due to pitching a lot of quality innings, but also in no insignificant part due to their great offense. They were good that year, but not good enough to be in the discussion of the great all-time staffs and certain not close to what clemens, oswalt, and pettite are on pace to be this year.

[BobFinn*]

Here's the deal.

There are 2 months left in the 2005 season. The Astros will be lucky to have one 20 game winner. I will bring this thread back at the end of the season. Only then can we have a serious discussion.

[Svpernaut]

How many starts has Pettitte missed this year?

He has missed two starts, 11 days total.

[Groogrux]

He has missed two starts, 11 days total.

I'd say he counts as a consistent member of this staff, then.

[Major]

Here's the deal.

There are 2 months left in the 2005 season. The Astros will be lucky to have one 20 game winner. I will bring this thread back at the end of the season. Only then can we have a serious discussion.

You think Oswalt will be lucky to get 6 wins in his remaining ~12 starts?

[bobrek]

Here's the deal.

There are 2 months left in the 2005 season. The Astros will be lucky to have one 20 game winner. I will bring this thread back at the end of the season. Only then can we have a serious discussion.

The Astros should bring back Jeriome Robertson. Considering he won more games than Oswalt and Miller in 2003, he was clearly the Astros best pitcher that year.

[Svpernaut]

I'd say he counts as a consistent member of this staff, then.

Yup, Roger has only missed one start and Roy hasn't missed any... we've been fortunate.

[meh]

When is the last time Clemens threw a complete game? When is the last time he won 20 games? LOL runs-saved, how many wins (10), that is the object of the game, right?

DoitDickau already said what I wanted to post. So I won't bother repeating it.

Where do you get best offense by far? Detroit, Oakland and Boston had just as good offensive teams, their pitching was not as good.

Baltimore scored 742 runs that year. That's 41 runs better than Detroit, and 51 runs better than Oakland and Boston. 40-50 runs might not be a big deal today. But back then, teams average basically 100 runs per season less than current ballclubs. That's a pretty hefty advantage back then.

Of those 142 starts they completed 71 of them, is that not impressive to you?

Of course the Astros staff (if you want to call Clemens and Oswalt a staff) will have better numbers, they don't throw as many innings. Look I like the Astros, but they are far from the greatest STAFF ever. Clemens and Oswalt are very good, but the rest of the staff (including Pettitte who missed a lot of starts the last 2 years) are not consistent over an entire season to stand up to that claim

I won't doubt that back in the 70s(and earlier), pitchers in general are more valuable than they are today. It's hard to argue against that when they're pitching every 4 days rather than every 5. But that doesn't mean they're better. You can't compare players across generations like without taking into account the way the game's played. Pitchers can't pitch so much nowadays because they throw harder. Other than perhaps Livan Hernandez, no baseball pitcher today can throw almost 300 innings like they do back then, and still have a productive career.

[Svpernaut]

The Astros should bring back Jeriome Robertson. Considering he won more games than Oswalt and Miller in 2003, he was clearly the Astros best pitcher that year.

hehe great point... why do people focus only on the Won/Loss? ERA and quality starts is a true showing of a pitchers worth... our starters went 22 straight games without being pulled before the 6th, that is amazing. It is also amazing that when the streak ended, he didn't need to be pulled (Zeke last night). We don't have an amazing offense, which will always result in fewer decisions for the starting pitchers.

We play a lot more 1-2 run games then most other teams at the top, so the winning runs are generally scored in the 7th, 8th or 9th. We have three of the top four ERAs in the LEAGUE and 3 of the top 5 in the MAJORS! If our 4 and 5 spots were pitching like they are now we would clearly be the best rotation of all time. As it is, in their current state they are definately worth the consideration.

[msn]

The argument for both sides is compelling. All I have to say, even if it doesn't add much, is: 72 CG's??? Holy cow! The Astros don't even get 5 CG's a year any more.

[flamingmoe]

there is a couple of ESPN insider articles up today about Roger, anyone with access care to post?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/index

[BobFinn*]

Baltimore scored 742 runs that year. That's 41 runs better than Detroit, and 51 runs better than Oakland and Boston. 40-50 runs might not be a big deal today. But back then, teams average basically 100 runs per season less than current ballclubs. That's a pretty hefty advantage back then.

Average runs per game 1971

Baltimore---4.70
Detroit-----4.33
Oakland----4.29
Boston-----4.28





I won't doubt that back in the 70s(and earlier), pitchers in general are more valuable than they are today. It's hard to argue against that when they're pitching every 4 days rather than every 5. But that doesn't mean they're better. You can't compare players across generations like without taking into account the way the game's played. Pitchers can't pitch so much nowadays because they throw harder. Other than perhaps Livan Hernandez, no baseball pitcher today can throw almost 300 innings like they do back then, and still have a productive career.

How do you know pitchers throw harder nowadays? they didn't have radar guns back then. Todays pitchers are judged on what they can do with 100 pitches per game. Closers are just as important as starters. The game has changed in that aspect, but what hasn't changed is winning 20 games. There were 4 pitchers in all the national league that won 20 games in 1971, the Orioles 4 starters win 20 each. I will take those 4 against any staff.

[robbie380]

When is the last time Clemens threw a complete game? When is the last time he won 20 games? LOL runs-saved, how many wins (10), that is the object of the game, right?

It's impossible to win if your team doesn't score.

[NewRoxFan]

I vaguely recall that Boltimore team... it had a great defense behind those pitchers too, with Brooks at third, Belnager at SS, Powell at 1st, and Davey Johnson at 2nd base.

[meh]

Average runs per game 1971

Baltimore---4.70
Detroit-----4.33
Oakland----4.29
Boston-----4.28


Ok... So you basically gave the same stats except in a per-game format. What's your point? Mine was that 41 extra runs is a very sizable margin. It's surely worth about 10 games or so back then, considering the average team only scores about 3.8 runs a game. That amount of runs is roughly the equivalent of the Cards 9 game lead on the Astros this year.


How do you know pitchers throw harder nowadays? they didn't have radar guns back then. Todays pitchers are judged on what they can do with 100 pitches per game. Closers are just as important as starters. The game has changed in that aspect, but what hasn't changed is winning 20 games. There were 4 pitchers in all the national league that won 20 games in 1971, the Orioles 4 starters win 20 each. I will take those 4 against any staff.

I'm too young to remember the transition from 4-man rotation to the current 5-man rotation in baseball. Perhaps they throw just as hard back then. But if so, I can't imagine why no pitcher nowadays can throw nearly 300 innings in baseball. Have all pitchers become lazier now or something?

Pleast stop with the whole "winning 20 games" argument. Among the top 40 pitchers in ERA this year, 17 has more wins than Roger Clemens? Are you saying you'd take each one of those pitchers over the Rocket?

[BobFinn*]

Ok... So you basically gave the same stats except in a per-game format. What's your point? Mine was that 41 extra runs is a very sizable margin. It's surely worth about 10 games or so back then, considering the average team only scores about 3.8 runs a game. That amount of runs is roughly the equivalent of the Cards 9 game lead on the Astros this year.

My point was to show their ability to score runs was not as "hefty" as you made it out to be. Take into account the Orioles scored 10 or more runs 13 times that year. They won the division by 12 games.



I'm too young to remember the transition from 4-man rotation to the current 5-man rotation in baseball. Perhaps they throw just as hard back then. But if so, I can't imagine why no pitcher nowadays can throw nearly 300 innings in baseball. Have all pitchers become lazier now or something?

The word is Pampered

Pleast stop with the whole "winning 20 games" argument. Among the top 40 pitchers in ERA this year, 17 has more wins than Roger Clemens? Are you saying you'd take each one of those pitchers over the Rocket?

The thread title asked if the Astros were the best rotation in baseball history. In my opinion they are not even close to being the best. The 1971 Orioles pitching staff was head and shoulders above this staff. Wins, Complete games, Innings pitched. Look at the 1965 Dodgers for great pitching with little run support, another better staff than the Astros.

You're trying to make it out like todays pitchers a "better" than those of yesteryear. They are not .

[Puedlfor]

It's weird that you mention that today's pitchers are pampered then mention the 1965 Dodgers - who's best pitcher was forced to retire due to injury at 30 because of overpitching.

Today's pitchers are better than those in the past - and they'll have longer, and more effective careers thanks to this "pampering".

[Manny Ramirez]

8. R. Garces, D. Lowe, P. Martinez (2000 Red Sox) 128.2


I don't know where Perry got this idea that Rich "El Guapo" Garces was a starter.

[DoitDickau]

I don't know where Perry got this idea that Rich "El Guapo" Garces was a starter.

weird. derek lowe was a relief pitching in '00 as well.

[BobFinn*]

It's weird that you mention that today's pitchers are pampered then mention the 1965 Dodgers - who's best pitcher was forced to retire due to injury at 30 because of overpitching.

Today's pitchers are better than those in the past - and they'll have longer, and more effective careers thanks to this "pampering".

Imagine paying a pitcher $100 million and running him out there every 4th day? Ain't gonna happen. Of course they will have longer careers only having to pitch 6 or 7 innings (or 100 pitches, whichever comes first) then let the bullpen take over. As for more effective careers, I don't think so.

As far as Koufax, he retired because of arthritis, not overpitching.

[Puedlfor]

Nonsense.

Before the 1964 season Koufax was having elbow problems - the Dodgers threw him in a ST game where he threw 150 pitches - his elbow swelled up like a balloon - but the Dodgers proceeded to throw him out there every fourth anyways - is it a coincidence that he retired before he was thirty?

Or that Don Drysdale retired before he was 33?

Or that the Los Angeles Dodgers - having lost two Hall of Famers in the prime of their careers - were one of the first teams to move to a five man rotation?

Pitchers don't pitch as much as they used to because teams actually like to have pitchers have long, effective careers. Because teams realize you can't just pitch through elbow problems without having serious consequences.

[BobFinn*]

Nonsense.

Before the 1964 season Koufax was having elbow problems - the Dodgers threw him in a ST game where he threw 150 pitches - his elbow swelled up like a balloon - but the Dodgers proceeded to throw him out there every fourth anyways - is it a coincidence that he retired before he was thirty?

Or that Don Drysdale retired before he was 33?

Or that the Los Angeles Dodgers - having lost two Hall of Famers in the prime of their careers - were one of the first teams to move to a five man rotation?

Pitchers don't pitch as much as they used to because teams actually like to have pitchers have long, effective careers. Because teams realize you can't just pitch through elbow problems without having serious consequences.

Drysdale retired because of a torn rotator cuff. Again not ovepitching

[Puedlfor]

How did Don Drysdale get a torn rotator cuff then?

[BobFinn*]

How did Don Drysdale get a torn rotator cuff then?

Same as Chien-Ming Wang or Tommy John

Prognosis

The prognosis for recovery from minor rotator cuff injuries is excellent. For serious injuries, the prognosis is usually good, some six weeks of physical therapy being required following surgery. Full recovery may take several more months. In some cases, the injury is so severe that it requires tendon grafts and muscle transfers. In rare cases, a severe injury is not repairable, usually because the tendon has been torn for too long a time.


So you see, a torn rotator cuff is no longer the "cancer" Drysdale said it was.

[Puedlfor]

The thing is, you're showing me two pitchers who both had huge workloads, and shortly after that had to retire due to arm injuries.

I just can't believe that Sandy Koufax's career couldn't have been prolonged if he had a lighter workload, or the Dodgers hadn't thrown him for 330 innings despite his elbow trouble - or that Drysdale doesn't tear his rotator cuff if he hadn't put so much stress on it in the preceeding years by throwing so much.

[gwayneco]

The thing is, you're showing me two pitchers who both had huge workloads, and shortly after that had to retire due to arm injuries.

I just can't believe that Sandy Koufax's career couldn't have been prolonged if he had a lighter workload, or the Dodgers hadn't thrown him for 330 innings despite his elbow trouble - or that Drysdale doesn't tear his rotator cuff if he hadn't put so much stress on it in the preceeding years by throwing so much.

Uh oh, Pitch Count Police in the house.

[francis 4 prez]

The thread title asked if the Astros were the best rotation in baseball history.

yes, and the article went on to be about the best threesome ever. by a stat measuring pitchers against their era and their park, the astros big 3 came out way on top. i'm not sure how you're going to argue against that. just b/c the '71 orioles staff could win 20 games, doesn't mean they were the best. i'm not sure how you can discount leading your league in scoring by almost 10% (the red sox are about .5% ahead of the yankees right now by comparison) but apparently you do.


You're trying to make it out like todays pitchers a "better" than those of yesteryear. They are not .

you make it sound like there's no way they could be.

[leehoang]

A very good read.

[T_in_Charlotte]

If either Zeke or wandy would step up and prove they belong in this rotaion or if Backe would start pitching like he did last year, than i would say yes. But, until then, I would say no. A great all-time pitching staff has solid contributions for the 4th and 5th starters, and, this year, we haven't seen that too often.