PDA

View Full Version : Is the 2012 starting staff the Reds' best all time?



fearofpopvol1
07-23-2012, 01:32 AM
Please Note: I am not including the bullpen in this topic (if that wasn't already obvious).

If you look at WAR, it looks like they are on pace to be the 2nd best of all time. Obviously, they have to keep up the current pace. And if they keep pitching like they have as of late, maybe they will be the best!

The best Reds starting rotation, according to Fangraphs WAR, was the 1982 staff. The 2012 staff is on pace to be just a little bit better than the 1992 staff, which is ranked 2nd all time currently.

Needless to say, it's looking like this staff is one of the best the Reds have had in a very very long time. And can you imagine if Latos comes around and pitches like we hope he will?

Anyway, thoughts?

AtomicDumpling
07-23-2012, 01:56 AM
It is definitely the best since I have been a serious observer (since the mid 90's). I am loving it.

RedsBaron
07-23-2012, 07:42 AM
"All Time" takes in a lot of territory.
The 1923 Reds had a pretty decent starting staff. Doll Luque won 27 games with a 1.93 ERA and 201 ERA+; Eppa Rixey won 20 with 2.80 and 139; Pete Donohoe won 21 with 3.38 and 115; and Rube Benton won 14 with 3.66 and 106.
The 1940 World Champion Reds also had a deep starting staff. Bucky Walters won 22 with a 2.29 ERA and 170 ERA+; Paul Derringer won 20 with 3.06 and 124; Junior Thompson won 16 with 3.32 and 115; and Jim Turner won 14 with 2.89 and 132.

Big Klu
07-23-2012, 09:55 AM
1982 was the best? That's enough to convince me to ignore Fangraphs WAR forever.

Mario Soto was much better than his 14-13 record would indicate, but Tom Seaver, Bruce Berenyi, Frank Pastore, Greg Harris, Charlie Leibrandt, and Bob Shirley were bad.

RANDY IN INDY
07-23-2012, 10:03 AM
The 1962 starting staff was pretty formidable.

westofyou
07-23-2012, 10:10 AM
1982 was the best? That's enough to convince me to ignore Fangraphs WAR forever.

Mario Soto was much better than his 14-13 record would indicate, but Tom Seaver, Bruce Berenyi, Frank Pastore, Greg Harris, Charlie Leibrandt, and Bob Shirley were bad.

This

The 20's had the most formidable staff in my eyes

cumberlandreds
07-23-2012, 11:12 AM
1982 was the best? That's enough to convince me to ignore Fangraphs WAR forever.

Mario Soto was much better than his 14-13 record would indicate, but Tom Seaver, Bruce Berenyi, Frank Pastore, Greg Harris, Charlie Leibrandt, and Bob Shirley were bad.

Same for me. Stats don't always tell the story. That was worst Reds team of all time. Pitching was equally as bad as the hitting. If the pitching was that good then that team would have lost far fewer than 101 games.

mdccclxix
07-23-2012, 11:42 AM
I really liked the staffs in 94 and 95 with Shourek, Smiley, Portugal, Rijo, Wells, etc. Especially, 1995.

wolfboy
07-23-2012, 11:53 AM
1982 was the best? That's enough to convince me to ignore Fangraphs WAR forever.

I don't even see fWAR data for guys in the 60s, not to mention the 20s. I don't think the problem is with fWAR.

RedlegJake
07-23-2012, 04:36 PM
The staffs of the 20s and the 39-40-41 staffs and the 61-62 staffs were very, very good. I don;t know that his staff is in that territory yet although I think it could be. That fangraphs calls the 82 staff better than any of these is laughable.

wolfboy
07-23-2012, 04:48 PM
The staffs of the 20s and the 39-40-41 staffs and the 61-62 staffs were very, very good. I don;t know that his staff is in that territory yet although I think it could be. That fangraphs calls the 82 staff better than any of these is laughable.

Fangraphs does not say anything of the sort. fWAR only goes back to 1974; therefore, you are unable to compare 1982 staff to any staff before 1974 using fWAR.

This statement by the original poster is wrong:
The best Reds starting rotation, according to Fangraphs WAR, was the 1982 staff.

_Sir_Charles_
07-23-2012, 06:55 PM
1982 was the best? That's enough to convince me to ignore Fangraphs WAR forever.

Mario Soto was much better than his 14-13 record would indicate, but Tom Seaver, Bruce Berenyi, Frank Pastore, Greg Harris, Charlie Leibrandt, and Bob Shirley were bad.

Yeah, I find this incredibly hard to believe. That's simply GOT to be a typo or something. That's not even CLOSE to the best.

Nathan
07-23-2012, 07:20 PM
I'm not too familiar with WAR calculations, so I don't post too much about it, but, curious as to why they consider that staff the best as far as WAR is concerned. What goes into the calculations? That might explain a lot.

nate
07-23-2012, 08:39 PM
fWAR includes staying on the field or, in the case of pitching, IP.

As a ruler, the 2010 playoff team SP had a FIP of 4.24 with 965 IP.

The 1982 SP had a FIP of 3.44 while pitching 1004 innings. That's the 9th most since 1974 and we haven't seen any amount close to that since 1992 (1008.1.)

Their peripherals broke down thusly:

K/9: 6.38
BB/9: 3.25
HR/9: 0.70

The current staff has a FIP of 3.92 with 595.2 IP.

Their peripherals:

K/9: 6.81
BB/9: 2.15
HR/9: 1.07

You can look at this table here (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=1974&ind=1&team=18,ts&rost=0&age=0&players=0&sort=0,d).

Although it's common to talk about K/9 being an important pitching peripheral, note that HR have quite a bit of weight in FIP. That's because it's the only event entirely controlled by the pitcher that leads to run(s) (and the average home run typically yields more than a single run.)

xFIP, which normalizes FB-rate isn't available for the '82 staff but it would be an interesting comparison.

westofyou
07-23-2012, 08:58 PM
1982 was heinous

No matter how the numbers play out

I hated that season, thank gawd I was in SF and got to watch the Giants ruin the Dodgers year

Thank you Mr Morgan

Tony Cloninger
07-23-2012, 09:14 PM
Bruce Berenyi actually was pitched pretty decent and so was Bob Shirley....but it was a very middle of the road overall pitching staff.....that was dragged down by a horrible offense.

It has to be the 1939-44 staffs.... 1922-26 staffs...or even 1963-64 staffs. 1967? That was a pretty good pitching team as well.

westofyou
07-23-2012, 09:24 PM
Bruce Berenyi actually was pitched pretty decent and so was Bob Shirley....but it was a very middle of the road overall pitching staff.....that was dragged down by a horrible offense.

It has to be the 1939-44 staffs.... 1922-26 staffs...or even 1963-64 staffs. 1967? That was a pretty good pitching team as well.

I say 39-40

The team won big, offense was huge and the game was still a starter centric game, by the 60s the BP factors into the game more post war and if we are talking STAFF the McKetchie teams are the ones who deliver the goods

fearofpopvol1
07-24-2012, 02:53 AM
Fangraphs does not say anything of the sort. fWAR only goes back to 1974; therefore, you are unable to compare 1982 staff to any staff before 1974 using fWAR.

This statement by the original poster is wrong:

It's not wrong, actually. See for yourself, based on what I said about WAR. The 1982 staff had a season WAR number of 17.8. The highest of any Reds starting staff.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=1882&ind=1&team=18,ts&rost=0&age=0&players=0

DGullett35
07-24-2012, 03:37 AM
I was only 4 yrs old in 1990 so I didn't get to watch them, and ive read that the 90' bullpen was great but what about this years Reds pen being the best Reds' pen ever? Going into tonights game vs. the Stro's they had gone something like 28 innings with only 1ER. They've been great all year and probably the best Reds' pen Ive seen in my lifetime. Thoughts?

mth123
07-24-2012, 06:50 AM
I was only 4 yrs old in 1990 so I didn't get to watch them, and ive read that the 90' bullpen was great but what about this years Reds pen being the best Reds' pen ever? Going into tonights game vs. the Stro's they had gone something like 28 innings with only 1ER. They've been great all year and probably the best Reds' pen Ive seen in my lifetime. Thoughts?

The Nasty Boys had flash to match the talent and less other stuff on that team to overshadow them, but this pen is deeper. I think the Carroll, Borbon, Eastwick, McEnaney pen gets lost in the glare of the great 8. That pen might have been better than this one. Heck, Graves, Sullivan, Williamson, Reyes was pretty darned good too.

I guess the moral of this thread is that we're learning that the really good teams had good pitching. Wow. What a revelation.;)

wolfboy
07-24-2012, 08:54 AM
It's not wrong, actually. See for yourself, based on what I said about WAR. The 1982 staff had a season WAR number of 17.8. The highest of any Reds starting staff.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=1882&ind=1&team=18,ts&rost=0&age=0&players=0

It is incorrect. Fangraphs does not have fWAR for pitchers prior to 1974; therefore, it is inaccurate to say that Fangraphs says the 1982 staff is the best ever. The accurate statement is to say that the 1982 staff had the highest fWAR of any Reds rotation from 1974 through 2011.

I'm not beating up on you when I point that out, but several people have reacted with outrage that Fangraphs would call the 1982 rotation the best ever. The fact is Fangraphs makes no such claim.

Kc61
07-24-2012, 09:15 AM
The Nasty Boys had flash to match the talent and less other stuff on that team to overshadow them, but this pen is deeper. I think the Carroll, Borbon, Eastwick, McEnaney pen gets lost in the glare of the great 8. That pen might have been better than this one. Heck, Graves, Sullivan, Williamson, Reyes was pretty darned good too.

I guess the moral of this thread is that we're learning that the really good teams had good pitching. Wow. What a revelation.;)

Walt gets credit for emphasizing the pitching. Has paid dividends, to be sure.

I wouldn't rate this bullpen as high as you do. I think it's a solid, above average pen, with one dominant, amazing closer.

Marshall is a fine reliever who hasn't had the best results this year. Lot of hits allowed, probably largely bad luck. Arredondo walks a lot of guys. If those two step up big time down the stretch, I'll feel better about the pen.

So far, IMO, it's the Nasty Boy (singular) and some solid, consistent guys.

Good pen, but I'm more impressed by the starters this year.

Dan
07-24-2012, 09:56 AM
I don't know if we're talking full year or what. But the 2nd half rotation of Smiley, Shoureck, Wells, and Portugal was alright.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-24-2012, 11:33 AM
This rotation is solid. Not spectacular, but solid. Once Miami finds someone to replace Sanchez in their rotation, the Reds will be the only NL rotation to have only 5 starters that have made starts. They average 6.26 innings per start, which ranks third behind PHI and SF and all five starters average 6 innings per start (with the exception of Latos who is short just 2/3 of an inning). So they are solid and dependable and not taxing the bullpen. They are great at limiting walks (BB/9 is #2 in the NL) and being dependable. That’s about it. They are a little below average in other peripherals, but there’s something to say about consistency and dependability. The bullpen is the real star of this team’s staff. The rotation is nothing flashy, but is definitely getting the job done. On the bright side, Latos has been the biggest disappointment so far, and it would be expected that he will only get better (as long as that knee is ok……get an MRI, please….like ASAP).

I wouldn’t say this is the best rotation the Reds have ever had. It has potential to be one of the best, but for now it’s just solid and, again for lack of a better word, dependable.

NL ranks for Reds rotation:


IP/GS: #3 (6.26)
fWAR: #7 (8.6)
K/9: #12 (6.80)
BB/9: #2 (2.16)
HR/9: #11 (1.06)
GB%: #12 43.5%)
ERA: #5 (3.66)
FIP: #10 (3.92)
xFIP: #6 (3.94)

Kc61
07-24-2012, 11:46 AM
[QUOTE=BuckeyeRedleg;2674894] The bullpen is the real star of this teamís staff.

As I said in an earlier post, I don't agree with this, I think CHAPMAN is the real star of the team's staff, but the rest of the relievers are consistent, solid, not more than that.

I'm very high on the rotation. Remember all the posts over the years how the team shouldn't expect much from a fifth starter? How even a 5.00 ERA could be ok for a fifth starter compared to other teams? Some posters even said that you can't expect too much from a fourth starter.

This team has no fifth starter. Every starter is capable of a very good outing at any time. And I'd dare to guess that each time through the rotation, the Reds get 3 or 4 very fine outings. Sometimes it has even gone five for five.

It's this depth of the rotation that I can't recall in prior Reds' staffs.

Luck has helped, the Reds have been able to use their five guys every start this season.

The only question I have about the staff is how well the top tier guys will do down the stretch and hopefully in the playoffs when All Star pitchers are on the other side. How will Cueto do in a playoff game against Matt Cain? That type of thing.

As you may surmise, I'm a big fan of the Reds' rotation this year.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-24-2012, 12:14 PM
As I said in an earlier post, I don't agree with this, I think CHAPMAN is the real star of the team's staff, but the rest of the relievers are consistent, solid, not more than that.

I'm very high on the rotation. Remember all the posts over the years how the team shouldn't expect much from a fifth starter? How even a 5.00 ERA could be ok for a fifth starter compared to other teams? Some posters even said that you can't expect too much from a fourth starter.

This team has no fifth starter. Every starter is capable of a very good outing at any time. And I'd dare to guess that each time through the rotation, the Reds get 3 or 4 very fine outings. Sometimes it has even gone five for five.

It's this depth of the rotation that I can't recall in prior Reds' staffs.

Luck has helped, the Reds have been able to use their five guys every start this season.

The only question I have about the staff is how well the top tier guys will do down the stretch and hopefully in the playoffs when All Star pitchers are on the other side. How will Cueto do in a playoff game against Matt Cain? That type of thing.

As you may surmise, I'm a big fan of the Reds' rotation this year.

But the numbers just donít back that up, KC.

With the exception of Ondrusek and Bray, every reliever in the pen has been solid. Five have over a K an inning, with Simon close (8.51 K/9). The bullpen leads the NL in K/9 with 10.37. They are #2 in HR/9 (0.70) and thatís pitching half their games in GABP. They are #1 in ERA and FIP, #2 in xFIP, and #2 in fWAR.

Chapman HAS been awesome and is a main part of it. That is true, but Marshall, Arrendondo, and Simon have been great. It could be argued that the Reds have four or even five of the top 30 relievers this year in the NL. Two of the top five (Chapman and Marshall). Heck, even LeCure has been solid. Hoover was a great acquisition, has performed well with the Reds, and is currently dominating Louisville (why heís not switched with Ondrusek is a mystery to me).

You say that Chapman is what makes the bullpen look great. Well what do you think of the rotation without Cueto? It would be pretty average, wouldnít it?

Dan
07-24-2012, 12:41 PM
Isn't it awesome as a Reds fan to be arguing which is the more elite performer, the bullpen or the starters?

Kc61
07-24-2012, 01:33 PM
Isn't it awesome as a Reds fan to be arguing which is the more elite performer, the bullpen or the starters?

Yeah, it is. And I'm a Reds fan, I'm rooting heavily for all the pitchers. Let me make one more pitch for the rotation, then I'll be done.

I use WHIP heavily to evaluate bullpens. I like to see relievers at 1.30 or better. It's a rule of thumb I've come up with over the years. If bullpenners put too many men on, that's a red flag to me.

There is only one Reds reliever with better than a 1.30 WHIP, that's Chapman with a remarkable .70. Indeed, Chapman's numbers are so incredible that they provide an enormous boost in virtually every category. The Reds' bullpen WHIP, for example, is 1.23, second in the league, but only Chapman is below 1.3.

For a more anecdotal argument, if Chapman went down there is not a single Reds reliever I would feel comfortable having pitch the ninth regularly. Marshall is fine, but has allowed 42 hits in 37 innings. Maybe bad luck, but whatever the reason those aren't ninth inning numbers.

I like starters' WHIPs to be 1.40 or better. Just my rule of thumb. Every Reds starter is there, the worst, Leake, is 1.32, and the others range from 1,17 to 1.27.

I know that WHIP is only one piece of the equation, but my other reason is that I've seen Cueto, Latos, and Bailey all dominate this year in particular games. Arroyo and Leake aren't dominant types, but I've seen both of them pitch complete game victories.

Put differently - I see five starters who I feel comfortable with every day and could pitch gems any day. I don't feel as comfortable with five relievers on the staff every day.

I see the arguments for the pen, I don't deny them, this is just my take. And I'm not saying the pen is poor, it's a positive, I just give more credit to the starters so far this year (except for Chapman, who is amazing).

RedlegJake
07-24-2012, 02:08 PM
For a closer I completely agree with Kc - whip is a good indicator of a closer - you want a guy who doesn't let baserunners on, in other words, a low whip, and hopefully a high K rate, usually they go hand in hand. ERA is meaningless for relievers, pretty sure we all agree with that, since a single really bad outing can ruin a relievers ERA for a season. I like the depth and quality of the Reds relievers but all of them have warts except Chapman. Marshall can be hittable although he usually keeps it in the park. Arredondo gets wild although he misses bats well. Simon I actually like best next to Chapman. Ondrusek goes from really good to very hittable from outing to outing. Same type of thing on down the list. Chappy is the only one that comes on and I think OK, now this is locked up and I'm really surprised if it isn't.

I feel the same about the rotation though. Cueto is a lock to win - every time he pitches I really expect the Reds will win. I am feeling the same about Bailey lately. Latos I wait to see what Latos shows up - Mr. Dominant or Mr. Inconsistent and Hittable? Arroyo I expect the Reds to be in the game but I expect they'll need to score 3 or 4 runs by the 7th to be tied but not more than that - Arroyo is pretty steady and Leake, well he's about like Arroyo with an occasional great game or stinker tossed in too.

That's all-in-all a great staff. The worst I expect is the 3 to 4 run 6-7 inning start by Leake and Arroyo or the 5 inning 3-4 run start by Latos and those are offset by an equal number of 7 inning 1 run starts by those same pitchers. I always expect 1 or 2 run 7 innings from Cueto and lately Bailey. I think Bailey has become the Reds #2. I also think that's a permanent thing - Homer has found "it".

With Homer that's no rush to judgement - he's been improving incrementally the last year and a half but health has been hampering him. Now we're seeing it all come together. Personally, I think its for real.

Big Klu
07-24-2012, 02:11 PM
It is incorrect. Fangraphs does not have fWAR for pitchers prior to 1974; therefore, it is inaccurate to say that Fangraphs says the 1982 staff is the best ever. The accurate statement is to say that the 1982 staff had the highest fWAR of any Reds rotation from 1974 through 2011.

I'm not beating up on you when I point that out, but several people have reacted with outrage that Fangraphs would call the 1982 rotation the best ever. The fact is Fangraphs makes no such claim.

OK, I will modify my outrage. Any metric that rates the 1982 rotation as the top "anything" from 1974 to 2011 needs to be thrown out on its ear.

cumberlandreds
07-24-2012, 02:19 PM
Isn't it awesome as a Reds fan to be arguing which is the more elite performer, the bullpen or the starters?

Yea, usually its which one sucks the most. :)

The 1975 bullpen may have been better overall than todays but not by much. Much was made back then that the starters didn't have many complete games. I went back and looked, they had 22 for the entire season which wasn't very many for that time. Now 22 would probably lead the league in the category. That 75 bullpen did rack up the innings. Clay Carroll had 110,Borbon about 100,Eastwick 91 and McEnany 96. Thats a lot for any time period.

Kc61
07-24-2012, 02:19 PM
For a closer I completely agree with Kc - whip is a good indicator of a closer - you want a guy who doesn't let baserunners on, in other words, a low whip, and hopefully a high K rate, usually they go hand in hand. ERA is meaningless for relievers, pretty sure we all agree with that, since a single really bad outing can ruin a relievers ERA for a season. I like the depth and quality of the Reds relievers but all of them have warts except Chapman. Marshall can be hittable although he usually keeps it in the park. Arredondo gets wild although he misses bats well. Simon I actually like best next to Chapman. Ondrusek goes from really good to very hittable from outing to outing. Same type of thing on down the list. Chappy is the only one that comes on and I think OK, now this is locked up and I'm really surprised if it isn't.

I feel the same about the rotation though. Cueto is a lock to win - every time he pitches I really expect the Reds will win. I am feeling the same about Bailey lately. Latos I wait to see what Latos shows up - Mr. Dominant or Mr. Inconsistent and Hittable? Arroyo I expect the Reds to be in the game but I expect they'll need to score 3 or 4 runs by the 7th to be tied but not more than that - Arroyo is pretty steady and Leake, well he's about like Arroyo with an occasional great game or stinker tossed in too.

That's all-in-all a great staff. The worst I expect is the 3 to 4 run 6-7 inning start by Leake and Arroyo or the 5 inning 3-4 run start by Latos and those are offset by an equal number of 7 inning 1 run starts by those same pitchers. I always expect 1 or 2 run 7 innings from Cueto and lately Bailey. I think Bailey has become the Reds #2. I also think that's a permanent thing - Homer has found "it".

With Homer that's no rush to judgement - he's been improving incrementally the last year and a half but health has been hampering him. Now we're seeing it all come together. Personally, I think its for real.

Thanks for the response. I guess my only minor disagreement is Latos whose ERA was 5.97 in March/April and since then he's 7-1 with an ERA below 4. Not good every time, but since the early season he's been very solid.

RedlegJake
07-24-2012, 02:23 PM
I might be harsh on Latos but his last 2 starts have been pretty bad again. At least bad for this years staff - actually they've been mediocre. But, yes, before that he had a long run of very good starts. Hopefully the last couple starts were just a blip.

wolfboy
07-24-2012, 03:56 PM
OK, I will modify my outrage. Any metric that rates the 1982 rotation as the top "anything" from 1974 to 2011 needs to be thrown out on its ear.

#shrug. Doesn't matter to me. I was just pointing out what the data says and what it doesn't say. fWAR holds Soto's '82 season (7.7 WAR) in very high regard, which is a big reason for that total.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-24-2012, 05:11 PM
fWAR holds Soto's '82 season (7.7 WAR) in very high regard, which is a big reason for that total.

And rightfully so.

257 IP
274 K
9.6 K/9 (led league)
2.5 BB/9
3.86 K/BB (led league)
13 CG
2 SHO
1.06 WHIP (led league)

And still managed to win 14 games (14-13) on a team that lost 101 games. He probably wins 20-25 games that year on a good team and easily wins the Cy Young award.

I'm not sure there's been a better year from any Reds starter since 1982. I may be forgetting someone, but Danny Jackson ('88), Jose Rijo ('91), and Pete Schourek ('95) had great seasons, but don't come close to matching Soto's 1982 season, IMO.

fearofpopvol1
07-25-2012, 03:09 AM
It is incorrect. Fangraphs does not have fWAR for pitchers prior to 1974; therefore, it is inaccurate to say that Fangraphs says the 1982 staff is the best ever. The accurate statement is to say that the 1982 staff had the highest fWAR of any Reds rotation from 1974 through 2011.

I'm not beating up on you when I point that out, but several people have reacted with outrage that Fangraphs would call the 1982 rotation the best ever. The fact is Fangraphs makes no such claim.

What I started was correct. If you're using the WAR metric from Fangraphs, what starting staff had a higher number than the 1982 staff?

membengal
07-25-2012, 06:18 AM
And rightfully so.

257 IP
274 K
9.6 K/9 (led league)
2.5 BB/9
3.86 K/BB (led league)
13 CG
2 SHO
1.06 WHIP (led league)

And still managed to win 14 games (14-13) on a team that lost 101 games. He probably wins 20-25 games that year on a good team and easily wins the Cy Young award.

I'm not sure there's been a better year from any Reds starter since 1982. I may be forgetting someone, but Danny Jackson ('88), Jose Rijo ('91), and Pete Schourek ('95) had great seasons, but don't come close to matching Soto's 1982 season, IMO.

It is still, easily in my mind, the greatest single season from a Reds pitcher in my lifetime (I was born in 1970). He was the only reason in a season that was just so staggeringly awful to have hope that the Reds might win. And he was nails, every time out it felt like.

wolfboy
07-25-2012, 01:14 PM
What I started was correct. If you're using the WAR metric from Fangraphs, what starting staff had a higher number than the 1982 staff?

Why don't you tell me what the collective fWAR was for the 1973 staff? How about the 1962 staff? How about the 1922 staff?

fearofpopvol1
07-25-2012, 09:06 PM
Why don't you tell me what the collective fWAR was for the 1973 staff? How about the 1962 staff? How about the 1922 staff?

Why don't you answer my original question? Further, where did I mention fWAR in my post(s)?

wolfboy
07-25-2012, 11:57 PM
The best Reds starting rotation, according to Fangraphs WAR, was the 1982 staff. The 2012 staff is on pace to be just a little bit better than the 1992 staff, which is ranked 2nd all time currently.

You brought up fWAR in your first post. :confused:

I can't answer your question because the data isn't available to make that comparison. Fangraphs does not have WAR data for pitchers prior to 1974; therefore, when you say that the 1982 rotation was the best ever according to Fangraphs, it is an innacurate statement. The 1982 rotation had the highest cumulative fWAR since 1974, not ever. Again, I'm not picking on you when I point that out. I am just trying to show you that you're reaching a conclusion (best ever) based upon incomplete data (only available from 1974-present).

VR
07-26-2012, 12:19 AM
fwar, fwar, what is it good for?

fearofpopvol1
07-26-2012, 12:41 AM
You brought up fWAR in your first post. :confused:

I can't answer your question because the data isn't available to make that comparison. Fangraphs does not have WAR data for pitchers prior to 1974; therefore, when you say that the 1982 rotation was the best ever according to Fangraphs, it is an innacurate statement. The 1982 rotation had the highest cumulative fWAR since 1974, not ever. Again, I'm not picking on you when I point that out. I am just trying to show you that you're reaching a conclusion (best ever) based upon incomplete data (only available from 1974-present).

You know what...point taken. I didn't realize when I ran the WAR numbers that it didn't include numbers before 1974.

I'll revise what I said to say this could be the 2nd best rotation since 1974 then.

wolfboy
07-26-2012, 09:05 AM
You know what...point taken. I didn't realize when I ran the WAR numbers that it didn't include numbers before 1974.

I'll revise what I said to say this could be the 2nd best rotation since 1974 then.

I believe baseball-reference assigns rWAR values for all players across all eras. I'm too lazy to do it, but if you want to look at the best all time, I think rWAR is the way to go. Here's an article you might be interested in that discusses how rWAR is calculated: http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/2/28/2019517/using-trammell-and-reuschel-to-explain-war Also a quick writeup on the differences between fWAR and rWAR: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/war/differences-fwar-rwar/