PDA

View Full Version : Four double digit winners in the rotation



RedEye
08-23-2012, 10:50 AM
I realize that wins are a somewhat arbitrary statistic for pitchers, so take this with a grain of salt. But I just saw when scanning the team stats today that after last night the reds have four SP with double-digit totals:

Cueto 16
Latos 10
Bailey 10
Arroyo 10

I've been following the Reds for about 25 years now, and I can't remember the last time anything close to this happened. Heck, I remember when it was rather exciting to get one 13-15 game winner -- and now the team has a chance to have four of them in one season!

Perhaps this is meaningless relative to other stats -- but since I had no idea what ERA+ or FIP were in the 1980s or 1990s, or even the early 2000s, this is the sort of information that helps me put this team in perspective. Something special is going on here.

Can anyone else name a season since the 1970s when the team had four double-digit winners in the rotation? *ahem* (I'm not in a position right now to do the necessary legwork).

edabbs44
08-23-2012, 10:54 AM
1990 if you include Charlton.

Homer Bailey
08-23-2012, 10:56 AM
It's a pretty meaningless stat because there are tons of other stats that tell us a lot more about a pitcher's ability, but wins are important to the players. So in that regard, I think it's pretty cool.

edabbs44
08-23-2012, 10:57 AM
Doing the research, a lot of that likely has to do with the stability.

1987 had 3 starters with 10 and one with 9. Without cheating, who are they?

OesterPoster
08-23-2012, 10:57 AM
1999 was close. They had 16-11-9-9 for the top 4 starters.

edabbs44
08-23-2012, 10:58 AM
It's a pretty meaningless stat because there are tons of other stats that tell us a lot more about a pitcher's ability, but wins are important to the players. So in that regard, I think it's pretty cool.

Dear God. I think the War Against Wins needs to settle down a bit.

tommycash
08-23-2012, 11:01 AM
Doing the research, a lot of that likely has to do with the stability.

1987 had 3 starters with 10 and one with 9. Without cheating, who are they?

Did not look, and I am gonna guess Danny Jackson, Tom Browning, Mario Soto, and Ron Robinson. In the back of my mind I think I am wrong. I will now go an look it up.

tommycash
08-23-2012, 11:05 AM
Did not look, and I am gonna guess Danny Jackson, Tom Browning, Mario Soto, and Ron Robinson. In the back of my mind I think I am wrong. I will now go an look it up.

Yep, I was wrong. Forgot we didn't have Jackson then. Also, Soto was pretty much done in 1987.

George Anderson
08-23-2012, 11:06 AM
1976...Gullett, Nolan, Zachary, Norman, Billingham and Alcala.

George Anderson
08-23-2012, 11:12 AM
1975..Gullett, Billingham, Nolan, Norman, Darcy, Kirby

Homer Bailey
08-23-2012, 11:16 AM
Dear God. I think the War Against Wins needs to settle down a bit.

What?? I said I thought it was pretty cool? The OP was the first to mention the "meaningless" nature of the stat. So how did my post deserve a "Dear God"?

CarolinaRedleg
08-23-2012, 11:28 AM
1987: Gullickson, Browning, Robinson, Soto?


Edit: Hey, 2 out of 4 from 25 years ago (when I was 9) ain't too bad

edabbs44
08-23-2012, 11:56 AM
What?? I said I thought it was pretty cool? The OP was the first to mention the "meaningless" nature of the stat. So how did my post deserve a "Dear God"?

It sounded a bit facetious.

Homer Bailey
08-23-2012, 12:02 PM
It sounded a bit facetious.

It wasn't.

HeatherC1212
08-23-2012, 12:16 PM
We noticed this last night and I thought it was pretty cool. :)

Caveat Emperor
08-23-2012, 12:17 PM
All 5 pitchers have also thrown a CG. First time that has happened in forever as well.

HeatherC1212
08-23-2012, 12:18 PM
All 5 pitchers have also thrown a CG. First time that has happened in forever as well.

IIRC, the Reds are the only team in all of MLB this year that have had that happen. :beerme:

powersackers
08-23-2012, 12:23 PM
When I look at a pitcher in order I look at Wins/losses/ERA/ip/Ks/bb/Saves

I don't look at BABIP/WAR/xFIP,CERA, yada yada. Back of the baseball card is good enough for 99% of the time.

I do dive deeper at times. But we all still look at the standard stuff first. Right?

Homer Bailey
08-23-2012, 12:27 PM
When I look at a pitcher in order I look at Wins/losses/ERA/ip/Ks/bb/Saves

I don't look at BABIP/WAR/xFIP,CERA, yada yada. Back of the baseball card is good enough for 99% of the time.

I do dive deeper at times. But we all still look at the standard stuff first. Right?

No.

RedEye
08-23-2012, 12:27 PM
When I look at a pitcher in order I look at Wins/losses/ERA/ip/Ks/bb/Saves

I don't look at BABIP/WAR/xFIP,CERA, yada yada. Back of the baseball card is good enough for 99% of the time.

I do dive deeper at times. But we all still look at the standard stuff first. Right?

I was like you probably 5 years ago before I joined RedsZone. Thanks to playing fantasy baseball and this place, though, I've learned a heck of a lot about pitching statistics. So while I still glance at W, I do so with a huge heck of an asterisk in my mind. It's part of the reason I was ecstatic about King Felix winning the Cy Young a few years ago with 13 wins -- the times they are a-changing, and in a good way. My guess is that by the time my son (who is 3) follows this stuff, the traditional W stat will be even more put in its place -- as the ultimate stat that counts for a team, but pretty meaningless with regard to individual player performance.

All that said -- I am obviously still interested in SP win totals. Otherwise, I wouldn't have started this thread to begin with! :-)

MikeThierry
08-23-2012, 12:31 PM
I sort of am a hybrid of the old school and new school thought. When looking at an individual pitcher and trying to compare him to another pitcher of the same caliber, looking at W/L record is flawed. However, on this discussion when we talk about a collection of pitchers, I think win/loss record does tell a story. It's sort of like batting average to me. Individually, batting average is one of the least important stats for a player. However, if you have a collection of 5-6 batters batting over .300 in a given lineup, that is a huge indication as to what kind of success that team will have.

RedEye
08-23-2012, 12:36 PM
I sort of am a hybrid of the old school and new school thought. When looking at an individual pitcher and trying to compare him to another pitcher of the same caliber, looking at W/L record is flawed. However, on this discussion when we talk about a collection of pitchers, I think win/loss record does tell a story. It's sort of like batting average to me. Individually, batting average is one of the least important stats for a player. However, if you have a collection of 5-6 batters batting over .300 in a given lineup, that is a huge indication as to what kind of success that team will have.

Agreed. Stats are indexical -- none of them ever get you the real thing -- a measurement of exactly what happened -- but they do signal its presence to varying degrees. It's pretty hard to have a 90-win team without at least a few double-digit winners in the rotation.

I like to think of traditional stats like W as a "where there's smoke there's fire" kind of thing. If you see smoke on the horizon, it's very likely there's a blaze going on somewhere, and you can even see it effortlessly from a mile away.

Advanced stats, I think, are more like driving right up to the heat source itself. It takes a bit more time and effort, but you can tell for sure that it's hot, where it is burning, and maybe even what caused it. But be careful -- your eyebrows might get singed!

MikeThierry
08-23-2012, 12:49 PM
The advanced stat I've come around to is WAR. I think it's a good stat to give you a rough estimate of how well a player is doing and what you can expect when trying to replace a player that you lost to free agency. However, if I'm comparing players, I don't know if WAR is the right stat to look at. Obviously, if you're trying to compare a 1 WAR player to a 3 WAR player, there is going to be a separation of production. Yet, if you are trying to compare a 5.5 WAR player to a 5.7 WAR player, that stat won't tell you the whole story. I've gotten to the point where advanced stats are great tools to use but shouldn't be taken as the end all.

RedEye
08-23-2012, 12:59 PM
The advanced stat I've come around to is WAR. I think it's a good stat to give you a rough estimate of how well a player is doing and what you can expect when trying to replace a player that you lost to free agency. However, if I'm comparing players, I don't know if WAR is the right stat to look at. Obviously, if you're trying to compare a 1 WAR player to a 3 WAR player, there is going to be a separation of production. Yet, if you are trying to compare a 5.5 WAR player to a 5.7 WAR player, that stat won't tell you the whole story. I've gotten to the point where advanced stats are great tools to use but shouldn't be taken as the end all.

I like the idea of WAR, but I still don't really have an intuitive feel for it. Something about a stat that measures "everything" like that is two abstract for me to get a handle on. It always makes me think of the card game "War" too.

MikeThierry
08-23-2012, 01:05 PM
I like the idea of WAR, but I still don't really have an intuitive feel for it. Something about a stat that measures "everything" like that is two abstract for me to get a handle on. It always makes me think of the card game "War" too.

I agree with this. I think part of is that the way they calculate WAR undervalues some positions. To me, they undervalue the 1st base position too much. That position comes in automatically at a negative WAR when they do the calculations yet besides a catcher and pitcher, they touch the ball the most. They save bad throws from multiple defenders on the field.

dougdirt
08-23-2012, 01:11 PM
I first will look at ERA, but my next step is to check out K's and walks along with innings for a reference. If those numbers don't jive with the ERA, I start checking out more advanced stuff (what is his BABIP, HR rate/FB, GB rate).

MikeThierry
08-23-2012, 01:17 PM
I first will look at ERA, but my next step is to check out K's and walks along with innings for a reference. If those numbers don't jive with the ERA, I start checking out more advanced stuff (what is his BABIP, HR rate/FB, GB rate).

I kind of go down that road as well, though I think K's can be overrated. I pay more attention to walk rate than I do K's.

Brutus
08-23-2012, 01:26 PM
I'd suggest there are essentially two kinds of stats:

Ones that tell us what happened and ones that give us a better explanation for why it happened.

If all you want to know is what happened, there's no harm in using ERA, WHIP, etc. If you want to find out why or project what a pitcher is likely to do going forward, there are probably more trustworthy methods out there. Either way, those metrics are still a decent snapshot.

Rojo
08-23-2012, 01:49 PM
I don't look at wins and I don't care about WAR. I'm an extreme moderate.

RedEye
08-23-2012, 02:22 PM
I don't look at wins and I don't care about WAR. I'm an extreme moderate.

Ah yes... the independent swing voter. But you folks are the ones who will decide elections, don't you know? ;-)

MikeThierry
08-23-2012, 02:32 PM
Ah yes... the independent swing voter. But you folks are the ones who will decide elections, don't you know? ;-)

Rojo... where can I send my bribing money to?

Vottomatic
08-23-2012, 03:27 PM
Here ya go:

2010
Arroyo - 17-10
Cueto - 12-7

2009
Arroyo - 15-13
Cueto - 11-11

2008
Volquez - 17-6
Arroyo - 15-11

2007
Harang 16-6

2006
Harang 16-11
Arroyo 14-11

2005
Harang 11-13
Claussen 10-11

2004
Wilson 11-6
Harang 10-9

2003
None

2002
Haynes 15-10 (hard to believe)

2001
Dessens 10-14

2000
Parris 12-17
Villone 10-10

VR
08-23-2012, 03:33 PM
First thought I had when I saw this thread was the freakshow rotation of Palmer, McNally, Dobson and Cuellar.

Dan
08-23-2012, 03:41 PM
So as far as having 4 pitchers with a chance at 10 wins, when is the last time that happened for the reds by the end of August?

Vottomatic
08-23-2012, 03:43 PM
1999
Harnisch 16-10
Parris 11-4

1998
Harnisch 14-7
Tomko 13-12

1997
Tomko 11-7
Burba 11-10

1996
Smiley 13-14
Burba 11-13

1995
Schourek 18-7
Smiley 12-5

1994
Smiley 11-10

1993
Rijo 14-9
Pugh 10-15

1992
Belcher 15-14
Rijo 15-10
Swindell 12-8

1991
Rijo 15-6
Browning 14-14

1990
Browning 15-9
Rijo 14-8
Armstrong 12-9

Crumbley
08-23-2012, 03:45 PM
It's hard to believe this is the same franchise that produced this: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/2003.shtml

This is a golden age, cherish it.

Vottomatic
08-23-2012, 03:57 PM
1989
Browning 15-12

1988
Jackson 23-8
Browning 18-5

1987
Power 10-13
Browning 10-13
Gullickson 10-11

1986
Gullickson 15-12
Browning 14-13
Denny 11-10

1985
Browning 20-9
Soto 12-15
Tibbs 10-16
Franco 12-3 (did not start a game)

1984
Soto 18-7

1983
Soto 17-13
Price 10-6

1982
Soto 14-13

1981
Seaver 14-2
Soto 12-9

1980
Pastore 13-7
Liebrandt 10-9
Lacoss 10-12
Seaver 10-8
Soto 10-8 (53 games; 12 starts)

Vottomatic
08-23-2012, 04:09 PM
1979
Seaver 16-6
Lacoss 14-8
Norman 11-13
Hume 10-9 (57 games; 12 starts)
Bair 11-7 (65 games all in relief)

1978
Seaver 16-14
Norman 11-9
Bonham 11-5

1977
Norman 14-13
Seaver 14-3
Billingham 10-10
Borbon 10-5 (73 games in relief)

1976
Nolan 15-9 (34 starts)
Zachry 14-7 (28 starts)
Norman 12-7 (24 starts)
Billingham 12-10 (29 starts)
Alcala 11-4 (21 starts)
Gullett 11-3 (20 starts)
Eastwick 11-5 (71 games in relief)

1975
Nolan 15-9 (32 starts)
Billingham 15-10 (32 starts)
Gullett 15-4 (22 starts)
Norman 12-4 (26 starts)
Darcy 11-5 (22 starts)
Kirby 10-6 (19 starts)

1974
Billingham 19-11 (35 starts)
Gullett 17-11 (35 starts)
Norman 13-12 (26 starts)
Kirby 12-9 (35 starts)
Borbon 10-7 (relief)
Carroll 12-5 (relief)

_Sir_Charles_
08-23-2012, 04:22 PM
When I look at a pitcher in order I look at Wins/losses/ERA/ip/Ks/bb/Saves

I don't look at BABIP/WAR/xFIP,CERA, yada yada. Back of the baseball card is good enough for 99% of the time.

I do dive deeper at times. But we all still look at the standard stuff first. Right?

I'll admit that I will look at the new fangled stats now after being here this long. But I DO still look at the baseball card stats FIRST. For hitters and pitchers. Everytime.

RedEye
08-23-2012, 04:30 PM
Thanks for the legwork, Vottomatic. :)

Goodness gracious. Well it looks like the answer to my question is that this has not come even close to happening since the 1970s, unless you count 1985, when Franco, as a reliever, won 12 games. And they've already done it before the end of August!

And wow... those 1970s teams were INSANE! (dons Captain Obvious cape)

RedEye
08-23-2012, 04:34 PM
On a side note -- I remember being quite upset at around the age of 12 that the Reds seemingly NEVER had a pitcher who won 20 games (excepting Tom Browning, of course). It was 1987 or so when I felt that way... and Danny Jackson was about to make me feel pretty great. At least for a year. And then 1990 came -- and I realized that maybe having a lot of SP wins during the regular season didn't matter that much for a World Series championship. I was still over a decade from discovering that statistical evidence strongly backed up my intuition.

dougdirt
08-23-2012, 09:29 PM
I kind of go down that road as well, though I think K's can be overrated. I pay more attention to walk rate than I do K's.

Well it kind of depends. Two guys can both walk 3 guys per 9 innings. But if one is striking out 10 and the other is striking out 6, the walks are a big problem for one guy and not really for the other.

nate
08-23-2012, 10:28 PM
It's certainly interesting but looking further, I think the remarkable thing is this:

The starting rotation from opening day has pitched all but one start.

That's pretty amazing.

nate
08-23-2012, 10:29 PM
When I look at a pitcher in order I look at Wins/losses/ERA/ip/Ks/bb/Saves

I don't look at BABIP/WAR/xFIP,CERA, yada yada. Back of the baseball card is good enough for 99% of the time.

I do dive deeper at times. But we all still look at the standard stuff first. Right?

I don't look at record or saves but I do look at IP, Ks and BB.

PuffyPig
08-24-2012, 08:34 AM
Well it kind of depends. Two guys can both walk 3 guys per 9 innings. But if one is striking out 10 and the other is striking out 6, the walks are a big problem for one guy and not really for the other.

Correct.

If you are walking guys you better be striking some out. Those baserunners via walks are hard to contend with when you are also (presumably) allowing lots of hits through the magic of BABIP.

Chip R
08-24-2012, 10:18 AM
Just because a stat may be overrated or may not show true value of a player doesn't mean that if a player or players reaches a certain milestone, it isn't impressive.

You may believe that batting average is overrated or doesn't show true value but if someone hits .400, that's pretty impressive.

With the (lack of) starting pitching - especially home-grown starting pitching - the Reds have had throughout the last generation, it's pretty impressive that 4 guys in the rotation - of which three are home-grown - have at least 10 wins.

RedEye
08-24-2012, 05:14 PM
With the (lack of) starting pitching - especially home-grown starting pitching - the Reds have had throughout the last generation, it's pretty impressive that 4 guys in the rotation - of which three are home-grown - have at least 10 wins.

Well, three of the rotation (Leake, Bailey, Cueto) are home-grown, but only two of them have 10 wins (Cueto, Bailey). I take your point though.