After discussing what the Reds need from their rotation to compete in 2008, I decided to go ahead and look at every pitcher in the NL with 100 innings pitched. Turns out there were 77 of them. Since there are 16 teams in the NL, I just broke them down into 5 groups to represent the #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5 spots in the rotation by ERA. There were 16 players in the #1-4 spots and 12 for the #5 spot. Ran all of the numbers and here is what the average pitcher in the NL looked like for each of the spots in the rotation:
Let me note that the ERA numbers are not at all park adjusted, so Reds pitchers are going to suffer a bit compared to the league average a little bit.
I also did some searching around the internet and found several articles that also touch on this subject.
The first was this piece done by Jay at Recondite Baseball.
He looks at what the average NL rotation looks like by FIP. His findings were that the average NL rotation looked like this:
There was also this article by Jeff Sackmann over at The Hardball Times that looks at the league average spot by ERA in both leagues for 2006.Code:#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 3.69 4.25 4.69 4.98 5.83
Here is what his data showed for the NL for the 2006 season
So generally speaking it looks like your average rotation in the NL looks like this:Code:#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 3.51 4.04 4.57 5.11 6.26
#1 - 3.60 ERA
#2 - 4.00 ERA
#3 - 4.55 ERA
#4 - 5.00 ERA
#5 - 5.90 ERA
So given the Reds rotation having Harang and Arroyo looking pretty good to lock down that #1 and #2 spot at or slightly better than league average (given park adjustment of course) will the remaining group of Belisle, Bailey, Cueto, Volquez and Maloney fit into the equation to give us somewhere the remaining numbers?