Poll Billy Hamilton

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Jpup

They obviously didn't because they allowed more runs in 3 games that they lost.

A 5 game sample isn't enough to determine who had the best pitching. Over the course of 162 games, the Cincinnati Reds had far and away the best pitching in baseball. Their ERA+ of 127 was the best that any team in baseball had produced since the 2002 baseball season. The best in a full decade. And they lost. Would it be great if they were able to improve upon that? Absolutely. But to say that they didn't have the best pitching is crazy. They did. It wasn't close.

[Jpup]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

A 5 game sample isn't enough to determine who had the best pitching. Over the course of 162 games, the Cincinnati Reds had far and away the best pitching in baseball. Their ERA+ of 127 was the best that any team in baseball had produced since the 2002 baseball season. The best in a full decade. And they lost. Would it be great if they were able to improve upon that? Absolutely. But to say that they didn't have the best pitching is crazy. They did. It wasn't close.

What happened during the season doesn't matter when the playoffs start. I don't recall saying anything about them not having the best during the season.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Jpup

What happened during the season doesn't matter when the playoffs start. I don't recall saying anything about them not having the best during the season.

You can't predict what will happen once the playoffs start.

The Reds had better pitching than everyone in baseball through 162 games and it frankly wasn't close. They were a whole lot better than everyone. No one could have predicted how things turned out for the Reds. It was a fluke. It destroyed everything that they had going for them. To use that to suggests they need to improve the pitching staff that had the best ERA+ in a decade is out there.

[puca]

Originally Posted by Jpup

Yet the teams with the best pitching almost always wins in October.

The Mets of the 80's and the Braves of the 90's respectfully disagree.

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

You can't predict what will happen once the playoffs start.

The Reds had better pitching than everyone in baseball through 162 games and it frankly wasn't close. They were a whole lot better than everyone. No one could have predicted how things turned out for the Reds. It was a fluke. It destroyed everything that they had going for them. To use that to suggests they need to improve the pitching staff that had the best ERA+ in a decade is out there.

Couldn't one say that the bullpen was the reason for the dominance of the pitching staff? I'm looking at some of the starting stats for teams MLB wide and Washington, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Dodgers were all better. That said, you're starting pitching was good. However, I think there is still some room for improvement on your starting staff. Bullpen will still be good though even with Chapman out of the mix.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by MikeThierry

Couldn't one say that the bullpen was the reason for the dominance of the pitching staff? I'm looking at some of the starting stats for teams MLB wide and Washington, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Dodgers were all better. That said, you're starting pitching was good. However, I think there is still some room for improvement on your starting staff. Bullpen will still be good though even with Chapman out of the mix.

Assuming health, I feel awfully confident with a 1-2-3 of Cueto-Latos-Bailey against anyone. Would they be favored on a pure starting against everyone? No, probably not. But they wouldn't be much of an underdog either and with the bullpen, I feel just fine.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by MikeThierry

Couldn't one say that the bullpen was the reason for the dominance of the pitching staff? .

I can't link the study (forgot where it was), but it analyzed World Series winners to try to find the common thread in them.
The highest correlators were: Strong defense and bullpen.
Kind of surprisingly, at the time of the studies, the 1990 were analyzed as one of the strongest teams built for the playoffs.

It makes sense. In the postseason, a strong bullpen is more important than the regular season.. Many examples of post season games where the starting pitcher limps though the early innings, leaves with a lead and the bullpen shuts the opposition down. As a counter point, the bullpen was a weakness of many of the 90's Braves teams.. when the opposition saw McMichael, Reardon, etc in a 7 game series, they became very hittable.

In constrast, I think starting pitching is more important than the bullpen for getting to the playoffs.