re: The Greatest Pitching Rotation of All Time — and It’s Not Close

quote:

---

I would say it's usually very significant... unless you have two other hall of famers on the staff skewing the W/L stats

---

That's what I was going to say

Maddux pitched alongside 2 of the top pitchers in baseball for much of his career. One of them, a 300 game winner. Of course Maddux isn't going to be head and shoulders over them, they are also HOFers

I always take Maddux over Clemens, not only because of their pitching stats and wins, but beacuse he was more of a complete player. He handed the bat well, bunted, even hit a few jacks and fielded his position better than perhaps any pitcher ever has

quote:

---

The 1997 Braves rotation

---

those 4 guys each threw at least 230 innings and the "scrub" of the staff was Smoltz with 15 wins and a 3.02 ERA That's so laughable


but then I

quote:

---

I would say it's usually very significant... unless you have two other hall of famers on the staff skewing the W/L stats.

---

Saw this post from another forum that makes a good argument for Clemens with some of my own research thrown in for good measure.

quote:

---

Roger Clemens won 194 of his career wins with the Boston Redsox, a team that went 1062-988 while he was on those teams. Not terrible, not great. Just average. They made the playoffs 4 times in 13 years. Roger accounted for 20% or more of their total wins in 8 of those 13 years. 4 of those years accounting for 25%+ of their teams wins.

A comparable number for Maddux is he won 194 of his games with the Atlanta Braves, a team that went 1053-595 while he was on the roster. They made the playoffs 10 times in 11 seasons, they surely would have made them the 11th season had it not been for the strike. Maddux accounted for 20% of more of their total wins in 2 of his 11 seasons, never accounting for 25%+.

Clemens teams for his career went 2067-1761. .539%
Maddux teams for his career went 2007-1581. .559%

Clemens other teams:
Bluejays - 164-160 / Clemens 41 wins (accounted for 25% of all Bluejay wins)
Yankees (first time) - 484-322 / Clemens 77 wins (accounted for 16% of all Yankee wins)
Astros - 263-223 / Clemens 38 wins (accounted for 14% of all Astro wins)
Yankees (second time) - 94-68 / Clemens 6 wins (accounted for 6% of all Yankee wins)

Maddux other teams:
Cubs (first time) - 548-581 / Maddux 95 wins (accounted for 17% of all Cub wins)
Cubs (second time) - 211-220 / Maddux 38 wins (accounted for 18% of all Cub wins)
Dodgers - 58-37 / Maddux 8 wins (accounted for 14% of all Dodger wins)
Padres - 137-150 / Maddux 20 wins (accounted for 15% of all Padre wins)

Maddux played for 7 teams in 23 seasons that were under .500.
Clemens played for 8 teams in 24 seasons that were under .500

Maddux played for 6 teams that won 100+ games.
Clemens played for 2 teams that won 100+ games.

Clemens didn't play on crappy teams but his most productive years were spent on a team that played .500 ball... while Maddux spent his most productive years on a team that played .600 ball. Their win totals during those years were identical, only Clemens put his win total up in fewer seasons and accounted for a larger chunk of his teams wins.

---

While I agree with their conclusion, this is where BP having all of their stats proprietary really hurts them. I have to take their word for it on VORP. It's not like WAR, which is open source and anyone can fiddle with the numbers (and peer reviewed by SABR).

I'm reading BP less and less as they climb further behind the proprietary pay wall. Why use FRAA when I can use UZR? Or VORP instead of WAR?

quote:

---

I'm reading BP less and less as they climb further behind the proprietary pay wall. Why use FRAA when I can use UZR? Or VORP instead of WAR?

---

FWIW, BP didn't even include VORP within the latest edition of their prospectus.

quote:

---

I'm reading BP less and less as they climb further behind the proprietary pay wall. Why use FRAA when I can use UZR? Or VORP instead of WAR?

---

So basically you have to have a degree in quantum physics to talk about great players in baseball now?

Awesome

Yes, it requires mastery of quantum physics to understand a concept as difficult as "wins above replacement". Much like Runs Batted In.

Hell, batting average is a riduclously complicated stat for what its trying to measure. The fact we've internalized the distinction between Plate Appearances and At Bats is odd.

I know it was a joke. but the unstated premise of the joke is that ignorance is virtuous. And I'm tired of people whining about stats being too complex, and then ten seconds later promoting traditional stats which are pretty darn unwieldy when you stop to think about it. People don't hate stats, they hate stats they aren't familiar with.

quote:

---

I know it was a joke. but the unstated premise of the joke is that ignorance is virtuous. And I'm tired of people whining about stats being too complex, and then ten seconds later promoting traditional stats which are pretty darn unwieldy when you stop to think about it. People don't hate stats, they hate stats they aren't familiar with.

---

The basic stats such as rbi, BA, OBP, and even OPS are easy to get. The formula for some of the more complicated stats are what gets me. I could probably learn them if I really wanted to put my time and effort to it, but I'll leave it up to the stat guys such as yourself to break it all down.