| Proof that good pitching matters more than good hitting?
I was looking over some stats, and I came across something interesting from last year.
The top 5 AL teams (because of the DH, you can only compare 1 league at a time) in terms of ERA included 2 division winners (World Champion White Sox and LA Angels) and the 3 teams that were closest to making the playoffs (Indians, A's, Twins). These 5 teams had ERAs within 0.10 of each other, and #5 was 0.30 better than #6 and 0.78 better than #7.
The Yankees and Red Sox were 9 and 11, respectively, out of 14. However, the Yankees and Sox ranked #s 1 and 2 in OPS.
In 2004, the top 4 teams were bunched together, with much lower ERAs than the rest of the league. These 4 teams included 2 division winners (Twins and Angels), the Wild Card team (Boston), and the best team to not make the playoff (Oakland). #5 was the Texas Rangers (the 2nd best team to not make the playoffs), and #6 the best team in the AL (record-wise), the NY Yankees. So, the teams with the 6 best records were the 6 teams with the lowest ERAs.
2003 was a bit of an abberation, as two sub-.500 teams crept into the top 6, but in 2002, all 6 teams that won more than 90 games were in the top 6.
By comparison, the playoff teams in 2005 finished 1, 2, 8, and 11 in OPS. Three sub-.500 teams were in the top 10.
In 2004, they were 1, 2, 9, and 10. Three sub-.500 teams were in the top 7.
In 2003, they were 1, 2, 6, and 10. This was the abberation year, where heavy-hitting teams seemed to outperform strong pitching teams.
In 2002, they were 1, 5 , 6 and 7. Two sub-.500 teams were in the top 4
So, basically, unless you have a ridiculous offense like the Yankees and Red Sox, pitching is the way to the playoffs. You can get by with average hitting if you have good pitching, but generally not vice versa. |