Add new comment

Was the 2001 pitching staff above average? No question. But, by definition, HALF of all baseball staffs are above average.
But, let's look at the TTO teams that WERE better than the Ms in 2001 -- and then examine the numbers, and see what makes sense for explaining their #1 ranking in fewest runs allowed:
rk -- team --- Ks -- runs (rank)
1) Yankees 1266 - 713 (3)
2) Red Sox 1259 - 745 (5)
3) Indians - 1218 - 821 (9)
4) Oakland - 1117 - 645 (2)
5) Mariners - 1051 - 627 (1)
The Yankees and Red Sox not only struck out more than the Ms -- they each fanned OVER 200 more batters than the Ms.
rk -- team -- BBs -- runs allowed
1) -- Oakland - 440 - 645 (2)
2) -- Twinkies - 445 - 766 (7)
3) -- Mariners - 465 - 627 (1)
3) -- Yankees - 465 - 713 (3)
9) -- Boston --- 544 - 745 (5)
Oakland was 25 walks better, but the Yankees were exactly tied with the Ms in fewest walks allowed. Boston trailed the Ms by 80 walks.
rk -- team -- HRs -- runs allowed
1) -- Boston - 146 -- 745 (5)
2) -- Indians - 148 -- 821 (9)
3) -- Oakland - 153 - 645 (2)
4) -- Yankees - 158 - 713 (4)
5) -- Seattle -- 160 - 627 (1)
Gee, the Yankees beat out Seattle by two HRs, tied in walks, and struck out 200 more batters. And they "only" allowed 86 more runs -- roughly 1/2 run PER GAME for the season. How is this possible?
rk -- team --- Hits -- runs allowed
1) -- Seattle -- 1293 - 627 (1)
2) -- Oakland - 1384 - 645 (2)
3) -- Boston - 1412 -- 745 (5)
4) -- Yankees - 1429 - 713 (3)
5) -- Anaheim - 1452 - 730 (4)
Remember how the Yankees and Boston both struck out an extra 200 batters? Well, Seattle allowed more than 100 FEWER hits, despite getting 200 extra balls in play.
Notice, also, that hits allowed shows the CLEARLY strongest correlation to runs allowed. The top 5 teams in hits allowed are ALSO the top 5 in runs allowed, with just minor shuffling. There aren't any stellar hits allowed teams finishing 9th in runs allowed.
Mind you - given "equal" defenses, the higher K team will end up better off. If you're trying to judge which PITCHING staff is better, then yes, you look at K, HR, BB. The Yankees *CLEARLY* had the best pitching staff in the AL in 2001. They beat or tied Seattle in EVERY metric -- and they DESTROYED them in strikeouts. And they finished 86 runs inferior to the team with the historically good defense. Note: This is NOT the same as historically good PITCHING.
By DER, in 2001:
1) Seattle - .727
2) Oakland - .702
3) Twinkies - .700
4) ChiSox -- .700
5) Anaheim - .699
9) Yankees - .683
10) Boston - .683
"Can" a stellar strikeout rate overcome a poor defense? Absolutely. The Yankees and Boston struck out an extra 200 guys, and managed to ONLY finish 80-100 runs behind Seattle.
Anaheim wasn't good at ANY of the pitching Metrics, yet finished 4th in runs allowed:
10th in Ks (947); 7th in HR (168); 7th in walks (525) -- yet 4th in runs allowed -- why? Because they were 5th in hits allowed.
Hits allowed *IS* the single largest factor for determining runs allowed. It OVERWHELMS the other categories in most cases. But, hits allowed is not PREDICTABLE. And since it isn't predictable, it is by and large waved away by many of the number crunchers.
Anyone claiming the 2001 staff was "mediocre" is speaking in hyperbole. They were above average. But, they weren't "stellar". They weren't "incredible". But, that defense behind them. THAT was a Hall of Fame defense.