I must confess that I don't follow baseball today as much as I did in the 1960s and 1970s, and I know it's a different era with 5-man rotations and the big emphasis on offense - but I'd sure like to know what I'm missing with regards to Lee et al. When I look at the numbers, I see these 5 guys started 154 combined games last year, had a combined record of 67-49, and their teams won a combined 89-65 in their starts. That's really good, but is it historically great? Why would these guys all win 20 games next year? Synergy? Momentum? Are the Phillies offensively and/or defensively better than the support these guys had a year ago?
I also don't get the Lee hysteria. He's been in the majors for 9 years, and only twice has won more than 14 games. In the last 5 years, he had one terrific Cy Young season; in the 4 years wrapped around that one, he was 45-41, and his teams were a combined 54-57 in his 111 starts. He's given up more than a hit an inning for his career, and minus his Cy Young season his career ERA is over 4.00.
I know he's renowned for his post-season pitching, but that's just 10 total starts over two seasons, and the most recent 2 starts were bombs. He was a spectacular 4-0, 1.49 in 2009, then a less spectacular 3-2, 2.78 in 2010.
If we're evaluating this new rotation on the strength of the 4th and 5th starters, I guess it ranks (potentially) pretty high; if evaluated on combined or average performance, I think there are dozens throughout history that probably rank ahead of it (maybe even including Spahn, Sain, Rain, Rain and Rain).
12-14-2010, 04:43 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode