THT, 5th starters, and the White Sox

by The Cheat on Dec 29, 2006 3:39 PM CST in White Sox News

The Hardball Times ran a two part piece on the average ERAs of your typical #1-5 starters. (Part 1) (Part 2) I thought I'd take a look at how the Sox stacked up.

Lg #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 MLB 3.60 4.14 4.58 5.10 6.24 AL 3.70 4.24 4.58 5.09 6.22 NL 3.51 4.04 4.57 5.11 6.26 SOX '06 4.28 4.52 4.54 4.85 4.99 07 ZiPS 4.21 4.36 4.55 4.69 5.05

As noted in Part 2, the White Sox had the most consistent starting staff in baseball. Not only did the starters post remarkably similar ERAs, they did so while making 159 of the 162 starts. Unfortunately, consistent mediocrity doesn't result in playoff appearances. Not in the AL, at least.

Here's what the rotations for the 2006 playoff teams looked like.

Lg #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 MLB 3.40 3.81 4.34 4.91 5.80 AL 3.36 3.75 4.27 4.93 5.65 NL 3.43 3.87 4.41 4.89 5.95

Playoff staffs had two starters that could be considered #1's, and 3 solidly above average starters. Their 5th starters were surprisingly -- surprising to me, anyway -- far below average. I would have expected them to be close to league average.

While I don't think this influenced Kenny's decision to ship out 2 starters, I do think it's noteworthy that playoff teams didn't seem to have that 5th quality starter that many Sox fans and all Chicago area columnists assume the Sox need to compete in '07. I've listed the Sox '07 Zips for Vazquez, Buehrle, Contreras, Garland, Haeger (in that order) in the top chart, but I think some of those numbers need a little more input.

Vazquez' good peripherals always lead to nice projections, but this one I think is warranted. It took Coop a year to "fix" Contreras, and Vazquez was showing flashes of consistency at the end of last season. I think 4.21 is a good projection.
Buehrle was the Worst Starter in Baseball after June 31st, but he's got a lifetime ERA of 3.81 and only in his '06 season did he post a ERA north of his Zips. I'd put his projection around 4.00.
Contreras' ZiPS have to contend with his erratic control prior to the '05 All-Star break, which helps explain why ZiPs projects a 4.55 ERA for a guy who's posted a 3.93 ERA in his last 400 innings. Like Buehlre, I'd put his projection right around 4.00.
Garland doesn't strike out a lot of guys, so his projections are never optimistic. On his career, however, he's shown the ability to have some control on balls in play. Early '06, when he was getting hammered, appears to be the exception. After his breakout '05, I expected him to come back to Earth with an ERA around 4.00 thanks to his decreased BB rate. I still feel the same way, but lets add a touch for his '06 regression, say, 4.20.
Finally, Haeger's ERA is actually understated thanks to the high number of unearned runs that occur thanks to his knuckleball. So while I wouldn't be surprised if he put up a 5.05 ERA, it would probably feel much more like a 5.55 ERA. Lance Broadway's ZiPS ERA is 5.35; Floyd's is 6.14, and Danks is 6.21.

The projections for the top 4 are optimistic, no doubt, but I still think they're realistic in that I'd give each player about a 25% chance of exceeding my adjusted projection. What I'm trying to say is if the first 4 starters perform about how we, as optimistic fans, expect, the Sox should make the playoffs even without "can't miss McCarthy" and World Series hero Garcia.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

This is a fantastic piece!

Among your best off-season posts - salient, timely, and accurate. We do NOT have a "blow them away" #1 who is consistently great, but a bunch of above average folks. maybe it's why we're stocking up on unproven talent - might shake a power guy out of the trees. (Maybe it's Javy, talent-wise.) Looks like the days of Count/Garland being lights out for a half-season even out when Garland/Buehrle have AWFUL half-seasons.

by winningugly on Dec 29, 2006 3:46 PM CST reply actions

And who's the brown noser?

Viking God, Bears Fan

by Toonderstrook on Dec 29, 2006 3:54 PM CST up reply actions

I at least give him dookie

on occasion.

Sometimes the praise is warranted (the AJ "Luck of the Polish" last year, e.g.). This hit the right notes about our starters, IMO.

by winningugly on Dec 29, 2006 4:40 PM CST up reply actions

More like nookie. ;-)

Viking God, Bears Fan

by Toonderstrook on Dec 29, 2006 5:09 PM CST up reply actions

5th starter

I don't understand what you are trying to prove by this comparison of pitchers. If you are saying the Sox #5 will be no worse than anyone else's #5 you are probably right. The problem is that you are also correct when you say playoff teams have two #1 starters. From your own stats you show the Sox have NO #1 starters. The argument about #5 starters is mute because you don't even use them in the playoffs. The only hope for the Sox pitching staff is that the bullpen is lights out!

by cachhubguy on Jan 2, 2007 5:59 PM CST up reply actions

not quite

the sox had no #1 starters in 2006. hell, with virtually the same staff, by this measure, we had four #1s in 2005. things change from year to year. if i had told you the detroit tigers would have had three guys in 2006 who were ace-worthy by this measure, you would have laughed in my face.

if you're building a staff for the playoffs, i'm not sure you'll make it. your fifth starter is going to pitch at least 21 games or so. if you have a good one, you've got a distinct advantage.

by the way, i see this all the time and it's a pet peeve. an argument is not mute; an argument is moot.

by larry on Jan 2, 2007 6:35 PM CST up reply actions

Pet peeve

Point taken on your pet peeve. My pet peeve is when someone loses an argument, they change the discussion. I compared the stats that were given for 2006. Using those stats the Sox had no #1 starters. So you had to go back to 2005. If the discussion was about 2005 you would be right. But in 2006 they did not have any pitchers that performed like a #1 starter. That's why they finished in third place. Garland and Buehrle tied for giving up the most hits in the AL. Not a good sign. That's why the bullpen better be lights out this year.

by cachhubguy on Jan 2, 2007 8:32 PM CST up reply actions

Wrong.

Because now you're assuming that because the Sox had no #1 guys in '06 they won't in '07. That was exactly his point. It changes from year to year. It's just as likely that one or more of Contreras, Buehrle and/or Garland will pitch more like '05 than '06.

I think that brings us to a pet peeve shared by virtually everybody: when somebody derides another while claiming victory, despite the fact that he or she obviously gave no logical critical thought to the subject or the response.

Viking God, Bears Fan

by Toonderstrook on Jan 2, 2007 8:37 PM CST up reply actions

Wrong

So I'm wrong for assuming that the Sox pitchers will most likely pitch like they did last year. But you're right for assuming they'll pitch like they did two years ago. Makes alot of sense. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

by cachhubguy on Jan 2, 2007 9:08 PM CST up reply actions

No. The idea is that you can't blindly assume

either way. Nobody knows. What you can do, especially with a guy like Buehrle who is still young, is look at the body of a pitcher's past work. That's usually as good an indicator as you're going to get.

I don't think you understand. I didn't say the Sox pitchers were going to pitch as they did in '05. I said that your assumption was illogical.

Viking God, Bears Fan

by Toonderstrook on Jan 2, 2007 9:13 PM CST up reply actions

I agree

I agree that we don't know what to expect after last year. if we look at his body of work, Buehrle should rebound. If we go by their body of work, Garland and Contreras had career years in 2005. So we'll see.

by cachhubguy on Jan 2, 2007 10:16 PM CST up reply actions

neither of them are necessarily right

that's the point. and this isn't a point that's particularly hard to grasp from any of the posts made on this subject. if you want to stir up a fight, go someplace else.

by larry on Jan 2, 2007 9:16 PM CST up reply actions

A Patrick L Kennedy by another name...

Viking God, Bears Fan

by Toonderstrook on Jan 2, 2007 9:24 PM CST up reply actions

Hey, the Rays ARE going all the way!

But I don't think it necessarily changes every year. Your #1 is your #1. How many opening days has El Marko started for us (or anyone) vs. Count/Javy/Jonny/Freddy? We don't have pitchers who are known for dominance year in and year out which is (possibly) why KW went for guys with the raw tools. Maybe one will work out for a year or two before the league catches up (did anyone think Count was going to do what he did in 2005?).

2005 was an anomoly for our staff, and they (mostly) regressed to the mean. And the #1's in our division (Santana/Sabathia/Verlander) all had better years than our #1. (Who WAS our #1 last year, anyway?)

So do we stockpile a bunch of guys who might click for a year or two and rotate talent or lock up a guy who is year in, year out, an ace? I think we see what the strategy is for KW, especially in light of the ridiculous contracts awarded for marginal performance.

by winningugly on Jan 3, 2007 3:07 AM CST up reply actions

Broadway...and 5th starters

I surprised his ZiPS is that good. And 5.35 for the Cell and and AL with only having gotten out of AA ball is pretty good.

Sox fans views of 5th starters is skewed by the truly abysmal performances the Sox got there in 2003 and 2004. Having a 5th starter in the AL with ERA is the low 5s is certainly OK. The Sox probably have a guy that can do that. They just need to make sure they pick the guy that will deliver that. I don't want to see them waste a bunch starts waiting for Gavin Floyd to "find it" while Haeger chews sunflower seeds in the bullpen.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 29, 2006 4:03 PM CST reply actions

I'm a Broadway fan

Too often we focus on what a player can't do. Broadway figures to be a league average innings eater in '08, maybe better in '09. And as ZiPS shows, should he be pressed into action in '07, he probably wouldn't be the disaster that may fear.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 29, 2006 4:10 PM CST up reply actions

Good Shit!

But I wish you would have done this before I slit my wrist, now I have this unsightly post-BMac scar to deal with.

Everyone moans, rightfully so, about MB's brutal second half. But Jose really fell apart too after he came back from the DL. We were definitely missing the accustomed oomph from the top of the rotation, made it impossible to get any streaks going in the second half.

by ChicagoPete on Dec 29, 2006 4:16 PM CST reply actions

that article from hardball

was really interesting. i recommend them highly. quite eye-opening.

by larry on Dec 29, 2006 4:34 PM CST reply actions

Excellent follow up cheat

I had already forwarded both pieces to friends worried to death about our "5th" starter.

If anything it makes me admire Kenny more for trying to acquire that prospect who can be the 1 or 2 on the staff for years.

Lol just think if Sox were to win another WS in the next few years with the new influx of talent Kenny may get his book yet. :-)

By the way its this type of stuff here and on THT etc. that makes me wonder what the hell we would have done without the internet.

My bad. I know, listen to Jay Mariotti as gospel.

by Tdogg on Dec 29, 2006 6:06 PM CST up reply actions

I'd say

Contreras has the ability to put up another winning streak...

And I hope that the rest of the starters just give the Sox a chance to win everyday.

4 or less runs a day, the White Sox have a good offense....

My White Sox Blog http://chicagosox.mlblogs.com AIM- NeverEnough013 Lets talk baseball

by LeftyPride on Dec 29, 2006 4:47 PM CST reply actions

from the THT

According to the THT article, there's an incredibly good chance that we see significant contributions from our 6 and 7 starters. The White Sox, having been able to run out 6 legitimate starters for the past two seasons, have been basically able to avoid that drop off. Our advantage was negated in part last year by the Buehrle/Garland starter and that got us to 90 wins.

What I wonder is how well aware of this Kenny is. Does he have that sort of faith in the Broadway/Floyd/Masset trio that he had in McCarthy last year, or is he simply not accounting for the starts he was worth the last two seasons?

by colintj on Dec 30, 2006 9:23 PM CST reply actions