Remember me
Forgot your username/password?
 
Print
Home>Articles

Team of the Decade - Pitchers, Manager

By Dave Fleming
September 4, 2009
 
So far, our decade team is struggling against the competition. Let’s see if the pitcher staff can redeem the ‘Aughters.
 
Starting Pitchers
 
Just a quick set of questions, before we get into selected our five arms:
 
Who has the most wins this decade?
 
If you thought Santana or Hudson or Martinez or Schilling or Glavine or Oswalt, you’re wrong. If you thought Randy Johnson, you’re close, but still wrong. He’s second, with 143. The winningest pitched in the decade was Andy Pettitte.
 
 
Most Wins in Decade
Wins
2000's
Andy Pettitte
146
1990's
Greg Maddux
176
1980's
Jack Morris
162
1970's
Jim Palmer
186
1960's
Juan Marichal
191
1950's
Warren Spahn
202
1940's
Hal Newhouser
170
1930's
Lefty Grove
199
1920's
Burleigh grimes
190
1910's
Walter Johnson
265
1900's
Christy Mathewson
236
 
Pettitte has the lowest win total to lead any decade, but it’s not that bad a total. He would have been second to Morris over the 1980’s, three wins ahead of Dave Steib. Even in the 1950’s, Pettitte’s total would rank fifth behind Marichal, Gibson, Drysdale, and Bunning, and a win ahead of Jim Kaat.
 
Who has pitched the most innings over the decade?
 
If you guess any of the names above, you’re wrong. It’s Livan Hernandez. And in second place? Mark Buehrle. They’re the only two pitchers to top 2000 innings over the decade.
 
What about wild pitches?
 
Yeah, I thought it would be Wakefield, too. He’s seventh. The wildest pitchers were Matt Clement, A.J. Burnett, John Lackey, Miguel Batista, Jose Contreras, and Daniel Cabrera. All of them threw far fewer innings than Wakefield. All of them threw more wild pitches.
 
Okay…onto the rotation.
 
Starting Pitchers #1 and #2
 
Top ten pitchers of the decade, according to adjusted ERA:
 
 
IP
W
L
K
ERA
ERA+
Pedro Martinez
1439
109
49
1597
3.01
152
Johan Santana
1710
122
60
1733
3.12
143
Brandon Webb
1320
87
62
1065
3.27
142
Randy Johnson
1881
143
78
2176
3.33
137
Roy Oswalt
1790
137
69
1457
3.19
136
John Smoltz
1032
56
39
961
3.22
134
Roger Clemens
1454
107
50
1356
3.34
133
Curt Schilling
1569
117
63
1545
3.54
133
Roy Halladay
1834
135
67
1357
3.45
132
Carlos Zambrano
1513
103
67
1280
3.51
126
 
Top ten pitchers, according to Win Shares:
 
 
Win Shares
Johan Santana
155
Randy Johnson
152
Roy Halladay
151
Roy Oswalt
147
Mark Buehrle
147
Tim Hudson
143
C.C. Sabathia
139
Derek Lowe
130
Curt Schilling
129
Pedro Martinez
127
 
Well, two of our starting pitchers are obvious:
 
#1 – Johan Santana
#2 – Randy Johnson
 
We’ll start the decade team with two southpaws, Santana and Randy Johnson.
 
Santana has two Cy Young award over the decade, and has appeared on six Cy Young ballots. Three strikeout titles, three ERA titles.
 
Johnson has three straight Cy Young awards on the decade, and a second-place finish in 2004, when he probably deserved to win over Roger Clemens. Two ERA titles, four strikeout titles, and the second-most wins over the decade.
 
Among starting pitchers, Santana and Johnson are ranked one and two in Win Shares over the decade.
 
 
Santana
Johnson
2000
2
26
2001
2
26
2002
10
29
2003
16
7
2004
26
21
2005
23
15
2006
24
8
2007
17
4
2008
21
12
2009
14
4
Total
155
152
 
Johnson and Pedro Martinez have had the best single seasons of the decade, two years that netted 29 Win Shares:
 
1-Year
WS
Johnson
29 (2002)
Martinez
29 (2000)
 
That said, in stretches of two-, three-straight seasons, Randy has the lead in peak productivity, a few ticks ahead of Santana.
 
2-Year
Win Shares
3-Year
Win Shares
Johnson
55
Johnson
81
Santana
49
Santana
73
 
Taking four- and five-year stretches, Santana inches out ahead of Johnson:
 
4-Year
Win Shares
5-Year
Win Shares
Santana
90
Santana
111
Johnson
88
Johnson
109
 
With Santana and Johnson, we have 25% of the Cy Young Awards given out this decade. I think we’re in good shape, but it’s about to get a whole lot more difficult.
 
Starting Pitchers #3, #4, and #5
 
Who’s left? The players left from the top-ten in Win Shares, and the top-ten in adjusted ERA:
 
 
IP
W
L
ERA
ERA+
Win Shares
Pedro Martinez
1439
109
49
3.01
152
127
Brandon Webb
1320
87
62
3.27
142
108
Roy Oswalt
1790
137
69
3.19
136
147
John Smoltz
1032
56
39
3.22
134
109
Roger Clemens
1454
107
50
3.34
133
120
Curt Schilling
1569
117
63
3.54
133
129
Roy Halladay
1834
135
67
3.45
132
151
C. Zambrano
1513
103
67
3.51
126
118
Tim Hudson
1886
136
75
3.50
125
143
Dan Haren
1185
78
60
3.57
123
66
Mark Buehrle
2032
133
94
3.81
122
147
C.C. Sabathia
1858
133
80
3.64
122
139
Chris Carpenter
1288
91
51
3.72
120
90
Derek Lowe
1803
128
97
3.77
119
130
 
That’s a bit unwieldy, isn’t it? Fourteen pitchers.
 
(Just a side note: the 2004 Red Sox had three excellent Decade pitchers: Martinez, Schilling, and Lowe. I was surprised to discover that Lowe has more Win Shares over the decade than Martinez and Schilling. And Tim Wakefield also topped the century mark for Win Shares over the decade.)
 
Let’s lose the guys with less than 100 Win Shares. And while we’re at it, let’s cut the guys with less than 1200 innings pitched.
 
We lose Carpenter, Webb, Haren, Smoltz, and Zambrano. I think that makes sense. Carpenter has missed a lot of games, and though he’s pitching brilliantly right now, he probably doesn’t get a spot on the team. Webb and Haren have been great, but not for very long.
 
Smoltz…it’s tough to cut Smoltz, as he is 56-36 on the decade, with 154 saves. He had three terrific years as a closer, and a few strong seasons as a starter. It’s probably not enough: the years as a closer aren’t going to push him past Nathan or Wagner or Rodriguez (never mind Rivera), and his seasons as a starter, while solid, aren’t brilliant. He didn’t win a Cy Young over the decade, and as a starting pitcher he wasn’t ever close to winning the award (he had a 6th and 7th place finish as a starter, a 3rd place finish as a relief pitcher).
 
That leaves us with nine guys: Pedro, Oswalt, Clemens, Schilling, Halladay, Hudson, Buehrle, Sabathia, and Lowe.
 
We can sort the nine remaining players into two categories: the three guys who have 1400-1600 innings over the decade, and the six guys who have (or, in the case of Oswalt, will have) 1800 or more innings on the decade.
 
I like that math: three and six. Let’s take one pitcher from the 1400-1600 innings group, and two from the 1800 group. Starting with the 1400 guys:
 
 
IP
W
L
ERA
ERA+
Win Shares
Pedro Martinez
1439
109
49
3.01
152
127
Roger Clemens
1454
107
50
3.34
133
120
Curt Schilling
1569
117
63
3.54
133
129
 
Tough pick, Schilling or Martinez. Schilling has three second-place finished for the Cy Young. Pedro has a Cy Young and four top-five finished on the decade.
 
According to Win Shares, Schilling has had the better two-, three-, four-, and five-year stretches. He’s only slightly better than Pedro: most of those stretches have Schilling as one or two Win Shares ahead of Pedro, but he is ahead.
 
And then there is the postseason: over the decade, Curt Schilling has been 10-1 in the postseason, with an ERA hovering around 2.00. Schilling’s teams won three World Series titles, and Schilling was smack in the middle of those games. Martinez was 3-2, with a higher ERA.
 
It’s close; closer than I thought it would be. I’d give the edge to Schilling. And yes, I’m as surprised as you are.
 
 
IP
W
L
ERA
ERA+
Win Shares
Roy Oswalt
1790
137
69
3.19
136
147
Roy Halladay
1834
135
67
3.45
132
151
Tim Hudson
1886
136
75
3.50
125
143
Mark Buehrle
2032
133
94
3.81
122
147
C.C. Sabathia
1858
133
80
3.64
122
139
Derek Lowe
1803
128
97
3.77
119
130
 
Mark Buehrle has had a great decade: second in innings pitched, top-ten in wins. He’s been an extremely valuable pitcher over the decade, and deserves some credit for that. Same thing goes for Tim Hudson, who has put together a quietly great decade.
 
That said, I’ll take the two Roy’s to finish off the rotation: Halladay and Oswalt.
 
Oswalt is something of the Jack Morris of the decade: he’s never won a Cy Young, or even finished second. He’s led the league in ERA once and wins once, and that’s about it. But he makes starts and wins games. As of now, he is 68 wins above .500, and a good candidate to be one hundred over .500 at the end of his career.
 
A Roy Halladay season isn’t much different than a Roy Oswalt year: during his good years, Halladay is a few ticks better than Oswalt, but he’s been more up-and-down than Oswalt. They both have decent strikeout rates coupled with excellent control. Both of them were born in 1977; both of them play in cities where baseball is the second sport.
 
#3 – Roy Oswalt
#4 – Roy Halladay
#5 – Curt Schilling
 
And, filling out the top-ten I’d go: #6 – Pedro Martinez, #7 – Tim Hudson, #8 – C.C. Sabathia, #9 – Mark Buehrle, #10 – Brandon Webb.
 
Relief Pitcher
 
 
IP
SV
K
ERA
ERA+
Mariano Rivera
702
391
658
2.09
214
Billy Wagner
569
284
681
2.40
183
Francisco Rodriguez
511
236
649
2.43
182
Joe Nathan
579
234
645
2.56
169
Keith Foulke
543
178
484
3.04
153
Francisco Cordero
613
241
635
3.20
148
Scot Shields
651
21
592
3.03
147
Trevor Hoffman
520
355
509
2.79
143
Jason Isringhauser
556
284
510
3.03
143
LaTroy Hawkins
665
87
488
3.25
140
 
Obviously Mariano Rivera is way ahead of the pack here. This would’ve been an interesting discussion without him: Wagner, or the guy the Mets hired to replace Wagner? Foulke or Hoffman or Nathan? But Mariano is ahead like Secretariat was in the ’73 Belmont. It ain’t even close.
 
I was surprised to see how badly Hoffman does: Hoffman is second in saves on the decade, but his rate stats are about equal to Keith Foulke’s numbers:
 
 
IP
H
BB
SO
ERA
ERA+
Foulke
543
441
130
484
3.04
153
Hoffman
520
427
120
509
2.79
143
 
So how come no one is arguing that Keith Foulke is a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer?
 
Interestingly, Mariano Rivera might be the Pitcher of the Decade. According to Win Shares, he’s ahead of Johan Santana:
 
 
Santana
Rivera
2000
2
16
2001
2
19
2002
10
9
2003
16
17
2004
26
18
2005
23
19
2006
24
16
2007
17
12
2008
21
20
2009
14
13
Total
155
159
 
It’s a stretch: in the eight seasons when they have both been pitching, Rivera has finished with more Win Shares than Santana exactly once, in 2003. And which one would you take, given the choice? I’d choose the starter.
 
That said, it is likely that Mariano Rivera has had the finest decade of any relief pitcher ever. You probably can’t say that Johan Santana’s run has been the best of any starter.
 
There’s been a little talk in the media about giving awards to players who have had long careers, but haven’t won the big hardware. The line of thinking goes, “Jeter gets the AL MVP, because he’s had a good career, and he hasn’t won one yet.”
 
Generally, I think that’s a silly way to go about giving awards: for one thing, you end up perpetually behind the eight-ball: say you give it to Jeter this year, as a Lifetime Achievement Award...what happens when Joe Mauer is thirty-five, and he’s been robbed of the awards? I think it’s wise to just give the award to the best player, and leave the lifetime achievement stuff to the Hall of Fame.
 
That said: Mariano’s had a terrific decade, and hasn’t got the hardware to show for it. I’ll take Rivera as Pitcher of the Decade.
 
Manager
 
Another easy one: Joe Torre’s teams have finished made it to the postseason ever season this decade. That’s a record of success that no other manager can boast.
 
There are a few other candidates. Bobby Cox has six first-place finishes over the decade, and has kept the Braves in contention for eight of the last ten years. Terry Francona’s Red Sox have finished in the postseason in five of his six years as the team manager, and he is the only manager this decade to win two World Series titles. Ozzie Guillen…for all his drama, Ozzie has done wonders at keep the White Sox in contention. I like Ozzie.
 
But ten years, ten postseasons…even with the high payrolls he’s had, that kind of success is tough to argue against. Joe Torre is the manager of the decade.
 
Dave Fleming is a writer living in Iowa City, IA. He welcomes comments, questions, and suggestions here and at dfleming1986@yahoo.com
 
 

COMMENTS (16 Comments, most recent shown first)

BrianFleming
I think Pedro's vintage start last night and his rebirth as an effective starter on a playoff bound NL Team this year pushes him ahead of Schilling for the 5th sport in the rotation.

I mean I know the NL is considered at AAA league (see Mr Smoltz and Mr. Penny) but Pedro had David Wright and Carlos Beltran looking foolish last night.

As great as Schilling was in the Playoffs for the Sox and Arizona, I'd still have to take Pedro in any big game. I mean he is our generations Bob Gibson, a nasty competitor who's desire to win came out every time he started.

I mean the 2003 Red Sox won the Wild Card and came close to beating the Yankees in game seven of the ALCS with a rotation of Pedro, Lowe, Wakefield and Burkett and Casey Fossum. Pedro could take his team on his back and carry them, Schilling without Randy Johnson or Pedro would likely have never had all those chances in October.

This season isn't over for Pedro.


10:40 AM Sep 14th
 
b30b30
I consider the election of Schilling over Martinez inconsistent compared with other evaluations. I mean they're perfectly comparable by the totals but when you go to the dominance of the game, nobody has done it as Pedro, even in the first years of this decade when he got not much innings. Schilling was, at his best, just a second, but never the best. But we can get into an intermediate solution. I agree with Kev putting Pedro instead of Halladay.
12:08 AM Sep 14th
 
DaveFleming
Interesting point about competitive balance versus steroids: it does seem that there is zero traction over trying to balance out the vast differences in payroll, while everyone is extremely passionate about stamping out steroid use in baseball.

I would guess that in most divisions, competitive balance has actually been pretty good. The big exception is the AL East, and while Evan is right to point out that Baltimore and Toronto have been woefully mismanaged, that doesn't fully address the fact that they (and TB) have the great misfortune to play in a division with two of the wealthiest franchises in baseball. Even if Baltimore, Toronto, and TB were the best run teams in baseball, it seems unlikely that they would be consistently competitive against the juggernauts in NY and BOS.

Maybe I'm wrong about that. If Tampa Bay can remain a competitive team for a few more years, then maybe I'll start to buy that the AL East is okay. But right now, I think the deck is stacked hard against Balt/Tor/TB.
10:44 AM Sep 11th
 
DaveFleming
Kev,

Thanks for the comments about Pedro...it was tough to leave him off the list, and you make some good points. If we could add 1997-1999 Pedro, he'd fly near the top of the list (RJ also had some fine years around then).

I actually have a little more to say about your comment, but I'll get to it in another article.
10:48 PM Sep 10th
 
Kev
Isn't the World Series the goal? Bobby Cox receives much praise for bringing his teams to the brink--with players such as Chipper and and Andruw and 3 HOF pitchers year after year.
I'd call him overrated, and wonder how many titles Billy Martin, LaRussa, Hodges, and several others would have won with that talent at their disposal.
2:04 PM Sep 8th
 
Kev
Dave,

Regarding your top 5 starting pitchers,, I'm OK wirh Johnson, Santana, Oswalt, and Schilling, but I'd drop Halladay and add Pedro. Win Shares were never intended to compare one player against another; and I can't see dropping Martinez who has the best ERA+ of all pitchers considered, incuding Johnson and Santana. Schilling gets in because of his great postseason W-L of 11-2. Santana trails only Pedro in ERA+; Randy trails Santana at #3in ERA+ (omitting Webb because of sample size.) Randy is Secretariat in K's followed by Santana, Pedro, and Schilling.
I would rank them:
1. Johnson
2. Pedro
3. Schilling
4. Santana
5. Oswalt by a hair over Halladay.

The Pedro of 1997, 1999, 2000, 2002, and 2003 was the closest pitcher I've seen to Koufax, whom I rate as the best.

Very stimulating and enjoyable series.
2:03 PM Sep 7th
 
evanecurb
Ventboys:

Your point about competitive balance is well taken, but don't use Baltimore and Toronto as the examples. These franchises have been horribly mismanaged for the past ten plus years. Better to point to a place that has produced a lot of good young players but been forced to trade 'em away (Oakland, Pittsburgh, Texas, Cleveland). Oakland should have Haren and Hudson in their rotation, Tejada and short, and Swisher in the outfield. I can't keep track of all of the KC players who are doing well with contenders, but I know to start with Beltran and Damon.
9:14 PM Sep 6th
 
ventboys
Since Sophia was prominently placed in another stinker of a third trilogy installment, giving it to Jackson seems fair to me...

Evan, you bring up an interesting point. I wonder if the maniacal outrage heaped on the steroid era by any white man over 50 is part of that same dynamic. In most sports progression and improvement is lauded. In baseball, it seems to just piss everyone off. I am starting to get tired of the endless need to "protect" the numbers, in a game that is still in it's infancy. Baseball is the only sport (well, golf too I guess) that is so obsessed with established records that they continually change the sport to avoid breaking them.

The last decade has been really weird by this standard. The game's competitive balance on the field is being torn apart by a financial imbalance that is hardly being looked at at all, while there has been endless discussion, rule changes, and self righteous anger put forth to protect the integrity of the homerun records. I say let 'em hit, and lets figure out a way to give Toronto and Baltimore, and Tampa in a couple of years, a dream of playing games that are meaningful.
7:38 PM Sep 6th
 
DaveFleming
Top-three? Pedro would rank as the BEST starter from 1996-2005: 162-63, 2.60 ERA, 2418 strikeouts in 2058 innings, 177 ERA+. That's a decade. Randy would be a close number 2, followed by Clemens, Maddux, and either Schilling or Kevin Brown for the fifth spot.

To the movie thing: it makes a kind of sense, right? I mean, Scorsese or the Coens are good directors...they should probably be considered for an award like "Best Director."

Okay, here's one way to look at it: the Oscars are a little like the All-Star game: sometimes you have one-season wonders making the team, but more often you get guys like Griffey or Ripken getting elected to a spot based on past merits. I think that's probably the right thing to do: why give a guy who's had a good first-half a spot over a guy who's been a legitimate star?

Sophia Coppolla? I loved "Lost in Translation"; one of my favorites. I thought it was far better than the last 'Lord' movie, which had a terrible ending. But, looking at it objectively, are we supposed to give the award to a young director, having made her second film? Over Jackson, who's overall career was, to that point at least, far more significant than Sophia's?

I don't think so: Coppola made the better movie, but if she's really good, she'll get another chance. Jackson deserved it.
4:37 PM Sep 5th
 
josheehan
Hey Dave, I really enjoyed this series. With regards to the whole "lifetime achievement award" via the MVP, I couldn't agree more. There is a correlation between this and the Oscars. How many times have directors been given top honors on a film that might be the 3rd or 4th best they've made (see: Scorsese, the Coen Bros and even Soderbergh), but it's like the Academy saying, "Hey Martin, we totally screwed up, you should have gotten best director for 'Raging Bull', hope you don't mind one for 'The Departed' instead." Heck sometimes it happens in reverse: because a player/director has been honored in the past, they get nabbed of any future honors. In this category, Ron Howard got Best Director for 'A Beautiful Mind'...but I think it's fair to say that Cinderella Man and Frost/Nixon were just as good, if not better. Finally, we ALL know that Peter Jackson got BD in 2003 because it was the Academy saying, "Hey Petey, those three LOTR films you made were pretty good...you don't deserve BD for any particular one, but man, as an epic series, we appreciate what you did." But in 2003, the final installment of that series is in no way, shape, or form, better than Coppola's 'Lost in Translation', or even Eastwood's 'Mystic River' and Meirelles' 'City of God.' Oh well.

On another note, the arbitrariness of the decade treats Pedro pretty roughly. Of course, you've already noted the detrimental effects of doing things this way, but it is what it is. Anyhow, if we were going 1996-2005, I think it's pretty clear he'd be in the Top 3. 1998 and 1999 were ridiculous years by any metric...
4:00 PM Sep 5th
 
sdbunting
Another interesting, super-readable piece, Mr. Fleming. Thanks again.
2:47 PM Sep 5th
 
evanecurb
One thing I enjoy about baseball fans is that, when comparing players across eras, we tend to be more respectful of the ability of earlier players. This is generally not true when football fans are debating all time teams. More than one person in such debates will always bring up the point about how today's players are so much bigger, faster, and better conditioned than those in the past. In my mind, that has nothing to do with what is under discussion.
11:04 PM Sep 4th
 
Richie
Mussina aged very well, and he went to the best team in baseball.

OK, Oswalt IS a candidate. I surely overstated that part. But if by age 38 you've barely cleared 100 wins over .500, there's a darn good chance you'll drop back under it by the time you face the reality of being done.
6:42 PM Sep 4th
 
evanecurb
Good series. I like these selections but would drop Schilling in favor of someone who pitched more than eight seasons. Buerhle, probably
5:09 PM Sep 4th
 
DaveFleming
Well, Oswalt will be 32 next year....he's about thirty games away. If he goes another six years and wins about five games more each season than he loses, he gets there pretty easily. He's consistently been about 5-10 wins above .500 every year...hasn't ever had a losing season. Barring injury, I don't see why he won't pass 100+ pretty easily.

Comparables...Mike Mussina makes sense: another good pitcher, no Cy Youngs, long, consistent career. Interestly, Mussina, like Oswalt, was exactly sixty-eight games over .500 at the same age, (W-L:147-81). And Moose cleared 100 with ease, finishing 117 games above .500 (270-153).

I think he gets there. It's not a sure thing but he's certainly on course.
2:47 PM Sep 4th
 
Richie
I would think that being 68 games over .500 at this point in his career makes Oswalt very much NOT! a candidate to finish 100 over by the time he's done. In the end part of his career, he's more likely to go backwards than forwards on that.

Again, thanks for the article and this series, Dave!
1:49 PM Sep 4th
 
 
©2024 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Powered by Sports Info Solutions|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy