At first glance, the 2005 World Series doesn’t seem like a particularly significant marker in the ebb and flow of baseball’s history. The contest, matching the old and ghost-haunted Chicago White Sox against expansion-era Houston Astros, was a dull and one-sided affair in which the South Siders swept the Space Racer in four games.
It’s not surprising that both teams were in the Fall Classic: they each had terrific pitching. The Astros boasted a trio of Southern-born starting pitchers (Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, and Roy Oswalt), supported by the organization’s usual selection of clubbers with ‘B’-surnames. Meanwhile, the White Sox rotation, less vaunted, was one of the steadiest in modern history: Mark Buehrle (33 starts), Freddy Garcia (33), Jon Garland (32), and Jose Contreras (32) never missed their turns in the rotation, while Orlando Hernandez (22 starts) and a young Brandon McCarthy (10 starts) split the starts in the last spot. As far as offense goes, Paul Konerko was the team’s big thumper, while Jermaine Dye and Aaron Rowand turned in solid years.
The two teams meeting in the Fall Classic in 2005 happened to have the best pitching in baseball: the Astros team ranked 2nd in Team WAR by pitchers that year. The White Sox ranked 1st.
* * *
That should happen sometimes, right? The teams with the best pitching should make it to the World Series a not-too-rare portion of the time. Saying that there’s a correlation between having good pitching and having a good team isn’t some out-there kind of theory. It makes sense.
So how often does something like this happen? How often do teams with good pitchingend up in the World Series.
* * *
Let’s go back in time a little bit, before going forward.
- In 2005 we saw the #1-ranked White Sox beat the #2-ranked Astros. If you want to argue that good pitching correlates to team success, this is as good an example as you could hope for.
- The 2004 World Series saw the Red Sox beat the Cardinals. The Red Sox ranked 3rd in pitching WAR, while the Cardinals ranked 10th. The #1 pitching team, incidentally, was the Twins. They made the playoffs, too, but got bounced in the ALDS.
- The 2003 World Series featured the #1 pitching team, the New York Yankees. Unfortunately they lost to the upstart Marlins (8th)
- The 2002 World Series was a bust as far as elite pitching goes: the Angels (12th) beat the Giants (7th). The #1 team were the Yankees, who were bounced out in the ALDS.
- On the other hand, the 2001 World Series saw the #1 and #2 pitching teams face off in the World Series, with the #2 Diamondbacks upsetting the #1 Yankees. That was a good series, with a lot of Hall-worthy pitchers on both sides.
- The 2000 Subway Series featured the #5 Mets and the #6 Yankees. The #1 team in Pitching WAR were the Braves, who lost in the NLDS.
- The Braves did reach the World Series in 1999, as the #1-ranked pitching team. Unfortuantely they lost to the Yankees, who ranked 5th. Pretty good matchup, #1 and #5.
- The Braves were #1 in 1998, but they lost to the Padres in the NLCS. The Padres weren’t exactly slouches when it came to pitching: they were the #2 ranked team. The team that won the World Series in 1998 were the Yankees….#3 in pitching WAR. This is another matchup of teams with terrific staffs.
- 1997 was an offense year: the Marlins (9th) beating the Indians (20th). The #1 Braves reached the NLCS, but lost to Miami.
- Finally, 1996 saw another #1 and #2 matchup in the World Series, with the Braves (#1) losing to the Yankees (#2).
* * *
That’s a decade of World Series, but it’s probably too much information for the brain to process. Let’s look at those results in chart form:
Year
|
WS Winner
|
Rank
|
WS Loser
|
Rank
|
2005
|
White Sox
|
1st
|
Astros
|
2nd
|
2004
|
Red Sox
|
3rd
|
Cardinals
|
10th
|
2003
|
Marlins
|
8th
|
Yankees
|
1st
|
2002
|
Angels
|
12th
|
Giants
|
7th
|
2001
|
D'Backs
|
2nd
|
Yankees
|
1st
|
2000
|
Yankees
|
6th
|
Mets
|
5th
|
1999
|
Yankees
|
5th
|
Braves
|
1st
|
1998
|
Yankees
|
3rd
|
Padres
|
2nd
|
1997
|
Marlins
|
9th
|
Indians
|
20th
|
1996
|
Yankees
|
2nd
|
Braves
|
1st
|
The #1-ranked pitching teams made the World Series five times over those ten years, while the #2-ranked teams reached the Fall Classic four times.
And it’s not like the other teams in the World Series were slouches when it came to pitching: the above list has two 3rd place teams winning championships, and one 5th-place team winning a title. The only teams not in the top-ten in Pitching WAR are the 1997 Indians (a monster lineup) and the 2002 Angels (12th in Pitching WAR).
The 2005 Astros and White Sox weren’t flukes: that decade saw a lot of elite pitching teams play in the World Series. More than half of the World Series teams ranked in the top-three in Pitching WAR:
WS Appearances
|
1996-2005
|
#1 Team
|
5
|
#2 Team
|
4
|
#3 Team
|
2
|
Total
|
11 (55%)
|
No #4 team reached the playoffs over that decade, but two #5 teams reached. And a #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10-ranked team all reached at least one World Series.
Five #1 ranked teams didn’t reach the World Series. How many of them at least made the playoffs?
All of them. Every team that ranked #1 in cumulative WAR by pitchers reached the playoffs between 1996 and 2005.
Most astonishingly, the World Series featured the #1 and #2 pitching teams playing against one another three times over this decade. That’s a bit of a fluke, because the #1 and #2 teams could be in the same league: It’s possible, for instance, that two or three National League teams could top all of the American League teams in Pitching WAR.
The important take-away is that there is a very strong correlation between having good pitching and winning. Most of the teams that appeared in the World Series between 1996 and 2005 had excellent pitchers, and all of the teams with the best pitching at least reached the postseason.
* * *
Going back further.
Wait…why are we going back further?
We’re going back further to see if the success of top-pitching teams is related to the Wild Card. The Wild Cards started in 1995, so the decade we just looked at was entirely in the Wild Card era.
I wanted to go before the Wild Card, to see how top-ranked pitching teams did in the era of four playoff teams.
I won’t run down the list this time. Just the table:
Year
|
WS Winner
|
Rank
|
WS Loser
|
Rank
|
1995
|
Braves
|
1st
|
Indians
|
2nd
|
1993
|
Blue Jays
|
15th
|
Phillies
|
8th
|
1992
|
Blue Jays
|
20th
|
Braves
|
1st
|
1991
|
Twins
|
10th
|
Braves
|
3rd
|
1990
|
Reds
|
4th
|
A's
|
1st
|
1989
|
A's
|
2nd
|
Giants
|
5th
|
1988
|
Dodgers
|
2nd
|
A's
|
8th
|
1987
|
Twins
|
23rd
|
Cardinals
|
8th
|
1986
|
Mets
|
1st
|
Red Sox
|
12th
|
1985
|
Royals
|
6th
|
Cardinals
|
3rd
|
The #1-ranked team in baseball won the World Series in 1995 and 1986. The #1-ranked team lost the World Series in 1992 and 1990.
That means that 6 #1 teams didn’t reach the World Series. Did they at least make the playoffs?
Four of those six #1-ranked teams reached the playoffs: the 1993 Braves, the 1988 Mets, the 1987 Giants, and the 1985 Dodgers all won their divisions, but lost in the Championship Series.
That leaves two #1 teams. The 1991 Dodgers didn’t reach the playoffs, but they came damned close, finishing just one game behind the Giants. They won more games than any team in NL East. They were a lucky break away from making the playoffs.
The 1989 Dodgers are the only #1-ranked team that didn’t a) reach the playoffs, or b) come extremely close to reaching the playoffs. They finished in third, a lot of games out. The 1989 Dodgers just weren’t that good a team.
Wait a second…not that good? That’s probably a stretch. The 1989 Dodgers were the defending champions.
So we’ve looked at 20 #1 teams so far. Nine of those twenty played in the World Series. Another nine made it to the playoffs. One missed the playoffs by a single game. The only #1-ranked pitching team that wasn’t really good was a team coming off a championship season. It sure pays to be #1.
How about the other high-ranking teams?
During this decade, #2-ranked teams won two World Series (1988 and 1989) and lost one (1995). #3-ranked teams lost both World Series they played in. The #4-ranked Reds won in 1990. Pretty good bullpen on that team.
We should note, too, that three low-ranked pitching teams made the World Series over this decade, each winning a Championship. The 1992 and 1993 Blue Jays, an incredible offensive team, brought the championship north of the border and defended it. The 1987 Twins, a weak championship team, won a surprise victory over the Runnin’ Cardinals.
Still, the teams with the best pitchers held their own during this decade. We can add to our little table:
WS Appearances
|
1985-1995
|
1996-2005
|
#1-Ranked Team
|
4
|
5
|
#2-Ranked Team
|
3
|
4
|
#3-Ranked Team
|
2
|
2
|
Total
|
9 (45%)
|
11 (55%)
|
This is pretty consistent: the top-three teams in Pitching WAR account for exactly half of the World Series teams over these two decades. The addition of the Wild Card didn’t weaken the chances for elite pitching teams: they actually did a bit betterin the new decade.
None of this is surprising, right? It’s not particularly noteworthy that teams with the best pitching tend to be successful teams.
* * *
We’ve gone backward in time two decades….now it’s time to go forward.
Remember that 2005 World Series between the Astros and White Sox? Remember that that was one of those years where the #1 and #2 teams faced off against each other in the World Series?
Well…that hasn’t happened since.
I don’t mean that exact scenario hasn’t happened. What mean is that that nothing close to that has happened. In the ten World Series matchups we’ve seen since the 2005 World Series, no #1-ranked pitching team has won the World Series. None of them…not a single one. Just one #1-ranked team has even reached the World Series. They played a team that ranked 19th in pitchers WAR.
How about #2 teams?
Nope. No #2-ranked teams have won the World Series. Actually, none of them have even reached the World Series.
And if you think this is great news for the #3-ranked pitching teams, it’s not. Just one #3 team has reached the World Series. Did they win? Of course not.
Here’s that table of the top-three teams by World Series appearances, again:
WS Appearances
|
1985-1995
|
1996-2005
|
2006-2015
|
#1-Ranked Team
|
4
|
5
|
1
|
#2-Ranked Team
|
3
|
4
|
0
|
#3-Ranked Team
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
Total
|
11 (55%)
|
13 (65%)
|
2 (10%)
|
After two decades where elite pitching teams have made up exactly 50% of the World Series teams, we’ve just witnessed a decade when top-three pitching teams have accounted for a paltry two of the twenty most recent teams in the Fall Classic.
I’ve shown you the year-by-year breakdown of World Series representative for the two decades previous to ours, so I’ll show you the most recent decade of World Series representatives:
Year
|
WS Winner
|
Rank
|
WS Loser
|
Rank
|
2015
|
Royals
|
15th
|
Mets
|
7th
|
2014
|
Giants
|
26th
|
Royals
|
10th
|
2013
|
Red Sox
|
13th
|
Cardinals
|
4th
|
2012
|
Giants
|
19th
|
Tigers
|
1st
|
2011
|
Cardinals
|
17th
|
Rangers
|
8th
|
2010
|
Giants
|
4th
|
Rangers
|
3rd
|
2009
|
Yankees
|
7th
|
Phillies
|
20th
|
2008
|
Phillies
|
12th
|
Rays
|
10th
|
2007
|
Red Sox
|
6th
|
Rockies
|
11th
|
2006
|
Cardinals
|
27th
|
Tigers
|
7th
|
After two decades where elite pitching teams have comprised more than of the World Series representatives, the tide has turned – quite aggressively - away from teams with strong pitching.
There is another surprising trend, which is just as interesting. Let’s look at the last five World Series contests. I assume most of you will remember these contests:
Year
|
WS Winner
|
Rank
|
WS Loser
|
Rank
|
Gap
|
2015
|
Royals
|
15th
|
Mets
|
7th
|
8
|
2014
|
Giants
|
26th
|
Royals
|
10th
|
16
|
2013
|
Red Sox
|
13th
|
Cardinals
|
4th
|
9
|
2012
|
Giants
|
19th
|
Tigers
|
1st
|
18
|
2011
|
Cardinals
|
17th
|
Rangers
|
8th
|
9
|
The added column is the difference in pitching rank between the World Series winners and World Series losers. In each of the last five World Series’, we’ve had bigdifferences between the quality of each team’s pitchers….differences in rank of eight or more.
And every year, the team with the lowest ranked pitchers has won the World Series.
The first part isn’t rare: we’ve seen seasons where teams with good pitching staffs have played teams with lesser pitching staffs. In 1997, the 7th-ranked Marlins played the 20th-ranked Indians. The 1992 Braves (1st, obviously) played the Blue Jays (20th). The 1987 Cardinals (7th) played the Twins (23rd). The 1986 Mets (1st) played the Red Sox (12th). It’s not that uncommon to have a team highly ranked in Pitching WAR meet a lower-ranked team in the World Series.
Most of the weak-pitching teams who made it to the World Series between 1985 and 2005 were great hitting teams. The 1986 Red Sox had a terrific lineup. The 1992 and 1993 Blue Jays were stacked with hitters. So were the 1997 Indians. Aside from the (decidedly fluky) 1987 Twins, the team who reached the World Series with bad pitching always had really good offenses to back them up.
This has continues to hold true: while last year’s Royals weren’t a monster offensive team, the 2014 and 2012 Giants had terrific offenses (masked, somewhat, by park effects). The 2013 Red Sox led the AL in runs scored. The 2012 Cardinals, a monster offense, led the NL in runs scored. They outscored the Rockies.
The teams making the World Series with bad pitching are doing so by virtue of some great hitting. That’s not uncommon, of course…that makes sense. If you’re a playoff team with sub-par pitching, you’re going to have a good offense. That trend has held over the last thirty years.
What’s changed is that matchups between good-pitching and good-hitting teams used to be toss-ups. If, say, a #3-ranked pitching team met a #16-ranked team, it was mostly a coin-flip who’d win.
Lately, however, the teams with lower-quality staffs seem to be winning all of the World Series. When it comes to mismatches in quality of pitching in the World Series, the teams with drastically worse pitching staffs are riding an six-Series winning streak, including the last five World Series we’ve seen.
That’s strange, right?
* * *
We can say there are two ‘trends’ here. I won’t say anything has been proven them conclusively, only that we’re noticing something. Something seems to be there.
The first trend is that elite pitching teams don’t seem to be reaching the World Series as easily as they used did. In the past, about half the World Series teams would show up in the top-three in pitching WAR. That number has dropped: the top pitching teams have been underrepresented in the last decade of World Series.
The second is that having good pitching doesn’t seem as much of an advantage in those series: head-to-head, the teams with really good pitching staffs are doing a lot of losing in playoff series.
So what gives?
I’m not sure, actually, and I’d like to hear your thoughts on the subject. I have a few ideas
1. It’s possible that there isn’t really a trend here.
I should note that we’re really talking about thirty data sets….thirty different World Series matchups. That’s a small sample size, and it’s not reasonable to draw too many conclusions because the ten most recent events don’t quite match with the twenty that preceded it.
That said, I think the World Series - a best-of-seven contest – tends to test the mettle of teams more than a one-off event like the Super Bowl. Over a long contest, the flaws and strengths of a team are revealed. We saw this last year: the Mets flaws on defense and over-dependence on Cespedes to drive their offense showed. So, too, did KC’s pesky ability to make contact against even the most strikeout-able pitchers. I think the better team usually wins the World Series.
But we could just be looking at a weird fluke. If the Nats end up beating the Indians in the World Series next year, any ‘trend’ we’re currently seeing probably goes right out the window, and we’re back to square one.
2. WAR might be the problem.
All of this stuff is relying on WAR as a measure of a pitching staff’s effectiveness, and it’s possible that WAR has a bias problem. The Royals don’t rate as a good pitching team, but they’ve had a pretty good bullpen in recent years. It is possible that WAR is overrating the importance of starters, and underrating the importance of relief pitching. Maybe that’s the problem: relief pitching is gaining in importance, and the metric hasn’t cottoned to this.
That said, I’d be hard pressed to disagree with most of their conclusions. WAR pegged the Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz teams as the #1 team for a lot of their big years…that obviously passes the smell test. They liked the Mets and Dodgers in the late-1980’s, and credited the Tigers as the best pitching team in 2013. They recognized that the Yankees and D’Backs had great pitching teams, and they tabbed the White Sox and Astros. If the metric isn’t exactly perfect, it’s at least generating very good results….results that hold against most other measures of pitching quality.
3. The floor is rising.
This is my favorite theory; this is my interpretation of what’s happened: the floor of what a bad pitcher is in major league baseball is rising. While we still have really excellent starting pitchers (the Kershaws and Prices and Scherzers of the world) in the game today, the big change over the last ten or fifteen years is how much better all pitchers are.
Here’s one way to look at it. Here are the top-ten starting pitchers in K%-BB% (that’s strikeout percentage minus walk percentage) in 1985 and 2015:
Rank
|
1985
|
K-BB%
|
2015
|
K-BB%
|
1
|
Dw. Gooden
|
18.7%
|
C. Kershaw
|
29.1%
|
2
|
D. Eckersley
|
14.8%
|
Chris Sale
|
27.2%
|
3
|
Sid Fernandez
|
14.6%
|
Max Scherzer
|
26.9%
|
4
|
B. Saberhagen
|
12.9%
|
Carlos Carrasco
|
23.7%
|
5
|
Mike Krukow
|
12.6%
|
Corey Kluber
|
22.6%
|
6
|
Bruce Hurst
|
12.2%
|
M. Bumgarner
|
22.4%
|
7
|
Nolan Ryan
|
11.6%
|
Jacob deGrom
|
22.2%
|
8
|
John Tudor
|
11.3%
|
Jake Arrieta
|
21.6%
|
9
|
Frank Tanana
|
11.3%
|
Chris Archer
|
21.4%
|
10
|
Rick Reuschel
|
11.1%
|
David Price
|
20.1%
|
In 1985, Dwight Gooden led the majors in K%-BB%, posting an 18.7% mark that lapped the rest of the NL. That’s a pretty good mark, in a remarkable season. Gooden’s 1985 campaign is rated as the best pitching season of the 1980’s, and as one of the greatest single-seasons of any pitcher, ever.
But it pales by today’s standards. Gooden’s strikeout-minus-walk percentage of 18.7% wouldn’t qualify as elite in 2015: a staggering sixteen starting pitchers posted a better strikeout-to-walk rate last year. Dennis Eckersley finished 2ndin K%-BB% in 1985, with a 14.8% mark. That same tally would’ve tied him for 34th among qualified starters in 2015, with the not-quite-immortal J.A. Happ.
I think what’s happened is that the floor has been lifted: the steady increase in strikeouts and decline in walks across all of baseball all pitchers are more effective. What used to be ace-level performance is now Happ-level performance. Add to that the success of relief pitchers, and better usage patterns in how managers are using relief pitchers, and you can make the argument that good pitching just isn’t rare anymore. The gap between ‘average and ‘great’ still exists, but the ‘average’ has improved to a point where it’s now enough to win. You just don’t need to have the best pitching staff in baseball anymore: there are a lot more avenue to winning without great pitching now, and teams are increasingly pursuing in those avenues.
Or that’s what I think this means…that’s the trend I’m seeing. The old canard that pitching wins championships just isn’t true anymore. That’s not because good pitching no longer exists; it’s because the number of ‘bad’ pitchers has decreased in baseball. Because every pitcher can generate an impressive tally of strikeouts while limiting walks, the added value of having elite pitching is diminished. It’s still nice to have an ace or two, but if there used to be a correlation between elite pitching and making the World Series, that correlation no longer holds.
Dave Fleming is a writer living in New Zealand. He welcomes comments, questions, and suggestions here and at dfleming1986@yahoo.com.