Over and Under Wins Phillies Big 4

[9RoyHobbsRF]

How many games will the Phillies Big 4 win next year?

[9RoyHobbsRF]

PS

The Philadelphia Inquirer points out that the last five teams that had at least four 15-game winners in its starting rotation all failed to win the World Series: 1993 Braves, 1998 Braves, 2001 Mariners, 2003 Yankees and 2004 Cardinals.
(As did the 1971 Orioles with 4 20 game winners)


The 1973 Oakland A's crew of Catfish Hunter (21-5), Ken Holtzman (21-13) and Vida Blue (20-9) had three 20 game winners AND won the World Series. That group gave Oakland a third straight World Series championship in 1974, when Hunter won 25 games and the A's had the AL's best ERA.

And can the Phillies match the 2010 Giants for a record setting 18 straight games of allowing 3 runs or less AND being dominant in the post season.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm not so sure Roy Oswalt and Cole Hamels are threats to win 20. 15 is within their reach, though. They make for very good No. 3 and 4 starters. But it's not like the Phillie bats improved. I see them getting around 60 or so wins between them.

[KCGHOST]

Those guys won 58 times in a combined 127 starts last year.

[CandlestickBum]

Those guys won 58 times in a combined 127 starts last year.

Don't think the Phillies care how many wins their pitchers are credited with, as long as the team receives one.

Out of those 127 starts, what were their teams W-L ? Bet that's another 20-30 W's.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The Giants "Big Four" will win more in 2011.

[nerfan]

Roy Halladay is probably the best bet to win 20 games in the major leagues, simply because he stays in games forever and gets a lot of decisions. The rest could all win 15+, so I'll put them in the 65-70 group optimistically.

[Sirmudgeon]

The Giants "Big Four" will win more in 2011.

I'm with you on this one. I think Cain will have a big year in the win column, playing Welch to Lincecum's Stewart. For the Phils, I think Halladay will win 20+ again, Lee will win the least of the four. I figure them for 65 wins, and still think the team as a whole should win at least 105, in that their lineup is the best on paper in the NL. Mayhap I'm just being a tad snarky on this, I just don't really like the whole rent-a-roster cherry picking that has long been the case with the Yankees and is also evident in the NBA in Miami. In all fairness, losing Werth will hurt, but it's hard to see anything less than 100 wins with that staff, unless their relievers completely blow up. It will be fun to watch in any event, and scary to face in a four game series.

[nerfan]

The Phillies could probably make use of a 4 man rotation with strict pitch counts and shop Kendrick AND Blanton.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

I will say you can't over emphasize enough the stability a solid starting pitching staff brings to a team, I may not be La Russa's biggest fan but he has done this many times, trading a gold glove caliber SS (Alfredo Griiffin) to get another quality starter - Bob Welch and he had some guys in Chicago he could roll out and of course has had some great starters in St. Louis

I think a team relaxes and feels better (and is not so amped to try and win a game by themselves) when they know a quality arm will go out there every start. It just is good for a long 162 game season.

With that said, the Phillies have pretty much made Hamels go from their #1 pitcher during a 2008 world championship year to their #4 starter and that says a lot

Let me do a guestimate based on BEST CASE scenario

Halladay 23 wins
Lee 19 wins
Oswalt 19 wins
Hamels 16 wins

total 77 wins

that is assuming they all make the "normal" amount of starts over a full year

now lets do a worse case scenario (Still based on a full season of starts)

Halladay 17 wins
Lee 14 wins
Oswaldt 14 wins
Hamels 12 wins

total 57 wins

so the "average" of the best and worse case would be 67 wins

but I think the Phillies are gonna have a little chip on their shoulder for letting the Giants get the best of them and if anything, they can;t have all the injuries they had last year and as I recall they played pretty damn good ball (like 34-8) once Utley and Rollins etc returned

I am going to lean closer to the 77 best case wins and go with 73

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Giants vs Phillies in 2011 should be fun to watch. It will be even more fun if they meet again in the postseason.

[dominik]

Giants vs Phillies in 2011 should be fun to watch. It will be even more fun if they meet again in the postseason.

will be a nice pitching duel. last year the giants pitchers absolutely shot down the phillies offense.

overall I think the phillie pitching next year won't be much better than the giants pitching if at all. they might have a slight advantage ith their starters, but the giants bullpen is really lights out.

[Blackout]

halladay goes 24-7
lee goes 20-8
oswalt goes 18-10
hamels goes 15-10

they go 77-35


but the other starters will go like 5-30 and there will be blown saves as expected


that lineup sucks if a certain slugging 1st basemen and 2nd basemen get hurt again

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Everyone over at ESPN Baseball is going ga-ga over the Phillies four starters with headlines like:

"Lee: Phillies' loaded rotation 'can be historic"

"Best rotation in 40 years?"

Obviously, the front four are all really good pitchers. But one of the greatest, historic staffs in decades? Seriously? Will they even be better than the 2011 Giants staff? In 2010 the Giants pitching led the National League in IP, fewest hits allowed, ERA, ERA+, strikeouts, K/9, and H/9. They were second in runs allowed (just two more than the Padres). Yet, no one is calling the Giants staff a "historic" staff. And the Giants bullpen is better than the Phillies bullpen. Somehow adding Lee to the Phillies will take from being a good pitching staff to "historic"?

[SamtheBravesFan]

Everyone over at ESPN Baseball is going ga-ga over the Phillies four starters with headlines like:

"Lee: Phillies' loaded rotation 'can be historic"

"Best rotation in 40 years?"

Obviously, the front four are all really good pitchers. But one of the greatest, historic staffs in decades? Seriously? Will they even be better than the 2011 Giants staff? In 2010 the Giants pitching led the National League in IP, fewest hits allowed, ERA, ERA+, strikeouts, K/9, and H/9. They were second in runs allowed (just two more than the Padres). Yet, no one is calling the Giants staff a "historic" staff. And the Giants bullpen is better than the Phillies bullpen. Somehow adding Lee to the Phillies will take from being a good pitching staff to "historic"?

Clearly, they're star-struck by the front four names. I even think that Jayson Stark made a mistake in comparing the 2011 rotation to the 1993 Braves in the article. He should have compared them to the 1997 or 1998 rotation instead; they were better.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

mlb.com had the 1993 staff as the best rotation

Clearly, they're star-struck by the front four names. I even think that Jayson Stark made a mistake in comparing the 2011 rotation to the 1993 Braves in the article. He should have compared them to the 1997 or 1998 rotation instead; they were better.

[nerfan]

The 2011 Giants have at least a 25% chance of being better than the Phillies. Age is on their side, as their top 4 have ages of 26, 27, 28, and 21. Lincecum had a DOWN year last year. Bumgarner can only get better. Sanchez is an area of question for me, though.

[ConnieMack]

Everyone over at ESPN Baseball is going ga-ga over the Phillies four starters with headlines like:

"Lee: Phillies' loaded rotation 'can be historic"

"Best rotation in 40 years?"

Obviously, the front four are all really good pitchers. But one of the greatest, historic staffs in decades? Seriously? Will they even be better than the 2011 Giants staff? In 2010 the Giants pitching led the National League in IP, fewest hits allowed, ERA, ERA+, strikeouts, K/9, and H/9. They were second in runs allowed (just two more than the Padres). Yet, no one is calling the Giants staff a "historic" staff. And the Giants bullpen is better than the Phillies bullpen. Somehow adding Lee to the Phillies will take from being a good pitching staff to "historic"?

You're missing the point , it's just not the addition of Lee. It will be having Oswalt for a full season, not just 12 games, but the biggest part is not having to run Kyle Kendrick out there as their number 3 starter, or Jamie Moyer who had 19 starts before getting hurt.

Replace Kendricks 4.73 era and 1.37 whip with Oswalts 2.76 era and 1.025 whip......then replace Moyers 4.84 era and 3.15 k/BB with Lee's 3.39 and 7.40 k/BB ( 2009 NL Stats )

and slot Cole Hamels in the # 4 rotation slot and there will be a different set of overall staff numbers.

All 4 of these guys go deep into games, not the typical 5 innings Kendrick and Moyer did. This will eliminate a lot of middle relief problems the Phils had last season.

Madson is an excellent 8th inning guy, 2.55 era/1.038 whip, and Lidge, once He returned from his early season DL injuries, settled into a decent year, 2.96/1.22

They may not be ' Historic" but if they pitch to their norm, will be top 2 in the league with the Giants.

With Kendrick and Moyer in the rotation last year they were not far off from the Giants.
ERA of 3.60 for SF and 3.67 for Phils, whip of 1.299 for SF and 1.38 Phils, k/9 6.77 SF to 6.58 Phils....BB SF - 578 Phils 416.

Both staffs will be top of the line if both stay healthy.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

^

and in those 12 starts, Oswalt had a 1.82 ERA, I bet he doesnt come close to that over a full season

and the Giants only had Bumgarner for 18 starts and he replaced a guy with a 5.88 ERA (Wellemeyer)

plus the Phillies gave up significantly more Hits (1402 to 1279) and HR (168 to 134) than the Giants and had significantly less K (1183 to 1331)

the ages of the Giants main 5 last year was 20, 25, 26, 27 and 32 (average 26)

the 5 the Phillies should roll out will be 27, 30, 32, 33 and 34, 4 of the 5 over 30 and the youngest one at 27 (average age 31)

experience is good, but youth and youthful arms can't be taken for granted

the Phillies pitchers will be more suceptible to injury and longer recoveries

I am hoping they have no injuries

---------------

not sure if the 3.60 only applies to starters as the Giants had a 3.36 ERA (3.20 for the entire second half) ?? and 3.36 is significantly better than 3.68

[SamtheBravesFan]

mlb.com had the 1993 staff as the best rotation

MLB.com isn't exactly the pinnacle of historical research of baseball statistics. Just because the rotation has two 20-game winners doesn't mean that it's the best. Glavine led the team with 22 wins, but he was their worst starter outside of Pete Smith.

Again, I prefer 1997 or 1998.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

I Like Avery over Neagle despite any stats they put up (personal preference)

Avery threw hard Neagle was a junk baller

[nerfan]

I Like Avery over Neagle despite any stats they put up (personal preference)

Avery threw hard Neagle was a junk baller

Maddux and Glavine were also junkballers. Their fastballs topped out around 88. Maddux might have thrown a bit harder.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

neagle was not in their league

124 wins and a career 4.24 era

Maddux and Glavine were also junkballers. Their fastballs topped out around 88. Maddux might have thrown a bit harder.

[SamtheBravesFan]

neagle was not in their league

124 wins and a career 4.24 era

Avery wasn't in their league either; 96 career wins and a 4.19 ERA. What's your point?

[9RoyHobbsRF]

follow the thread

I chose Avery over Neagle the other three were the same

I said I like Avery's fast ball vs Neagles junk

the other poster said Maddux and glavine were junkballers too

I said neagle may throw similar pitches to the hall of famers he aint in their league

it goes back to neagle vs avery

i prefer avery

pretty easy to follow point if you follow the thread

and espn and mlb network both prefer the 1993 braves starters

Avery wasn't in their league either; 96 career wins and a 4.19 ERA. What's your point?