Starting Rotation Analysis

Three years ago my White Sox
Fan Brother and I were talking baseball, something we regularly do.  His White Sox
had just finished another disappointing season behind the Minnesota Twins yet again.
White Sox Fan Brother knew what their problem was.  Their fifth starters’ abysmal
performances had sunk the squad.  That’s hardly fair, I countered.  Number five starters
always stink.  Almost all teams just have a revolving door of craptacular pitchers at the
end of their rotation.  Your bad fifth starter gets evened out by their bad fifth starter.

   
  “Chris,” White Sox Fan Brother replied, “the White Sox fifth starters won only
three games this year.”
    “.  .  .  OK.  Now that does sound bad.”

We both had a point.  You shouldn’t really expect league-average pitching from
your team’s fifth slot.  That happens about as often as getting an MVP caliber year from
your first baseman.  On the other hand, White Sox Fan brother was right; just because
fifth starters normally stink doesn’t mean a team can’t get especially bad performances
from their fifth starters.

How bad was it for that south side squad?  Well, that’s unexpectedly hard to say.
Dan Wright, Josh Stewart, Mike Porzio, and Neal Cotts did indeed combine for only 3
wins in 27 starts with a robust ERA of 6.75.  That’s nowhere near league-average. (They
combined for an ERA+ of 66 if you’re curious).  However, it’s true that teams almost
never get league-average production out of their fifth starters.  Having horrible starters in
the #5 hole did set them back against the competition, but how far did it set them back?

This long dead conversation has ricocheted back into my mind during this year’s
post-season.  Around these parts I read a whole series of rather interesting comments
about the extraordinarily ordinary Jeff Suppan.  In threads like
this one people argued that he was merely a fourth starter.  That struck
me as especially odd because he’s been consistently better or equal to league-average
every year for almost a decade while rarely ever missing a start.

If starters have ERAs a
little worse than league-average (and they do), then a third starter should match that with
#2s being a bit better and #4 a little worse.  The argument that an above-average pitcher is
a number four is hardly exclusive to that particular thread.  For example, Dayn Perry
recently wrote a column where he
calls Greg Maddux a fourth starter immediately after noting that his ERA was
considerably higher than that of a normal starter.  When we treat superior pitchers as
middle-slot men or worse, we cross the line separating meaningful analysis of pitching
and start singing a long lost alternate version of The Who’s “Substitute.”  (“The good
pitcher of my staff was average / And the average was actually bad. / It’s a substitute for
another arm who / Throws like a three but I say’s a five.  / Decent things you see are all
underrated. / You pitch like an ace but I say you’re just #2”).

With White Sox Fan Brother I couldn’t really define what exactly one should expect from the doomed end of
the rotation, and apparently no one else can either.  Yet many of us like to think of a
pitcher in terms of being a number two, three, or a fourth starter or whatever. All teams
have five slots in their rotation, and come hell or high water those slots have got to be
filled.  It certainly would be nice to know what is a good second starter and how many
games the 2003 White Sox lost due to their wretched fifth starters.  So I’ll try to fill that
knowledge gap.

The Boring Stuff: Methodology

The plan is pretty simple.  Using the gamelogs at
retrosheet, and now b-ref, I placed every game a team played into one of five slots
depending on who started.  Then I figured out the ERAs for a team.  Best slot is the #1
slot, second best #2 and so on.  Do this for an entire league and see what the average
production out of each slot is.  To get a decent sample size, I decided to do both leagues
for 2005 and 2006.

Before I get to the fun stuff, let me explain how I divided up all games into the
five slots.  Let’s look at the 2005 Devil Rays as an example.  They began the year with a
five-man rotation of Scott Kazmir, Mark Hendrickson, Hideo Nomo, Dewon Brazelton,
and Rob Bell.  (Not that surprising that they came in last place, is it?)  Those men get
listed at the top of all five slots.  Rob Bell pitched so poorly, even by Devil Ray
standards, that the club tossed him in bullpen after only three starts and had Doug
Waechter replace him.  Waechter’s ensuing starts go in the slot with Bell.  However,
Waechter also wasn’t very good either, and got pushed out of the rotation after twelve
starts.  Seth McClung replaced him and started the final 17 games in that slot.  Any
numbers they piled up as relief pitchers are ignored.  Elsewhere in the rotation, Hideo
Nomo pitched horridly and was finished after 19 starts.  In his place, the Rays put
Waechter back in the rotation.  Waechter had 13 more starts until the year ended.  Those
13 starts go in this slot.  If a pitcher, like Waechter, spent time in different slots, I divvied
up his starts accordingly.  Elsewhere, Brazelton also stunk, and Casey Fossum replaced
him, finishing out the year.  They form a slot together.  Hendrickson lasted the entire
year, but had John Webb spell for him for one start.  Thus I slot Webb with Hendrickson.
Kazmir pitched the entire year, except for his last start when Tim Corcoran took the hill
for him.  Altogether, here’s how each five slots end up:

#1 slot: (Kazmir/Corcoran): 33 GS, 190.3 IP, 80 ER, 3.78 ERA, 114 ERA+

#2 slot: (Fossum/Brazelton): 33 GS, 184 IP, 110 ER, 5.38 ERA, 80 ERA+

#3 slot: (Hendrickson/Webb): 32 GS, 182.3 IP, 125 ER, 6.17 ERA, 70 ERA+

#4 slot: (Bell/Waetcher/McClung): 32 GS, 173.7 IP, 122 ER, 6.32 ERA, 68 ERA+

#5 slot: (Nomo/Waetcher): 32 GS, 175 IP, 128 ER, 6.58 ERA, 65 ERA+

That one isn’t nearly as confusing as others.  Some teams have 2-3 different slot
disintegrate at the same time, and it’s tough to figure out who replaces who, especially if
there are days off involved.  Sometimes a team plays 11 games in 5 days, using a call up
for the extra game.  Then I’ll toss the call-up into the slot in the most disarray, naming
him an honorary fifth starter.  Divided up starters into slots can be exceptionally vexing
(Joe Maddon should be taken out and shot for how he managed Tampa’s starters in
September), and I’m sure there are times it could’ve been done better, but in general I did
a good enough job to make it worth looking at.  When I finish for a team I also figure
their ERA+ using the pitcher park factor info at b-ref.

This creates one personal sore spot for me.  When looking at the results, I’m
going to be focusing almost exclusively at ERA+.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great stat.
Taking the best conventional stat and adjusting it for park and league is a good thing.
However, it ignores defense, which is obviously a problem.  Second, and for me more
annoyingly, anytime you just repetitively beat the reader over the head with the same
damn stat over and over it gets old.  That’s what I’m going to do here because I don’t
have the time or inclination to figure out the entire stat line for every pitcher like
Waechter, and compare all the different slots that way.  I’ll go the boring route instead.

It’s important to note all of this is largely useless for evaluating the quality of
individual pitchers.  Hell, two-thirds of all slots are made up of multiple pitchers.
However, it can be helpful in giving us a clearer idea what we think of them.  No, a guy
with an above average ERA is not a #4, dammit.  Also, it can help evaluate teams.
Knowing what a #2 pitcher is worth can give you an idea what teams are sorely lacking
in that area, and can give us a clearer idea what holes teams have in their rotations.
One final note – sometimes minor errors were made when dividing up starts into
all four categories.  However, I added up all ER and IP for each team and double-checked
that against their actual team-wide starter splits.  I set a minimal acceptable error rate of 3
IP and 2 ER for the entire team.  If the numbers are off by a little, it’s not by a concern-
worthy amount.  Do this for 60 teams and you get . . .

The Fun Stuff: Results

First thing to look at – what exactly is the overall average performance of starters?
I’ll give you the ERA+s for each of the four leagues I used.  In order, it’s the 2006 AL,
2006 NL, 2005 AL, and 2005 NL.  All subsequent lists will be in that order.  Total starter
ERA+s were: 96, 96, 96, and 100.  No idea what went on in the 2005 NL, but it
looks like an outlier.  Even then the starters’ ERA was actually below league-average
(4.23 to 4.22).  An average starter should have an ERA+ of 96-97.  OK, but that’s not
what I’m here to look at.  The real question is how did all five slots come out.  Well .  .

#1 slot: 118, 123, 118, 128

#2 slot: 103, 107, 104, 108

#3 slot: 98, 96, 97, 101

#4 slot: 89, 86, 90, 88

#5 slot: 79, 77, 78, 80

First, the 2005 NL looks like an outlier, especially in the ace (cough-Clemens-
cough) and third slots.  Going by this info, an average ace should have an ERA+ right
around or a little over 120.  That sounds low, but if you think about it, 120 makes sense.
When you think of an ace, you think of someone like Johan Santana or Roy Hallyday, but
that’s not an average ace.  That’s an exceptional one.  I wouldn’t mind that so much but it
then leads people to believe an average ace is a number 2, an average #2 is really a #4
and so on.  An average ace would be someone like John Lackey, who has hovered around
120 each of the last two seasons.  A normal #2 would be about 105-6, #3 around 97, #4 at
88, and your normal fifth starter would have an ERA+ of 78 or 79.  That’s replacement
level pitching for you right there.  Let’s put this in terms of estimated winning
percentage, and a W/L record for 162 games for each slot using pythagenport:

#1 slot .587 Pct. (95-67)

#2 slot .525 Pct. (85-77)

#3 slot .485 Pct. (79-83)

#4 slot .445 Pct. (72-90)

#5 slot .382 Pct. (62-100)

Sounds about right.  Its averages a little worse than .500 because starters ERAs are lower
than league-average, so you might want to adjust it all a little upward if you feel the need.

An average rotation, based on this info would have John Lackey as its ace, Jeff
Suppan in the #2 hole, Javier Vazquez as the third pitcher, Josh Fogg behind him, and
rounded out the rotation a revolving door full of guys like Sean Marshall.  The first four
have been pretty consistent in recent years at posting numbers similar to what’s normal
for those slots.  No one consistently posts numbers around 80 because any such pitcher
would be drummed into the minors or bullpen before that happened.  A Lackey-Suppan-
Vazquez-Fogg-Marshall rotation doesn’t sound too impressive, but it also doesn’t sound
all that shabby.  That’s the point – an average rotation should be average.

That’s only half the equation though.  Along with quality there’s also quantity.
Here’s how many IP teams averages from each slot in all four leagues:

#1 slot: 204.3, 213.7, 210.7, 214.3

#2 slot: 201.7, 194.3, 201, 200.3

#3 slot: 192, 187.7, 188.7, 206.3

#4 slot: 180, 179.3, 194.7, 181.3

#5 slot: 167.7, 168.3, 173, 170.7

Average IP for the slots: 210.7, 199.3, 193.7, 183.7, 170.  Makes sense – the better
starters should end up getting more innings after all.  Also, there’s not as much variation
as there is with ERA+, which also sounds right.  To divide it into innings per start
(because these groups don’t always have the exact same number of starts), it comes out as
6.40, 6.11, 5.95, 5.68, 5.39 for each group.  In case you’re wondering, starters averaged
5.99 innings in 2005 but only 5.84 last year.

   
Well, that should be enough info to address White Sox Fan Brother’s point, and
find out how much the White Sox lost in 2003 because of their fifth starters.  If they’d
had a normally dreadful fifth starter performance and gotten an ERA+ of, say, 78, they
would’ve had an ERA of 5.74 from the cursed end of the staff.  They threw 122.7 IP, so
that works out to 78 earned runs allowed.  In reality they allowed 92, so the difference
between the Sox last starters and normal last starters was a game and a half.  Or was it?
There’s also IP to consider.  At 122.7 innings in 27 starts, they averaged below
average innings, forcing the bullpen to work excessive innings.  Average fifth starters
would’ve tossed 145 and two-thirds innings in those starts.

Here’s where it really gets tricky because I can’t quite figure out how much it hurt
the team to lean on the bullpen that much more.  My first inclination would be to check
how many runs allowed an average bullpen would allow in those 20 innings vs. what an
average fifth starter, but that doesn’t work.  Bullpen’s post better numbers than the fifth
starters do.  Strictly speaking, the numbers say a team would be better off letting their
bullpen handle the entire game as only the very worst bullpens have ERA+s worse than
80.  In reality you can’t do that.  I’ve lazily fumbled my way into a guesstimation: for
every five fewer innings pitched by the starters, it costs the team another run.  I have no
solid mathematical reason for the previous sentence.  Ten innings per run sounded too
low (would 100 fewer innings from a rotation really only is worth 1 win?  Nah).  Three
innings sounded to steep.  Five?  Sure, why not.  The 2003 White Sox lose another 4-5
runs that way.  In total, I’d say the White Sox lost 2 more games because their fifth
starters were bad even by the standards of the rotation’s revolving door.  Looking it up,
the starters only won three games, but the bullpen won a bunch in their starts.  They were
still below .500, but you shouldn’t expect that from your fifth starters.  This tells you both
how bad the Sox back end was that they were a bit below replacement level.  However, it
also tells you how bad such starters normally are.  27 starts at an ERA+ of 66 and it only
cost them two games?  Jeez . . .

Best and Worst Slots

One other thing to check on: what’s the best and worst numbers teams have
achieved from each slot over the last two years.  As long as I’ve got the numbers in front
of me, I may as well check.  I’ll start with the good news – top ten performances from
each of the five slots.  First, the aces:

1) 2005 Astros 221 ERA+

2) 2006 Twins 161 ERA+

3) 2006 Astros 159 ERA+

4) 2006 Dbacks 154 ERA+

5) 2005 Twins 153 ERA+

6) 2005 Marlins 152 ERA+

7) 2005 Cards 151 ERA+

8) 2005 Jays 149 ERA+

9) 2005 Mets 148 ERA+

10) 2006 Reds 146 ERA+

Really, I could’ve just listed the years and ERA+s and you could’ve guessed half the
teams, right?  Nothing shocking, but that’s by far the most obvious list.  It’s worth noting
that Clemens is the reason why the 2005 NL’s #1 starters had such a high overall ERA+.
Toss him aside and the other #1s have an ERA+ of 124, which is equivalent to their 2006
performance.

Here’s the best Robins and Tontos:

1) 2005 Astros 172 ERA+

2) 2006 Astros 144 ERA+

3) 2005 Braves 135 ERA+

4t) 2006 Reds 127 ERA+

4t) 2005 White Sox 127 ERA+

6) 2005 Phillies 121 ERA+

7t) 2005 Jays 120 ERA+

7t) 2005 Angels 120 ERA+

7t) 2005 A's 120 ERA+

7t) 2006 Yanks 120 ERA+

Yup, that’s right.  Not only are the 2005 Astros ahead of both lists, but the 172 here is
better than all but themselves on the first list.  Clemens-Pettitte packed quite a punch.
Clemens-Nieve are in second place in 2006, if you’re curious.
Now for the middle of the pack starters.  You can probably guess who leads this
one, right?

1) 2005 Astros 140 ERA+

2) 2005 Braves 126 ERA+

3t) 2005 White Sox 123 ERA+

3t) 2005 Cards 119 ERA+

5) 2005 Jays 119 ERA+

6t) 2006 Tigers 118 ERA+

6t) 2006 A's 118 ERA+

8) 2005 Angels 115 ERA+

9) 2005 Marlins 112 ERA+

10) 2006 Jays 110 ERA+

In the last two years, all there were 17 slots with an ERA+ of at least 140, and one team.
had three.  No wonder they went deep in the playoffs.

Best fours:

1) 2005 A's 116 ERA+

2t) 2005 White Sox 113 ERA+

2t) 2005 Angels 113 ERA+

4) 2006 Tigers 111 ERA+

5t) 2005 Braves 106 ERA+

5t) 2005 Brewers 106 ERA+

7) 2005 Cards 105 ERA+

8t) 2006 Padres 103 ERA+

8t) 2005 Twins 103 ERA+

10) 2006 Dodgers 102 ERA+

Finally, someone broke up the Astros.  Actually, about half the teams did as the Astros
really fell off after their Big 3.  No huge surprises, but those ‘05 Brewers sure had a deep
staff last year.  I guess technically there’s some evidence that Jeff Suppan could be a
fourth starter.  Every year after 2 teams per league have a fourth starter as good as him.
‘Course that leaves the other 85% of them.  .  .  .
Now, the cream of the crap:

1) 2005 A's 105 ERA+

2) 2005 Cards 103 ERA+

3) 2005 Mets 99 ERA+

4t) 2006 Dodgers 98 ERA+

4t) 2005 Braves 98 ERA+

6) 2005 Brewers 97 ERA+

7) 2006 White Sox 93 ERA+

8t) 2006 Indians 92 ERA+

8t) 2006 Angels 92 ERA+

10) 2006 Tigers 91 ERA+

10t) 2005 White Sox 91 ERA+

10t) 2006 Angels 91 ERA+

The White Sox and Angels both make the list twice.  The 2006 Indians are the only team
on the list with a losing record.  They also underachieved their Pythagoras record by 11
games.

Well, those lists were fun, but also were really easy to figure out in advance.
Let’s have some real fun and find out what were the worst pitching staffs of the last two
years.  The worst “aces” (crap of the cream?):

1) 2005 Royals 84 ERA+

2) 2006 Royals 86 ERA+

3) 2006 Nationals 87 ERA+

4) 2005 Tigers 96 ERA+

5) 2006 Mariners 97 ERA+

6) 2006 Pirates 100 ERA+

7) 2005 Mariners 101 ERA+

8) 2006 Rangers 104 ERA+

9) 2005 Pirates 105 ERA+

10t) 2006 White Sox 106 ERA+

10t) 2006 Red Sox 106 ERA+

What Buddy Baker calls home, Rambo calls hell.  One-third of the teams had a better
fifth starter than the ‘05 Royals #1 slot; including half of that year’s AL.  At the top of the
article, I showed that AL aces score worse than NL ones.  Take a bow, Kansas City.  In
other news, I think I found out why the White Sox didn’t make it to the postseason this
year.  They had no real ace.  However, a shrewd eye will note they had one of the best
fifth starters on that list.  They had one of the most consistent pitching staffs.  Then again,
so did the Royals last year, but that’s a whole other story.  It’s amazing how good most of
these worst aces are.  Over two years and I can only find three teams worse than 96.  Boy,
are those three teams worse than 96, though.  When I looked at the Birnbaum database I
used for my
initial managers study, I noticed that every single pitching staff
Frank Robinson ever managed underachieved.  He’s consistent.
Here are the most rotten second bananas:

1) 2005 Royals 79 ERA+

2) 2005 Devil Rays 80 ERA+

3) 2006 Nationals 83 ERA+

4) 2006 Royals 86 ERA+

5) 2005 Rockies 87 ERA+

6) 2006 Orioles 90 ERA+

7) 2005 Padres 91 ERA+

8t) 2006 Orioles 92 ERA+

8t) 2006 Red Sox 92 ERA+

10) 2006 Phillies 93 ERA+

Yeah, that’s right – only three teams have a #2 as bad as the ‘05 Royals #1, and one of
them was the Kansas City squad.  The Phillies went from having one of the best second
starters one year to one of the worst the next.  I bet the folks in KC and Baltimore wish
they had that sort of inconsistency in their rotation.  Worst thirds:

1) 2005 Devil Rays 70 ERA+

2) 2005 Royals 74 ERA+

3t) 2006 Nationals 80 ERA+

3t) 2005 Padres 80 ERA+

5) 2005 Reds 82 ERA+

6) 2005 Rockies 83 ERA+

7) 2006 Royals 85 ERA+

8t) 2006 Cubs 86 ERA+

8t) 2006 Mariners 86 ERA+

10t) 2006 Mets 87 ERA+

10t) 2006 Orioles 87 ERA+

I’ll say this much for the 2006 Royals – they had an incredibly consistent top three slots.
There’s the 2006 Cubs.  Get used to seeing them.  Greg Maddux took up two-thirds of
that slot.  That should tell you how badly his replacements fared after the trade.  It’s
amazing that the Mets, the best team in the NL last year, ends up on this list.
The fourth starters:

1) 2005 Royals 63 ERA+

2t) 2005 Reds 68 ERA+

2t) 2005 Devil Rays 68 ERA+

4) 2006 Cubs 71 ERA+

5) 2006 Orioles 72 ERA+

6t) 2006 Cards 73 ERA+

6t) 2005 Padres 73 ERA+

8) 2005 Rangers 75 ERA+

9) 2006 Nationals 79 ERA+

10) 2005 Giants 80 ERA+

The good news for the Royals is that, for the first time, both teams aren’t on the list.  The
2006 Royals were tied for twelfth worst with an 82.  The bad news is the 2005 Royals
were in last for the third time, doing even worse than Eric Milton.
One last mess – any guesses who will be the worst of them all?

1) 2006 Cubs 60 ERA+

2t) 2006 Yanks 62 ERA+

2t) 2005 Royals 62 ERA+

2t) 2005 Reds 62 ERA+

2t) 2005 Astros 62 ERA+

6) 2005 Rangers 64 ERA+

7t) 2006 Orioles 65 ERA+

7t) 2005 Orioles 65 ERA+

7t) 2005 Devil Rays 65 ERA+

10t) 2005 Padres 67 ERA+

10t) 2005 Tigers 67 ERA+

The Cubs didn’t have the worst staff top-to-bottom, but they definitely had the worst
bottom.  Please note that the ‘05 Astros, with their uber-brillant top 3 starters, are tied for
second worst here.  That’s a heckuva fall.  Three teams on this list made the playoffs, but
then again fifth starters don’t mean squat in the playoffs.  The worst performance in the
2005 AL was the KC Royals’ fifth starter.  The second worst performance in the 2005
AL was the KC fourth starter.

Team Comments
Some various news and notes about the various teams that I uncovered while going
through this.  Alphabetic order by city

Anaheim Angels, or whatever they’re called
In
Evaluating Mangers, Part 3, I postulated that under Scioscia the
Angels had exceptionally solid starting pitching.  Not necessarily the best aces or second
slot guys, but far better than most teams fifth starters.  If anything, I underestimated how
quickly they become good.  They’ve been in the AL’s top four teams in the #2 hole both
years.  They’re always in the top five in every slot except for their ace.  Their ace has
been “only” sixth best each year.  When each slot can give you an extra win or two,
you’ve got a damn good shot to contend every year.

Arizona Diamondbacks
Last year, they had a great ace obviously as Webb won the Cy Young, and one of the best
fifth slots as well.  The middle was mediocre.

Atlanta Braves

In 2006, Smoltz was only barely above average as aces go, but that’s much more than can
be said for the rest of their rotation.  Their #2 slot (Sosa and James) pitched like a #3.
Their third hole (Hudson) acted like a fourth starter.  They’re remaining 61 starts had a
combined ERA+ of 78.  Even worse, those last two slots averaged less than five innings
pitched between them.

Baltimore Orioles

A few weeks ago I downloaded individual and team starter info from ESPN.com’s stat
pages.  I wanted to see what team, if you shorn its ace from it, would have the worst
remaining starting staff.  I was sure it would be the Carlos Zambrano-less Cubs.  Nope.  It
was the Birds sans Eric Bedard.  They had the worst #4 in the league and second worst 2,
3, and 5.  Leo Mazzone’s arrival was supposed to help, but it didn’t work out like that.
Leo Mazzone and Bobby Cox are to pitchers what sodium chloride is to our diet.
Together they make a combination so perfect that many pitchers wither without their aid.
Apart, they’re downright noxious.  The parts are less than the whole for them.  In 2005,
the Orioles they were 10th or worse across the board in the AL.

Boston Red Sox

Last year, the AL East had the worst starting pitching of any division I’ve seen.  One
thing I look at is one-pitcher slots.  These aren’t aces.  These are slots where every single
inning and start is accounted for by the same pitcher.  There’s usually about 50 such slots
a year in MLB.  Last year the entire AL East had three, one fewer than the White Sox had
by themselves.  Another thing to look at is slots in complete disarray, which I define as a
slot where no pitcher has more than 15 starts in it.  There were thirty such slots, with the
2006 AL East containing four, and two other slot (both on Tampa) missing by the
thinnest of margins.  The 2006 Red Sox had two of those slots in complete disarray.
Their fifth starters weren’t that bad (ERA+ 81), but their fourth starters pitched like fifth
starters, and their second and third starters (Beckett, and Wakefield & friends) both
pitched like fourth starters.  When Kevin Jarvis shows up in your ace slot (he filled in for
Schilling), even if it’s only for three starts, you’ve got trouble.

Chicago Cubs

You probably knew the Cubs had a really strong ace pitcher in Carlos Zambrano last
year, but did you know they had very nice production from their #2 hole as well?  Honest
to God, they did.  Sean Marshall began the year in the rotation, supposedly until Prior or
Wood or Fergie Jenkins was ready to go.  He lasted most of the year and pitched .  .  . not
good, but not horribly.  However, Rich Hill replaced him and was fantastic.  Combined,
the Cubs had a #2 hole ERA+ of 112, the fifth best in the league.  For perspective, they
also had the fifth best ace slot.  The only teams in the league last year with a better 1-2
punch were the Cards, Reds, Astros, and maybe Rockies.  Who knew?  Both Hill and
Marshall pitched outside the #2 slot and were dreadful on those occasions, mauling their
individual numbers for the season.

The back end was comically bad.  They’re #5 hole – the worst slot in all creation
– began with Glendon Rusch.  Formerly a reliable back-of-the-end starter, Rusch could
barely keep his ERA under nine in his five starts before getting dumped.  In his place
came a not-ready Rich Hill, who for four starts was even worse than Rusch.  Jae Kuk Ryu
arrived and had one start where he allowed more runs than recorded outs.  That paved the
way for Rusch’s return.  In three starts he was even worse than before.  Mark Prior was
supposedly ready to pitch at this point.  There are two theories about what happened to
him this year.  One says that he had arm problems.  The other claims a malevolent
hypnotist convinced him he was Glendon Rusch.  The 2006 statistical record can support
either claim.  After three starts, his arm needed a rest, so Rusch came back yet again.  He
actually did alright in his only start, so he spent the rest of the year in the bullpen.  Prior
came back and spent the next five games making people nostalgic for Bryan Hickerson.
At this point, after four pitchers two-thirds the season, the Cubs gave the ball to a twelve-
year-old Tatum O’Neal.  Wait, no, that’s not right.  Their improvement wasn’t that
dramatic.  They went with Juan Mateo.  He was absolutely wretched, and thus
represented a massive improvement for this slot.  Before Mateo (B.M. – an appropriate
acronym for this bunch) the Cubs pitchers threw 102 innings in 23 starts for an ERA of –
are you ready for it? – 8.47.  When it’s hard to distinguish your starters’ ERAs from
Fellini movies, you’ve had a rotten year.  Aside from one start where Les Walrond
spelled for him, Mateo finished out the year.  The slot ended with an ERA of 7.71.

No wonder, when Maddux left the third slot was in such horrid shape.  Five men
combined for ten starts (as bad as that sounds, they went through the first four in only
five starts), averaged less than 14 outs per start with an ERA of 7.48.  Combined, their
fourth slot, fifth slot, and post-Maddux third slot averaged 4.6 innings in 74 starts with an
ERA of 7.06.  So they didn’t pitch well at all, but they tried to make up for it by not
lasting long.  Gawd.  That’s an ERA+ of 65 over nearly half the team’s starts.  No other
team in the NL that year had a worse than 70 from their fifth slot.  I reckon the Cubs
starters allowed 60 more earned runs than a normal fifth, fourth, and third starters
would’ve in that time.  Meanwhile, they also threw 75.3 fewer innings than they should
have.  Using my 5 innings per run short hand, the Cubs’ inability to have ordinarily
blunderful back-of-the-rotation pitching cost them 7-8 wins.  Jesus.  H.  Christ.

Chicago White Sox

Possibly the most stable set of starting pitchers in baseball over the last two years.  Last
year their #1 slot had an ERA only 0.60 better than their fifth slot.  Their starters threw
more innings last year than any other rotation in baseball.  Their #3 pitcher performed
like a #2, but unfortunately for them so did their ace.  They were also the only team to
have over 100 earned runs in each slot, symbolizing both their durability and their lack of
excellent quality.

Cincinnati Reds

In the previously linked “Evaluating Managers, Part 3” article, I noted that Jerry Narron
has done a good job throughout his career improving his pitching staffs.  Well, one secret
to last year was Narron’s decision to find his horses and ride them hard.  Arroyo and
Harang combined for 70 starts in the Reds’ 1 and 2 slots.  Result: the Reds top two slots
had more starts and innings than any other.  He also resurrected Eric Milton.  This came
in handy as the back of the rotation was a train wreck.  Both 4 & 5 slots pitched like fifth
starters, and neither had a single pitcher pick up more than 15 starts in the slot (Ramirez
had four of his nineteen starts in Milton’s space).  The year before Narron was loyal to a
fault.  Despite having the worst starting rotation in the league, the Reds had a very stable
staff as few guys were yanked out.  The way he and Dave Miley ran that team, Cincinnati
fans could be forgiven for thinking loyalty was a four-letter word.  Milton never missed a
start while posting a sub-70 ERA+.  Normally I’d assume he just had a horrible ending,
but no, he was getting better later in the year.

Cleveland Indians

Last year, they had the fifth best ace in the league, fifth best #2 hole, fourth best #3, third
best #4, and the second best fifth slot.  They combined that with the second most
formidable offense.  Sometimes, the Pythagoras W/L record really does tell you more
about a team than it’s real record.  The year before they were extremely consistent: they
had the sixth best 2, 3, 4, and 5th slot performances.  Kevin Millwood and three starts
from Davis had to mess that up with the fourth best ace performance.

Colorado Rockies

Strange but true: the Rockies had one of the best and most consistent starting rotations in
baseball last year.  Their main five starters threw all but 8 games.  It could’ve been
higher, but for whatever reason the club went to a six-man rotation in September, having
different kids take one turn each starting only to be replaced by a different one.  I’m sure
there’s a reason for that (maybe some starters had sore arms and the club wanted to go
easy on them?) but it sure looks weird.  Made for a real mess trying to jimmy them into
five slots.  (I just divided them up between their worst two starters).  Only the Astros had
a better 1-2-3 in the league last year.

The year before was a very different story.  Their 3, 4, and 5 holes all posted an
ERA+ of 83.  Yoiks.

Detroit Tigers

What an incredible turn around.  Their #1 slot performance in 2005 (ERA+ of 96) was
only slightly better than their fifth slot (91) the next year.  They had the third best #1 in
the league, second best #2 (119 to the Yanks 120), best #3 (118, while next best was
110), best #4 (111 to 99), and its last slot was only a hair behind league leading
Chicago’s 93 ERA+.  The year before they were in the bottom half of every single slot.

Florida Marlins

If the 2006 AL East was the worst pitching division, then the 2005 NL East was by far
the best bunch of starters.  Every team’s third slot had at least a 100 ERA+ and only
Washington was below 108.  Florida had one of the best 1-2-3 punches in the game that
year behind Willis, Beckett, and Burnett.  They also had one of the steepest drops
between their 3 and 4 starters.  Their bottom of the rotation only cost them about a win,
but it’s an especially notable drop after the top three.  Next year, they were really solid
through the fourth slot (third best ERA+ in the league, and best outside of the west coast),
but Willis had a down year.

Houston Astros

The 2005 Astros had the biggest drop off in quality from 3 to 4 starters of any team in
this study.  That’s entirely because they had such a freakish good #3.  Their #4 was every
so slightly above average with an ERA+ of 92.  However, they also had the single biggest
drop off of any team between their fourth and fifth starters, as Wandy Rodriquez as
friends scored a 62 ERA+.  The next year they again combined the best 1-2-3 combo in
the game (though the Rockies’ Aaron Cook passed up Pettitte as the best individual #3)
with an unimpressive by any standards end of the rotation.

Kansas City Royals

Do you want to know just how bad a manager Buddy Bell really is?  Let’s compare how
his handling of a pitching staff to the job Dusty Baker did last year in Chicago.  As noted
above, KC – especially the ‘05 Royals – had some of the worst pitching ever.  While the
‘06 Cubs had the worst single slot of them all with a 60 ERA+, the ‘05 Royals narrowly
missed that mark with a runner up 62.  Baker, realizing the immense mess his end of the
rotation was in, kept hustling pitchers in and out of that slot, a half-dozen in all.  In KC,
the slot began with Jose Lima and . . . that’s was it.  Insane as it sounds, one of the worst
slots in recent times was held down by one pitcher.  His ERA wasn’t as high as the pre-
Mateo 8.47 mark the Cubs had, but it was at 8.39 in June.  Sure, he averaged over five
innings a start, but when you’re that bad you might be better off with an extra inning
from the bullpen.  There’s a difference between loyalty and idiocy.  When it comes to
managing a starting rotation, Bell apparently isn’t nearly as savvy or shrewd as Dusty
Baker.  Choke on that one.

In both evaluating managers studies I did, Buddy Bell came off as one of the
worst managers in baseball history.  His handling of Lima reinforces that point.  I know
the club doesn’t have much talent, but the lack of talent doesn’t fully explain how bad
KC’s starters have been.  In all, they’re 2005 rotation had a combined ERA+ of 72, worse
than over 90% of the slots in the last 2 years.  Ten starter slots and not a single one has
posted better than an 86 ERA+.  Of the 300 slots looked at in this study, 216 have bested
that mark.  That’s 72%—74.5% of the non-Royals teams.  In 2005 the D-backs got more
out of 14 starts of the charred remains Russ Ortiz and 19 from Claudio Vargas.  Do the
Royals really have no one that good?  The next year the Orioles cobbled together a slot
from Ortiz’s rotting cadaver, a small helping of Daniel Cabrera, a dash of John Halama,
and a few months from a green Adam Loewen.  It did better.  In 2005, Dusty Baker’s
fifth slot posted better than 86.  Some managers have been able to get their pitchers to do
better than expected.  That was true back in the days of Joe McCarthy and Bill
McKechnie just as it in the 21st century with Tony LaRussa and Cox/Mazzone.  No one
improves under Bell’s tutelage.  He’s had Scott Elarton, Mark Redman, and Zach
Greinke and still can’t get a single slot to pitch like an average fourth starter.  It’s
possible to be both bad and underachieve and that’s what has happened the last two years
in KC.

Take Greinke, for example.  Greinke may not be good enough to live up to the
hype (last year the definitely incorrect Eric Enders tabbed him as his preseason pick to
win the Cy Young Award), but not only has he floundered, but he’s done it with
psychological issues.  And that was after regressing throughout the previous season.  The
Royals just became the first non-freshly-minted expansion team to lose 100 games three
straight years in over a half-century.  It really takes some doing to distinguish yourself
from the 1980s Mariners, 1970s Rangers, 2000s D-Rays, Littlefield Pirates, and Kansas
City A’s, but that’s what the Buddy Bell Royals have done.  Kudos, gang, kudos.

Los Angeles Dodgers

They had the best fifth slot in baseball last year, with Brett Tomko, Odalis Perez, Aaron
Sele (all but one of the starts for both Sele and Perez), and Greg Maddux combined for a
98 ERA+.  Only San Diego and Detroit had better fourth starters than the Dodgers did.
There was very little difference between their 2, 3, and 4 slots, which had ERA+s of 106,
103, and 102 respectively.

Milwaukee Brewers

Their 2005 rotation was one of the most stable ones in recent years.  Their #1 slot
(entirely Doug Davis) had an ERA of 3.84 and their #4 slot (Victor Santos and Rick
Helling) came in at 4.00.  Their fifth slot wasn’t that far off at 4.37.  Essentially, they had
four number two starters and a third starter.  Since it’s more dangerous to be dependent
on 4-5 guys coming through than 2-3, this well-balanced approach is often hard to
maintain, and sure enough they couldn’t reproduce it.  In 2006 they got worse production
from their third starter than from the previous campaign’s fifth slot.  Their last two slots
barely accounted for 325 innings, far fewer than most back-of-the-rotations do.

Minnesota Twins

Unexpected result #234: the 2006 Minnesota Twins, with one of the greatest 1-2 punches
in baseball in Johan Santana and Francisco Liriano, only had one impressive rotation slot
for the whole year.  Santana’s of course.  Liriano replaced Carlos Silva in the rotation
after Silva pitched like an honorary Cub.  When Liriano went down Matt Garza came in
and was almost as bad as Silva.  In 16 Liriano starts they had an ERA+ of 233.  In the
remainder, Silva/Garza posted an ERA+ of 59. (Yes, slightly worse than the Cubs’ fifth
starter).  Combined it wasn’t even good enough to overcome Brad Radke and Scott Baker
for second best slot on the team.  Thus, unlikely as it sounds, Liriano ended up in the
league’s eighth best 3rd slot.  This went along nicely with the 9th best second slot, 11th
best fourth slot, and ninth best fifth slot.

It’s incredible.  They won 95 games with an average offense, and below average
performances from four-fifths of their rotation.  Heading into 2006, they still got Santana
and their bullpen.  If – and this is a HUGE if – they can find average second and third
starters (essentially about 400 innings of league-average pitching) to replace Liriano and
Radke, they could win 95 again even without two of their three big starters from last year.
Looking at their squad from last year, they might have half of that already with Boof
Bonser.  That’s the glass-half-full version. The alternate perspective was their non-
Santana staff wasn’t very good last year with Radke and Liriano, and they’re both out of
commission now.  Look out below?

New York Mets

This is the Bizarro version of those old Miracle Mets squad.  That team had lousy hitting,
this one had an offense loaded for bear.  That squad had a fantastic pitching staff, while
this one had – I kid you not – an ERA+ of 80 from its bottom three rotation slots.  How
the hell do you win 97 games when you have fifth starters taking the hill over half the
time?  Added bonus: because the Mets nursed Pedro Martinez early in the year, those
bottom three slots accounted for more starts (100) than any other team in baseball in
either 2005 or 2006.  The difference between the Mets back three and normal 3-4-5
starters is 28 runs.  As a general rule of thumb, it should be easier to replace a #5 starter
or even a #3 starter than an ace.  Then again, one of their two good slots went to Tom
Glavine, who is likely leaving.  They had the fourteenth best #3 pitcher (all Steve
Tracshel in this case) and were tied for fourteenth in the fifth slot.  Amazingly, they were
tied with their NLCS foe, the Cards.

Out of the 300 slots looked at, 298 had at least one pitcher pick up at least 10
starts within it.  The exceptions were the 2006 Cubs’ fifth slot, where Juan Mateo led the
way with only nine starts, and the 2006 Mets’ fifth slot.  The Mets began the year with
five starts from Brian Bannister.  When he went down with an injury an unready John
Maine came in for one start.  Then they brought in the patron saint of the fifth slot, Jose
Lima, for three starts.  Then came Alay Soler, who posted eight starts in this slot, the
most of anyone.  He stunk,  and by the All-Star Game they’d given Lima his fourth and
final start of the year.  They called up Mike Pelfrey who was barely better than Soler.  He
was gone by early August.  Next came Cincinnati acquisition Dave Williams, who
pitched as poorly as the others.  Late in the year they brought in the clearly incapacitated
Pedro Martinez.  They ended up with 34 starts (partially because I had to play a little
loose because their rotation was too messed up to easily fit into five slots) of horrible
pitching.  This means they have a good shot to be as good or better next year because it’s
easier to aid a team with glaring holes than a really solid one.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot the best difference of all between them and the ‘69
squad: this time they blew it in the postseason.

New York Yankees

The 2005 rotation was a triumph of shucking resources and cash at a problem.  Trying to
figure out who went into which rotation slot in midsummer 2005 may have been the
single most impossible part of this project.  The back of the rotation disintegrated at the
same time, they kept on having back-to-back days off, and just to keep me on my toes,
Randy Johnson missed starts on two separate occasions in the midst of it.  At the far end
of an unimpressive rotation, six separate men (Carl Pavano, Tim Redding, Tanyon
Sturtze, Aaron Small, Jaret Wright, and Derrick May) found time in the fifth slot.  Yet,
they actually weren’t that bad with a combined ERA+ of 89.  They’re fourth slot was also
in the league’s top half (barely) with an ERA+ of 90.  With Shawn Chacon cleaning up
much of the mess Kevin Brown and Sean Henn made elsewhere, their third slot came in
with an ERA+ of 91.  Combined, their back three slots were perfectly had an ERA+ of
90, which is ever so slightly better than the typical average of 3-4-5 starters.  That’s all
that team needed.

In 2006 the rotation’s midseason meatball surgery didn’t work quite so well.
Shawn Chacon began the year by turning into a pumpkin.  Aaron Small came in and was
far worse.  Kris Wilson held the fort and was worse than Small.  Sidney Ponson came in
and was much worse than Wilson.  After eighteen starts they had an ERA of 8.12 from
that slot.  Cory Lidle’s arrival helped, but it was still the worst rotation slot in the least
impressive division for pitching.  The rest of their rotation was actually pretty good
though, and they only had 28 starts in the #5 hole.

Oakland A’s

Some teams like to use the occasional days off to give their starters an extra day’s rest.
Under Ozzie Guillen the White Sox always do that, causing their slots to be divided up
neatly 33-33-32-32-32 with multiple slots filled up entirely by one pitcher.  At the other
extreme, in 2005 Kirk Saarloos made every start assigned to his slot, yet only had 27
starts on the year.  He was baseball’s best fifth starter over the last two years.  The A’s
were in the league’s top five across the board that year, and best in the fourth slot as well
with Barry Zito.  They essentially had 2 slots pitch like #1s, a third slot miss by a little, a
fourth slot halfway between a normal 1 and 2, and their last slot pitch like a prototypical
second starter.  If the Cubs had the worst back-of-the-rotation known to man (and good
God lord almighty did they ever) than the A’s had the best.

Let’s see how many wins they gained from those buggers at the end of the
rotation.  Without adjusting for their IP vs. normal IP (too much a pain), I figure Saarloos
allowed 23 fewer runs than a normal third starter, Zito 30 fewer than a normal fourth, and
Harden/Kennedy/Etherton/Glynn combined for 18 fewer runs in the #3 hole.  That’s 71
runs saved, worth 7 wins.  With a normal bottom three the 2005 A’s would end the year
with an 81-81 record.

As was the case in Milwaukee, it was tough to maintain production from that
many guys at once.  Last year they were only in the league’s top five once (fifth place in
the last slot).  To be fair, they were sixth twice (second and fourth slots).  Their last three
starters all pitched like normal #4s.

Philadelphia Phillies

Looking at their slotting, the 2006 Phillies look like they had a number 2 starters, three
#4s, and a #5.  Brett Myers was fine, but the two guys that filled in for him (Bernero and
Fultz) gave up 11 ER while recording an equal number of outs.  Not innings – outs.  In
their fifth slot, Jaime Moyer minimized the hemorrhaging after Scott Mathieson and
Ryan Madson had combined for an ERA of almost 6 while averaging less than five
innings per game over 22 starts.  The year before they had a normal staff, except that in
place of a number five starter, they had an extra #1.  Damn shame for them they couldn’t
have put the 2005 rotation on the 2006 squad.

Pittsburgh Pirates

In 2005, they had an adequate back of the rotation, but it made up almost the entire
rotation.  Paul Maholm and Zach Duke pitched so well in place of Odalis Perez that the
team’s ace slot came off like a normal #2.  (Not all of Duke’s starts came in this slot and
there were two other pitchers doing a bad job in 1-game shots).  After that the Pirates had
three #4s (essentially Mark Redman, Dave Williams and the King of 4’s Josh Fogg), and
a #5 (what used to be Kip Wells).  In 2006 they essentially ran a similar rotation.
Pittsburgh used to be the world’s leader steel production.  Now it’s the nation’s top
producer of fourth starters.

St. Louis Cards

In 2005 they had, from top-to-bottom, one of the strongest staffs in baseball.  They had
the third best ace slot, fourth best #2 pitcher, third best performances in the 3 and 4 holes,
and the league’s best performance at the last spot.  You know who was responsible for all
their starts in the #2 hole?  Jeff Suppan.  HA!

Next year Carpenter maintained but no one else did.  Suppan returned back into
his normal self – an average second starter.  Their third slot performed like a fourth slot.
Their bottom two slots – Jason Marquis, Mark Mulder, Chris Narveson, and all but one of
Antonio Reyes’s starts – were worse than dreadful.  They combined for an ERA of 6.16,
and an ERA+ of 71.  Was LaRussa subletting his office out to Buddy Bell two days a
week or something?  Together, these pitchers tossed about as many innings as they
should have, but allowed 36 more runs than typical fourth and fifth starters would have.

San Diego Padres

In 2006 they had an ace (Chris Young), and three number twos (Jake Peavy plus Clay
Hensley, Woody Williams and their fill-ins).  They only had an 85 from the five hole, but
that was good enough for third best in the league.  Like I said at the top, fifth starters are
rarely any good.  An average top of the rotation combined with a superior back end to
form one of the more impressive rotations in the league.  That’s pretty damn impressive
given that the year before their bottom three slots combined for an ERA+ of 73.

San Francisco Giants

Their 2005 rotation was similar toa normal starting staff, except that instead of an ace
they had a second fifth starter.  Result: they their starters’ cumulative ERA+ was
thirteenth best in the league.

Seattle Mariners

They’ve had some exceptionally weak top of the rotation starting.  Their highest ERA+
from any slot over the last two years is 101.  That’s the worst in the major leagues, unless
you want to argue the Royals are still in the league.  Given that, their overall rotations
have been better than one would guess.  In 2006, for instance, they had two #3s, two #4s,
and a #5.  They ended up with one of the best fourth slots in the game.  Their rotation
ended up with an overall ERA+ of 89, twelfth best in the AL, which tells us something
about how important it is to have solid frontline pitching.

Tampa Devil Rays

In September 2006, Tampa manager Joe Maddon went to a 6-man starting staff of Jae
Weong Seo, Jason Hammel, J. P. Howell, Brian Stokes, Tim Corcoran, and James
Shields.  I can’t call it a rotation, because that word implies a level of organization and
order that was completely absent in Tampa.  It looked like Boles got one of those ping-
pong ball sorters they use for the lotto drawings, put in a ball to represent each pitcher,
and used that to determine who would start each day.  Tim Corcoran would pitch on three
days rest, then five, then eight.  Brian Stokes went two weeks without starting any only
one bullpen appearance in between, then went out on four days rest.  No one went on the
DL, and they combined for only two relief appearances, but there certainly wasn’t any
method, just madness.  The only bit of sanity was, come what may, Seo went out there
every fifth day.  It’s like Maddon spent Labor Day weekend reading a book on Casey
Stengal’s managerial tactics.  Alas for him, the book must have been written by Buddy
Bell.  Well, they had the league’s ninth best rotation so I shouldn’t complain too much.
They didn’t have a real #2 starter, but made up for it with two fives.  Thank God for Scott
Kazmir.

Texas Rangers

This is a team that needs to get better production from the back of its rotation.  Their
fourth and fifth starters in 2005 combined for a 70 ERA+ while averaging barely five
innings a start.  Meanwhile, their 3 slot (Chan Ho Park & friends) pitched like fourth
starters.  They actually had an effective 1-2 combo in Kenny Rogers and Chris Young.  In
2006 everything moved toward the middle.  They had two #2s, a #3, and two #5s.  At
least this time their back slots combined for an ERA+ of 77, but this time they averaged
less than five innings per game.  Two steps forward, and a step-and-a-half back.

Toronto Blue Jays

In 2005 I, alongside a bunch of my fellow SABR nerds, watched them play a game in the
Skydome.  The general consensus was that they were the hardest type of team to
drastically improve, because it was fairly solid throughout their roster.  Just goes to show
what a bunch of clodhoppers we are.  Over the last two years no team in baseball has had
such a sizable gap between the quality of their top three slots and their bottom two.  In
2005 they were second best in each of the top three slots (mostly Roy Hallyday, Josh
Towers, and Gustavo Chacin) in the AL.  Neat bit of symmetry.  Their drop in quality
between third and fourth slots is the largest of any team in this study though, from 119 to
86.  They also had a rotten fifth slot leaving their last 60+ starts with an ERA+ of 79.
The seven teams with winning records in the AL that year had the seven best fourth and
fifth slots in the league.  The Jays went 80-82, providing evidence of the importance of a
good rotation end (“good” being a relative term here of course).  In 2006 their top three
slots all ranked in the league’s top three.  Again, their fourth and fifth starters were in the
bottom half.  Even worse, neither of those slots averaged five innings a start.  No, typical
fourth and fifth starters weren’t going to get them in the playoffs last year, but it cost
them at least two games.  In many years, 89 wins would put them in the running for the
postseason.

Washington Nationals

In 2006 their starting staff posted an ERA+ of 82, which was worse than any other
rotation in either major league baseball or Kansas City.  They’re last place finish was
truly a team effort as they incredibly did it while getting slightly above average
performance from their fifth slot (79 ERA+ with a league averaging 77).  Essentially,
they had one #4 starter, and four #5s.  The year before they, like every team in the 2005
NL East, had a decent 1-2-3 combo.

Big Heaping Gobs of Raw Numbers
I figure some of you would like to see the actual numbers (this is btf after all)..  It’s the
ERA+ for all rotation slots and the team’s total ERA+ for its starters that year. First is
2006, with the AL teams beginning and the NL clubs finishing:

Team    1       2       3       4       5       All
ANA     123     111     102     99      92      105
BAL     120     90      87      72      65      84
BOX     113     92      92      83      81      92
CWS     106     104     103     95      93      100
CLE     124     107     102     97      92      104
DET     128     119     118     111     91      113
KCR     86      86      85      82      75      83
MIN     161     103     97      83      74      99
NYY     123     120     100     87      62      96
OAK     115     107     92      89      89      98
SEA     97      96      94      92      71      89
TBD     127     97      93      83      79      94
TEX     104     104     98      81      72      92
TOR     138     111     110     86      71      102
ARZ     154     104     97      90      88      105
ATL     126     96      91      83      75      93
CHC     131     112     86      71      60      89
CIN     146     127     102     81      77      105
COL     127     115     114     85      79      102
FLO     119     111     107     98      80      102
HOU     159     144     108     89      76      109
LAD     124     106     103     102     98      107
MIL     111     106     94      92      73      95
NYM     126     113     87      84      70      92
PHI     107     93      90      87      80      91
PIT     100     100     95      85      83      92
STL     141     107     89      73      70      92
SDP     121     109     103     103     85      103
SFG     122     111     100     90      75      98
WAS     87      83      80      79      79      82

And now 2005, in the same order:

Team    1       2       3       4       5       All
ANA     121     120     115     113     91      110
BAL     108     92      88      84      65      86
BOX     106     96      96      94      89      94
CWS     142     127     123     115     91      118
CLE     140     108     100     91      89      120
DET     96      94      92      90      67      88
KCR     84      79      74      63      62      72
MIN     153     119     109     103     87      112
NYY     111     101     91      90      89      97
OAK     127     120     118     116     105     117
SEA     101     98      86      84      75      88
TBD     114     80      70      68      65      77
TEX     120     107     91      75      64      89
TOR     149     120     119     86      73      106
ARZ     124     99      90      88      82      96
ATL     143     135     126     106     98      120
CHC     131     108     101     90      87      102
CIN     110     104     82      68      62      82
COL     117     87      83      83      83      89
FLO     152     118     112     84      71      105
HOU     221     172     140     92      62      120
LAD     112     107     96      84      69      93
MIL     110     107     106     106     97      105
NYM     148     118     108     99      99      113
PHI     122     121     108     100     90      108
PIT     105     94      93      90      80      92
STL     151     119     119     105     103     118
SDP     134     91      80      73      67      86
SFG     109     96      93      80      79      91
WAS     127     106     100     86      77      98