Astros can win the Wild Card with this team but ...

It goes even deeper than that. We had great pitching in 1986 (Scott, Ryan, DeShais, Smith, Kerfield) and lost in 6. The Mets had great pitching too but we matched up well with them. 1980 I don't remember that series very well being a wee tyke at the time but didn't we have one of the best pitching staffs in the league that year with JR Richards and the Ryan Express at his height.

 

Just look at last year. Statistically, the Braves had better pitching than the Astros and lost. The Angels and Twins had FAR better pitching than Boston and NY and lost. St. Louis had better pitching than the Red Sox and lost.

The whole pitching wins championships thing is a myth, IMO. Good pitching with great hitting or great pitching with good hitting wins championships - either way is a viable route to go.

 

Richard went down with his stroke that year, but Vern Ruhle stepped in and finished something like 12-4. In 1980 the Astros had a 3 run lead in the 8th with Ryan on the mound in game 5 (best of 5) and could not finish it off.

It didn't help matters that the Astros had a 3 game lead over LA with 3 games left (against the Dodgers). The Dodgers won all 3 so they had a 1 game playoff which Niekro had to pitch. That threw the rotation off a bit for the playoff series against the Phillies.

 

You can win a world series without a few power hitters, but you'll never win a world series without at least two great starting pitchers. Boston had a GREAT rotation last year, much better then St. Louis (Pedro/Schilling/Lowe/Wakefield). Also, the Braves rotation last year was far from stellar... we simply had a freak showings by Brandon Backe in and Brad Lidge, not to mention Carlos Beltran making the best offensive playoff run of all-time. If offensive numbers won championships the Yankees would have won 10 in a row in the last 13-14 years.

2004 World Series
Boston Red Sox over St. Louis Cardinals

2003 World Series
Florida Marlins over New York Yankees

2002 World Series
Anaheim Angels over San Francisco

2001 World Series
Arizona Diamondbacks over New York Yankees

2000 World Series
New York Yankees over New York Mets

In every one of those series the team with the better pitching won.

 

but getting there is the thing....more teams get to the playoffs with good pitching/poor hitting than vice versa.

this year alone you're seeing the astros and the nats speak to that. while the Nats are tied for a playoff spot right now....they're DEAD LAST in MLB in runs scored. whose first in the NL in runs scored you might ask?? the Reds. get my drift???

how many times have the Rockies or Rangers been at or near the top in runs scored...and missed the playoffs by a mile??? seriously, that's been the story of those franchises for nearly 10 years now.

but to the other end...it's not often a team finishes toward the top in allowing the fewest runs, and isn't at least competitive.

 

Of course, no one said that offensive numbers won championships.

As for next Red Sox and Cardinals, here are the numbers:

Red Sox Rotation (ERA):

Schilling 3.26
Martinez 3.90
Arroyo 4.03
Wakefield 4.87
Lowe 5.42

Cardinals Rotation:

Carpenter: 3.46
Marquis: 3.71
Suppan: 4.16
Williams: 4.18
Morris: 4.72

Over the course of the season, here are total runs given up by various teams last year:

Minnesota 715
LA Angels 734
Boston 769
NY 808

St. Louis 659
Atlanta 668
Houston 698

St. Louis had the #1 pitching staff in the NL. The Red Sox had the #4 pitching staff in the AL. The top 2 pitching staffs in the AL lost in the first round.

In every one of those years, a team with great hitting or pitching won - but teams with better pitching lost along the way, so the best pitching didn't just win the WS. If it did, Glavine/Maddux/Smoltz would have won 8 World Series. They consistently got beaten by teams with better hitting and good (but not as good) pitching.

 

But teams with good pitching and bad hitting aren't doing well either. The Rockies, Rangers, and Reds have *terrible* pitching. The Nats, as we're seeing, are a fluke and are getting back to where they were expected to be. The Astros didn't start making their run until they started hitting (#1 in the league for the past month). When the Astros had great pitching but terrible hitting, they were dead last in the division.

This year, Boston and NY have terrible pitching (#10 and #11 in the AL), yet are at the top of the AL East. Baltimore, with better pitching but worse hitting, is 3rd. Toronto , with really good pitching and even worse hitting, sits in 4th.

You have to be good at both to get anywhere. There are few, if any, teams that will slug their way to a title without good pitching, and there are few, if any, teams that will pitch their way to a title without good hitting. To win, you have to be good at both, and great at one or the other. Boston last year was an offensive team that had just enough patchwork pitching to win, but they won on offense.

 

I would agree with this, though. But that involves making the playoffs. Here are the rankings for last year's playoff teams. The ranks are within the team's league.

(Team / Hitting Rank / Pitching Rank)

Boston 1 4
New York 2 6
LA Angels 7 2
Minnesota 10 1

St. Louis 1 1
Houston 6 5
Atlanta 5 3
LA Dodgers 9 4

The NL is hard to really say, because St. Louis was better in both. But in the AL, the teams that made the ALCS were the top two hitting teams, which beat better pitching teams that had mediocre offenses.

 

last year the dodgers made the playoffs with very good pitching and very average to below-average hitting. you dont' see the inverse of that.

take your pick with the astros and nats. either way, you have teams that have great pitching right now...but very average to awful offense.

 

The difference between the Cards and the Sox last season was the two future hall of fame pitchers of Schilling, Pedro and their closer Foulke (not just talking about the series). You can't really compare their league ERA's either because an AL team's ERA is going to be higher because the combined offense is going to be higher... that's a tough one to compare. Either way if you asked anyone GM who's rotation they would have rather had last year in the series the BoSox would win every time because of the big two alone.

Obviously a well balanced team is better then a good pitching/bad hitting team, but if you have 2-3 good pitchers you will be in contention even if you have a horrible offense (see Nationals). The playoffs are always a gamble because one player can change a series, the tough part is getting to the playoffs and time and time again (unless a weak division) the teams with upper echelon pitching make it to the playoffs.

The Braves should have won more World Series, but blame it on the Yankees and their unGodly payroll for that... not their pitching.

 

I think people forget that going into the playoffs, the Cardinals and Yankees were the favorites. Boston's pitching was a disaster. Pedro was having a terrible season - after 5 consecutive years of ERAs under 2.4, he had a 3.9 ERA last year. Schilling was an injury mess from the very first series. All their other starters were somewhere between mediocre and bad. Boston wasn't even favored to win the AL, less alone the World Series. In the postseason, they won by averaging nearly 7 runs a game of offense, while giving up nearly 5.