WS winning pitching fWAR last 15 years

[Torridd]

And then at the end of the spectrum, you see the 2005 WS which were incredibly lucky to get past us.

[Pancake Bear]

4 minutes ago, Torridd said:

Also, re the Giants, does the "24" explain the entire bullpen? That is, maybe they were so terrible early and got replaced late in the season? Maybe two short relievers were very good and everyone else was crap?

That is correct. Since it covers the whole regular season, it doesn't really tell us allow for late improvements. Like maybe some of those teams upgraded a position of weakness at the trade deadline: Those numbers wouldn't show that because they represent the whole, not necessarily where the team that actually played the games in the WS would've ranked if that team was together the whole season. 

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

It supports what I've been trying to say, again and again: You don't "need" to have a great, or even good, rotation to win the WS. You probably need either a very good rotation or rotation, but not both. 

What you do need is a very good offense. Every team is top 10 (with the caveat, that probably includes defense).

I thought pitching and defense win championships.

[gotbeer]

Now if you want to take it a bit further, if someone has time, put the WS losers in that chart.  I'm wondering if in 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2006 if the other team was a 2/3 or even a 3/3 and that the winner just caught lightning in a bottle.

[Lou]

19 minutes ago, Taylor said:

I thought pitching and defense win championships.

No team has ever won a World Series without scoring a run. 

[tdawg87]

3 minutes ago, Lou said:

No team has ever won a World Series without scoring a run. 

Fun fact: No team has ever won a World Series without using a baseball.

[Angelsjunky]

30 minutes ago, Taylor said:

I thought pitching and defense win championships.

 

9 minutes ago, Lou said:

No team has ever won a World Series without scoring a run. 

We need a Jack Handey response emoji.

I think you know, Lou, that Taylor is being facetious. But, yeah.

[Lou]

20 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

 

We need a Jack Handey response emoji.

I think you know, Lou, that Taylor is being facetious. But, yeah.

Of course.

I was being serious, however.

[Angelsjunky]

2020 Ranks:

Batters: 12th

Starters: 20th

Relievers: 12th

Fielders: 29th

The pitching wasn't as bad as we collectively remember. I didn't realize the defense was so bad, although there is a big drop-off from the Angels at #29 (-12.3 Def Runs) to the Nationals at #30 (-23.5).

So how have the areas changed?

Hitting: Not much. Added Iglesias and Suzuki is pretty much it, thus far. Of course we'll also see more Walsh (and less Pujols), hopefully improvement from Upton, as well as Trout and Ohtani bouncing back. Ward/Schebler/Marsh should be better, or equal too, Goodwin/Adell.

Starters: Teheran and Sandoval accounted for 25% of the Angels starts in 2020, with a -1.1 WAR. Add in negative WARs from 4 starts by Suarez, Peters, and Ohtani (-0.3), and bolstering the rotation with Quintana and Cobb should greatly raise the floor.

Relievers: The big offenders, Milner, Robles, and Buchter, are all gone. Buttrey should (hopefully) improve, Claudio be solid, and Iglesias be a big addition. Hopefully Meyers' performance was a legit improvement. Barnes, Andriese, and Bedrosian were solid according to WAR and will be gone. Add in Barria/Sandoval, and it should improve.

Fielders: Adell, Goodwin and Upton were the worst-offenders, followed by Trout, Walsh, Pujols, and La Stella. Some improvement should be expected from Fletcher playing 2B; Iglesias will be an overall improvement at SS (down from AS, but up from Fletch). Suzuki is below average. But it should improve somewhat, just through regression and minor improvements.

So my estimates for 2021:

Batters: 10th

Starters: 15th

Relievers: 15th

Fielders: 20th

...possibly higher for all four areas. 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Angelsjunky

[Torridd]

Would someone provide the 2002 Angels fWar info? Better yet, if easy to procure, the fWar Angels history? I'm actually curious if any of the fWar exceeded 2002's. 

[Erstad Grit]

Deep rotations may help during the regular season but 5th starters often don't even make the playoff roster. In other words I'm suggesting a top of the rotation SP is more important than an overall great pitching staff. 

[Erstad Grit]

16 minutes ago, Torridd said:

Would someone provide the 2002 Angels fWar info? Better yet, if easy to procure, the fWar Angels history? I'm actually curious if any of the fWar exceeded 2002's. 

2002 Washburn is consistently underrated. He finished 4th in cy young but I guess he disrupts the "we didn't need an ace" false narrative. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

On 2/4/2021 at 1:35 PM, Pancake Bear said:

Also worth noting: Playoffs are largely a crapshoot. The better you are, the better your chances, but usually the best team doesn't have more than a 60% chance, iirc, at beating the worst team in a short series. 

That's why we see, e.g. the 2014 Giants. Make it to the playoffs and hope you catch fire. The better you are, the less luck you'll need. 

I agree. 
 

Now that you guys have gone and done the work with the WS winners, you ought to do it for all division winners or 90+ win teams or something. 
 

[Lou]

Fletch giving out homework.

Love it. 

[T.G.]

Homework? Hell, no.

[T.G.]

LOL

[T.G.]

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

Fletch giving out homework.

Love it. 

@Angelsjunky is just the man for the job.

[Jeff Fletcher]

One more thing, I don’t think WAR is a good stat at all for pitching. Especially not the one that uses FIP. It’s too much “what should have happened.”

I think good ol fashioned ERA is great for evaluating pitchers’ past performance. Opponents OPS works too. 

[arch stanton]

So what the charts tells me is you have to hit and get your outs however you can. Hit the ball and minimize weaknesses in other areas.

 

 

 

 

 

Or just cheat your everlovin ass off

Edited February 7, 2021 by arch stanton

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

One more thing, I don’t think WAR is a good stat at all for pitching. Especially not the one that uses FIP. It’s too much “what should have happened.”

I think good ol fashioned ERA is great for evaluating pitchers’ past performance. Opponents OPS works too. 

Agreed. I like Fangraphs' RA9-WAR, which is ERA-based WAR but you have to search for it on the website. But I really look at both.

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

One more thing, I don’t think WAR is a good stat at all for pitching. Especially not the one that uses FIP. It’s too much “what should have happened.”

I think good ol fashioned ERA is great for evaluating pitchers’ past performance. Opponents OPS works too. 

yeah.  FIP based WAR will tell you what is most likely to happen next time.  But it's less about actual performance.  For bullpens, the collective WPA is a good indicator of how the team performed and includes leverage.  

The Angels were 24th in WPA for relievers last year.  

WAR is also cumulative so your pen might get more WAR because your starting pitching just didn't throw very many innings.  

ERA- is good for starters when looking at actual performance.  Better than raw era because it accounts for park factors.  

I like RA9-WAR as well like AJ mentioned which pretty much tells you the same thing but also gives you a better idea of whether your starters got deep into games.  

The one thing I have to remind myself though is that if you use fWAR for offense and some other non FIP based WAR for pitchers then you are kinda double dipping on credit for defense as the individual offensive player is already getting credit in their fWAR and then you are also giving your pitchers credit for that as well.  

 

[Angelsjunky]

[Jeff Fletcher]

12 hours ago, Dochalo said:

yeah.  FIP based WAR will tell you what is most likely to happen next time.  But it's less about actual performance.  For bullpens, the collective WPA is a good indicator of how the team performed and includes leverage.  

The Angels were 24th in WPA for relievers last year.  

WAR is also cumulative so your pen might get more WAR because your starting pitching just didn't throw very many innings.  

ERA- is good for starters when looking at actual performance.  Better than raw era because it accounts for park factors.  

I like RA9-WAR as well like AJ mentioned which pretty much tells you the same thing but also gives you a better idea of whether your starters got deep into games.  

The one thing I have to remind myself though is that if you use fWAR for offense and some other non FIP based WAR for pitchers then you are kinda double dipping on credit for defense as the individual offensive player is already getting credit in their fWAR and then you are also giving your pitchers credit for that as well.  

 

Honestly you could just use ERA for starters and relievers and runs per game for the offense. 

[tdawg87]

16 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Honestly you could just use ERA for starters and relievers and runs per game for the offense. 

We're nerds, Jeff. We gotta at least use one advanced metric for everything regardless of its actual importance.

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Honestly you could just use ERA for starters and relievers and runs per game for the offense. 

I feel like park factors matter to me though.