-> A look at the best staffs ever
->
-> By Rob Neyer
->
-> ESPNET SportsZone
-> 1906 Chicago Cubs
-> Staff ERA: 1.75
-> League ERA: 2.62
-> 1931 Philadelphia Athletics
-> Staff ERA: 3.47
-> League ERA: 4.38
-> 1954 Cleveland Indians
-> Staff ERA: 2.78
-> League ERA: 3.72
-> 1971 Baltimore Orioles
-> Staff ERA: 2.99
-> League ERA: 3.46
-> 1996 Atlanta Braves
-> Staff ERA: 3.52
-> League ERA: 4.21
If you rank them by the raw amount of ERA below the league average then
the 54 Indians come out ahead at .94.  The 96 Braves were .69 better
than average, behind the 31 Athletics (.91) and 06 Cubs (.87).
But it's fairer to look at the team ERA as a pct of the league average.
This is because being a run a game better than average in a high-offense
year isn't as valuable as in a low-offense era.  To illustrate, a soccer
team that averages 2 goals more per game than the league average will be
a big winner.  A basketball team that avereages 2 points a game better
than average will be middle of the pack.  But back to baseball.
Ranked by pct of league average, the 06 Cubs are 67%, the 54 Indians are
75%, the 31 Athletics are 79% and the 96 Braves are 84%.  In neither of
these comparisons do the 70's Orioles come close.  I think it's the
gee-whiz fact of 4 20 game winners that inflates (but only slightly)
their reputation.
To round out the study you'd have to factor in park effects too but I
don't have that data.
Another thought is that for Braves fans today, I think they usually mean
that this year's team has the best starters ever.  I suspect that if you
looked at starters ERA vs the league average and included the starters
IP as a pct of the total IP, then Atlanta might move up.
-> And of course, the 1993 Braves did not win the World Series. In fact
-> -- and this might come as a big surprise -- none of the five staffs
-> listed here won the Series (though the Braves are well on their way
-> this season). The 1906 Cubs lost to the White Sox, the '31 Athletics
-> lost to the Cardinals, the '54 Indians were swept by the Giants, and
-> the '71 Orioles lost to the Pirates.
-> And they say baseball is 75 percent pitching.
This is consistent with a Stats Inc study a couple of years back.  It
concluded that teams with great pitching have a slightly better chance
of getting to the WS but after that, they're at a disadvantage to the
big-hitting or well-balanced clubs.  IMO, this notion that "good
pitching beats good hitting" or that "baseball is 75% pitching" is
ill-founded.  It's one of the many nuggets of baseball's conventional
wisdom that has been debunked by close analysis.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/25
---------------