With the signing of Cliff Lee, the Phillies have a ridiculous first three starters - Roy Halladay, Lee, and Roy Oswalt.
But for several years, the Atlanta braves had a 1-2-3 of Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, and John Smoltz. Also quite impressive.
Which, to you, is more imposing?
Joe
Voted for the Braves, mainly because they had the three all through their primes, while the Phils 3 are on the wrong side of 30. It might not even be the best 1-2-3 Roy Oswalt has been a member of.
Braves relatively handily. If you go to best 1-4 it gets tougher.
Well, the 2011 Phillies haven’t taken the field. So how do you judge them?
If you go by what they did in 2010, they aren’t any better than several years by the Braves’ aces.
What Rick said.
The Braves’ pitching staff WAS awesome for a long period of time.
The Phillies’ new staff LOOKS awesome, and MAY turn out to be better than the Braves’ aces were… but they haven’t DONE it yet.
That’s the other thing.
In 1993, Maddux went 20-10, 2.36, Smoltz went 15-11, 3.62, and Glavine 22-6, 3.20. That’s dominance. Oh, and they had Steve Avery at 18-6, 2.94.
Then in 1994, about 75% of a season, Maddux was 16-6, 1.56, Glavine was 13-9, 3.97, and Smoltz slumped to 6-10, 4.14, although that was a good ERA back then. Kent Mercker pitched okay, too.
In 1995, Greg Maddux went 19-2 with a 1.6 ERA; Tom Glavine was 16-7, 3.08 and John Smoltz was 12-7, 3.18. Those ERAs were in a league that scored more than it does today, too.
Then in 1996 Smoltz was 24-8, 2.94, Maddux 15-11, 2.72, Glavine 15-10, 2.98.
And then in 1997: Maddux 194, 2.20, Smoltz 15-12, 3.02, Glavine 14-7, 2.96, and throw in Denny Neagle, 20-5, 2.97.
And they’re not done. 1998: Glavine 20-6, 2.47, Maddux 18-9, 2.22, Smoltz 17-3, 2.90, and now they have Kevin Millwood at 17-8, 4.08, plus Neagle at 16-11, 3.55. Wow, now that’s a ROTATION. When your fifth starter wins 17 games, come on.
1999? They’re still rolling along. Maddux 19-9, 3.57, Glavine 14-11, 4.12, Smoltz 11-8, 3.19, Millwood 18-7, 2.68.
2000, they’ve got to be done by now… Maddux 19-9, 3.00, Glavine 21-9, 3.40, but John Smoltz was hurt.
But then in 2001 Maddux and Glavine are still great and Smoltz comes back as a reliever. Smoltz only pitches half a year. But then in 2002 Smoltz saves 55 games while Maddux goes 16-6, 2.62, and Glavine goes 18-11, 2.96.
So really, for the Phillies to have assembled an equivalent rotation, they have to have these guys rolling along for at least another seven or eight YEARS, so that in about 2018 Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee are still elite starters, and Roy Oswalt comes back from an injury to become the best relief ace in the league.
What’re the odds of that? I’m guessing pretty close to zero.
How did Atlanta not even make the 1998 World Series? That staff is NASTY!
They left their bats at home.
In the four games they lost in the NLCS to the Padres, they scored 2, 0, 1, and 0 runs. All the pitching in the world ain’t gonna help that.
That Padres staff (the entire staff) was pretty good itself. The Braves lost 4 of 6 games to a very good team. Even the best teams in MLB will lose 4 out of 6 more than once in a season, especially against talent.
Truf.
I bet '97 was another case of anemic offense. Their biggest problem: no “car keys” closer during the run.
The raw stats RickJay posted for the Braves’ starters are impressive. But if you look at the ERA+ for the Phillies’ expected rotation for next year, they’re nearly as impressive. Halladay posted a 165 ERA+ last year, Hamels 132, Oswalt a whopping 232 in the time he pitched for the Phillies, and Lee averaged 130 with Texas and Seattle. There were many years in which the 90’s Braves rotation had similar ERA+ stats, and some years (such as 1994 when Glavine and Smoltz had ERA+ figures of 106 and 102 respectively) that the Phillies’ top four was significantly better.
Why? That’s not the question that was asked–the question was only about the 2011 Phillies’ rotation, not future rotations.
Well, they were. In 2010.
The OP asks a somewhat tricky question, which is to compare the 2011 Phillies against the “90’s Braves.” If it’s unfair to ask, as you suggest it is, how the Phillies will hold up past 2011, it’s equally unfair to compare the Phillies in one season, 2010, using only half of Roy Oswalt’s season, against a sort of unclear average of how the Braves did in the 1990s.
Either the comparison should be “how does this stack up, potentially, against what the Braves did in the 1990s, looking at 2011 and beyond?” or “How might the 2011 Phillies stack up against the Braves in (a particular season?)”
And let’s not forget to adjust for inflation. The Braves’ starters, particularly Maddux, posted ridiculous ERAs in an era (heh) which was hitter dominated–for whatever reason. From 1993 to about 2006, batters performed akin the the “live ball era.” Now, again for whatever reason, pitchers are more dominant. A 1.56 ERA in 1994 and 1995 is much more impressive than such an ERA today…and no starting pitcher today can achieve even that. I feel you are correct in your analysis: you can’t compare the two as the Phillies staff, at this point, is potential only, while the Braves’ staff from the 90s has already established itself, but, again, in a different era, where the mechanics of the game were different and, I feel, more difficult for pitchers. But as far as raw potential goes, sure this Phillies staff has at least as much potential as any of those Braves teams. But that wasn’t the OP’s question.