Anatomy Of a Championship Team: A Guide To Building a Contender (Part 1)
The 2010 season has come and gone and with it, the San Francisco Giants have been crowned World Series Champions. Completing a great season, the Giants came from behind to win the NL West, beat the Braves in the Division Series, overcame the Phillies in the Championship Series, and took care of the Rangers to win the World Series.
That leads us back to the age-old question: What does it take to win a championship? In football, many old stalwarts will tell you that “Defense wins Championships—period.” Does the same hold true in baseball? Or, more specifically, does pitching win championships? This is an age-old debate. Allow me to add to it.
.jpg?w=256 "Twins Royals Baseball")
While some may have been stunned by the Giants' success, is it really that surprising? To try and answer this question, I examine previous World Series winners in order to uncover that championship formula. Throwing my two cents into this debate, it seems to me that the Giants’ success is not really all that shocking.
When building a championship baseball team, the first thing the team's executives need to decide is whether to build the team around hitting or pitching. While every team should have some balance, all teams will inevitably be stronger in either one or the other.
*The chart below breaks down each championship team since 1995 in six of the most important pitching and hitting categories (pitching on the left, hitting on the right); the bolded numbers show when a team was in the top three in their league for that category.
| Year | Team | ERA | IP | H | SO | HR | BB | R | H | SB | SO | OPS | HR | Teams In League | |
| 1995 | Braves | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 13 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 2 | 14 | |
| 1996 | Yankees | 5 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 7 | 12 | 14 | |
| 1997 | Marlins | 4 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 14 | 8 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 14 | |
| 1998 | Yankees | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 14 | |
| 1999 | Yankees | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 14 | |
| 2000 | Yankees | 6 | 14 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 14 | |
| 2001 | Diamondbacks | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 14 | 4 | 6 | 16 | |
| 2002 | Angels | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 14 | 5 | 10 | 14 | |
| 2003 | Marlins | 7 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 14 | 8 | 11 | 16 | |
| 2004 | Red Sox | 3 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 14 | |
| 2005 | White Sox | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 14 | |
| 2006 | Cardinals | 9 | 14 | 8 | 14 | 12 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 14 | 15 | 6 | 5 | 16 | |
| 2007 | Red Sox | 1 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 3 | 8 | 14 | |
| 2008 | Phillies | 4 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 10 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 16 | |
| 2009 | Yankees | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 14 | |
| 2010 | Giants | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 14 | 9 | 7 | 15 | 12 | 8 | 6 | 16 | |
| Average | 3 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 5 | 6 | |||
| # of Bolds | 10 | 6 | 12 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 3 | |||
| 1st in League | 5 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | |||
| 2nd in League | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 3rd in League | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
|
As the chart shows, since 1995, an overwhelming number of championship teams had much more exceptional pitching than hitting. Teams like the '95 Braves, '99 Yankees, '01 Diamondbacks, and the '10 Giants dominated their leagues in pitching categories while their hitters barely cracked the top three teams in any of the hitting categories.
Delving more deeply into the chart, we can see that the average rank for a championship team's ERA and Hits allowed during the regular season is 3rd in their league. This average is the best such number for all categories considered here. It is telling though that the best hitting category average rank was five (Runs and OPS took that trophy).
Looking at the numbers from another angle, the worst average in any pitching category was seven (Walks), while the worst hitting category average was 10 (Strikeouts). Thus, from this it would seem that pitching is the more important element in the championship formula.
Starting to be sold on pitching? Let’s look at things from yet another angle. Stepping back from average rankings and focusing on how often a specific category appeared in the Top three, we find ERA there in 10 of the 16 championship teams; likewise, 12 of the 16 teams had one of the three lowest Hits Allowed totals. Ultimately, with all the World Series winners combined, four of the six pitching categories for all these teams were in the “top three” of the league at least half the time; compare that to the fact that none of the hitting categories are at least in the "top three" of the league at least half the time.
Convinced about pitching yet? No? Well, you should also note that at least half of all the top three teams in the pitching categories of ERA, Innings Pitched, Hits, and Homeruns Allowed were not just in the top three, but were actually the best team in the league that year.
Looking for a counter argument to “pitching wins championships,” we can see that the most important hitting categories are Runs Scored and OPS—at least those are the stats that championship teams are most often in the top three. But, as stated above, none of the hitting categories appear in the top three of the league at least half the time when combining all the World Series teams.
Another interesting fact is that for all the 'top three' appearances in both hitting and pitching categories, four of the six pitching categories have a majority of their ranks as being 1st in the league (ERA, IP, Hits Allowed, and HR Allowed), while that only happens twice for hitting categories (OPS and HR). Furthermore none of the 'top three' pitching categories have a majority of their ranks as being 3rd in the league, while two hitting categories do (OPS and SB).
*Below is a chart to help summarize what we’ve just gone over. It lists the year and how many of the categories the winning team that year was in the top three of its league. For example, in 1995 the Braves had four of the six pitching categories in the top three of their league while they had only one hitting category in the top three of their league.
| Year | Team | Pitching Categories in the Top 3 | Hitting Categories in the Top 3 |
| 1995 | Braves | 4 | 1 |
| 1996 | Yankees | 3 | 0 |
| 1997 | Marlins | 2 | 0 |
| 1998 | Yankees | 5 | 4 |
| 1999 | Yankees | 5 | 2 |
| 2000 | Yankees | 1 | 0 |
| 2001 | Diamondbacks | 5 | 2 |
| 2002 | Angels | 3 | 2 |
| 2003 | Marlins | 1 | 1 |
| 2004 | Red Sox | 5 | 4 |
| 2005 | White Sox | 3 | 1 |
| 2006 | Cardinals | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | Red Sox | 3 | 2 |
| 2008 | Phillies | 0 | 4 |
| 2009 | Yankees | 3 | 4 |
| 2010 | Giants | 5 | 0 |
| Total | 48 | 27 |
Pitching wins championships. Consider what this second chart reveals: four of the 16 championship teams made the top three in at least one of the pitching categories while having 0 hitting categories in the top three; conversely, only one team since 1995 has had at least one top three hitting category while having 0 top three pitching categories (the 2008 Yankees).
In addition to this, only one team in this timeframe has ever won the World Series without having either any hitting or pitching categories in the top three of their league, the 2006 Cardinals.
Even more revealing perhaps is that there have been 48 total top three pitching categories combined between all the World Series winners, while there have been only 27 total top three hitting categories between all the champions since 1995.
Perhaps you're saying that pitching wins in the playoffs, because the series' are shorter, but hitting is what gets teams into October. Well, look at the win-loss records of the World Series winners below (the records bolded are the teams with at least three 'top three' categories for pitching while having less than three 'top three' categories for hitting.
| 1995 | Braves | 90-54 |
| 1996 | Yankees | 92-70 |
| 1997 | Marlins | 92-70 |
| 1998 | Yankees | 114-48 |
| 1999 | Yankees | 98-64 |
| 2000 | Yankees | 87-74 |
| 2001 | Diamondbacks | 92-70 |
| 2002 | Angels | 99-63 |
| 2003 | Marlins | 91-71 |
| 2004 | Red Sox | 98-64 |
| 2005 | White Sox | 99-63 |
| 2006 | Cardinals | 83-78 |
| 2007 | Red Sox | 96-66 |
| 2008 | Phillies | 92-70 |
| 2009 | Yankees | 103-59 |
| 2010 | Giants | 92-70 |
Eight of the 16 World Series winners since 1995 are bolded in the chart above. Even more telling is that none of those eight teams have below 90 wins (the 1995 Braves have 90 exactly, but they only played 144 games that year).
Pitching doesn't guarantee a World Series ring (look at the Braves of the 1990s—they had some of the best pitching around and came away with only one championship). Ultimately, anything can happen and that's why the games are still played (the 2006 Cardinals, statistically, had no business winning the World Series, but they did). Nonetheless, the stats show that if you're a baseball executive building a championship team, the pitching staff needs to be the first priority.
Greg Maddux may have said that “Chicks Dig the Long Ball”, but it looks like his craft wins rings. Are you convinced Yet?
***Now that I’ve made the case for pitching, the next question is homegrown talent vs. free agents. I will consider this question in Part Two of two of “The Championship Formula”
(I'd like to thank my brother, Andrew Simon, for his comments, which helped me organize and structure this two-part article)
.jpg?w=480 "Twins Royals Baseball")
