What We Know

Last season the NL Central was widely considered to be the worst division in the league and deservedly so. Only two of the teams were over .500, the Cubs and the Brewers, and neither won more than 85 games. None of the six teams in the division were over .500 against any other division in the NL (although both the Cubs and the Brewers were over .500 against the AL). No other division was so completely futile against the rest of the league.

Things change, though, and they change quickly. While the NL Central was the laughingstock of baseball last year, I couldn't help shaking that as recently as 2005 the NL Central had the team with the best record in baseball (the Cardinals) and the NL Wild Card winner (the Astros). In fact, St. Louis had the best record in baseball and the Astros had won the Wild Card in 2004, as well.

In contrast, the NL West in 2007 was considered one of the strongest divisions in baseball, with four of the five teams finishing over .500. In 2005, however, the NL West was the laughingstock with San Diego winning the division with only 82 wins.

In the first half of this season fortunes have changed again. The landscape looks much more like 2005 than it does 2007, with none of the NL West teams having a record over .500 and the NL Central having three teams over .500, including the team with the best record in baseball (the Cubs). All six of the NL Central teams have respectable records against the other divisions in the National League.

So, again, things change and they change quickly. One of the things that makes this game great is that what we think we know about a team today can be 100% different tomorrow. Prior to September of 2007 most thought that the Mets were the best team in the National League. They ended up sitting at home in October. I can't wait to find out what happens in the second half to change what we think we know right now.

ERA Leaders and Pitch Types

Using Josh Kalk's Pitch f/x database, I created the following chart of the top 20 leaders in ERA (ERA is certainly not the perfect metric to use to list the top 20 pitchers for a year, but it serves my purposes for this exercise) for 2007:

More than half (12) threw four different kinds of pitches, seven threw three different kinds of pitches, and only Oliver Perez stuck with two pitches. Fourteen of the pitchers threw at least three pitches 10% or more of the time each (Escobar actually threw four pitches more than 10% of the time each). Danny Haren was the only pitcher on the list that threw three different pitches more than 20% each.

Anyway, the point is that variety seems to be a hallmark of success. But we all knew that anyway - guys that only have two pitches usually end up in the bullpen. One thing that I find interesting is that the slider is the breaking ball of choice, instead of the curveball. Eight of the pitchers threw a slider more than 15% of the time, while only five threw curveballs at least 15% of the time. Also, eight threw the curveball less than 5% of the time, while seven threw the slider less than 5% of the time (however, two of those, Haren and Hudson, both throw a cutter, which is listed under 'other' but could be considered a form of a slider). This preference for the slider makes sense from the standpoint that they are easier to control, but it is surprising from the standpoint that the slider might be the most damaging pitch to a pitcher's arm.

Less surprising is the reliance on the changeup. Oliver Perez is the only pitcher that didn't throw any changeups and only four threw less than 5%, while nine threw more than 15%. This makes sense in that the changeup is the pitch that pairs up best with the fastball (which is the overwhelming favorite pitch to throw) and is the easiest on a pitcher's arm.

Does the World Need Another Blog?

The answer, of course, is no. But one more won't hurt anything. An even better question might be: Does the world need another baseball blog? And again, probably not. And, a question even bether than that could be: Does roarke really need to write for another blog? But the answer is different for that one. I do need to write for another blog. Future Redbirds is a great website and I enjoy participating there. But I watch a lot of baseball during the year and sometimes I want to write about things that just wouldn't fit at Future Redbirds. So, there probably won't be much here about the Cardinals prospects or minor league system, but everything else baseball related will be fair game. For example, my first real post is going to be about my fascination with the Detroit Tigers...