Has there ever been a team that was the best hitting yet worse pitching in terms of runs or vice versa?

I was thinking about this last night when Paul Jolovitz said that baseball is 90% pitching which I got a good laugh out of.

That Rangers team a few years ago had a really good offense(I think) and one of the most awful pitching staffs ever. I am not sure if they led the league in runs or not, but I think they put quite a few up.

I know the 1930ish Phiilies were often around this, and the 1932 club definitely achieved it.

They ended up 78-76 and in 4th.

The 2003 Dodgers were best in the NL in runs allowed (by over half a run!) and worst in runs scored (by nearly half a run!).

They finished 85-77, second in the NL West and third in the Wild Card.

swishnicholson wrote:I know the 1930ish Phiilies were often around this, and the 1932 club definitely achieved it.

They ended up 78-76 and in 4th.

Chuck Klein was amazing that year, apparently.

Looking at his career numbers, I wonder, did they not keep track of caught stealing, or was he really never caught once in his career?

Ramon Gris wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:I know the 1930ish Phiilies were often around this, and the 1932 club definitely achieved it.

They ended up 78-76 and in 4th.

Chuck Klein was amazing that year, apparently.

Looking at his career numbers, I wonder, did they not keep track of caught stealing, or was he really never caught once in his career?

The NL didn't keep track of CS between 1916 and 1951, so we don't really have any idea how often he was caught. One interesting thing about this team, though, is the evidently great effect playing at he Baker Bowl had on these stats. The pitching staff was last in runs and last in ERA, but had an ERA+ of 99, indicating they were mediocre at worst. The hitters had more than respectable 111 OPS+, but this was just a hair better than the 110 of Brooklyn, who scored 92 less runs.

Someone check the Rockies' stats.

The NL didn't keep track of CS between 1916 and 1951, so we don't really have any idea how often he was caught. One interesting thing about this team, though, is the evidently great effect playing at he Baker Bowl had on these stats. The pitching staff was last in runs and last in ERA, but had an ERA+ of 99, indicating they were mediocre at worst. The hitters had more than respectable 111 OPS+, but this was just a hair better than the 110 of Brooklyn, who scored 92 less runs.

Wow. Thanks for that. They had sheep to keep the grass short, and a wall higher than the green monster, that's crazy.

Why do moles have eyes?


Oh, sorry, I thought this was the rolling random question thread.

mpmcgraw wrote:Has there ever been a team that was the best hitting yet worse pitching in terms of runs or vice versa?

I was thinking about this last night when Paul Jolovitz said that baseball is 90% pitching which I got a good laugh out of.

The '05 Reds led the league in runs scored, yet were dead last in runs allowed. They managed to finish the season 16 games under .500

Random Answer: 4