In response to Drewski5's comment:
In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
Easy to find this article. Turns out the standard was "at least league average" in ERA+. There have only been three teams during the period of 100+ years they measured that won a ring, but many more teams with great pitching but mediocre hitting won rings. Where has our pitching been since 2009 and how much has been done to improve it this year...or in 2015? If you do not want to look at the article itself, here is the sobering conclusion:
What you should notice immediately is the plethora of dots above the red line which delineates an average pitching team (ERA+ of 100 or more) and a below average pitching team (ERA+ below 100). There have only been three teams in 106 chances who have won a World Series when their regular season ERA+ was less than 100. They are the 1987 Minnesota Twins, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals and the 1913 Philadelphia AâÂÂÂÂs. A team of below-average pitching has only won it all 2.83 percent of the time, which I personally find to be mind-blowing.
More often than not, the team that wins it all is going to land in the top right portion of the graph, which means theyâÂÂÂÂll have both good pitching and good hitting. But, a team can be below average offensively and still win it all, as 33 of the 106 winners have proven (33.02% percent).
Good article from Hardball Times follows:
And if you need more proof that good pitching is nearly essential to winning rings, one more article:
First of all: having teams dating back to 1907 weakens the arguement. Different game back then. Cross generational comparisons are almost always flawed.
Secondly: this just shows that teams have a very low chance of winning it all with less than average pitching. "Great pitching" is ERA+ of 120. I see more dots below that line than above it.
Of course you are more likely to win w/ subpar offense than subpar pitching because a guy like Verlander (3 games in a seven game series) can carry you all the way to a championship.
You make some points. Pitching certainly helps. But to imply that we arent going anywhere without great pitching is false. We arent going anywhere without at least average pitching is a far more accurate statement and the one supported by your graph.
However, dont marginalize offense. If you throw out the outliers (the teams that have had HOF top of the rotation pitchers), you need offense and pitching.
Offense is half the battle. And its the half thats easier to predict. If you listed the top 10 offensive teams next year, you would probably get 7 right. If you tried to list the top 10 pitching teams next year, youd be lucky to get 5.
Pitching is a crapshoot. Offense is predictable. Focus on your offense and cross your fingers on the pitching, because its a total crapshoot.
Just going back to the cross-generation thing, since we started the expanded playoff format, there have been 18 seasons. Using the AL, since I don't know if you have identical claims in the NL, and the RS play in the AL, of 18 teams that lead the league in hitting, 14 made the playoffs and 3 won the WS. Of the 18 that lead the league in ERA, 11 made the playoffs and 2 won the WS.
Everything on this will be SSS, but that favors the hitting.