Why would my comparisons need to go past WHIP? It is by far the most telling statistic for a pitcher. But if you'd like to also compare ERA and opponents BA:
Dickey's 2003 ERA: 5.09
Ortiz's 2003 ERA: 5.20
Dickey's 2003 Opp. BA: .292
Ortiz's 2003 Opp. BA: .287
So Dickey's 2003 stats were significantly better in both WHIP and ERA (the two most telling statistics for a pitcher) and *slightly* worse for batting average against (and really a .005 pt difference in batting average is miniscule compared to the difference in WHIP/ERA).
So after all of those 2003 stats showing that Dickey is certainly the more effective pitcher, I also throw in spring training stats that show that Ortiz has gotten completely DESTROYED in spring training with a horrendous 1.85 WHIP, while Dickey has been OUSTANDING in spring training with a stellar 1.18 WHIP.
Now tell me again why it shouldn't be Ortiz trying to hold a candle to Dickey?
As for comparing the pitching staffs faced to see what offenese are under/over performing -- if you ignore this its akin to saying "Well the Angels hit 10 HR's off a guy with 15.00 ERA while the Rangers hit just 1 HR off a guy with a career 0.95 ERA". You have to compare the strengths of pitchers faced to get a realistic idea of how good/bad the offenses fared.
No one, and I mean no one can make a case that the Seattle staff and Oakland staff are both considered "decent".
Seattle WHIP's faced by Anaheim: 1.31, 1.25, 1.30
Oakland WHIP's faced by Texas: 1.18, 1.26, 1.22
WHIP doesn't alter that much from game to game, so those differences are *VERY* significant -- and I think you would have trouble finding anyone that considers the Seattle top 3 in the same league as the Oakland top 3.
That being said, lets look at how each team fared against those pitchers:
Angels vs Garcia (lifetime 1.31 WHIP): 0.85 WHIP produced -- 35.5% worse than what the average team does versus Garcia.
Angels vs Piniero (lifetime 1.25 WHIP): 3.25 WHIP produced -- 160% better than what the average team does versus Piniero.
Angels vs Moyer (lifetime 1.30 WHIP): 1.70 WHIP produced -- 35% better than what the average team does versus Moyer.
Rangers vs Zito (lifetime 1.18 WHIP): 1.375 WHIP produced -- 16.5% better than what the average team does versus Zito.
Rangers vs Mulder (lifetime 1.26 WHIP): 0.85 WHIP produced -- 33% worse than what the average team does versus Mulder.
Rangers vs Hudson (lifetime 1.22 WHIP): 1.80 WHIP produced -- 48% better than what the average team does versus Hudson.
So we'll consider the Angels 35.5% worse performance (versus Garcia) and the Rangers 33% worse performance (versus Mulder) a wash with a *slight* edge to the Rangers.
We can also consider the Angels 35% better performance (versus Moyer) and the Rangers 48% better performance (versus Hudson) a wash with a *slight* edge to the Rangers.
So that leaves the Angels performance versus Piniero and the Rangers performance versus Zito as the deciding factor of which offense truly shined and which offense truly struggled -- the Angels demolished Piniero while the Rangers only hit Zito 15% better than the average team. However Zito's WHIP was produced in over 250 more innings than Piniero's, so I think its safe to say Zito is significantly a better pitcher (and the odds put on these pitchers reflect that).
So as I said before, the Angels offensive performance against Seattle pitching was better than the Rangers performance against Oakland pitching -- but when you look at the opponents faced, the performance gap wasn't so large.
