Baseball: An Offensive Game or a Defensive Game

We are not discussing the same thing.

You continue to argue strategy and opinion and even make a claim that is impossible by rule.

I am merely referring to published and historical fact of the game's orientation.

Time to move on.

Jimmy,
I have 3 posts on this thread and you may want to re-read.
They are all based on statistical fact (BA, OBP, Runs per half inning, etc.) and none on "strategy and opinion".
Last fact: the results of the poll. These are some very savvy baseball people voting. Just maybe there's something to the other side of the argument.

I do agree it is time to move on. Hey, we agreed on something!
If your last post was not directed at me, I apologize.

quote:

I am merely referring to published and historical fact of the game's orientation.

??: 100 + years of baseball facts; The Offensive player is a superstar when succeeding 33% of the time, while defense, at it's worst, succeeds in displacing the offensive player often more than 66% of the opportunities. I'm not seeing the balance tilted(oriented in this discussion) to the offense???

Oh well, it's made for a good discussion as some of you are commenting in the "wee morning hours." It's been less contentious than talking hitting mechanics!

LOL

At upper levels of baseball, good to great pitchers are common...great hitter's are not. Extremely rare kid, a great hitter at upper levels.

So it's easier to win and or compose teams' with pitching and defense.

Very hard to compose a team of great hitter's, harder to compose a team of great hitter's that can play defense, and it's championship caliber team's that compose a team of great hitter's, that play defense, and have great pitchers.

In all sports there could be a debate about whether offense or defense is most important. Both are extremely important because teams are on defense half the time and on offense half the time.

Often it is said that 30% is great on offense. Really it is not! 30% success in batting average is great, but there are other things that pertain to offense that definitely lead to success. On Base % for the .300 hitter is sometimes .400 or better. Then there are sacs and sac flys. Then base running has to be accounted for. What about a hitter doing his job and moving the runner from 2b to 3b? That results in a negative stat even though it has a successful result.

Actually I look at baseball having three components... Offense, Defense and Pitching. The best defensive pitchers are not always the best pitchers. And I agree with something said earlier here... Pitching is really just as much about offense as it is defense. No defense against the walk! Missing the strike zone is similair in a way to missing a free throw. Making a great pitch is much like making a great pass.

They keep stats that have three separate categories.

Offense
Defense
Pitching

The goal is to be strong in all three as well as the other things that don't show up in the statistics.

quote:

They keep stats that have three separate categories.

Offense
Defense
Pitching

Yep that is correct. The correct order of importance is:

Pitching - because without good pitching the whole game is moot.

Defense - because you have to do it with at least 98-99 percent accuracy as a team to win consistently.

Hitting - because you only have to succeed on average 30% of the time as a team average to be consistent winners.

If a team wins because the opposing pitcher hits 4 straight batters is that good offense or poor defense. I'd say the win was due to poor defense and had nothing to do with offense.

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:
If a team wins because the opposing pitcher hits 4 straight batters is that good offense or poor defense. I'd say the win was due to poor defense and had nothing to do with offense.

Good point!

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:
If a team wins because the opposing pitcher hits 4 straight batters is that good offense or poor defense. I'd say the win was due to poor defense and had nothing to do with offense.

On the contrary. If I were the losing manager I would find it to be quite offensive

quote:

Originally posted by dswann:

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:
If a team wins because the opposing pitcher hits 4 straight batters is that good offense or poor defense. I'd say the win was due to poor defense and had nothing to do with offense.

On the contrary. If I were the losing manager I would find it to be quite offensive

so...back to chicken or the egg.

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:
If a team wins because the opposing pitcher hits 4 straight batters is that good offense or poor defense. I'd say the win was due to poor defense and had nothing to do with offense.

It is poor pitching. There is no defense for those kind of things.

The answer to OP is depends on who's pitching.

Jimmy,
If you could pick one player to play in the state championship game would it be a first round draft pick first baseman, or a first round pick pitcher?

Maybe another way to take a look at this:

Team A- The best offensive line up you can put together. Average pitching and average defense.

Team B- The best defensive line up you can put together. Average pitching and average offense.

Team C- The best pitching staff you can put together. Average defensive line up and average offense.

Which of these teams are you going to take with everything on the line?

And if you had to play an entire season with these teams which one are you going to take?

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:
Maybe another way to take a look at this:

Team A- The best offensive line up you can put together. Average pitching and average defense.

Team B- The best defensive line up you can put together. Average pitching and average offense.

Team C- The best pitching staff you can put together. Average defensive line up and average offense.

Which of these teams are you going to take with everything on the line?

And if you had to play an entire season with these teams which one are you going to take?

I'll take Team C.
In addition to the usual reasons: Quality pitching relaxes the entire team, gives them confidence, allows them to play closer to the best of their ability.

I have won one state title. It was with Team C.
I have had Team A a few times and they have been a heckuva lot of fun, broke tons of records but always fallen short of the big prize.

A note from an article on MLB.com today about Toronto maintaining the top 1-2 HR punch even after the Wells trade...

"Despite being baseball's signature play, home runs have not necessarily been a signifier for championship teams. In the past 26 years, only one team won the World Series after topping the Majors in homers: the 2009 Yankees.

Packing the top 1-2 punch has been an even less reliable sign of team success: The team with that distinction has captured precisely one of the past 44 World Series..."

Not using this as a solid argument as there are certainly other forms of offense, just thought is was interesting and related to the discussion.

Offense: puts fans in the stadium
Defense: wins games
Pitching & Catching: wins championships

quote:

I'll take Team C.

Actually, I wouldn't be inclined to settle for C (average defense and offense) even though it's the best alternative listed. If you have great pitching you still want "better than average" defense behind those guys (especially in the middle). Nothing worse than a great pitching staff losing games because of "average" D. So Team D; great pitching, great defense and you are ok with average offense and will probably win your Division/Region or better. With Team C, I want the GM going to work to bolster "D."

Obviously you have to build around what you have at the high school level. But, I spend a lot of time on pitching and defense. I like choice C. If you can pitch well and play good defense, you can be in any game. You do not need a great offense if you can keep the other team from scoring.

I did fudge a little calling my title team a team C. We had a dyn-0-mite catcher... Which means a good part of your defense is now not average

My sons High School team rarely hits. So far my son is averaging 1 swing a week...

quote:

Originally posted by sandiegobball:
My sons High School team rarely hits. So far my son is averaging 1 swing a week...

Is this a joke?

How many teams have lost a game where they didn't score a run? Your offense will run into at least one run eventually. They will never have the chance to do so if the defense can't stop the offense.

OLD Timer....its not a joke. Not at all...its frustrating.

At one of the local baseball workout facilities it is common to see players show up after HS practice to hit because they do not get many (any?) swings at practice. This has been going on for at least 6 years that I have experienced.

YesReally...sure there are alot of teams that dont hit enough. But the problem I see is a lack of coaches leadership or whatever you want to call it...the coaches dont tell them to swing on their own. How hard would it be to tell your players to take 100 - 200 swings on the off days? Mostly what gets me is high school coaches practices you will see way too many kids standing around talking and laughing it up. They dont do stations enough...one hitting, one fielding, and one hitting in the cage (for example).

My sons high school doesnt do well in sports. A local teams coach has his boys take 150 swings a day, practice or not, and his teams win everything. He is also a hall of fame coach...or whatever they give high school coaches.

My son likes his school so not much I can do about it. I just make sure his grades are good and he trys hard at baseball. Maybe some college coach will take his coaches into consideration?

I wouldn't blame the coaches so much as I do players. By the time you reach high school and are good enough to make a high school roster you really should take it upon yourself to work on your game. You also should have been told that fact for at least the 2 years leading up to high school by various coaches along the way. This is the instance where coaches, I use the term loosely, should be blamed for not preparing youngsters for the high school game. This nis done in football and basketball but baseball seems to have such a wide range of coaches good to bad that young players are often hurt by people trying to coach. Anyway back to the thread topic, if you do not allow the other team to score you cannot lose, might not win but you cannot lose and good pitching and defense are the key to that.

most 16 year old kids i know arent out working hard doing anything. If a coach cant ask the kids to hit that arent hard workers then he is being lazy himself. We cant just say..."they should want it and do it on their own". If a coach wants to win, he will have the boys doing what they are supposed to be doing, whether they like it or not.

quote:

Originally posted by oldmanmoses:
I wouldn't blame the coaches so much as I do players. By the time you reach high school and are good enough to make a high school roster you really should take it upon yourself to work on your game. You also should have been told that fact for at least the 2 years leading up to high school by various coaches along the way. This is the instance where coaches, I use the term loosely, should be blamed for not preparing youngsters for the high school game. This nis done in football and basketball but baseball seems to have such a wide range of coaches good to bad that young players are often hurt by people trying to coach. Anyway back to the thread topic, if you do not allow the other team to score you cannot lose, might not win but you cannot lose and good pitching and defense are the key to that.

quote:

Reply

well to be honest as a 16 year old you are what, a junior in high school? As a junior in high school if your work ethic is not there,ie.. working solo to improve your game, grades ect.. then there is a different problem altogether then not enough swings at your high school practice. Most young players whos game improves dramaticlly have worked their butts off solo or with one or two friends.Since most high school coaches have niether the time, facillities or knowledge to really give each and every player on a high school team what they need it is imperative that players take it upon themselves.

We never relied on high school coaches, or any other coach for that matter to help our sons develop their game. I was always throwing with them and doct tossing to them, catching them up as they worked on pitching.

We supplemented that with trips to the coin operated batting cages. Eventually ( by the time they were 11) I took them to hitting instructors, because they showed promise.

We continued to seek private instruction throughout their high school years. My guys would work at their practice then drive an hour or so for private instruction.

If you want to improve, it is your individual responsibility.

Once you reach HS the players either have the desire to be great or they dont. I spend my time on the players that want to be great. The ones that dont have the desire can do something else. Why would I take one second away from helping a player with the determination and desire to be great and spend it on someone that is lazy and doesnt want to work?

FF is right. Dont leave it up to someone else. If they are getting great instruction and coaching from the hs coach great. There is still a lot you can do. And if they are not then step up and follow FF's game plan. It has worked out pretty good for his son and many others.

There are always ways a player with true desire, can work on things on his own. Before son started taking private lessons, he took the advice from our former Head Coach, from a clinic, that he held. ie: diet, exercise, strengthening & conditioning, practicing footwork, working on speed, standing in front of his dresser mirror practicing his swing / pitch in steps, purchaced his own tee stand & would hit buckets of balls into the fence, same with pitching. Grab his brothers, father, friend or neighbor & play catch or field balls. And he'd read up on it & watch videos on it.

If a kid really wants to improve, to challenge himself...they'll stop making excuses and find a way. Not a bad lesson to learn either...depend on yourself. JMO

MLB doesn't draft, sign defensive players, even the catcher has to put up numbers offensively. Take Bryce Harper, did anyone hear about his defense, no it was all about his bat.

The Mariners recently signed a Japanese shortstop that was noted more for defense, the reality is they couldn't afford a shortstop that could hit.

I know many will disagree, now youth and HS ball might be pitching and defense but good hitters are a rarity.

Coach_May: you have a PM

quote:

MLB doesn't draft, sign defensive players, even the catcher has to put up numbers offensively.

This is probably generally true. But I can think ofa good counterexample: in 2009, the Mariners used their first pick for a defensive catcher out of a Florida high school. All the scouting reports mentioned how bad his swing was, but he was apparently a great defensive catcher.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:
Maybe another way to take a look at this:

Team A- The best offensive line up you can put together. Average pitching and average defense.

Team B- The best defensive line up you can put together. Average pitching and average offense.

Team C- The best pitching staff you can put together. Average defensive line up and average offense.

Which of these teams are you going to take with everything on the line?

And if you had to play an entire season with these teams which one are you going to take?

We all would want to have a team with excellent pitching and defense coupled with the best offense- that is the goal and is what teams work on- getting better at those three things. Of course my natural selection here would have been "C". But in truth I am going with "A" after some experience at coaching the game. Years ago, when son was in little league I had the opportunity along with two other parents to put together a travel all-star team to represent the local little league. We realized that the best tool our league had was it's offensive capability. The defense was average and so was the pitching. Thus, we built a team around having the best offense believing that a better offense, will, on average, beat both good defense and good pitching. In practice we pretty much just focused on hitting and running the bases.

Over the course of that summer we went 22-3 with 2 of those losses happening in the championship game of a tournament. In quite a lot of those games the opposing pitching was as good or better than our own, our offense was just overwhelming. Sure- they may score 5 runs on us but we would score 10 or 15 on them.

The great ability to score removes the added stress placed upon both the pitching and the defense and in the end makes them both better. I look at the Giants from this last year and they had horrible run support for their pitching. They ended up not making the playoffs because whereas they had some of the best pitching around, their offense didn't get them the wins they needed.

Scoring wins games. A good defense and pitching staff only increases the chances for the offense to win.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:

quote:

MLB doesn't draft, sign defensive players, even the catcher has to put up numbers offensively.

This is probably generally true. But I can think ofa good counterexample: in 2009, the Mariners used their first pick for a defensive catcher out of a Florida high school. All the scouting reports mentioned how bad his swing was, but he was apparently a great defensive catcher.

ML catchers do not necessarily have to have a great bat, more important things come into play at that level and I think maybe (my opinion) the needs may lie within the leagues (AL vs NL). Catchers who are good defensively and offensively play everyday.

Coach May good question. HS or above, pitching becomes the main focus, ever wonder why pitchers get bigger scholarships and get drafted more often and paid better professionally. But you need run support, that's why the big boppers get the biggest bucks.

In reality, it's very rare to have both hitting and pitching working for you at the same time, but when it comes together, you win games. Just think STL Cardinals.

Skylark does bring up a good point, runs produced removes pressure off of the pitcher but great pitching removes the pressure off of hitting as well. It works both ways much of the time.

This is one reason why I love this game, the outcomes expected usually don't always depend on offense or defense, but rather what transpires in the clubhouse.

I went for Offense. I believe it is far easier to play the game with a lead, thereby placing a premium on scoring runs. Pitchers can attack more, fielders play loose, hitters tend to be more patient. Defense is a given, or a liability, depending on the team. Plenty of "routine" plays in the field, not so many routine hits.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:…
Often it is said that 30% is great on offense. Really it is not! 30% success in batting average is great, but there are other things that pertain to offense that definitely lead to success. On Base % for the .300 hitter is sometimes .400 or better. Then there are sacs and sac flys. Then base running has to be accounted for. What about a hitter doing his job and moving the runner from 2b to 3b? That results in a negative stat even though it has a successful result.

Inn general you’re correct because most people only consider the “old style” metrics. But for those like myself who actually have a metric that measures moving runners, moving a runner from 2nd to 3rd would almost always be a positive.

quote:

They keep stats that have three separate categories.

Offense
Defense
Pitching

The goal is to be strong in all three as well as the other things that don't show up in the statistics.

Again, I agree that the goal is to statistically do as well as possible in all metrics, but each one has to be viewed in relation to the player. FI, when looking at all player in the league, its unlikely there will be many slow afoot player leading the list in stolen bases. But that doesn’t reflect the ability run the bases well, so it may be that one of the slowest players is the best at taking that extra base or giving pitchers fits with their leadoffs.

My point is, unless one is looking only at one specific part of the game in order to make judgments about players to rank them, many different metrics need to be analyzed together, rather than by themselves.