Offense. If you can't hit you don't play. Like others have said, you can't win if you don't score.
OK so if you can't win without scoring how to you account for you can't lose if you never give anything up?
Starts to become a Chicken and egg debate at that level.
The reality is hitting a baseball well and with power is a very rare skill it has a very high premium placed on it as a result. Any list of the greatest players of all time will usually have Ruth, Williams, Cobb, Mays, and Aaron in the mix. Rarely will folks start with Young, Johnson, Feller etc.
Starts to become a Chicken and egg debate at that level.
The reality is hitting a baseball well and with power is a very rare skill it has a very high premium placed on it as a result. Any list of the greatest players of all time will usually have Ruth, Williams, Cobb, Mays, and Aaron in the mix. Rarely will folks start with Young, Johnson, Feller etc.
In every game, somebody wins by scoring a run. No ties allowed. 0-0 in the 20th inning. Keep playing. You gotta score to win.
Ties are allowed and have happened. Rule 2.0
How many in the history? Not enough to make a difference IMO. How many were 0-0? Even fewer.
Just don't think there is any right answer.
The Dodgers of the 1960's were all pitching/defense and some speed used to win low scoring games.
The Giants of 2010 vs the Phillies and Rangers in the post-season was pitching and defense against wonderful offense and hitting.
In fact, with their park, AT&T, the Giants' model is pitching and defense. It didn't work well in 2011 when the best of their offense in Buster Posey and Freddie Sanchez had season ending injuries. AT&T hinders the Giants from attracting top hitters apparently so they built a wonderful pitching staff, deep in starters and the pen and play defense to win. As the 2010 series shows, it wins, but the margins for error can be thin for sure.
The 2011 CWS with South Carolina...not the best hitting, but great pitching and great defense, low scoring and very exciting, very well played baseball as was discussed last June.
If this gets measured in $$$, Lincecum is again back in arbitration. Some commentators are suggesting $20,000,000, or more, absent an agreement to avoid arbitration.
The Dodgers of the 1960's were all pitching/defense and some speed used to win low scoring games.
The Giants of 2010 vs the Phillies and Rangers in the post-season was pitching and defense against wonderful offense and hitting.
In fact, with their park, AT&T, the Giants' model is pitching and defense. It didn't work well in 2011 when the best of their offense in Buster Posey and Freddie Sanchez had season ending injuries. AT&T hinders the Giants from attracting top hitters apparently so they built a wonderful pitching staff, deep in starters and the pen and play defense to win. As the 2010 series shows, it wins, but the margins for error can be thin for sure.
The 2011 CWS with South Carolina...not the best hitting, but great pitching and great defense, low scoring and very exciting, very well played baseball as was discussed last June.
If this gets measured in $$$, Lincecum is again back in arbitration. Some commentators are suggesting $20,000,000, or more, absent an agreement to avoid arbitration.
All I know is that I have never heard of a game where the team that didn't score a run, won. Forfeits aside, but aren't they officially 7-0 scores?
Plus the best reason ever. Chicks dig the long ball!
Plus the best reason ever. Chicks dig the long ball!
quote:All I know is that I have never heard of a game where the team that didn't score a run, won
I am pretty sure we are coming at this a different way. From what you posted, is 1-0 an offensive game or a defensive game?
The Giants are going on their 3rd straight season of selling out AT&T every game. Plenty of "chicks" at AT&T, plenty!
Just a guess but I would expect Lincecum and Clayton Kershaw have all the "chicks" that might also find the "long ball."
Unless my memory is fading quicker than I thought, there seemed to be plenty of "chicks" in Omaha cheering for South Carolina last June.
IMO, if you score more runs you are a better offensive team. Plus a better team overall because you won. And the only way to win is to score more runs. Circular logic at its best. And I would consider a 1-0 game just as offensive minded as a 10-9 game. I have seen shut outs where the opposing team killed the ball. Just happened to hit it at fielders all day.
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:quote:All I know is that I have never heard of a game where the team that didn't score a run, won
From what you posted, is 1-0 an offensive game or a defensive game?
Good point and good post.
Baseball is an offensive as well as a defensive game, there is no one right answer.
Pretty interesting about South Carolina, they, like FSU, used to build their team on offense, had trouble getting to the dance for a few years, made a change, got two championships out of it.
Thanks for the explanation.
I can see and understand your perspective.
I am looking at this from the make up of a roster and how that team performs over 56 games, 144 games in Milb, or 162 and playoffs in MLB.
Taken in the context of a full season, I see South Carolina winning with pitching and spectacular defense, with enough offense to get the job done for 56 games, an SEC schedule, a Regional, Super Regional and CWS.
Same with the 2010 Giants.
I sure would not say my context is right, just the way I view baseball.
One thing I do know is that in college and Milb, good baseball players, whether they hit the long ball or not, don't have any difficulty with an active social life.
I can see and understand your perspective.
I am looking at this from the make up of a roster and how that team performs over 56 games, 144 games in Milb, or 162 and playoffs in MLB.
Taken in the context of a full season, I see South Carolina winning with pitching and spectacular defense, with enough offense to get the job done for 56 games, an SEC schedule, a Regional, Super Regional and CWS.
Same with the 2010 Giants.
I sure would not say my context is right, just the way I view baseball.
One thing I do know is that in college and Milb, good baseball players, whether they hit the long ball or not, don't have any difficulty with an active social life.
quote:Originally posted by Doughnutman:
IMO, if you score more runs you are a better offensive team. Plus a better team overall because you won. And the only way to win is to score more runs. Circular logic at its best. And I would consider a 1-0 game just as offensive minded as a 10-9 game. I have seen shut outs where the opposing team killed the ball. Just happened to hit it at fielders all day.
Are you referring to metal or wood bats being used?
The game changes dramatically when the bat component does.
I don't think, in general, coaches prefer high scoring games.
I am referring to any game, TPM. It is just my opinion. If you outscore your opponent, you win. It doesn't matter who had the better pitcher or defense. If you don't have more runs, you lose, and the way to get runs on the board is to be offensive. To me that is the only thing that matters.
Interesting the South Carolina team is mentioned because they are simply one of the best college teams I have ever seen. Well-coached, outstanding discipline, and they DO NOT beat themselves first and foremost. Scott Wingo had a dominant defensive performance from his second base position alone and made many series winning plays.
quote:Originally posted by Doughnutman:
I am referring to any game, TPM. It is just my opinion. If you outscore your opponent, you win. It doesn't matter who had the better pitcher or defense. If you don't have more runs, you lose, and the way to get runs on the board is to be offensive. To me that is the only thing that matters.
DM,
Your explanation illustrates how and where we diverge, especially against the back drop CD's comments on Wingo and the 2011 CWS.
While South Carolina scored enough runs by one to win, Wingo made so many great plays. His efforts over 9 innings(actually over more than that) kept the game/games in a position so his team only needed one run to win.
To me, the game is so much fun because it is how each inning, each AB, is played by 9 different players/hitters for 9 innings, 56 games, 144 or 162 games.
Looked at differently, in the final game of the 2010 WS, Brian Wilson got the K to end it and win the series for the Giants. Does his getting the save and final 3 outs make that a pitcher's win/ game?
quote:Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
Interesting the South Carolina team is mentioned because they are simply one of the best college teams I have ever seen. Well-coached, outstanding discipline, and they DO NOT beat themselves first and foremost. Scott Wingo had a dominant defensive performance from his second base position alone and made many series winning plays.
CD,
Yup, their defense was outstanding. And you can't score runs if the defense is on their game.
I remember a few years ago, Coach Gilmore talking in an article about how difficult it is playing the number of games a team has to play and win to get to Omaha, and how important pitching becomes down the line.
There's just so much that goes into making a team a winner and IMO, scoring more runs doesn't mean on paper it is the better team. It's just how a team performs that day, and usually the team that plays a better game offensively AND defensively comes out ahead.
I just don't see it as being just one component.
JMO.
quote:Originally posted by Doughnutman:
To me that is the only thing that matters.
Again if that is true why do college pitchers get first offers and higher ones, and why did the cardinals not resign the best hitter in bb, and why is Prince Fielder having so much trouble finding a new team?
I don't have the answer to that, do you?
Not to get philosophical but here's another way of looking at it...
To win, you have to be offensive "minded." On defense, a team has to attack ground balls and fly balls and pitchers have to attack the strike zone. Even on defense, they are on offense. Same is true for hitters in attacking the ball and base runners taking action. The teams that win are always on "offense."
As a coach, I think I spent more time on pitching and defense though. Hitting will go up and down depending on who is pitching but your pitching, your defense, and your base running can be consistently at a high level which will give you a chance to win regardless of how good your offense is.
BaseballByTheYard
To win, you have to be offensive "minded." On defense, a team has to attack ground balls and fly balls and pitchers have to attack the strike zone. Even on defense, they are on offense. Same is true for hitters in attacking the ball and base runners taking action. The teams that win are always on "offense."
As a coach, I think I spent more time on pitching and defense though. Hitting will go up and down depending on who is pitching but your pitching, your defense, and your base running can be consistently at a high level which will give you a chance to win regardless of how good your offense is.
BaseballByTheYard
quote:Again if that is true why do college pitchers get first offers and higher ones, and why did the cardinals not resign the best hitter in bb, and why is Prince Fielder having so much trouble finding a new team?
Because baseball in an offensive game in which the goal is to score runs. Pitchers are the one player that can stop entire teams from scoring runs. Everyone else is just a component of the defense or offense. Thus pitchers have the most value.
In 2011 it was offense.
WC St Louis Cardinals.
No defense, very good offense, solid pitching and no speed team... won a World Championship.
there's something about coming together *jell* and or getting hot at the right time, that factors huge in this formula for winning teams.
WC St Louis Cardinals.
No defense, very good offense, solid pitching and no speed team... won a World Championship.
there's something about coming together *jell* and or getting hot at the right time, that factors huge in this formula for winning teams.
quote:Originally posted by Hawk19:quote:Again if that is true why do college pitchers get first offers and higher ones, and why did the cardinals not resign the best hitter in bb, and why is Prince Fielder having so much trouble finding a new team?
Because baseball in an offensive game in which the goal is to score runs. Pitchers are the one player that can stop entire teams from scoring runs. Everyone else is just a component of the defense or offense. Thus pitchers have the most value.
All great points, especially when we look at the value in terms of money.
On the other hand, the SF Giants this year have stated they are going with Brandon Crawford at shortstop because of his defense. If he can hit .230, he plays because his value is defense.
Of course it is also true his salary is the MLB minimum and they are looking at $20,000,000 for Lincecum and probably about the same for Cain.
This thread is starting to truly illustrate that while the 9 best play, how the 9 best are determined and valued and judged comes through very different views on baseball.
When players get to college and beyond, those coaching views and judgments get put under a microscope.
When a coach goes for hitting, but pitching and defense don't get the job done, like at Southern Cal for a few years, for instance, coaches get replaced.
When a coach values and teaches pitching, defense and small ball, the teams can end up in a Super Regional or CWS, like Irvine under Gillespie and Fullerton under Horton(before he left) were/ have been doing for a number of years.
quote:Originally posted by showme:
In 2011 it was offense.
WC St Louis Cardinals.
No defense, very good offense, solid pitching and no speed team... won a World Championship.
there's something about coming together *jell* and or getting hot at the right time, that factors huge in this formula for winning teams.
No secret they were struggling at both offense and defense, but I have heard that once they brought Furcal (ss) in things changed bigtime. That had been a very weak link for them. And LaRussa's game is small ball, as it is for most winning college teams (IMO).
The truth is that the Rangers by far had the better team, but in the end that factor that you speak of (getting hot at the right time) works.
pitching will always be king, eithout it you do not have a chance to win high level games, and a pitcher can stop a team almost by himself like hershiser did against the a's. he shut down a very talented team repeatedly. you have to pay for that. 2-3 big time pitchers can carry you with very little help, the nasty boys did it with the reds, drysdale/koufax, etc.
after that, two positions are paid for defense, the catcher and the shortstop. if you can hit and play plus defense in these two positions you are rare and paid very well. after that it seems that the bats play and they work you until you develop enough glove or you can't and you get traded or released. i can think of very few glove specialists that get paid big money. i can think of many bats that were marginal to acceptable that are paid very well. defense is important but it seems like they believe it can be developed with some time and work. maybe that's why aa/aa is full of great defenders who are trying to develop bats, and big bats trying to develop a position.
after that, two positions are paid for defense, the catcher and the shortstop. if you can hit and play plus defense in these two positions you are rare and paid very well. after that it seems that the bats play and they work you until you develop enough glove or you can't and you get traded or released. i can think of very few glove specialists that get paid big money. i can think of many bats that were marginal to acceptable that are paid very well. defense is important but it seems like they believe it can be developed with some time and work. maybe that's why aa/aa is full of great defenders who are trying to develop bats, and big bats trying to develop a position.
Ok let's try using facts. There are three ways for a game to end:
1) Tie
2) Forfiet
3) One team scores more runs than the other and records at least 15 outs.
Discarding the 1st two options becuase of the infrequency that they occur and focusing on the most common outcome of 9 inning games where the winning team records 27 outs baseball is somewhare between 27 times and 2 times more of a defensive game than an offensive game approximately 90% of the time.
This conclusion is drawn by using outs required to win as a numerator and runs required to win as the denominator.
In a 1-0 game you get 27/1 ratio. A team will record more than 13 runs in a game 10 or so times per season so using that number you get 27/13 or roughly a 2/1 ratio. A good offensive team will average slightly more than 5 runs per game so that ratio is 27/5 or greater than 5/1 ratio.
This discounts entirely the ways the defense aids the offense with walks, HBP, wild pitches, passed balls, balks and errors which if factored in strengthen the defensive sport argument by weaking the value of the offensive numbers.
So the only logical and provable conclusion using facts and not opinion is that baseball most typically is approximately 5 times more defensive than offensive sport.
I have enjoyed playing this game.
1) Tie
2) Forfiet
3) One team scores more runs than the other and records at least 15 outs.
Discarding the 1st two options becuase of the infrequency that they occur and focusing on the most common outcome of 9 inning games where the winning team records 27 outs baseball is somewhare between 27 times and 2 times more of a defensive game than an offensive game approximately 90% of the time.
This conclusion is drawn by using outs required to win as a numerator and runs required to win as the denominator.
In a 1-0 game you get 27/1 ratio. A team will record more than 13 runs in a game 10 or so times per season so using that number you get 27/13 or roughly a 2/1 ratio. A good offensive team will average slightly more than 5 runs per game so that ratio is 27/5 or greater than 5/1 ratio.
This discounts entirely the ways the defense aids the offense with walks, HBP, wild pitches, passed balls, balks and errors which if factored in strengthen the defensive sport argument by weaking the value of the offensive numbers.
So the only logical and provable conclusion using facts and not opinion is that baseball most typically is approximately 5 times more defensive than offensive sport.
I have enjoyed playing this game.
That is nice luv. But tell me, how do you win a game if you don't score any runs?
Rays scored 707 runs last year. Red Soxs scored 875 runs. Those additional 168 runs (more than 1 run per game) accounted for 1 less win. Red Sox pitchers gave up 737 runs, Rays pitching gave up 614 runs.
Interesting looking at last year’s WS teams. Only the Cubs made more errors than the Cardinals in the NL. Only the Twins and Oakland made more errors than the Rangers in the AL.
Offense – Cardinals scored the most runs of any team in the NL. Rangers were 3rd in the AL behind Red Sox and Yankees.
Pitching – Earned Runs - Cardinals were 7th in the NL. Rangers were 6th best in AL.
The Phillies had by far the best pitching stats last year. Giants next best. The Phillies pitchers gave up 0 runs 21 times. Next best in that stat was the Rangers who gave up 0 runs 19 times. We can safely say that the Phillies and Rangers won every one of those 40 games.
Boston led the ML in most offensive categories and did not make the playoffs. Red Sox, Yankees and Rangers were the top offensive teams in MLB. Cardinals were top offensive team in NL. Cardinals are World Champions, but just barely made the playoffs.
What does all this mean? Who knows!
IMO, everything is important. Last year it looks like offense was most important over the long run, except it didn’t work that way for Boston. Other years it has been the pitching that is most important. I would want both as well as good defense. IMO, The Yankees are one team that would benefit with better defense. # of errors and fielding % is sometimes overrated. That just tells us plays are being made. It doesn’t tell us how many plays are being made and how many potential plays are turned into hits or how many potential hits are taken away by great defense.
Interesting looking at last year’s WS teams. Only the Cubs made more errors than the Cardinals in the NL. Only the Twins and Oakland made more errors than the Rangers in the AL.
Offense – Cardinals scored the most runs of any team in the NL. Rangers were 3rd in the AL behind Red Sox and Yankees.
Pitching – Earned Runs - Cardinals were 7th in the NL. Rangers were 6th best in AL.
The Phillies had by far the best pitching stats last year. Giants next best. The Phillies pitchers gave up 0 runs 21 times. Next best in that stat was the Rangers who gave up 0 runs 19 times. We can safely say that the Phillies and Rangers won every one of those 40 games.
Boston led the ML in most offensive categories and did not make the playoffs. Red Sox, Yankees and Rangers were the top offensive teams in MLB. Cardinals were top offensive team in NL. Cardinals are World Champions, but just barely made the playoffs.
What does all this mean? Who knows!
IMO, everything is important. Last year it looks like offense was most important over the long run, except it didn’t work that way for Boston. Other years it has been the pitching that is most important. I would want both as well as good defense. IMO, The Yankees are one team that would benefit with better defense. # of errors and fielding % is sometimes overrated. That just tells us plays are being made. It doesn’t tell us how many plays are being made and how many potential plays are turned into hits or how many potential hits are taken away by great defense.
Doughnutman- Can't win if you don't record 15 outs although it's usually 27. Doesn't matter how many you score but you must record those outs for the game to end.
For those of us that luv baseball one of the reasons is there is no clock and you have to get 21 or 27 outs to win. You must complete a defensive requirement for a game to end and win. A game can never end until that is complete. You can never end a game by scoring only by meeting the defensive requiremnt. Please don't confuse walk-offs...they can only occur after the required outs are recorded. You cannot win by gettting 1 out, 5 outs or 12. But you can win by scoring that few of a number of runs at any time during the game.
In order to win a game the rules state clearly you must record a requisite number of outs AND you must score more than the other team.
So we are back to my original Chicken and egg analogy. Can't have one without the other. You must have both offense and defense to win.
The debate must move off the ridiculas absolutes becasue they do not apply. It becomes a matter of degree which I suspect is what the OP intended. IMO analysis of facts indicates that baseball is heavily weighted to the defensive side of the game. That is why I stated in my first comment on this topic that when people name the greatest players they typically start with names like Ruth, Cobb, Williams, Mays and Aaron before Young, Johnson or Matthewson. Hitting a baseball is hard and we admire those that do it exceptionally well.
For those of us that luv baseball one of the reasons is there is no clock and you have to get 21 or 27 outs to win. You must complete a defensive requirement for a game to end and win. A game can never end until that is complete. You can never end a game by scoring only by meeting the defensive requiremnt. Please don't confuse walk-offs...they can only occur after the required outs are recorded. You cannot win by gettting 1 out, 5 outs or 12. But you can win by scoring that few of a number of runs at any time during the game.
In order to win a game the rules state clearly you must record a requisite number of outs AND you must score more than the other team.
So we are back to my original Chicken and egg analogy. Can't have one without the other. You must have both offense and defense to win.
The debate must move off the ridiculas absolutes becasue they do not apply. It becomes a matter of degree which I suspect is what the OP intended. IMO analysis of facts indicates that baseball is heavily weighted to the defensive side of the game. That is why I stated in my first comment on this topic that when people name the greatest players they typically start with names like Ruth, Cobb, Williams, Mays and Aaron before Young, Johnson or Matthewson. Hitting a baseball is hard and we admire those that do it exceptionally well.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
I would want both as well as good defense.
I agree!
well the chicken or the egg pretty true 90% of the time.
WhaT's true 100% of the time is the team that "jells" and get hot at the right time, wins championships.
Defense, offense, great pitching, are non single determinding factor's if you can get the above.
and it re-enforces teams win championships, players don't.
Or another way the best ofensive, defensive, pitching team still needs to jell and get hot to win chanpionships, or the least of the big three can get hot and jell and win championships.
Jell and hot win every time.
WhaT's true 100% of the time is the team that "jells" and get hot at the right time, wins championships.
Defense, offense, great pitching, are non single determinding factor's if you can get the above.
and it re-enforces teams win championships, players don't.
Or another way the best ofensive, defensive, pitching team still needs to jell and get hot to win chanpionships, or the least of the big three can get hot and jell and win championships.
Jell and hot win every time.
quote:Originally posted by Hawk19:
Because baseball in anoffensivegame in which the goal is to score runs.
Ahhh, we finally get to the heart of the question...
Well, yes, the goal is to score runs. And the original question from the OP is...
"would you consider Baseball to be an Offensive oriented game, or a Defensive oriented game?"
So, if you look at the box score of any game, do you see more "0"s or crooked numbers? Answer - in the overwhelming majority of games, you see more zeros. So, baseball is a more defensive oriented game.
The game has to be well rounded but I would still take exceptional offense over anything else, especially if I knew I could have average pitching and average defense.
Going over stats, it appears that the best teams in baseball combine a good offense with good pitching (thats a no brainer). But, here is something interesting I found. Minus the Red Sox which had the same record as the Champiuonship Cardinals, the 4 other teams (Braves, Giants, Angels, Dodgers) that had winning records but failed to make the playoffs had these two stats in common- All 4 teams had 4 of the 6 best ERA's in baseball last year. But, all four of these teams were not in the top 10 or even- 15 for runs scored.
Now, taking the 8 best/playoff teams (including the Red Sox) only three of the 9 teams were in the top ten best ERA's in the league. Also interesting was that all 9 teams were in the top 15 for runs scored.
If I was a team manager for one of those over .500 teams that failed to make the playoffs the first thing I would look at is how to get more runs scored. In this case at least, runs scored has more impact on winning and making the playoffs versus concentrating on having the best pitching staff.
All this aside, playoff teams seem to have two things incommon- excellent offense coupled with good pitching with the offense being the main focal point.
Going over stats, it appears that the best teams in baseball combine a good offense with good pitching (thats a no brainer). But, here is something interesting I found. Minus the Red Sox which had the same record as the Champiuonship Cardinals, the 4 other teams (Braves, Giants, Angels, Dodgers) that had winning records but failed to make the playoffs had these two stats in common- All 4 teams had 4 of the 6 best ERA's in baseball last year. But, all four of these teams were not in the top 10 or even- 15 for runs scored.
Now, taking the 8 best/playoff teams (including the Red Sox) only three of the 9 teams were in the top ten best ERA's in the league. Also interesting was that all 9 teams were in the top 15 for runs scored.
If I was a team manager for one of those over .500 teams that failed to make the playoffs the first thing I would look at is how to get more runs scored. In this case at least, runs scored has more impact on winning and making the playoffs versus concentrating on having the best pitching staff.
All this aside, playoff teams seem to have two things incommon- excellent offense coupled with good pitching with the offense being the main focal point.
A friend of mine,with whom I coached Little League, used to tell the kids:
What is defense for? To win games.
What is offense for? To figure out how much you win the games by!
What is defense for? To win games.
What is offense for? To figure out how much you win the games by!
Skylark,
If you back up one year, you will see the Giant's won the WS.
They were 1st in team ERA, 15th in BA, 17th in runs scored.
If you back up one year, you will see the Giant's won the WS.
They were 1st in team ERA, 15th in BA, 17th in runs scored.
When you get down to a playoff situation, where teams are in that situation because of good offense and defense, the whole idea is to try to get as many to touch home plate as possible. In fact, most will do whatever they have to, which would include long ball, small ball, walks, hbp, anything to get on base. In most cases of loss in post season, I am not sure whether it's because of lack of runs but rather lack pitching that got you there in the first place.
With some of the responses, I am not sure how many actually realize how difficult it is to score runs in playoff situations, overall, especailly in pro baseball.
I think the Cardinals and previous year winner, Giants had similar situations, very good chemistry and got hot at the right time. For Giants, pitching was outstanding, they essentially stopped the opposition.
If pitching isn't as important, why did the Rangers just spend a small fortune on one?
With some of the responses, I am not sure how many actually realize how difficult it is to score runs in playoff situations, overall, especailly in pro baseball.
I think the Cardinals and previous year winner, Giants had similar situations, very good chemistry and got hot at the right time. For Giants, pitching was outstanding, they essentially stopped the opposition.
If pitching isn't as important, why did the Rangers just spend a small fortune on one?
Stats can be interesting to look at. Looking this morning, I ran some numbers and found that last year there was a direct correlation between between the 10 worst teams and having some of the worstr ERA's and lowest runs scored. Bad teams seem to be just bad all around, generally speaking. Good teams have some of the best ERA's coupled with the highest run productions. Of course this is pretty elementary stuff.
Where it gets interesting though is when you start looking at the run differential between losing teams and winning teams. The worst teams only averaged 4 runs per game while the best teams averaged 4.7 runs per game. The worst teams averaged a 4.278 ERA while the best teams averaged a 3.7 ERA. The differential here is that when comparing ERA to Runs scored the worst teams are -.28 while the best teams are +1.02. Let's say that you had a team with a worst 10 ERA but runs scored in the best 10. You would be +.44. Now switch it around and have a team with best ERA average and a worst run average. You would be at +.30. Now of course this is all numbers and what not but it may show that you can have a team with a poor pitching structure but good offense beat a team with a poor offense but have a good pitching staff.
Its all close really but I am still gonna give the edge to offense must be better than pitching to be a winner consistantly.
Where it gets interesting though is when you start looking at the run differential between losing teams and winning teams. The worst teams only averaged 4 runs per game while the best teams averaged 4.7 runs per game. The worst teams averaged a 4.278 ERA while the best teams averaged a 3.7 ERA. The differential here is that when comparing ERA to Runs scored the worst teams are -.28 while the best teams are +1.02. Let's say that you had a team with a worst 10 ERA but runs scored in the best 10. You would be +.44. Now switch it around and have a team with best ERA average and a worst run average. You would be at +.30. Now of course this is all numbers and what not but it may show that you can have a team with a poor pitching structure but good offense beat a team with a poor offense but have a good pitching staff.
Its all close really but I am still gonna give the edge to offense must be better than pitching to be a winner consistantly.
It's easier to DEFEND runs that it is to score them. Most baseball stats and the way the players are deployed on the field support that the game is weighted favoring the DEFENSE. That being said, the more runs you score the better the odds favor your winning.
I'm not the sure that answering which direction the game is "oriented" per the OPs question, is the same as which is the most important ingredient to have to win the most games? Could be though...
I would argue, as someone did early in this thread, that the important element of Pitching, is actually more of an OFFENSIVE position. In other "ball" sports, the player putting the ball into play is, in fact, on the offensive team. The serve in Tennis is considered to be an advantage for the server. A well placed serve/pitch by the Pitcher is certainly an advantage for his teams offense needs in that they only have to score more runs than he allows!
The way a pitcher plays offense for us is to enter the ball into play in a manner that limits the offensive opportunities for the opposing team. He's not situated on the field in an advantageous defensive position. If that were the case, he'd back up another 30' or so allowing him better reaction times to the batted ball as do the other seven in the field with him.
I still argue, per the question, that baseball is a DEFENSE oriented/weighted game thus the most favorable talents are those needed for Offense, just like the other sports....
I'm not the sure that answering which direction the game is "oriented" per the OPs question, is the same as which is the most important ingredient to have to win the most games? Could be though...
I would argue, as someone did early in this thread, that the important element of Pitching, is actually more of an OFFENSIVE position. In other "ball" sports, the player putting the ball into play is, in fact, on the offensive team. The serve in Tennis is considered to be an advantage for the server. A well placed serve/pitch by the Pitcher is certainly an advantage for his teams offense needs in that they only have to score more runs than he allows!
The way a pitcher plays offense for us is to enter the ball into play in a manner that limits the offensive opportunities for the opposing team. He's not situated on the field in an advantageous defensive position. If that were the case, he'd back up another 30' or so allowing him better reaction times to the batted ball as do the other seven in the field with him.
I still argue, per the question, that baseball is a DEFENSE oriented/weighted game thus the most favorable talents are those needed for Offense, just like the other sports....
I do know that when it comes to HS baseball, unearned runs kill teams and often separate the good teams from the bad teams. As you go on up and get into professional levels though it becomes less and less of an issue because the defense has enough practice that they generally don't have lots of errors.
quote:Originally posted by Skylark:
I do know that when it comes to HS baseball, unearned runs kill teams and often separate the good teams from the bad teams. As you go on up and get into professional levels though it becomes less and less of an issue because the defense has enough practice that they generally don't have lots of errors.
Skylark; the real difference is that at the College level, after HS, everyone can play defense or they wouldn't be there! Practice isn't the differentiator (ick), talent is. If everyone is a good defensive player, as most are at the high levels, then the great seperator and what gets them into the line-up is HITTING!
quote:Originally posted by Prime9:quote:Originally posted by Skylark:
I do know that when it comes to HS baseball, unearned runs kill teams and often separate the good teams from the bad teams. As you go on up and get into professional levels though it becomes less and less of an issue because the defense has enough practice that they generally don't have lots of errors.
Skylark; the real difference is that at the College level, after HS, everyone can play defense or they wouldn't be there! Practice isn't the differentiator (ick), talent is. If everyone is a good defensive player, as most are at the high levels, then the great seperator and what gets them into the line-up is HITTING!
Great point Prime!
Skylark, all good points made by everyone, but it is really hard to compare HS vs college vs pro.
You did mention something that caught my eye, most of the teams on the bottom are not good in either category. Keep in mind that some of these teams do not have the $$ to by the talent that other teams do. I always think it best to compare the current contenders, which would mean any team heading to post season.
Interesting point on the pitcher, as many do put balls into play for outs.
The great part about it all is the unpredictability, which makes October so interesting.
JMO.
I keep waiting for the Royals to make a splash. their Farm system seems quite good. Offensively they been climbing the ladder but it seems that all the focus has been on offense and no pitching. 
I do have a question- Do you guys think it is easier to get good hitters wanting on a team if they know other good hitters will be on the team or are they looking for good pitching? What about the pitchers- Are they looking to fit into a good pitching rotation or are they looking mainly at what kind of offense the team has? Or is it all just about the money? I know for some its about just getting on a winning team or a playoff team.
I do have a question- Do you guys think it is easier to get good hitters wanting on a team if they know other good hitters will be on the team or are they looking for good pitching? What about the pitchers- Are they looking to fit into a good pitching rotation or are they looking mainly at what kind of offense the team has? Or is it all just about the money? I know for some its about just getting on a winning team or a playoff team.