Pitching or Hitting

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from youkillus. Show youkillus's posts

    Pitching or Hitting

    Conventional wisdom always points to the pitching when it comes to team success, but is it right? There are 15 teams in the AL, the top seven in pitching (runs per game allowed) include two teams with losing records. (KC and CWS). Meanwhile the top seven teams in offense (Runs scored per game) have just one team with a losing record. (Cle) Quality is perhaps measured better with run differential:

    Det 1.31   35-27

    Bos 1.30  40-25

    Tex 0.70   38-25

    Oak 0.63   38-27

    TBR 0.40   34-29

    NYY 0.25   37-26

    Bal 0.22   36-28

    SInce you can't win without scoring, offense is primary to pitching, although pitching is VERY important.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Pitching or Hitting

    It's about balance and timely hitting and timely pitching.

    For people who put too much emphasis on pitching, if you don't have enough hitting, what's the difference between losing 2-1 or 12-10.

    And like I said, it's about timely pitching and hitting. Teh Sox gave up five runs in games they won 17-5 and 10-5 recently. Giving up five runs in a game is a lot but in those games, what did it matter.

    Last night, when the Sox scored six runs in the first inning, Lackey didn't need to be perfect. He could get away with giving up some runs. Unfortunately, the Sox pitching kept leaking all game and they needed the hitting to come through.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but teams that are loaded on one side -- offense, defense, pitching, hitting -- rarely win anything. I'm sure there have been exceptions, but overall, it's about balance. And even championship teams that might have had a strong edge on one side or another, they were totally miserable on the other side.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Pitching or Hitting

     

    It's about balance and timely hitting and timely pitching.

    exactly roy

     

    For people who put too much emphasis on pitching, if you don't have enough hitting,

    what's the difference between losing 2-1 or 12-10.

    about 1 1/2 hours ;-)

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Pitching or Hitting

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

     

    It's about balance and timely hitting and timely pitching.

    exactly roy

     

    For people who put too much emphasis on pitching, if you don't have enough hitting,

    what's the difference between losing 2-1 or 12-10.

    about 1 1/2 hours ;-)



    Very true.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Pitching or Hitting

    For people who put too much emphasis on pitching, if you don't have enough hitting, what's the difference between losing 2-1 or 12-10.

    Actually, if you keep the score low, you will likely have more close games that allow you a chance to win more often than a buch of 12-10 type scores. If you go back in history, almost all the teams that win much more games than their run differential dictated they should, did so with great pitching (and of course timely hitting).

    The timely hitting argument is well supported, but it is very hard to build a team of "timely hitters", since it is not a sustainable skill (if it is really a skill at all in baseball).

    I agree that lopsided teams rarely go all the way.

    I'm greatly encouraged by our balance.

    By the way, our mean runs scored is becomming more and more a solid 5, and is not far away from being 6!

    Runs scored this year:

    0-4: 29

    5:      5

    6+:  31

    We are four 6 run games away from a mean of 6!

    Runs allowed:

    0-2:  21

    3:     12

    4:       9

    5+:   23

    Our mean allowed is 3!

    Sox4ever

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Pitching or Hitting

    In response to youkillus' comment:

    Conventional wisdom always points to the pitching when it comes to team success, but is it right? There are 15 teams in the AL, the top seven in pitching (runs per game allowed) include two teams with losing records. (KC and CWS). Meanwhile the top seven teams in offense (Runs scored per game) have just one team with a losing record. (Cle) Quality is perhaps measured better with run differential:

    Det 1.31   35-27

    Bos 1.30  40-25

    Tex 0.70   38-25

    Oak 0.63   38-27

    TBR 0.40   34-29

    NYY 0.25   37-26

    Bal 0.22   36-28

    SInce you can't win without scoring, offense is primary to pitching, although pitching is VERY important.



    You can bash your way into the playoffs; that much is clear. Once you get there you must have better than average pitching to have much of a chance at a championship-which is the goal, right? Here are two good articles supporting the fact that pitching is more important than hitting overall:

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=120

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-almost-always-wins-championships/

    In the second article the relevant conclusion is this:

    "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 A’s. 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 they’ll 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).

    I think this really hammers home the point that pitching really does win championships; that you need at least an adequate stable of arms to have a prayer. Trying to win the Fall Classic without league-average pitching has proven to be about as fruitful as attempting to drive a car without gas. You’re not going to get very far. So, if you had to choose which is more important between offense and pitching, the answer is obvious: run prevention."

    That is why the Red Sox need to improve their pitching to compete for a ring. We were 12th in ERA last year in the league. What did we do to improve our pitching THIS YEAR that is cause for celebration? Not enough IMO.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from youkillus. Show youkillus's posts

    Re: Pitching or Hitting

    That is why the Red Sox need to improve their pitching to compete for a ring. We were 12th in ERA last year in the league. What did we do to improve our pitching THIS YEAR that is cause for celebration? Not enough IMO.

    [/QUOTE]


    As far as improving the pitching, much comes from guys just doing what their capable of, Buch and Lesterespecially. Replacing the revolving door of starters with better performances from 4-5 also adds up. I'm not surprised by the improvement, even without major additions.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Pitching or Hitting

    You need a combination of both. All you need to do is score more runs than you give up , or give up fewer than you score.  The thing with good pitching is that it probably is more consistent. The hitting can come and go at times. 

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Pitching or Hitting

    In response to youkillus' comment:

    That is why the Red Sox need to improve their pitching to compete for a ring. We were 12th in ERA last year in the league. What did we do to improve our pitching THIS YEAR that is cause for celebration? Not enough IMO.




    As far as improving the pitching, much comes from guys just doing what their capable of, Buch and Lesterespecially. Replacing the revolving door of starters with better performances from 4-5 also adds up. I'm not surprised by the improvement, even without major additions.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Buch is capable of great things IMO IF HE CAN STAY HEALTHY. I have my doubts. As for Lester, we all saw what he is capable of doing tonite. He is only a #4 SP now, not more. His ERA is 4.12 now and climbing rapidly. Every single time his team needs a big effort he delivers an egg. We have no #2; we have no #3. We have three #4s and Doubront. The record is good now; its not going to end up much over .500.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Pitching or Hitting

    In response to royf19's comment:

    It's about balance and timely hitting and timely pitching.

    For people who put too much emphasis on pitching, if you don't have enough hitting, what's the difference between losing 2-1 or 12-10.

    And like I said, it's about timely pitching and hitting. Teh Sox gave up five runs in games they won 17-5 and 10-5 recently. Giving up five runs in a game is a lot but in those games, what did it matter.

    Last night, when the Sox scored six runs in the first inning, Lackey didn't need to be perfect. He could get away with giving up some runs. Unfortunately, the Sox pitching kept leaking all game and they needed the hitting to come through.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but teams that are loaded on one side -- offense, defense, pitching, hitting -- rarely win anything. I'm sure there have been exceptions, but overall, it's about balance. And even championship teams that might have had a strong edge on one side or another, they were totally miserable on the other side.



    All due respect, Roy, but that answer is a cop out.  The question was pitching or hitting.  When you say both, you are asking for everything.  Like the Sox in 2007 when they had a very good team ERA and the best hitting in the AL.  That's just too easy.

    I have always thought good pitching tops good hitting, but the problem with that thesis is it's impossible to sustain really good pitching in MLB today.  The hitters have all the advantages, and, if pitchers get that good, they will lower the mound or make them throw with their backs to the plate or something. 

    The reality is that during the regular season good hitting is a better predictor of success--winning games--than good pitching.  The OP is dead right, and I have seen this phenomenon in other seasons and commented on it.  In the playoffs, 2 or 3 really good starters can make a heckuva difference, but even in the playoffs its usually the "hot" team that wins it all.   

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share