Re: Pitching or Hitting
posted at 6/11/2013 10:30 PM EDT
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.