Defense or Bats?

[soxfan34]

I know there are multiple individual posts out there on each of these topics, but what do you truly feel is the best method for designing an offense--is it having top notch defenders and key (or all) positions, or is it the "moneyball" method of just putting solid hitters out there, regardless of their defense. I personally have had more success with the former, but have yet to test either extensively over long periods.

[snepp]

There's nothing "moneyball" about disregarding defense.

[soxfan34]

Originally Posted by snepp

There's nothing "moneyball" about disregarding defense.

I didn't say that. If you follow Beane's method that season, though, he clearly put OBP/hitting ahead of defense. See Hatteberg @ 1B.

[Ceej]

Either approach could be considered a "moneyball" method depending on what the other front offices are doing. In 2009, slick fielders were considered the big undervalued commodity:

The value of the long ball has gone up, sending the - 04.16.12 - SI Vault

[Fyrestorm3]

Personally, it takes a hell of a player to make me disregard a terrible fielding rating, though I have done it.

[BIG17EASY]

Strong defense up the middle -- catcher, shortstop, center field -- and build your lineup around strong hitters at the corner spots, both infield and outfield.

[soxfan34]

Originally Posted by Ceej

Either approach could be considered a "moneyball" method depending on what the other front offices are doing. In 2009, slick fielders were considered the big undervalued commodity:

The value of the long ball has gone up, sending the - 04.16.12 - SI Vault

Nice find!

Interesting quote from that article: "Early in 2012, some have decided that while it's nice to have players who can routinely catch the ball, it's even nicer to have those who can routinely crush it."

[The Wolf]

There are two basic Moneyball philosophies, one strategic and one tactical.

The strategic one is to identify and acquire undervalued assets and to identify or even manufacture overvalued ones that can be sold at a profit (see "Selling the Closer").

The tactical one is to identify and acquire players who get on base a lot, because a high team on base percentage means that your team will score a lot of runs and runs are what wins games.

The Moneyball objective is do have the lowest cost per win.

[Charlie Hough]

Defense and pitching. Period.

Defense and pitching will nearly always win out over any amount of offense. The rare exceptions merely prove the rule. And I can assure you that this approach leads to dominance in any baseball sim that has ever been developed. I have played probably a dozen or more over a period of 35 years, and this approach has NEVER failed.

Good pitching and defense not only limit an opposing team's offense, but they can render an opponent's good pitching and defense a moot point because it can't score. So it has a triple impact, whereas merely having a good offense is not very effective at overcoming flaws in both defense and pitching. And offense is generally where the big dollars are spent and wasted.

I would put excellent pitching and defense, combined with an average offense, against any lineup full of elite sluggers who are bad fielders and have mediocre pitchers as teammates.

[The Game]

I favor offense over defense at certain positions. My SS .367 11 HR 90 RBI 154 R 103 SB 23 CS 29 E. AL MVP (clone of Eddie Collins) I have better defensive 2B who also hit really well. My C's tend to have strong arms and I will sacrifice offense there. My 3B also. My 1B is a clone of Big Mac 1988. I have the best 3 SP in my league 2nd best overall. Rick Helling is my #4. 2004 season. My RF is great on offense but has no range and a below avg arm.

[awick]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

I would put excellent pitching and defense, combined with an average offense, against any lineup full of elite sluggers who are bad fielders and have mediocre pitchers as teammates.

In my long expereience in many baseball simulations, Charlie Hough is absolutely right.

In OOTP, EVERY time I take over a new team the first thing I do is upgrade my fielding -- at every position, if I can, but especially the key positions (catcher, short, second, and center). [As an aside, bad teams most notably are bad defensive teams.] This has the immediate effect of upgrading my pitching as ALL pitching statistics improve along with the defense.

Next, I look for opprotunities to upgrade my pitching too.

And longer term, I evolve my club to greater strength by upgrading it offensively as opportunities arise, always maintaining my defense and pitching.

[ELDoro]

I prefer offense. But offense usually costs more than defense. Like someone else already mentioned I have had success with building a team around defense and pitching.

[MrDov]

Although I don't follow advanced fielding stats (mainly cause I don't fully understand them so I'd be guessing) I do check my players' basic fielding ratings. A player won't receive (significant) playtime unless he has good fielding ratings.

[jmount78]

I go with hitting. It is easier to find defense on the trade market than it is to find offense. Shortstop is a position that I really look at defensive ratings as well as Catcher. I feel like my pitching staff gets better with a catcher who has better overall catcher ratings.

[The Wolf]

I have found that getting both a ground ball pitching staff and a really good infield is a recipe for success. The same infield with fly ball pitchers isn't nearly as effective.

[EvilGenius]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Defense and pitching. Period.

Defense and pitching will nearly always win out over any amount of offense. The rare exceptions merely prove the rule. And I can assure you that this approach leads to dominance in any baseball sim that has ever been developed. I have played probably a dozen or more over a period of 35 years, and this approach has NEVER failed.

Good pitching and defense not only limit an opposing team's offense, but they can render an opponent's good pitching and defense a moot point because it can't score. So it has a triple impact, whereas merely having a good offense is not very effective at overcoming flaws in both defense and pitching. And offense is generally where the big dollars are spent and wasted.

I would put excellent pitching and defense, combined with an average offense, against any lineup full of elite sluggers who are bad fielders and have mediocre pitchers as teammates.

Mediocre Pitching combined with Poor Fielding is already a combination easy to beat. Saying this with all due respect, I'm not swayed by this argument, no matter how many sims have been played or for how many years.

My question would be how Elite Pitching/Elite Defense/Average Offense stacks up against Elite Pitching/Average Defense/Elite Offense.

Power generates WAY more runs than are given up by poor defense. Has there ever been a 45 HR hitter who was on the bench because his defense was too much of a liability?

Power is expensive though, and the OP indicated that he's building a team on a budget (hence his use of the term "moneyball"). On a budget, you simply can't afford to have it all. Something has to be sacrificed. So the question becomes whether High BA/Low Power is more valuable than Ave BA/Low Power/Excellent Fielding.

And even then, what are we talking about? The difference between a .260 hitter and a .275? In this case, the differences in defensive ability definitely plays a role, especially if it is a key position such as SS. Or are we talking about a .260 hitter vs a .310? In which case, .310 is in the lineup no questions asked (cross reference 'Derek Jeter').

Saying "Pitching and Defense wins championships" is overly simplistic. It is a statement that has reached mythic proportions. This is not to say teams don't win with this strategy. But to outright dismiss other strategies is just silly. Other strategies DO win championships. And especially when building a team on a budget, it may not be possible to obtain those types of players, and other strategies MUST be considered as an alternative.

A more productive conversation would be to discuss exactly how much offense, and what type of offense (HR's, BA, Stolen Bases) that is willing to be given up for defense. And what kind of differences in defense are we talking about? Truly dreadful defense vs oustanding defense? Or Average vs Above Average? Or how many defensive positions are you willing to give up at any one time?

[Cras]

for the sake of OOTP, I find having superior defense pays off a great great deal.

In my league I went through a spell where I deviated from my normal plan and went after big hitters. Power mostly. And I spent near a decade hovering around 3rd and 4th place in a 8 team league. A good team no doubt, but no real threat for the flag.

Then I scraped it, went back to my old formula of superior pitching and defense, and viola.....win the league by 20 games.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Cras

for the sake of OOTP, I find having superior defense pays off a great great deal.

In my league I went through a spell where I deviated from my normal plan and went after big hitters. Power mostly. And I spent near a decade hovering around 3rd and 4th place in a 8 team league. A good team no doubt, but no real threat for the flag.

Then I scraped it, went back to my old formula of superior pitching and defense, and viola.....win the league by 20 games.

Any chance this was a historical league and Frank Viola circa 1988 was one of your pitchers?

[canaveral]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Defense and pitching. Period.

Defense and pitching will nearly always win out over any amount of offense. The rare exceptions merely prove the rule. And I can assure you that this approach leads to dominance in any baseball sim that has ever been developed. I have played probably a dozen or more over a period of 35 years, and this approach has NEVER failed.

I would put excellent pitching and defense, combined with an average offense, against any lineup full of elite sluggers who are bad fielders and have mediocre pitchers as teammates.

So what about in real life? Using the 2012 NL as an example, the winning teams all had the best pitching - with one exception. Milwaukee at 83-79 had the 4th worst pitching in the NL and the worst defensive effciency in all of MLB, yet won on the most HRs, most SBs (a bit strange there, as sabermetrically, SBs are only effective with a gaudy completion pct., but the Brewers were at 80%), most 2Bs and 3Bs combined, and 5th best BA.

In the AL, the winning teams all had the better pitching and defense. The exception was 75-87 Seattle with the 4th best ERA, but easily the worst hitting (last in BA, last in runs, last in slugging).

I think sabermetrics also says unless your infielder is committing over 50 errors per season, he's not a liability in the field.

Years ago in a tabletop game, I compared the different strategies: one team with the best pitching and avg hitting, another with the most HRs and avg pitching, another with the most SBs and walks, another with the highest BA but no power and avg pitching, etc.

The result? Playing each other, they all came out with the same record at .500. No one style was better than the others.

Simplistic, yes. But if you're going to favor one style of play over another, you better go full bore with it to win. Otherwise, it's more of a balancing act without going to extremes. Which then comes right back to: your team better have more overall than what the other teams have overall to win your pennant.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Any chance this was a historical league and Frank Viola circa 1988 was one of your pitchers?

No, Cras' girlfriend is named Viola.