Defense or Bats?

[jb28]

You need players who can get on base, players who can get extra base hits, and a team that can get batters and runners out. Outs win games.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by jb28

You need players who can get on base, players who can get extra base hits, and a team that can get batters and runners out. Outs win games.

So all you need is OBP, power, pitching and defense?

[awick]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree with the Wolf. I want pitchers with high ground ball percentage, paired with a top quality shortstop and second base combo.

I also want high-velocity pitchers with a high stuff rating. The resulting strikeouts augment a strong defense by reducing the number of balls ever put into play.

This pitcher is not ideal (poor control plus he's fragile) but he's emerging as my ace for a current team.

[awick]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

So all you need is OBP, power, pitching and defense?

Ya know, that'll most always work...

[jb28]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

So all you need is OBP, power, pitching and defense?

Yep, all four is a good formula for winning. That's all four within the team, not in every player.

The tools I look for vary by position. A great arm's not essential at first base, for example, but the ability to complete ground outs is. So I look for a good hitter with a good error and position rating at 1B. The CF needs to cover the outfield and get to the ball quickly so I like a fast contact hitter with good defence and range at CF. If he's a good enough hitter he bat #1 or #2. If he's not he can go ahead of the lead-off at #9. One thing I try to avoid are defensive liabilities and so it's defense first. The way to win games is to make outs and get off defense quickly.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by awick

Ya know, that'll most always work...

No kidding.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by jb28

The way to win games is to make outs and get off defense quickly.

Sure, that's one way to win, but a number of teams in the MLB and in OOTP have also won just by out scoring their opponents.

[JMDurron]

I don't pay attention to the bats below a certain level of defensive capability outside of 1B/DH. If a player can't make at least a 50 defensive rating at their position, they aren't making my MLB squad. Beyond that, I will emphasize offense over defense in the 50-100 position rating range. If two players are relatively close in offensive capability, the defense is a tiebreaker. I give slightly more weight to that factor (the players don't have to be quite as close offensively) at CF and SS.

[DanP68]

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

Exactly. Moneyball is misinterpreted. It isn't about focusing on OBP, it is about focusing on the undervalued commodity. OBP hasn't been undervalued in a long time.

Fwiw in OOTP you can often get more value from defense than from offense, which mirrors real life. A center fielder who saves 15 runs above average is likely to be cheaper than a center fielder who produces 15 runs above average with his bat.

[DanP68]

Originally Posted by 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").

Yes, and there are multiple ways to do this. The most effective is to build up a Reliever with a high save count, then market him to other teams for pieces you need or prospects. OOTP owners seem to be smarter than real life owners however, and don't always fall for this.

Another method is to take a Reliever who is 1 year from FA, and place him in the Closer role provided he is above average. Let him rack up easy saves (think 3 run lead in the 9th). If he has a good statistical year, you can let him become a Free Agent and will likely grab a Type A compensation pick. At the very least, Type B.

I do the latter frequently.

[The Wolf]

I don't do that because I find the concept to be too cheesy for my taste, but that doesn't mean that other people shouldn't do it. Heck, Billy Beane does it IRL.

[EvilGenius]

Just to get a sense of what kind of players we're talking about here, exactly how much offense would you sacrifice for a player like this?

He's an Elite defensive player at a key position, but below average offensively. Scouting is at Low, so take his ratings with a grain of salt. His stats the past few years don't exactly blow you away. Not quite as bad as having the pitcher at the plate, but definitely not an offensive asset.

I can live with a guy like this on my team, I picked him up because I needed a shortstop and he was the only one available at the time. But the only way I can win with a guy like this is if he is the ONLY guy like this on my team. I can't have two guys like this in the lineup.

But if I shopped him around looking for an above average (but maybe not all-star level) player, maybe .280+ BA with 25+ HR and maybe a slightly below average defensively, would any of the "Pitching and Defense" proponents take me up on it?

Anything less would be offering me an Average Offense/Below Average Defense type player. But that's not what this thread was about. Pitching is universal, everyone knows you need good pitching. People are suggesting that they sacrifice a fair amount of offense for superior defense.

I would like to get a sense of exactly how much offense would be traded for defense. My suspicion is that many of the "Pitching and Defense" people favor offense a great deal more than they realize.

[JMDurron]

That player would never see my starting lineup. He's a great backup/defensive replacement, but that's all. He's basically Jose Iglesias, who I could only live with as a backup at league minimum salary. I'd take a stud fielder like this guy who could put up a 90-100 OPS+ over a lead glove who could hit for a 125 OPS+, particularly at SS, but this guy is below replacement level.

[Tram2Whitaker]

Depending on whether I'm building an AL or NL team (which I prefer) I relegate batting to the corners, and defense up the middle. With an AL team you have the DH, so there's an extra bat. 1B is easy to make up for; with the exception of Mark Grace in the 90s no 1B has had a reputation for being an excellent fielder. And if you have to sacrifice defense in the OF, depending on whether your park favors lefties or righties, it should definitely be a corner OF.

SS and 2b are absolutely defensive positions, especially with groundball pitchers; many of mine typically hit 8 or 9th in the order. Your CF absolutely has to be the most athletic guy on the field; best range, speed, arm, everything. Typically, I use my CF as a leadoff hitter, regardless of his avg. because he can run. Catcher is supposed to be a defensive position, but not all of mine have been foremost defenders, and it hasn't made too much of a difference. For the life of me however, I've had catchers rated 20/20 in arm and ability, only throwing out 27% of runners (in sims, in game I can't seem to catch anyone)

[EvilGenius]

Originally Posted by JMDurron

That player would never see my starting lineup. He's a great backup/defensive replacement, but that's all. He's basically Jose Iglesias, who I could only live with as a backup at league minimum salary. I'd take a stud fielder like this guy who could put up a 90-100 OPS+ over a lead glove who could hit for a 125 OPS+, particularly at SS, but this guy is below replacement level.

I would be in total agreement. In fact, that's why I posted that guy instead of others I could have chosen from.

He's about as good as you can get at the SS position (I tinkered once with maxing out defensive abilities and experience as commissioner, and it didn't get much higher than that even as a theoretical max). It just doesn't get any better defensively at that position for a randomly generated player.

Some people are absolutely militant about "pitching and defense, particularly up the middle". Yet, when push comes to shove, they're not willing to give up the offense. Defense isn't the premium they think it is to them.

I would suspect that the people preaching "pitching and defense" are still above average offensively, if not an outright powerhouse. And saying Pitching, Defense, AND Offense wins games is not particularly insightful. Anyone winning a championship with all that shouldn't be patting themselves on the back quite so proudly.

Working with severely cash strapped teams now, something has to be sacrificed. I can't just go out and get the defensive minded player who doesn't cost me anything offensively -- those guys cost money, lots of money! And for all the people suggesting sacrifice the offense, here's the player I'm offering, why no takers?

Given the choice, it makes more sense from a "moneyball" standpoint (or more accurately a "cost per run" standpoint) to favor the bat over the defense. He has to make a LOT of errors in the field to offset the number of extra runs he'll generate with his bat. And that's what this thread was originally about.

[rpriske]

To paraphrase a famous quote, "Good defense will always beat good offense, and vice versa."

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Tram2Whitaker

1B is easy to make up for; with the exception of Mark Grace in the 90s no 1B has had a reputation for being an excellent fielder.

Excuse me? Hernandez (best defensive 1B ever), Mattingly, Snow, Pujols, Olerud, Helton and Teixeira.

[EvilGenius]

Originally Posted by Tram2Whitaker

. . . Catcher is supposed to be a defensive position, but not all of mine have been foremost defenders, and it hasn't made too much of a difference. For the life of me however, I've had catchers rated 20/20 in arm and ability, only throwing out 27% of runners (in sims, in game I can't seem to catch anyone)

There was a thread about this once in older OOTP versions, I tried digging it up but was unsuccessful (I think it was still in effect as of OOTP 12). Apparently, it had been noted that there was ZERO advantage to putting an actual catcher behind the plate. Putting an outfielder with a bad arm behind the plate and he would still throw out baserunners at just about the same clip. There would be a few more passed balls, but no worse than a below average catcher.

It became a cheat in the game that you didn't actually need to waste a roster spot for an expensive catcher. I didn't go all out in testing this, but I'll admit to not carrying a backup catcher and just using my backup 3B instead and it worked out just fine.

(Don't judge me, I'm a weak man! I'm so ashamed)

This was supposed to have been corrected in recent versions and catcher ability was supposed to have more of an impact on the game. Recently, Marcus had mentioned that the Catcher Ability now incorporates how effectively he frames a pitch, influencing balls and strikes.

[EvilGenius]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Excuse me? Hernandez (best defensive 1B ever), Mattingly, Snow, Pujols, Olerud, Helton and Teixeira.

And who can forget Rafael Palmeiro's memorable Gold Glove in 1999

He was SOOO good that year that they only played him 28 games at 1B (a player that good, you gotta make sure he's rested).

[sc_superstar]

But does good 1B D translate to a good defender? could any of the higher end 1B play anything else?