Is Pitching and Defence still the way to win?

[VEASE]

This is more of a Real -Life subject than a specific OOTP one, but...

With all the Headlines going to the modern breed of Power hitters and the wringing of hands amongst purists about the 'horrible' inflated offensive output of recent years it seems pertinent to point out that Sosa's Cubs have not been in a World Series, that in the season of The Great Home Run chase (1998)the World Series was won by a team whose HR leader hit precisely 28, and that Coors Field has turned out to be more of a handicap than an asset to the Rockies (in playing terms).

I know that the greater homer totals are just symptomatic of the overall higher scores in MLB, but Schilling and Johnson's heroics aside, the Yankees were two outs away from winning it all last year despite being outscored 37-14 and hitting only .186 in the series. Now I am a Tigers fan, and as big a Yankee Hater as anybody, BUT I admit I admire the fact that they win Pennants every year using the tried and tested formula of Pitching and Defence first. The same could be said of the Braves, I suppose.

The Tigers downward spiral began in Sparky Anderson's last couple of years when he decided to have six potential 30 homer guys in the line up to try and mask the fact that he didn't have a starting pitcher worthy of the name and that strategy bombed. Problem was that at least 3 of those power hitters were also liabilities in the field so we really got the worst of both worlds.

I haven't really experimented with this in OOTP, but I'd be interested to know if anybody has won it all with a 1987 Dodgers type line up,or conversely, if someone has loaded up on power and struggled. These would have to be simmed seasons because it's too easy to skew the results when you play out the games.

[Killebrew]

IMO the game reflects this very well in the area of pitching - solid pitching is vital to championship success and always seems hard to find in online leagues.

As for defense I am not as positive. Though having good defense at key positions like SS/2B/CF certainly helps, the Jose Offermans of the OOTP world will see more than their fair share of Series rings. You can get a good idea of this by checking out the rosters of winning teams in the various online leagues. Personally I'd like defensive ability to have a bit more of an impact than it has now, but since Jorge Orta was one of my fave players when he was struggling defensively at second base this is not a number 1 concern of mine (plus don't forget poor Harmon playing thirdbase while wearing shinpads).

[MJohnson]

kudos on the Offerman bashing. Nothing like a 7 million dollar leadoff hitter who cant run with a .300 OBP. Thanks Duquette

[General Mike]

My thoughts:

Great pitching will win championships, but you need to be able to score runs otherwise it doesn't matter what your pitchers do.

Fielding is nice, and it helps to have it, but i'd rather have Mike Piazza then Brad Ausmus any day.

[hellfrozeover]

[quote]Originally posted by VEASE:
<strong>. . . it seems pertinent to point out that Sosa's Cubs have not been in a World Series.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If I may say so, last year Sosa led the Cubs in HR's, but the person who was second in HR's on the team was Rondell White who was injured for about two months. The stats were:
Sosa 64 HR 160 RBI
Rondell White 17 HR 50 RBI
Matt Stairs 17 HR 61 RBI
That doesn't say too much for the rest of the team. So I don't think that the Cubs are a good example. It takes more than one person to reach the playoffs which is why Arizona won, they played very well as a team.

[VEASE]

[quote]Originally posted by hellfrozeover:
<strong>

It takes more than one person to reach the playoffs which is why Arizona won, they played very well as a team.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Point taken. Sammy is one of the good guys, but the way that Baseball is marketed now, you would think that a great slugger (or two) is ALL you need to have a successful team, yet year after year it's the teams that execute the fundamentals the best that get to the playoffs and usually the team with the best pitching wins. (2001 was probably a tie in this area).

[johnnyshaka]

In one of my solo leagues...I'm controlling two teams...one in each league.

On one team...I've focused more on pitching. The starting staff has 3 guys with ERA ratings of 6 or better and the the other two are so-so guys. I only have one or two big bats in that lineup.

On the other team...I've focused more on hitting. Four guys with 7 for AVG and 6 guys with 6 for HR or better. The pitching staff is horrid...one guy with 6 for ERA and the rest are 2 or 3.

With that said...the strong pitching team has had the best record in the entire league for the past 3 seasons but has bowed out in the first round in each of those years. The other team has finished with a record good enough to make the playoffs the same three years and managed to get to the World Series in all three years, winning it in the first two.

These results have struck me as odd...I too am a firm believer in pitching winning championships...but, through the wisdom of OOTP...I just may swing my vote.

Johnny

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: johnnyshaka ]</p>

[Draft Dodger]

in the NAHHBL, I took over a White Sox team that was one of the worst in the AL.

I inherited a team with a great pitching staff, average hitting staff, a lousy defense, and no money. All I could afford was to upgrade the defense at a couple of key areas (SS, C, 3B).

Really, just by putting a much-improved defense behind my pitching staff, I was able to see an enormous improvement, as I took the lowly team all the way to the Series.

So, your mileage may vary, but I find defense to be pretty important.

[DreamTeams]

In my solo Metro Leagues, the Cincinnati Excelsiors turned their fortunes around (Winning the '77 championship) with great pitching and great defense. They had good hitters, but no power guys. Not one of the team's players hit 30 homers in their title season. I believe they'd have won the whole thing this year, too. But, their ace was not ready to pitch in the season ending one game playoff. This season the Blue Sox and the Knights hooked up. Both have fantastic pitching and pretty good defenders at various positions. But, both have a complimentary power game. Regardless, Cincinnati gave me proof that a team with great pitching and solid defense can win consistently and win championships in OOTP. At least they can in my Metros. By the way, I use the Golden Era feature when simmimg.:-)

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: DreamTeams ]</p>

[DHS23]

Personally, I have always gone for better pitching and players with good range. I'll usually make it to the playoffs, and get late into a series before losing out.

[Deft]

I think one thing being ignored in this strand is great pitching in the bullpen or starting rotation.

In the ATHL I have made the World Series and am on the way to a sweep. The team has done this with an avg. starting rotation but the leagues best bullpen. Middle relievers are always cheap and can really bridge the gap between an avg. rotation and a great one.
Also my team leagues the league in OBP. I always take a guy with brilliant walks and avg. homers over a guy with avg. walks and good homers.

[VEASE]

Deft, thats another good point and it brings up one of the nice frustrations about OOTP (Tautology?) - the way that the Scout ratings can be way off on some guys. I'm thinking of a middle reliever called Carl Aravello in the default Detroit roster who I was gonna send down because he had nothing better than Average ratings in any category and he was Poor in K's. I only kept him because he is a lefty and there wasn't anyone ready in AAA to replace him. After sixteen games he has pitched 12.2 scoreless, hitless, innings with zero walks and his 0.00 era helps counter the 10.8 of the rest of the bullpen, all of whom look better on paper.

[hellfrozeover]

But that's part of what I love most about the game. The unpredictability. Take the real 2001 season for instance. Jeff Fassero of the Cubs was coming off of a couple bad seasons and was thought to be at the end of his career. He came back as a MR and pitched brilliantly the whole season. In real life nobody can really say exactly how a person is going to perform and this is reflected well in the game.

[GeoffP]

I think everything goes together, but good starters who soak up innings make everything easier. Its real tough to have losing streaks when you're still in the game after 6-7 innings.

Defense is the tradeoff you make when deciding whether your lineup can score enough runs.

It seems to me its always easier for the manager to shuffle lineups with roleplayers & scratch for runs than it is for him to keep the opposition from scoring with an average or mediocre staff.

[DodgerGM]

In my online league I've gone the opposite route with quite a bit of success, and I've followed the path of a couple of the greatest teams of all time.

My formula is usually this- lots of power, lots of guys who can draw walks, a couple of decent baserunners, solid, though not necessarily dominant pen, average starting pitching with no big expensive ace (important in an online league with a salary cap) Defense is nice, but hitting ability comes first.

Think Big Red Machine, or 1950's Brooklyn Dodgers. Those were great teams built along these lines. The results- I'm about to finish my 3rd straight 100 win season. I've won one WS already. The lack of an ace can can hurt in postseason play, but if you can beat their ace in a 5-4 game, you're in good shape.

So, it's not totally necessary. Sure, it's a sound and safe approach, but if you want to try something different, it can be done with some success.

[tomheroes]

This topic reminds me of how I used to play Baseball Mogul (before I ever heard of OOTP). I used to take a team and would trade away all the big name hitters. I would trade them for as many minor league pitchers I could get (the younger the better) as well as cash. I would then get my payroll down to about 12 million and just stink the joint up for about 3 seasons. During this time, I would clear out all the dead weight and keep bringing up the young pitchers til I found 3 quality starters. It usually took about 3-4 years to build a solid staff. Since my payroll was so small, I would make a nice profit each year (people would still come and see my scrubs). After about 4 years, I was sitting with about 70 million in the bank and at least three solid starters and a few good offensive players.

I would then go on a shopping spree and start buying up quality free agent hitters. I would also look for one solid starter to anchor my staff and some middle relievers. Within the next few years, I would have a playoff calibur team that would have about a 10 year run of success, before sliding. With some luck and some skill, I could usually win at least 2 World Series in the time.

[robman]

This topic relates directly to an experiment I'm conducting in a league I'm in now. I'm building a team with a good rotation (8-7-6-5-5), the league's best bullpen, and a decent lineup. That "decent lineup" has an A range/A arm catcher, A range in each of the field positions with the exception of CF, where I have B range, and three A outfield arms. I am just beginning the season, so I'll tell you how things work out for my team. I've started 5-1 after the first week.