 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Which position is the best position to build a team
ironhorse2ko
Looks like I missed out on the great Manny debate in the last thread. But anyway I just wanted to get a collective view of this, if you could build a team which position would you start at? I pick the 2b or ss position in the sense that ground balls in the in-field are the most fielded (especially at 2b and ss). Also, short-stops and second basemen can easily by converted to the corner outfield positions.
Which position is the best position to build a team
October 22, 2008 at 03:28AM View BBCode
[color=Black]I prefer either 2b or SS.[/color]Looks like I missed out on the great Manny debate in the last thread. But anyway I just wanted to get a collective view of this, if you could build a team which position would you start at? I pick the 2b or ss position in the sense that ground balls in the in-field are the most fielded (especially at 2b and ss). Also, short-stops and second basemen can easily by converted to the corner outfield positions.
whiskybear
October 22, 2008 at 03:38AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Someone once told me that the ass is the foundation of a woman. I don't see why it should work any differently for a baseball team.
happy
Im gonna have to go with "best position player available"...
screw pitching.
October 22, 2008 at 03:52AM View BBCode
so closer for WB.Im gonna have to go with "best position player available"...
screw pitching.
Benne
October 22, 2008 at 05:53AM View BBCode
SS is an infinitely more important position than 2B. So is CF, for that matter.
dirtdevil
October 22, 2008 at 12:34PM View BBCode
the 3 most important positions in baseball are starting pitching, starting pitching and starting pitching. i'm not sure why anyone (other than happy, of course) could think otherwise.
happy
well he said player. A single hitter will almost always add more value to your team than a single pitcher. If you had to choose between (santana, sabathia, whoever) and Pujols/A Rod, given the same salary structure, Pujols/A Rod gets chosen every time. Not only are they more valuable to the team, hitters are less injury prone. (I think...)
October 22, 2008 at 03:17PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
the 3 most important positions in baseball are starting pitching, starting pitching and starting pitching. i'm not sure why anyone (other than happy, of course) could think otherwise.
well he said player. A single hitter will almost always add more value to your team than a single pitcher. If you had to choose between (santana, sabathia, whoever) and Pujols/A Rod, given the same salary structure, Pujols/A Rod gets chosen every time. Not only are they more valuable to the team, hitters are less injury prone. (I think...)
tm4559
October 22, 2008 at 03:29PM View BBCode
yeah, hitters are the way to go. when did it ever fail the rangers?
tm4559
October 22, 2008 at 03:30PM View BBCode
but, you know, if we're just talking hitters, it is quite simple. the best hitter. that is the one you want.
happy
because their pitching was so worthless that it didnt make up for the hitters?
by the way... if we are going with singular examples...
least runs allowed -- Toronto.
A singler hitter is more valuable than a single pitcher, thats just fact. but you cant put garbage pitching in there either if you expect to make the playoffs. Mediocre pitchers are worth their salary.
October 22, 2008 at 04:58PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
yeah, hitters are the way to go. when did it ever fail the rangers?
because their pitching was so worthless that it didnt make up for the hitters?
by the way... if we are going with singular examples...
least runs allowed -- Toronto.
A singler hitter is more valuable than a single pitcher, thats just fact. but you cant put garbage pitching in there either if you expect to make the playoffs. Mediocre pitchers are worth their salary.
Duff77
October 22, 2008 at 05:20PM View BBCode
This is a stupid discussion. Good teams need good players in most of their positions and good pitchers anywhere they can find them. As far as players go, you take the best one you can find no matter where he plays. You don't pass over Pujols in a draft because he doesn't play a "foundation" position. You give me All-Stars at first, third, left, and right, and I'll find the up-the-middle guys somewhere.
Duff77
October 22, 2008 at 05:24PM View BBCode
And by the way, pitching is more important. This has borne out with several teams over the last few years: If you pitch well and play good defense, you finish around .500. If you tear the cover off the ball but can't pitch, you finish last. You can't win being lopsided but you get a hell of a lot closer with pitching.
ME
October 22, 2008 at 07:34PM View BBCode
Hitting and pitching/defense matter the same. It's harder to find good pitchers than good hitters, and pitchers are less consistent year-to-year, so you aren't as sure what you're getting as with hitters. You pick the best player, adjusting for position to build your team around. Right now, I'd say that would be Albert Pujols (a fantastic defender at 1B in addition to awesome hitting).
tm4559
October 22, 2008 at 07:44PM View BBCode
i think they had this discussion on BBTN, and it was, predictably, stupid. we are, all of us, also stupid.
DeVeau31
(this is a joke, just like this thread)
October 22, 2008 at 07:56PM View BBCode
motherfucking manager!(this is a joke, just like this thread)
happy
1) Not true. Texas came in 2nd, just to pick an example. Washington came in dead last. their pitching and defense was decent, they couldnt hit at all.
2) hitters generally are going to give more value to your team than a pitcher in today's game.
October 22, 2008 at 08:22PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
And by the way, pitching is more important. This has borne out with several teams over the last few years: If you pitch well and play good defense, you finish around .500. If you tear the cover off the ball but can't pitch, you finish last. You can't win being lopsided but you get a hell of a lot closer with pitching.
1) Not true. Texas came in 2nd, just to pick an example. Washington came in dead last. their pitching and defense was decent, they couldnt hit at all.
2) hitters generally are going to give more value to your team than a pitcher in today's game.
Hamilton2
Also, where is the outrage as regards the thread title? Seriously. You should be embarrassed of yourselves.
October 22, 2008 at 08:23PM View BBCode
Why is this happening? Why is there an argument here?Also, where is the outrage as regards the thread title? Seriously. You should be embarrassed of yourselves.
happy
October 22, 2008 at 08:26PM View BBCode
We changed it to "pitcher vs hitter" to avoid the worthlessness of the thread.
Hamilton2
Now, that is a noble argument (not really though). Let's see if I understand the different ideas thus far presented:
ME's position: in any given plate appearance, pitching, hitting, and fielding are all equally important.
The generally held position (posited by DirtDevil): over the course of a season, pitching is fundamentally more important to baseball success.
Happy's position: Hitting is awesome. Also, I like to argue.
October 22, 2008 at 08:34PM View BBCode
Ah.Now, that is a noble argument (not really though). Let's see if I understand the different ideas thus far presented:
ME's position: in any given plate appearance, pitching, hitting, and fielding are all equally important.
The generally held position (posited by DirtDevil): over the course of a season, pitching is fundamentally more important to baseball success.
Happy's position: Hitting is awesome. Also, I like to argue.
tm4559
October 22, 2008 at 08:39PM View BBCode
you know, folks used to just kind of enjoy baseball. then fantasy baseball came in, and it just all went to hell really.
happy
this isnt a matter of liking to argue. i mean, fact is that the top hitter in the league is worth more money than the top pitcher in the league.
October 22, 2008 at 08:48PM View BBCode
ME said that Pitching + defense is as important as hitting (+baserunning i assume). Obviously scoring a run and preventing a run is equally as valuable. Its a matter of whether a hitter will score more runs, or a pitcher will prevent more runs. In general, the hitter is going to add more value to the team.this isnt a matter of liking to argue. i mean, fact is that the top hitter in the league is worth more money than the top pitcher in the league.
Duff77
October 23, 2008 at 06:20AM View BBCode
Ultimately you have to do both well if you want to win. We all agree on that. As far as the Rangers go, they had a few years when they finished second, but most years they were terrible. The Dodgers, on the other hand, had several seasons where they couldn't hit a lick but had great pitching and stayed competitive. If memory is serving me at least. I think, all in all, highly unbalanced teams that favor pitching are going to be more successful, but of course there are going to be exceptions.
barterer2002
It depends of course on how you define success. If its just plain wins and losses I'm not sure you're right but if we're considering playoffs I'm inclined to agree.
Also in terms of the hitter/pitcher discussion. Babe Ruth.
October 23, 2008 at 12:23PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
I think, all in all, highly unbalanced teams that favor pitching are going to be more successful, but of course there are going to be exceptions.
It depends of course on how you define success. If its just plain wins and losses I'm not sure you're right but if we're considering playoffs I'm inclined to agree.
Also in terms of the hitter/pitcher discussion. Babe Ruth.
happy
all in all, given two replacement level teams, one hitter will increase the wins much more than one hitter. If you are looking for "a guy" who will help your team the most, right now, its Albert Pujols.
October 23, 2008 at 07:03PM View BBCode
Duff... the highly unbalanced hitting vs pitching really doesnt matter. I mean, the thing is that the dodgers had mediocre hitting. the rangers arent even close to mediocre pitching.all in all, given two replacement level teams, one hitter will increase the wins much more than one hitter. If you are looking for "a guy" who will help your team the most, right now, its Albert Pujols.
khazim
October 31, 2008 at 07:06PM View BBCode
If I wanted to build a team from scratch, give me either the best OPS player, regardless of position, or the best #2 pitcher that can be found.Pages: 1 2