October 22, 2008 at 03:28AM View BBCode
[color=Black]I prefer either 2b or SS.[/color]October 22, 2008 at 03:38AM View BBCode
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.October 22, 2008 at 03:52AM View BBCode
so closer for WB.October 22, 2008 at 05:53AM View BBCode
SS is an infinitely more important position than 2B. So is CF, for that matter.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.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.
October 22, 2008 at 03:29PM View BBCode
yeah, hitters are the way to go. when did it ever fail the rangers?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.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?
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.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.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).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.October 22, 2008 at 07:56PM View BBCode
motherfucking manager!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.
October 22, 2008 at 08:23PM View BBCode
Why is this happening? Why is there an argument here?October 22, 2008 at 08:26PM View BBCode
We changed it to "pitcher vs hitter" to avoid the worthlessness of the thread.October 22, 2008 at 08:34PM View BBCode
Ah.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.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.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.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.
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.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