PDA

View Full Version : A simple Question...



WVRedsFan
08-27-2008, 12:20 AM
Would you, as a Reds fan, be satisfied with an offense that usually gets less than 7 hits and scores less than 4 runs even with excellent pitching?

I find it extremely boring baseball. I do not think I'm alone, even though Bronson Arroyo pitched a masterful game.

vaticanplum
08-27-2008, 12:23 AM
Would you, as a Reds fan, be satisfied with an offense that usually gets less than 7 hits and scores less than 4 runs even with excellent pitching?

I find it extremely boring baseball. I do not think I'm alone, even though Bronson Arroyo pitched a masterful game.

Presuming the Reds win (which tonight they did), there's not a game I'd rather watch, actually.

As is evidenced by the fact that this is the first game that I've watched much of in almost two months, in the midst of a national party convention to boot.

That's just different tastes, though. There's no right or wrong; baseball has different faces.

MartyFan
08-27-2008, 12:30 AM
Presuming the Reds win (which tonight they did), there's not a game I'd rather watch, actually.

As is evidenced by the fact that this is the first game that I've watched much of in almost two months, in the midst of a national party convention to boot.

That's just different tastes, though. There's no right or wrong; baseball has different faces.

:beerme:

paintmered
08-27-2008, 12:38 AM
I love pitchers duels and slug-fests equally. I don't love it when half of each occurs in the same game.

RedsManRick
08-27-2008, 12:38 AM
Would you, as a Reds fan, be satisfied with an offense that usually gets less than 7 hits and scores less than 4 runs even with excellent pitching?

I find it extremely boring baseball. I do not think I'm alone, even though Bronson Arroyo pitched a masterful game.

The rank of entertainment looks like this:

Higher Scoring, Reds Win
Lower Scoring, Reds Win












Lower Scoring, Reds Lose
Higher Scoring, Reds Lose


Bottom line, if they score more runs than the give up I'll be entertained.

KronoRed
08-27-2008, 12:41 AM
I really don't care how they get there but I want them to win lots of games and banners.
:)

Spring~Fields
08-27-2008, 12:46 AM
More pitching, more defense, more wins, works for me. Especially after watching 2001 through 2008.

flyer85
08-27-2008, 12:53 AM
Reds have the less offense part down pat, now they just need the more pitching and defense.

Spring~Fields
08-27-2008, 12:59 AM
Reds have the less offense part down pat, now they just need the more pitching and defense.
Cincinnati at
Houston
Wed, Aug 27 - 8:05 pm EDT
J. Fogg vs. R. Oswalt :evil:


April
.261 .331 .428 .760
May
.263 .339 .417 .755
June
.218 .304 .362 .665
July
.259 .327 .433 .761
August
.224 .281 .389 .670

Opponents
April
.265 .330 .433 .763
May
.278 .347 .455 .802
June
.274 .344 .461 .805
July
.277 .342 .445 .788
August
.294 .365 .470 .835

HumnHilghtFreel
08-27-2008, 01:05 AM
I share the sentiment that as long as they would be winning I'd be happy. At least I think I would be. The situation hasn't presented itself in so long I'm left to assume I would be.

I actually tend to enjoy the pitchers duel games quite a bit though. Faster paced and the the buildup to runs actually being scored feels more meaningful.

George Anderson
08-27-2008, 01:23 AM
The only type of game I despise watching is a game that is played very sloppy with lotsa errors, base running mistakes, bad managerial decisions etc.

I guess that explains why I haven't watched the 08 version of the Redlegs much lately.

WVRedsFan
08-27-2008, 01:32 AM
The only type of game I despise watching is a game that is played very sloppy with lotsa errors, base running mistakes, bad managerial decisions etc.

I guess that explains why I haven't watched the 08 version of the Redlegs much lately.

I've watched or followed every game (almost) this year. I've seen this team go from one who could score runs in bunches to an incompetent offensive team with no defense and mediocre pitching. It is really boring to me, but...

My point (missed by most) is if this team continues to average less than 4 runs and 9 hits per game, how good will the pitching have to be to win? With most any squad allowing +/- 4 runs per game, you have to average 5 runs to win. You'll wins some, but you'll lose more. I want to see action and that doesn't include a pitcher than allows 2 runs over 6 innings. I miss the offense of 2005.

cincrazy
08-27-2008, 01:49 AM
I really don't care how they get there but I want them to win lots of games and banners.
:)

This word banner... I'm not familiar with this. Could you elaborate? :)

Spring~Fields
08-27-2008, 02:11 AM
I miss the offense of 2005.



August 26
2005 60 68 .469 20.5 games behind 666 runs scored
2008 58 74 .439 24 games behind 556 runs scored

WVRedsFan
08-27-2008, 02:22 AM
August 26
2005 60 68 .469 20.5 games behind 666 runs scored
2008 58 74 .439 24 games behind 556 runs scored


Regardless. The great pitching strides of 2008 (YMMV) haven't resulted in any more wins due to emasculated offense.

Same old same old.

camisadelgolf
08-27-2008, 02:40 AM
Outside of hits that tie or give the lead for the Reds, the most exciting plays are defensive plays. I'll talk a 2-1 win with great defense over a slug fest any day.

Spring~Fields
08-27-2008, 02:58 AM
Regardless. The great pitching strides of 2008 (YMMV) haven't resulted in any more wins due to emasculated offense.

Same old same old.

2005 RS 666 (R/RG 5.20) RA 701 (R/PG 5.48) 128 games
2008 RS 556 (R/PG 4.21) RA 660 (R/RP 5.0) 132 games
110 Runs less in 2008

That is one of the reasons why we complained about on base percentage throughout the entire season and giving them that have low on base percentages the most AB/PA, because over the season it does matter in the runs scored.

Your 2005 team did not average very much more in runs per game average scored,(if we are talking thrills and excitement) 5.20 - 4.21 = 0.99 (1 run more excitement abounds) nor did it give up that much more in runs allowed on average, 5.48 - 5.0 = 0.48. Doesn’t look like much difference on average, but it is over the season, a lot of runs.

But it did score 110 more runs over the same time period and in 4 less games.
They won two more games and lost six less during the same time period.

This team could have scored more runs than it has but, many of the AB/PA in April, May, and June were given to low on base percentage players reducing scoring opportunities, or chances. A loss of confidence and apathy followed, then Jocketty did what O'Brien and Krivsky did, but much more, Jocketty traded off the best offensive players Dunn and Griffey for Masset a relief pitcher and some minor league fodder and filler to date.

Both teams were badly beaten by the division leader, indicating that both teams would not be much fun to watch. I wasn’t very fond of either. The Browns and Bengal’s can score a lot of points too, but aren’t very good.

RedlegJake
08-27-2008, 06:14 AM
This is not next year's offense. Get rid of some dead wood like CPatt and Bako (and I think they're both as good as gone already in Walt's mind), Votto and Bruce should be improved (its always a risky hope that kids get better but in the case of these two I feel safe assuming that), Dickerson is proving himself capable of decent numbers for a CFer - especially when you've gotten inured to Corey Patterson, Hanigan will outhit Bako and already is better behind the plate, and have you seen Castillo's defense? That kid can flat play some D. Catching is already improved for next year on both sides of the ball, imo. Jocketty will bring in a bat or two. I don't know why it's so hard for people to realize that - the guys we're watching now are just a halfway look at next year's team. They aren't going to go back to being the top offense in the league but the pitching will be better, the defense will be better and the offense will score more than people think. You may have to look hard but the guys Walt's starting to push, Hanigan, Dickerson etc, aren't the sexy picks but they are guys who have survived other flaws by getting on base - Walt may be old school but he recognizes OBP and the Reds lack thereof. I continue to think BP may be heading out the door for exactly that reason. For all the good in his game, his low OBP hurts his value - a lot. I remain in favor of everything Walt has done so far.

durl
08-27-2008, 09:42 AM
I agree that, if the Reds win, it's entertaining. Pitching duels can be very good baseball.

What is NOT entertaining to me is when the Reds pitching gives up 12 hits and 8 runs while the Reds manage 3 hits, 0 runs, and commit 3 errors. Being on the losing end of lopsided games are not my cup of tea.

SunDeck
08-27-2008, 10:13 AM
Would you, as a Reds fan, be satisfied with an offense that usually gets less than 7 hits and scores less than 4 runs even with excellent pitching?

I find it extremely boring baseball. I do not think I'm alone, even though Bronson Arroyo pitched a masterful game.

Sure, I'd like to see the Reds pound the ball into a dish rag every game, too. But I don't care if they only get four runs a game as long as the pitching is giving up only three.

It also makes me a little sad for the game to think that fans could be unsatisfied by wins that are accomplished through superior pitching and defense.

Always Red
08-27-2008, 10:39 AM
Just win, baby.

oneupper
08-27-2008, 10:43 AM
I guess I'm in the minority here, but I find some great entertainment value in a fought out, back and forth game with lots of alternatives and decision-making, even if the Reds don't come out on top.

A 5-4 game that doesn't last 3 hours would top my list.

Last night's game was kind of bleh for me.

westofyou
08-27-2008, 11:18 AM
It also makes me a little sad for the game to think that fans could be unsatisfied by wins that are accomplished through superior pitching and defense.
It makes me sad too, in fact if the Reds can only entertain with offense then I hope they don't spend time listening to that message. Because this team has been nothing but hitting first and pitching second for a half a century and only really caught lightening in a bottle for 1 decade.

Looking at the game through only one prism gives you only one sliver of understanding of the game, and how hard it is to be successful.

Making your drug of choice offense only leads one to be disappointed almost nightly since the game is a game of failure and small rewards.

lollipopcurve
08-27-2008, 11:21 AM
Well-pitched, well-defensed games are baseball at its best, in my opinion.

Cyclone792
08-27-2008, 12:08 PM
My preference is for the Reds to score 100 more runs than they allow in a season.

Sea Ray
08-27-2008, 12:17 PM
With this offense this team will not out score its opponents very often. If they win they'll be entertaining to me but the fact is they won't win with this pop gun lineup. They need a bopper somewhere kind of like we did in the 90s when we picked up Kevin Mitchell and finally Greg Vaughn. We also need Jay Bruce to get straightened out. He's every bit as bad as Corey Patterson vs LH pitching right now...totally out of synch.

TeamBoone
08-27-2008, 12:20 PM
I don't ever find baseball boring, no matter what happens on the field.

Exciting (when my team wins); disappointing when it loses... but never, ever boring.

VR
08-27-2008, 12:42 PM
I guess I'm in the minority here, but I find some great entertainment value in a fought out, back and forth game with lots of alternatives and decision-making, even if the Reds don't come out on top.

A 5-4 game that doesn't last 3 hours would top my list.

Last night's game was kind of bleh for me.

Yes. Fundamentally sound, good at bats, team wins.

WVRedsFan
08-27-2008, 01:34 PM
Sure, I'd like to see the Reds pound the ball into a dish rag every game, too. But I don't care if they only get four runs a game as long as the pitching is giving up only three.

It also makes me a little sad for the game to think that fans could be unsatisfied by wins that are accomplished through superior pitching and defense.

I don't think anyone would disagree with your first statement. The problem is that we'd be hard pressed to ever assemble a pitching staff that would only allow three runs on average. Hardly anyone does that. Especially teams with limited resources. If this team continues to get 3-4 runs and 5-7 hits, we'll lose 90+ games every year. You must score runs. That's the object of the game. But 648 runs with the kind of pitching staff we can afford to have will mean losing seasons, even with superior defense. JMO.

RichRed
08-27-2008, 02:06 PM
My preference is for the Reds to score 100 more runs than they allow in a season.

Me too, don't really care how. Too bad it's been almost a decade since we were treated to something like that.

Sea Ray
08-27-2008, 03:34 PM
fundamentally high scoring teams are more fun to watch because you're never out of the game. If this team falls behind 6-1, turn out the lights...

Spring~Fields
08-27-2008, 03:53 PM
I don't see baseball as a game of high scoring affairs.



Game Runs RSPG Win Loss RA RAPG Payroll
Chicago Cubs 132 727 5.51 82 50 538 4.08 117,954,333
NY Mets 133 654 4.92 73 60 584 4.39 137,391,376
St. Louis 133 647 4.86 73 60 594 4.47 99,624,449
Philadelphia 132 642 4.86 73 59 549 4.16 95,479,880
Milwaukee 132 632 4.79 77 55 558 4.23 74,687,499
Colorado 134 631 4.71 63 71 684 5.10 68,655,500
Florida 132 613 4.64 67 65 643 4.87 22,650,000
Pittsburgh 132 611 4.63 57 75 729 5.52 48,689,783
Arizona 132 608 4.61 68 64 573 4.34 66,202,712
Atlanta 132 600 4.55 58 74 621 4.70 102,849,666
Houston 132 591 4.48 66 66 636 4.82 88,930,414
Cincinnati 132 556 4.21 58 74 660 5.00 74,117,695


National League Batting
April
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=runs&split=40&group=8&season=2008&seasonType=2&statType=batting&type=reg
May
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=runs&split=41&group=8&season=2008&seasonType=2&statType=batting&type=reg
June
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=runs&split=42&group=8&season=2008&seasonType=2&statType=batting&type=reg
July
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=runs&split=43&group=8&season=2008&seasonType=2&statType=batting&type=reg
August
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=runs&split=44&group=8&season=2008&seasonType=2&statType=batting&type=reg



Defense
TEAM GP E FPCT
Houston 131 56 .988
St. Louis 132 67 .987
Colorado 133 72 .986
NY Mets 132 71 .986
San Diego 131 75 .985
Chicago Cubs 131 75 .984
Philadelphia 131 78 .984
Milwaukee 131 81 .984
LA Dodgers 131 84 .983
Atlanta 131 84 .983
Pittsburgh 131 87 .983
San Francisco 131 82 .983
Arizona 131 86 .982
Cincinnati 131 98 .980
Washington 131 98 .980
Florida 131 100 .979
National League 131 81 .984

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=fieldingPct&split=44&group=8&season=2008&seasonType=2&statType=fielding&type=reg


National Leauge Pitching
April
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=ERA&split=40&group=8&season=2008&seasonType=2&statType=pitching&type=reg
May
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=ERA&split=41&group=8&season=2008&seasonType=2&statType=pitching&type=reg
June
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=ERA&split=42&group=8&season=2008&seasonType=2&statType=pitching&type=reg
July
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=ERA&split=43&group=8&season=2008&seasonType=2&statType=pitching&type=reg
August
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=ERA&split=44&group=8&season=2008&seasonType=2&statType=pitching&type=reg

Sea Ray
08-27-2008, 04:14 PM
I don't see baseball as a game of high scoring affairs.

It sure looks to me like the highest scoring teams are winning the most games

dougdirt
08-27-2008, 04:17 PM
It sure looks to me like the highest scoring teams are winning the most games

Only Florida is allowing 4.50 or more runs per game and has a winning record. It takes both offense and pitching (and defense) to win. You aren't likely to win with just one or the other.

Highlifeman21
08-27-2008, 04:31 PM
If we can turn Cueto into Volquez, and get Harang to bounce back to being Harang, then I love those 3 to anchor our rotation. Hopefully in the next few years Cordero will get over his allergy to saves, and Burton can stay healthy to be that lockdown setup guy we hope and think he can become. Maybe Bray can get it figured out, or else we go in search of a stud LOOGY, and another LHP to compliment him (heck, maybe it can still be Bray?). From the right side, I'm hoping Roenicke can put up Burton-esque numbers, and then give me a solid innings eater that can bounce between the rotation and the pen. Maybe that arm will end up being Homer? Maybe Homer will mature to be a solid #3, or else a dominant arm out of the pen.

If we have stud pitching, put guys like Dickerson, Stubbs and Bruce out there to track down anything in the OF, hopefully Votto will figure what kinda defender he wants to be @ 1B, we know what Phillips can do defensively, which leaves us with C and the left side of the IF to improve defensively. As much as I hate to admit it, with Dunn now a Diamondback, the only logical direction this team can proceed is to embrace stud defense, with serviceable offense. If serviceable offense means 675 R for the year, so be it.

Let's just get the stud pitching first, or else this will all be for nada.

nate
08-27-2008, 04:43 PM
I dunno, 4 runs, 7 hits...that sounds like a pretty efficient offense as opposed to some of the brutal 10 men LOB affairs we've endured this year.

GAC
08-27-2008, 05:33 PM
Right now the '08 Reds are averaging 4.2 runs/game. The '70 Reds averaged 4.7 runs/game. The 75/76 Reds slightly better at around 5.2 runs/game.

The key? Runs allowed. ;)

Those 70's teams had a team ERA of under 4, while this current team ERA is 4.56. I understand one also has to consider where they played (park factors). And the game has changed considerably too in the last 30 years. But Howsam not only constructed a talented team (there's the first place we need to start); but one built on speed and defense for Riverfront. And I don't say that to state they didn't possess power either. But the 76 team hit a total of 141 Hrs (Foster led with 29), while the 2007 Reds hit 204.

So... to repeat "a simple question" - should the type of park you built be a factor in the type of ballplayers (offense) you are attempting to construct?

#1 - you want talent.
#2 - you obviously want defense (less expensive compared to offense IMO)

But if you are going to construct a team that emphasizes more of a small ball approach to generating runs in a ballpark like GABP, then you better fill your pitching staff with groundball pitchers, and not these flyball guys, or else your offense won't be keeping up with the Joneses, and what good is a sound defense if all they are doing is turning and watching the balls leave the park? ;)

But I have no problem at watching a 3-2 game that is well played.

Spring~Fields
08-27-2008, 07:43 PM
It sure looks to me like the highest scoring teams are winning the most games

Seriously ? I stand in awe

:lol:


I don't see baseball as a game of high scoring affairs.

Now can you also agree that baseball games are not high scoring affairs compared to some other sports? ;)

harangatang
08-28-2008, 12:07 AM
I've seen several posts in this thread mention the 2005 Reds offense which was incredible. Looking at team OPS+ numbers which was well above league average at 112 that offense was the best since 1995 when it was tied at 112 and surpassed in 1994 at 114. (next were the Big Red Machine days). But even more incredible in my opinion is what would theoretically happen if the 2005 offense and 2008 pitching staff this far were combined. I took the overall runs allowed by the Reds through last night (which was 660 runs through 132 games) and interpolated it out through 162 games which comes to 810 runs allowed. Since the Reds scored 820 runs in 2005, combined the 2008 pitching staff the Pythagorean W-L would've been above .500 with a .505 or .506 winning percentage depending on you round it. That equates to either an 81-81 or 82-80 Pythagorean W-L record. The Reds theoretically would've stood their best chance of breaking the .500 mark since 2000 (sorry 2006 doesn't count in my book when the Reds allowed 52 runs more than they scored on the year).

Sea Ray
08-28-2008, 12:21 AM
Only Florida is allowing 4.50 or more runs per game and has a winning record. It takes both offense and pitching (and defense) to win. You aren't likely to win with just one or the other.

I don't disagree with that Doug but the numbers in that table do not show that RA is more important to winning than RS. Looks like the top 6 high scorers in the league include the top 6 winning teams

WVRedsFan
08-28-2008, 12:52 AM
I don't disagree with that Doug but the numbers in that table do not show that RA is more important to winning than RS. Looks like the top 6 high scorers in the league include the top 6 winning teamsI've been preaching this for a long time, but the crowd here does not agree. Tonight was a case in point. The Astros only scored 4 runs and yet our offense generates 1 run. Many would say this was a result of Roy Oswalt pitching, but that doesn't hold water. This team has been poor at scoring runs all year and it has been even worse since the ASB. A game in which your pitching staff holds the opposition to 4 runs (and I believe it Majewski isn't used, 2 runs) should be able to fight back and tie or win. This team has no chance.

Once again, yes, I want a good pitching staff and a wonderful defensive team, but you must score runs. Over the last 24 games (August) The Reds have scored 82 runs--3.42 per game. The staff gave up 122 runs -- 5.08 per game. It's like taking a knife to a gun fight.

Given that this is not the 2009 offense we're seeing, but if there ever was a time when we now see the importance of Adam Dunn, Jr. Griffey, Josh Hamilton, etc., now is it. It's all part of redefining the team.

Hoosier Red
08-28-2008, 10:24 AM
This may prove to be inaccurate but I think why I prefer a low scoring, low run allowing team is it allows for more margin of error in every game.

Theoretically if your team gave up 3 runs every game. Than every game you have a better chance of winning. I'll take my chances that a judy lineup can string together some hits, or have one guy run into a pitch when it's 2-1.

While the big slugging teams may not be "out of it" when it's 6-1, the fact is they are more often than not.

The games that are 6-1 after 5 innings ask much more from your offense(and bullpen.) If the starting pitcher can go 6 innings and it's 2-0 or 2-1 bad guys when he leaves, I'll take my chances that the team can find one or two runs.

nate
08-28-2008, 10:47 AM
Here's a pretty table:


TEAM RS/G RS/G RA/G RA/G RDif RDif W% W%
Rank Rank Rank Rank
Chicago Cubs 5.51 2 4.08 3 1.43 1 0.624 1
Boston 5.17 4 4.31 9 0.85 2 0.583 4
Chicago Sox 5.18 3 4.39 11 0.80 3 0.571 6
Philadelphia 4.86 10 4.20 6 0.66 4 0.549 10
Tampa Bay 4.61 18 4.01 2 0.60 5 0.611 2
Milwaukee 4.79 13 4.27 8 0.52 6 0.579 5
Toronto 4.43 22 3.92 1 0.51 7 0.515 12
NY Mets 4.92 8 4.41 12 0.50 8 0.552 8
Minnesota 5.03 6 4.58 14 0.45 9 0.564 7
LA Angels 4.63 17 4.24 7 0.38 10 0.606 3
St. Louis 4.86 9 4.49 13 0.38 11 0.552 9
NY Yankees 4.85 12 4.60 15 0.24 12 0.530 11
Arizona 4.61 19 4.38 10 0.23 13 0.511 13
Cleveland 4.86 11 4.68 17 0.18 14 0.492 17
LA Dodgers 4.11 25 4.08 4 0.02 15 0.489 18
Detroit 5.02 7 5.05 24 -0.04 16 0.481 19
Baltimore 5.08 5 5.18 28 -0.10 17 0.474 20
Atlanta 4.55 20 4.73 19 -0.19 18 0.436 24
Oakland 3.89 27 4.10 5 -0.21 19 0.459 22
Florida 4.64 15 4.88 21 -0.23 20 0.511 14
Houston 4.48 21 4.83 20 -0.35 21 0.504 15
Colorado 4.71 14 5.13 27 -0.43 22 0.467 21
Texas 5.56 1 6.04 30 -0.47 23 0.493 16
San Francisco 3.83 29 4.64 16 -0.81 24 0.444 23
Cincinnati 4.21 23 5.03 23 -0.82 25 0.436 25
San Diego 3.84 28 4.71 18 -0.87 26 0.383 28
Pittsburgh 4.63 16 5.54 29 -0.91 27 0.429 26
Seattle 4.14 24 5.07 25 -0.92 28 0.376 29
Kansas City 4.07 26 5.08 26 -1.02 29 0.421 27
Washington 3.70 30 5.01 22 -1.31 30 0.361 30


Correlation of various columns to winning percentage:

Runs allowed: -0.576029426
Runs scored: 0.681150184
Run differential: 0.920616043

Sea Ray
08-28-2008, 11:43 AM
This may prove to be inaccurate but I think why I prefer a low scoring, low run allowing team is it allows for more margin of error in every game.

Theoretically if your team gave up 3 runs every game. Than every game you have a better chance of winning. I'll take my chances that a judy lineup can string together some hits, or have one guy run into a pitch when it's 2-1.

While the big slugging teams may not be "out of it" when it's 6-1, the fact is they are more often than not.

The games that are 6-1 after 5 innings ask much more from your offense(and bullpen.) If the starting pitcher can go 6 innings and it's 2-0 or 2-1 bad guys when he leaves, I'll take my chances that the team can find one or two runs.


Your example shows why winning teams have good pitching but as a fan you won't be entertained with many comeback wins or walkoff winners. Your wins will generally consist of you sitting on pins and needles hoping your pitching can hold the opposition to 3 runs or less.

Sea Ray
08-28-2008, 11:49 AM
I guess if you are a believer in Pythag and run differentials then offense and defense are equally important when considered over a full season. In the post season and when competing against "good" teams I think pitching is more important because of the theory that good pitching beats good hitting. In the post season you're likely to face some awfully good pitching. I think this is how our Reds beat the Bash Brothers/A's in 4 games in 1990. Our good pitching neutralized their bashing while lesser hitters (Hatcher, Sabo, Duncan) shined.

Hoosier Red
08-28-2008, 11:56 AM
Your example shows why winning teams have good pitching but as a fan you won't be entertained with many comeback wins or walkoff winners. Your wins will generally consist of you sitting on pins and needles hoping your pitching can hold the opposition to 3 runs or less.

I wonder if there's a correlation between the number of wins a team has, and the percentage of wins a team gets where it scores the winning runs in the last inning.

My guess is the higher percentage of those wins, the fewer overall wins the club has.

nate
08-28-2008, 12:01 PM
It sure looks to me like the highest scoring teams are winning the most games

Three of the ten highest scoring teams in MLB don't have winning records. That includes the league leader in scoring runs, Texas.

It's all about balance.

Chip R
08-29-2008, 09:26 AM
But I have no problem at watching a 3-2 game that is well played.


As long as you have enough beer. :beerme: