Originally Posted by mth123
The Braves, Mets (Pagan's .837 isn't good enough), Cubs and Giants all suffered from a lack of offense. A productive bat in LF may have seen them in the playoffs.
Your right, of course, that it takes a combination of things to win and big power on the corners isn't enough, but lacking big production at more traditionally defensive spots (like say Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan, Barry Larkin or Eric Davis), then a team needs big offense from LF and 1B. League average is an ok bar to set for good defenders who play up the middle, middle rotation innings eaters and middle of the bullpen "keep 'em close" types, but the main men on the team need to be a lot better than league average or the team simply won't win. If Stubbs, for example, could be league average in CF, he'd be quite valuable. If Frazier was only league average in LF, he'd be manning the spot that the team is looking to upgrade.
I am sorry, but we just aren't going to agree on this. There is simply no way that you can try to justify that being better than the league average by 29 points of OPS, which an .810 in left field would be, isn't good enough. Building a baseball team is about trying to have your guy better than their guy at as many spots as possible. When your guy is above average, you are doing that more than you aren't. That means that guy isn't the problem. Sure, maybe you look for an upgrade, but you should ALWAYS be looking to do that. That doesn't make the guy the problem with the team. I don't get how Stubbs being league average is worth more than Frazier being league average.... league average is just that, league average.