Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo
I see what you are saying but I guess my feeling is there is some point at which you must sacrifice one for the other and that works both ways depending on the type of team you have. Although perhaps a slight offensive lean moreso than a defensive one.
For example if we kept improving our defense at a rate of 2:1 until we had the best glovemen in baseball, balls can still and will hit the ground, balls will still leave the yard etc. At what point must you find that balance?
At some point, you may be fielding the best fielders in baseball, but because those guys can't hit, you'll still have a poor differential. So at the point, you're going to need to give up some run prevention to get more run scoring. But the bottom line issue which still remains is the need to improve your differential.
The particulars of the strategy you need to employ to do that vary based on your circumstances. Where you can you improve your differential the most while spending the least? That's what drives your decision. And if you're already putting 8 gold glovers out there, you're going to need to up the scoring to improve the differential.
But until you get that to that extreme point where there is literally no way to improve your scoring or prevention, focusing on some magical balance on run scoring and prevent instead of simply the difference between them misses the big picture.
Obviously, a team's specific strategy will include both it's payroll, how the market values specific skills (since it tends to incorrectly values specific skill sets and instead of simple run production/prevention), the organization's developmental and scouting strengths, etc.