Ryan Theriot=Bench Player. Period.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

That is like splitting up the offense into "getting on base" and "scoring runs." Only the latter is clearly more important.

 

That's the point I'm getting at. "Pitching and defense wins championships" is cliche because you can almost replace "defense" with "having an awesome mascot". Pitching is far, far more important to run prevention.

[goonys evil twin]

Stitch, just because a staff finishes in the top two in ERA doesn't make them a great pitching staff. When Cleveland had their four or five year run in the 90's, the pitching staff finished in the top two practically every year in the AL but that staff wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination.

 

A great staff has to be great all around. The Braves had great starters but that bullpen was average for the most part. Other than Wohlers and Rocker (and niether one of them were lights out), they didn't have a solid closer until Smoltz. The set-up guys were average at best. They certainly didn't have anybody like Scott Shields or Jeff Nelson (in his prime).

 

That's a convenient way to explain away those facts that indicate the cliches are wrong.

 

Wohlers and Rocker were as lights out at times in their careers as any WS winning closers outside of Mo Rivera. Just looking at the 97, 98 and 99 Braves, those bullpens were as good as any bullpens you're pimping. You're just making up things to fit your arguement, and straying as far from the facts as possible.

[jaxxradio]

Thats a great question..

 

Since I have never seen a pitcher strikeout every player he faces, I am going to say that pitching and defense go hand in hand.

 

To give you an example, lets say a pitcher needs an out and he has an average to below average defense behind him. That pitcher is going to want to get the strikeout for fear that a batted ball could result in an error. If he has a solid defense behind him, he doesn't have that pressure.

 

That's what a solid defense does for a pitcher. I've had the opportunity to ask pitchers about this and they tell me there is a huge comfort zone when you pitch with a solid defense behind you.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Thats a great question..

 

Since I have never seen a pitcher strikeout every player he faces, I am going to say that pitching and defense go hand in hand.

 

To give you an example, lets say a pitcher needs an out and he has an average to below average defense behind him. That pitcher is going to want to get the strikeout for fear that a batted ball could result in an error. If he has a solid defense behind him, he doesn't have that pressure.

 

That's what a solid defense does for a pitcher. I've had the opportunity to ask pitchers about this and they tell me there is a huge comfort zone when you pitch with a solid defense behind you.

 

Then here's another question. Is there a team in the major leagues that doesn't have a solid defense? At the Major League level, I'd argue that very few pitchers worry about poor defense behind them, except in rare circumstances like a player already committing several errors in a game, and even then the effect on performance is probably minimal.

[soccer10k]

If a pitcher grooves the ball right over the middle of the plate and the hitter crushes the ball 450 feet, it doesn't matter if you have a defense that doesn't make any errors period because that's going to be a home run.

 

Take last night's Dodgers-Padres game for example which is obviously an anomaly with the back to back to back to back home runs, but bear with me. The Dodgers hit five home runs in the ninth and tenth innings and scored six runs (Kenny Lofton walked before Nomah's game winning HR). It didn't matter how good or bad the Padres defense was in those innings because the pitching blew that game. Again, the ninth inning was an anomaly, I know.

 

Every double/triple into the gap, your defense can't do anything about. That's all on the pitching. Defense does help you out but pitching is FAR more important.

[Guest]

pitching is much more important than defense.

 

If you lead the league in pitching, your pitching is great for that league. how can that not be true? What more could the staff being doing other than preventing runs?

[Guest]

and you surely are kdding if you say a staff that only allowed 540 runs in 1995 wasn't great.

[SouthSideRyan]

Dang biit.. I'm 42 but if someone called me a kid, I would be happy..

 

It was just an expression..

 

An expression of belittlement. You call everyone on the board who disagrees with you a kid to imply that they don't know what they're talking about, they're just kids.

[Rob]

Just to point something out, Ron.

 

Most statheads, including myself, would rather have the 1987 version of Ozzie Smith than any current incarnation of Miguel Tejada we've seen.

[SouthSideRyan]

Your right, Boston didn't lead the AL in pitching that year.. but there staff got hot (really hot) at the right time. Four in a row over the Yankees and four more against St. Louis. The pitching was phenominal over that period.

 

Boston won 8 games in a row over good offenses

 

Your THEORY: Good pitching always beats good hitting

 

Therefore, Boston must have had good pitching.

 

I think the scientific method may have a slight problem with your ways of arguing.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm late to the discussion here, so I'm going to offer a few points.

 

I'm with TT in believing that saying "pitching and defense" is being too general.

 

Furthermore, I think the further away from the majors you get down the spectrum, the more defense becomes critical. For example the difference in a good fielding high school player, a great fielding high school player, and a poor high school player is huge. So, in the high school game, a pitcher can be a huge victim of poor defense.

 

But, in the pro game, most players are more bunched defensively. Yes, there will occasionally be a player like say Brooks Robinson who is head and shoulders above others defensively and then there are the rare players that may be so horrible with the glove that they do cost their teams significant runs, but for the most part, the difference isn't that negligible. I will agree that preventing runs is critical, but I think that rests far more on the pitcher. I'm not going to say the pitcher doesn't need defenders to do their job, but that most defenders who have made it to the major leagues are capable of making the plays they are asked to make.

 

So, because of that, a player who's only reputation is as a defender is of less value to one who provides more offense than the average player at his position.

 

Now, as to the Cubs using Izturis and Cedeno or Theriot up the middle for defense. A team might could live with that combination if they had strong offense at the corners and in the outfield. The Cubs do not have enough power at those positions to warrant an all-defense, no stick middle infield.

 

We have the needed production at third and first, but if the Cubs go with Izturis-Cedeno/Theriot up the middle, then Murton nor Jones provide enough to help the Cubs be more than a middle division team.

[fromthestretch]

Stitch, just because a staff finishes in the top two in ERA doesn't make them a great pitching staff. When Cleveland had their four or five year run in the 90's, the pitching staff finished in the top two practically every year in the AL but that staff wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination.

 

A great staff has to be great all around. The Braves had great starters but that bullpen was average for the most part. Other than Wohlers and Rocker (and niether one of them were lights out), they didn't have a solid closer until Smoltz. The set-up guys were average at best. They certainly didn't have anybody like Scott Shields or Jeff Nelson (in his prime).

 

If Rocker wasn't lights-out, then your expectations for a lights-out closer are way too freaking high. And Smoltz was only a "solid closer?" He was a dominant closer.

 

Didn't have anybody like Scot Shields? Greg McMichael's rookie year was better than any season Shields has had so far. Not only that, but he followed it up with a few other good seasons. Chris Hammond had an 0.95 ERA in 76 innings for the Braves in 2002. Remlinger had great years there. You saw everyone I listed earlier. They have routinely gotten great performances from their bullpen.

[biittner77]

Stitch, just because a staff finishes in the top two in ERA doesn't make them a great pitching staff. When Cleveland had their four or five year run in the 90's, the pitching staff finished in the top two practically every year in the AL but that staff wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination.

 

A great staff has to be great all around. The Braves had great starters but that bullpen was average for the most part. Other than Wohlers and Rocker (and niether one of them were lights out), they didn't have a solid closer until Smoltz. The set-up guys were average at best. They certainly didn't have anybody like Scott Shields or Jeff Nelson (in his prime).

 

If Rocker wasn't lights-out, then your expectations for a lights-out closer are way too freaking high. And Smoltz was only a "solid closer?" He was a dominant closer.

 

Didn't have anybody like Scot Shields? Greg McMichael's rookie year was better than any season Shields has had so far. Not only that, but he followed it up with a few other good seasons. Chris Hammond had an 0.95 ERA in 76 innings for the Braves in 2002. Remlinger had great years there. You saw everyone I listed earlier. They have routinely gotten great performances from their bullpen.

 

It seems to me- and I admit that my memory is a little fuzzy as far as the Braves are concerned- but haven't the Braves almost always struggled to score runs in the post season.

 

I seem to remember David Justice saying that the Braves valued nothing except starting pitching.

[fromthestretch]

Stitch, just because a staff finishes in the top two in ERA doesn't make them a great pitching staff. When Cleveland had their four or five year run in the 90's, the pitching staff finished in the top two practically every year in the AL but that staff wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination.

 

A great staff has to be great all around. The Braves had great starters but that bullpen was average for the most part. Other than Wohlers and Rocker (and niether one of them were lights out), they didn't have a solid closer until Smoltz. The set-up guys were average at best. They certainly didn't have anybody like Scott Shields or Jeff Nelson (in his prime).

 

If Rocker wasn't lights-out, then your expectations for a lights-out closer are way too freaking high. And Smoltz was only a "solid closer?" He was a dominant closer.

 

Didn't have anybody like Scot Shields? Greg McMichael's rookie year was better than any season Shields has had so far. Not only that, but he followed it up with a few other good seasons. Chris Hammond had an 0.95 ERA in 76 innings for the Braves in 2002. Remlinger had great years there. You saw everyone I listed earlier. They have routinely gotten great performances from their bullpen.

 

It seems to me- and I admit that my memory is a little fuzzy as far as the Braves are concerned- but haven't the Braves almost always struggled to score runs in the post season.

 

I seem to remember David Justice saying that the Braves valued nothing except starting pitching.

 

They did occasionally struggle to score runs in the postseason, but it wasn't always against great pitching. For example, look at the 1998 NLCS. They got shut down by Sterling Hitchcock...twice. I don't think anyone would call Sterling Hitchcock a great pitcher. There's a big difference between having great pitching and getting a great performance or two by a mediocre pitcher in a 5- or 7-game series.

[cubweiser03]

Stitch, just because a staff finishes in the top two in ERA doesn't make them a great pitching staff. When Cleveland had their four or five year run in the 90's, the pitching staff finished in the top two practically every year in the AL but that staff wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination.

 

A great staff has to be great all around. The Braves had great starters but that bullpen was average for the most part. Other than Wohlers and Rocker (and niether one of them were lights out), they didn't have a solid closer until Smoltz. The set-up guys were average at best. They certainly didn't have anybody like Scott Shields or Jeff Nelson (in his prime).

 

If Rocker wasn't lights-out, then your expectations for a lights-out closer are way too freaking high. And Smoltz was only a "solid closer?" He was a dominant closer.

 

Didn't have anybody like Scot Shields? Greg McMichael's rookie year was better than any season Shields has had so far. Not only that, but he followed it up with a few other good seasons. Chris Hammond had an 0.95 ERA in 76 innings for the Braves in 2002. Remlinger had great years there. You saw everyone I listed earlier. They have routinely gotten great performances from their bullpen.

 

It seems to me- and I admit that my memory is a little fuzzy as far as the Braves are concerned- but haven't the Braves almost always struggled to score runs in the post season.

 

I seem to remember David Justice saying that the Braves valued nothing except starting pitching.

 

They did occasionally struggle to score runs in the postseason, but it wasn't always against great pitching. For example, look at the 1998 NLCS. They got shut down by Sterling Hitchcock...twice. I don't think anyone would call Sterling Hitchcock a great pitcher. There's a big difference between having great pitching and getting a great performance or two by a mediocre pitcher in a 5- or 7-game series.

 

Like the White Sox of last year in the WS.

[goonys evil twin]

There's a big difference between having great pitching and getting a great performance or two by a mediocre pitcher in a 5- or 7-game series.

 

Like the White Sox of last year in the WS.

 

I think the WS were more like a team that got a great performance out of good pitchers, not mediocre, or great, just good.

[cubweiser03]

There's a big difference between having great pitching and getting a great performance or two by a mediocre pitcher in a 5- or 7-game series.

 

Like the White Sox of last year in the WS.

 

I think the WS were more like a team that got a great performance out of good pitchers, not mediocre, or great, just good.

 

I'll agree with that.

 

Unrelated: Its hard for me to buy into positions against the braves. They went to 5 WS. Five in 8 years. Winning once and losing twice to the yankees. Lost in the NLDS to the Marlins who won the whole damn thing later. The post 2000 braves arent the same thing as the starting pitch rich pre 2000 braves.

[WrigleyField 22]

I think the Eckstein comparison has been used a lot. I don't think thats right. The comparison I do see, and I don't think it has been mentioned, is Adam Kennedy. He has a career line of .280 .332 .398 .730. I think Theriot can do a little better with OBP but with a drop in SLG, something like .345 .375.

[fromthestretch]

I think the Eckstein comparison has been used a lot. I don't think thats right. The comparison I do see, and I don't think it has been mentioned, is Adam Kennedy. He has a career line of .280 .332 .398 .730. I think Theriot can do a little better with OBP but with a drop in SLG, something like .345 .375.

 

Which wouldn't be too far off Eckstein's career OBP/SLG of .351/.362.

[WrigleyField 22]

I think the Eckstein comparison has been used a lot. I don't think thats right. The comparison I do see, and I don't think it has been mentioned, is Adam Kennedy. He has a career line of .280 .332 .398 .730. I think Theriot can do a little better with OBP but with a drop in SLG, something like .345 .375.

 

Which wouldn't be too far off Eckstein's career OBP/SLG of .351/.362.

 

Hmm... I didn't realize his career slugging was that low. I was thinking he was a consistent .360 .400 guy. Scrap that. All three are similar.

[KingCubsFan]

I think the Eckstein comparison has been used a lot. I don't think thats right. The comparison I do see, and I don't think it has been mentioned, is Adam Kennedy. He has a career line of .280 .332 .398 .730. I think Theriot can do a little better with OBP but with a drop in SLG, something like .345 .375.

I don't know about that slugging. His career SLG% in the minors is about .330 and after abandoning switch-hitting, it's still only about .370

[wolf stansson]

Pitching and defense don't win championships. That's just a nice tidy cliche that is incredibly misleading.

 

Of course good pitching and defense help win championships. They are huge parts of a successful baseball team.

 

It's important to be good at pitching, defense, AND offense. We could argue which is more important all day long, but I doubt anybody here will change their opinion. Let's look at the last few WS winners. Chicago, Boston, Florida, Anaheim, Arizona, and New York all had good pitching, good defense, and good offenses. Those three terms are incredibly vague, but basically to win a championship you have to be good to great in all of those categories. In addition to that, you have to be incredibly lucky as well.

[Guest]

Nate Silver says differently.

Of course his article only applies to postseason series where in fact

power pitching, closers, and defense correlate best to success. helps explain the braves not winning more.