Question of philosophy

[NoDak]

OK, just a hypothetical here to see where people on this board (generally a competent group over all).

Please give your answers AND an explanation why so not just the answers but rationale can be discussed:

 

You will have a team with OPS+ and ERA+ average of 110 so the average is equal. Would you rather have the "range" from 80-150 in ERA+ and OPS+ or whould you rather have a range from 105-130. We will assume same age, injury history, contract status, etc.

 

Further, please specify if you would choose differently for pitchers as opposed to batters. Not noting it would be considered that you would use the same rationale.

[CubColtPacer]

I would choose the 80-150 range for a couple of reasons.

 

1) It's a better situation for the later innings IMO. With a bunch of slightly above average hitters, you can't play situationally as much. When you have some great hitters and some poor hitters, you can replace a poor hitter in a key situation with a pinch hitter or structure the situation for a poor hitter to get a runner over for the great hitters to drive in.

Great hitters and poor hitters are much more consistent than average hitters. If you know what you're getting on a consistent basis, it's much easier to put a plan together to maximize the production of the team.

 

2) If I'm looking to how to improve long-term, I now know what my weaknesses are and can much more easily fix them. If you have a bunch of average players, then the only upgrade you can make is to try to get great players and other organizations don't often give up great players at any cost. While if you have an imbalance between great and bad, it's much easier to find average players to fill in those weaknesses through trades or free agency.

 

3) For my pitching staff, I'd like to have an imbalance in my starting rotation but be balanced in my bullpen. I'd rather have 3 great starters and 2 below average starters than 5 decent starters because the first scenario lines up much better for the playoffs. The bullpen is so variable that I'd rather have several good arms that I switch in and out during the season to keep them fresh rather then 2-3 great arms that could be prone to overuse.

[jersey cubs fan]

OK, just a hypothetical here to see where people on this board (generally a competent group over all).

Please give your answers AND an explanation why so not just the answers but rationale can be discussed:

 

You will have a team with OPS+ and ERA+ average of 110 so the average is equal. Would you rather have the "range" from 80-150 in ERA+ and OPS+ or whould you rather have a range from 105-130. We will assume same age, injury history, contract status, etc.

 

Further, please specify if you would choose differently for pitchers as opposed to batters. Not noting it would be considered that you would use the same rationale.

 

The answer is it doesn't matter, a team with a 110 on both sides is going to be very good. So it doesn't matter how you get there.

[NoDak]

OK, just a hypothetical here to see where people on this board (generally a competent group over all).

Please give your answers AND an explanation why so not just the answers but rationale can be discussed:

 

You will have a team with OPS+ and ERA+ average of 110 so the average is equal. Would you rather have the "range" from 80-150 in ERA+ and OPS+ or whould you rather have a range from 105-130. We will assume same age, injury history, contract status, etc.

 

Further, please specify if you would choose differently for pitchers as opposed to batters. Not noting it would be considered that you would use the same rationale.

 

The answer is it doesn't matter, a team with a 110 on both sides is going to be very good. So it doesn't matter how you get there.

 

Yes, it can matter how you get there. OPS+ and ERA+ are not "TEAM" statistics. They are individual statistics. My point was to give a rough idea of what quality of team would be on the field and providing a common means of establishing equality to see what people's philosophy of putting a team together will be. I agree that a team with an ERA+/OPS+ of 110 will be a very good team. Fine, substitute whatever number you want there. How would you put your team together? My point was: "Do you want a wide range of abilities" or "Do you want everyone relatively equal in their ability."

[NoDak]

I would choose the 80-150 range for a couple of reasons.

 

1) It's a better situation for the later innings IMO. With a bunch of slightly above average hitters, you can't play situationally as much. When you have some great hitters and some poor hitters, you can replace a poor hitter in a key situation with a pinch hitter or structure the situation for a poor hitter to get a runner over for the great hitters to drive in.

Great hitters and poor hitters are much more consistent than average hitters. If you know what you're getting on a consistent basis, it's much easier to put a plan together to maximize the production of the team.

 

2) If I'm looking to how to improve long-term, I now know what my weaknesses are and can much more easily fix them. If you have a bunch of average players, then the only upgrade you can make is to try to get great players and other organizations don't often give up great players at any cost. While if you have an imbalance between great and bad, it's much easier to find average players to fill in those weaknesses through trades or free agency.

 

3) For my pitching staff, I'd like to have an imbalance in my starting rotation but be balanced in my bullpen. I'd rather have 3 great starters and 2 below average starters than 5 decent starters because the first scenario lines up much better for the playoffs. The bullpen is so variable that I'd rather have several good arms that I switch in and out during the season to keep them fresh rather then 2-3 great arms that could be prone to overuse.

 

Thank you for a well reasoned post. You make good points. Here is my response/ideas:

1. I would rather have guys closer to average. I believe more is accomplished by a team with a higher bottom, even at the cost of lowering the "top." While you make a good point about bad players possibly giving "productive outs" or other such things, I would rather not have to worry about having to go through several weak hitters late in the game.

 

2. Improving long term. For this you make an very good case. With a team with a wider range it is easier to find something on which to focus for improvement.

 

3. Pitching. I agree with you that I would rather have 2-3 really good starters and 1-3 mediocre ones for the reason you listed (playoffs tend to favor teams with 1-2 dominant starters) AND if all the pitchers are about average they will lose a lot of games where they go up against clearly superior pitchers. Even though something will be "made up" by the people at the bottom of the rotation being more effective because pitching has, in my opinion, more effect by a single player than batting I would rather have a few really great starter and tolerate having a less than stellar bottom of the rotation (They will still win some games!).

[jersey cubs fan]

Yes, it can matter how you get there. OPS+ and ERA+ are not "TEAM" statistics. They are individual statistics. "

 

Really, then why do they keep track of those for the team? Is there no such thing as a team OPS and ERA?

 

It doesn't matter. If you have a team OPS+ of 110, you're going to score a bunch of runs. And if you have an ERA+ of 110, you aren't going to give up a bunch of runs. You are going to win a lot of games.

 

For the sake of discussion, I'll say I'd prefer the pitcher to be split with wider variance, leaving you with a few dominant guys, which is a great way to plow through the postseason. But then again, that also leaves you more susceptible to one or two pitcher injuries derailing your season.

 

However, it still doesn't matter, because if you are guaranteeing a 110 and 110, you are going to be a great team.

[Mephistopheles]

ERA+ and OPS+ kill more braincells than Crystal Methistopheles

[cheapseats]

OK, just a hypothetical here to see where people on this board (generally a competent group over all).

Please give your answers AND an explanation why so not just the answers but rationale can be discussed:

 

You will have a team with OPS+ and ERA+ average of 110 so the average is equal. Would you rather have the "range" from 80-150 in ERA+ and OPS+ or whould you rather have a range from 105-130. We will assume same age, injury history, contract status, etc.

 

Further, please specify if you would choose differently for pitchers as opposed to batters. Not noting it would be considered that you would use the same rationale.

 

One of the regular contributors at BP did a multi-part study on this topic earlier this year. I'll see if I can find it.