Valaika called up

[A New Era]

All of this over a move nobody will remember in 6 months?

 

Edit: Who am I kidding, 1 month

 

I already forgot him. Who was he? Val Kilmer?

[Backtobanks]

 

Well unless we add some serious pitching to the ML rotation, we certainly won't be contending soon. Since the "Plan" seems to be to wait until our players get enough time in the minors to fully develop and we're not going to spend big money until we're "close". Even if most of our offensive prospects click, we still are woefully lacking in pitching and pitching prospects. The bottom line is that pitching is what wins for the most part as evidenced by all of the biggest names dealt at the deadline (and before).

 

Let's not resort to the argument from authority. It can go both ways. Some pretty smart teams acquired pitching at the deadline this year. Some pretty smart GMs sold pitching. It's a fallacious argument at best.

 

The "smart teams" that acquired pitching at the deadline were the teams that are the teams now now favored to go deep into the playoffs or to win the WS. The "smart GMs" that sold pitching realized that they had no chance of winning, so it was best to cash in the most valuable asset they had (pitching).

 

Are you airquoting Friedman and Cherington as "smart GMs"?

 

Quick, what's your take on Ruben Amaro Jr?

 

Friedman, Cherington, and Hoyerstein are all smart GMs who understood that they had no chance of winning, so it was best to trade the asset most teams were looking for - pitching.

[Backtobanks]

Umm... wouldn't this argument be advocating to replicate Dombrowski and Beane, who built great offenses, knowing they could easily add pitching later? Or no?

 

Welcome.

 

And, yeah, in neither case did they really have to give up all that much to add that ace, especially in Price's case with an extra year of control.

 

On the other hand, "the boy genius" did manage to get quite a haul for his pitchers, one of which he basically picked up off the scrap heap.

 

Oh and then there's that guy pitching like a top 10 pitcher in baseball that they basically got off the scrap heap for another guy they got off the scrap heap.

 

Thanks for agreeing that pitching is the bottom line. The reason the Cubs got quite a haul for their pitchers is that many teams are willing to overpay for pitching. You don't see many teams overpaying for some scrap-heap OF that had a few good months.

[Rex Buckingham]

Umm... wouldn't this argument be advocating to replicate Dombrowski and Beane, who built great offenses, knowing they could easily add pitching later? Or no?

 

Welcome.

 

And, yeah, in neither case did they really have to give up all that much to add that ace, especially in Price's case with an extra year of control.

 

On the other hand, "the boy genius" did manage to get quite a haul for his pitchers, one of which he basically picked up off the scrap heap.

 

Oh and then there's that guy pitching like a top 10 pitcher in baseball that they basically got off the scrap heap for another guy they got off the scrap heap.

 

Thanks for agreeing that pitching is the bottom line. The reason the Cubs got quite a haul for their pitchers is that many teams are willing to overpay for pitching. You don't see many teams overpaying for some scrap-heap OF that had a few good months.

 

No, you don't see teams overpaying for hitting because the cost of hitters on the level of Price and Samardzija and Lester aren't available at all because hitting is more valuable.

 

Here's a list of the best hitters who could be free agents this year (like Lester will be). You tell me which ones might be anywhere close to as valuable as Lester

 

List according to Cot's

 

First Basemen

Billy Butler *

Adam Dunn

Michael Cuddyer

Victor Martinez

 

 

Second Basemen

Ben Zobrist *

 

 

Shortstops

J.J. Hardy

Jed Lowrie

Hanley Ramirez

 

Third Basemen

Chase Headley

Casey McGehee

Aramis Ramirez *

Pablo Sandoval

 

 

 

Catchers

Russell Martin

 

Outfielders

Melky Cabrera

Nelson Cruz

Michael Cuddyer

Nick Markakis *

Colby Rasmus

Alex Rios *

Josh Willingham

 

 

I look at that list and see plenty of guys who can make teams better, but very few who would command much of a trade return. The best hitters are locked up to long term deals and will not be traded except probably for other bats

[Guest]

Umm... wouldn't this argument be advocating to replicate Dombrowski and Beane, who built great offenses, knowing they could easily add pitching later? Or no?

 

Welcome.

 

And, yeah, in neither case did they really have to give up all that much to add that ace, especially in Price's case with an extra year of control.

 

On the other hand, "the boy genius" did manage to get quite a haul for his pitchers, one of which he basically picked up off the scrap heap.

 

Oh and then there's that guy pitching like a top 10 pitcher in baseball that they basically got off the scrap heap for another guy they got off the scrap heap.

 

Thanks for agreeing that pitching is the bottom line. The reason the Cubs got quite a haul for their pitchers is that many teams are willing to overpay for pitching. You don't see many teams overpaying for some scrap-heap OF that had a few good months.

 

w t f

 

you have a really interesting way of interpreting words

[ScrubMD]

Umm... wouldn't this argument be advocating to replicate Dombrowski and Beane, who built great offenses, knowing they could easily add pitching later? Or no?

 

Welcome.

 

And, yeah, in neither case did they really have to give up all that much to add that ace, especially in Price's case with an extra year of control.

 

On the other hand, "the boy genius" did manage to get quite a haul for his pitchers, one of which he basically picked up off the scrap heap.

 

Oh and then there's that guy pitching like a top 10 pitcher in baseball that they basically got off the scrap heap for another guy they got off the scrap heap.

 

Thanks for agreeing that pitching is the bottom line. The reason the Cubs got quite a haul for their pitchers is that many teams are willing to overpay for pitching. You don't see many teams overpaying for some scrap-heap OF that had a few good months.

 

So you're telling me that TOR pitchers are more valuable than scrap heap outfielders?! Can you explain, in detail, how you came to this conclusion?

[Backtobanks]

Umm... wouldn't this argument be advocating to replicate Dombrowski and Beane, who built great offenses, knowing they could easily add pitching later? Or no?

 

Welcome.

 

And, yeah, in neither case did they really have to give up all that much to add that ace, especially in Price's case with an extra year of control.

 

On the other hand, "the boy genius" did manage to get quite a haul for his pitchers, one of which he basically picked up off the scrap heap.

 

Oh and then there's that guy pitching like a top 10 pitcher in baseball that they basically got off the scrap heap for another guy they got off the scrap heap.

 

Thanks for agreeing that pitching is the bottom line. The reason the Cubs got quite a haul for their pitchers is that many teams are willing to overpay for pitching. You don't see many teams overpaying for some scrap-heap OF that had a few good months.

 

No, you don't see teams overpaying for hitting because the cost of hitters on the level of Price and Samardzija and Lester aren't available at all because hitting is more valuable.

 

Here's a list of the best hitters who could be free agents this year (like Lester will be). You tell me which ones might be anywhere close to as valuable as Lester

 

List according to Cot's

 

First Basemen

Billy Butler *

Adam Dunn

Michael Cuddyer

Victor Martinez

 

 

Second Basemen

Ben Zobrist *

 

 

Shortstops

J.J. Hardy

Jed Lowrie

Hanley Ramirez

 

Third Basemen

Chase Headley

Casey McGehee

Aramis Ramirez *

Pablo Sandoval

 

 

 

Catchers

Russell Martin

 

Outfielders

Melky Cabrera

Nelson Cruz

Michael Cuddyer

Nick Markakis *

Colby Rasmus

Alex Rios *

Josh Willingham

 

 

I look at that list and see plenty of guys who can make teams better, but very few who would command much of a trade return. The best hitters are locked up to long term deals and will not be traded except probably for other bats

 

The best hitters are locked into long term contracts because they are less likely to suffer a serious injury over a long term contract.

[Backtobanks]

Umm... wouldn't this argument be advocating to replicate Dombrowski and Beane, who built great offenses, knowing they could easily add pitching later? Or no?

 

Welcome.

 

And, yeah, in neither case did they really have to give up all that much to add that ace, especially in Price's case with an extra year of control.

 

On the other hand, "the boy genius" did manage to get quite a haul for his pitchers, one of which he basically picked up off the scrap heap.

 

Oh and then there's that guy pitching like a top 10 pitcher in baseball that they basically got off the scrap heap for another guy they got off the scrap heap.

 

Thanks for agreeing that pitching is the bottom line. The reason the Cubs got quite a haul for their pitchers is that many teams are willing to overpay for pitching. You don't see many teams overpaying for some scrap-heap OF that had a few good months.

 

So you're telling me that TOR pitchers are more valuable than scrap heap outfielders?! Can you explain, in detail, how you came to this conclusion?

 

Yeah, Maholm, Feldman, Hammel, Dempster, etc. were all TOR pitchers when traded. We still have hopes that Hoyerstein can find a taker for our ace Edwin Jackson.

[davell]

What in the blue hell just happened?

[Guest]

What's the rush, Hoyer was quoted in today's Tribune that he knows they need to add pitching throughout the system and that's their goal in the next 18-24 months. So everyone just calm down and wait until 2017 (or until the next quote on when we might actually contend).

Well unless we add some serious pitching to the ML rotation, we certainly won't be contending soon. Since the "Plan" seems to be to wait until our players get enough time in the minors to fully develop and we're not going to spend big money until we're "close". Even if most of our offensive prospects click, we still are woefully lacking in pitching and pitching prospects.

okay...

 

1) Hoyer saying that they need to add pitching to the system is referring to the current imbalance between position prospects and pitching prospects. It impacts the major league team eventually, but only downstream.

2) A lack of impact pitching in the current farm system does not in any form or fashion prevent the team from contending at the major league level.

3) The perception of a lack of pitching is more dire than the actual state of pitching in the system. The Cubs have already placed Hendricks and Wada into the rotation (Wada does technically count as a MLB prospect as he had never pitched there before). Corey Black, Pierce Johnson, CJ Edwards are all at AA.

4) The Cubs have received pitchers for next season in Doubront and Straily that have both had MLB success already in their careers.

5) The Cubs will have money to spend and no need to spend it on the position players or bullpen. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they will use money to buy some pitching help for the major league team.

6) In Arrieta, the Cubs may very well have already found the "ace" for the team.

 

In other words, what looks dire right now for the rotation is within easy reach of being fixed as early as this winter.

 

The bottom line is that pitching is what wins for the most part as evidenced by all of the biggest names dealt at the deadline (and before).

50% of the game is scoring runs and 50% of the game is preventing them.

 

Preventing runs breaks down into pitching and defense. I've seen a variety of estimates of the importance of those two factors, but let's be generous and say that pitching is 75% of preventing runs.

 

Your "bottom line" is worth about 37.5% of winning. At best.

 

Pitchers are also much more volatile and a significantly worse investment than hitters. Not only is there the injury risk, but performance fluctuates much more for pitchers than hitters for a variety of reasons.

 

As a result, it is a much, much better idea to build a great offensive and defensive team. Then you can plug in league average pitching and be a very good team.

[PackLandVA]

=D>

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

http://i.imgur.com/QnHn2JW.gif

[dew1679666265]

4) The Cubs have received pitchers for next season in Doubront and Straily that have both had MLB success already in their careers.

 

Overall a very good post, but a couple minor issues.

 

In fairness on #4, you should also mention that both have been anywhere from mediocre to awful in the MLB as well. Neither are a good bet to be quality pitchers going forward, though both could very well be.

 

In other words, what looks dire right now for the rotation is within easy reach of being fixed as early as this winter.

 

Maybe it's just the way I read it and it could be my mistake, but I'm not sure "easy reach" is the correct term. Finding quality pitching is very difficult and acquiring that pitching is even moreso.

 

It's completely possible that we could fix a lot of our pitching needs in the offseason, but I'd say it's not very likely at all that we hit on enough pitching to not have considerable concerns about it next year.

[Guest]

4) The Cubs have received pitchers for next season in Doubront and Straily that have both had MLB success already in their careers.

 

Overall a very good post, but a couple minor issues.

 

In fairness on #4, you should also mention that both have been anywhere from mediocre to awful in the MLB as well. Neither are a good bet to be quality pitchers going forward, though both could very well be.

No doubt they've struggled in 2014. They are good options for the back of the rotation, but should not be counted on for any more than that. But they are great depth guys who have each had some extended success in the majors in the past.

 

In other words, what looks dire right now for the rotation is within easy reach of being fixed as early as this winter.

 

Maybe it's just the way I read it and it could be my mistake, but I'm not sure "easy reach" is the correct term. Finding quality pitching is very difficult and acquiring that pitching is even moreso.

 

It's completely possible that we could fix a lot of our pitching needs in the offseason, but I'd say it's not very likely at all that we hit on enough pitching to not have considerable concerns about it next year.

If you line up our rotation options right now, we've got:

 

Arrieta

Wood

Jackson

Hendricks

Wada

Straily

Doubront

Rusin, Beeler, et al

 

Which looks a lot like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. We have the bottom of the rotation more than adequately provisioned. We've got one of the top three spots filled with Arrieta. We've got $40M to spend. Stick two of:

 

McCarthy

Iwakuma (Cot's doesn't show an option in his contract)

Maeda

Hammel

Beckett

 

Lester

Scherzer

Shields

 

into the rotation and it is suddenly looking pretty good. Add in the possibility of acquiring a MLB pitcher through trade for even more options.

 

That would then leave us with a AAA rotation featuring the losers of the rotation battle plus Black, PJ & CJ.

 

Maybe easy isn't the right word, but fixing the rotation this winter is very much within reach.

[Backtobanks]

What's the rush, Hoyer was quoted in today's Tribune that he knows they need to add pitching throughout the system and that's their goal in the next 18-24 months. So everyone just calm down and wait until 2017 (or until the next quote on when we might actually contend).

Well unless we add some serious pitching to the ML rotation, we certainly won't be contending soon. Since the "Plan" seems to be to wait until our players get enough time in the minors to fully develop and we're not going to spend big money until we're "close". Even if most of our offensive prospects click, we still are woefully lacking in pitching and pitching prospects.

okay...

 

1) Hoyer saying that they need to add pitching to the system is referring to the current imbalance between position prospects and pitching prospects. It impacts the major league team eventually, but only downstream.

2) A lack of impact pitching in the current farm system does not in any form or fashion prevent the team from contending at the major league level.

3) The perception of a lack of pitching is more dire than the actual state of pitching in the system. The Cubs have already placed Hendricks and Wada into the rotation (Wada does technically count as a MLB prospect as he had never pitched there before). Corey Black, Pierce Johnson, CJ Edwards are all at AA.

4) The Cubs have received pitchers for next season in Doubront and Straily that have both had MLB success already in their careers.

5) The Cubs will have money to spend and no need to spend it on the position players or bullpen. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they will use money to buy some pitching help for the major league team.

6) In Arrieta, the Cubs may very well have already found the "ace" for the team.

 

In other words, what looks dire right now for the rotation is within easy reach of being fixed as early as this winter.

 

The bottom line is that pitching is what wins for the most part as evidenced by all of the biggest names dealt at the deadline (and before).

50% of the game is scoring runs and 50% of the game is preventing them.

 

Preventing runs breaks down into pitching and defense. I've seen a variety of estimates of the importance of those two factors, but let's be generous and say that pitching is 75% of preventing runs.

 

Your "bottom line" is worth about 37.5% of winning. At best.

 

Pitchers are also much more volatile and a significantly worse investment than hitters. Not only is there the injury risk, but performance fluctuates much more for pitchers than hitters for a variety of reasons.

 

As a result, it is a much, much better idea to build a great offensive and defensive team. Then you can plug in league average pitching and be a very good team.

 

I agree with some of what you're saying, but I disagree with pitching being only 37.5% of winning. If you look at how many top teams over the years were loaded with pitching and got by with mediocre (at best) offenses. The overloaded offensive teams usually got shut down by pitching in a playoff situation. The reason that decent (or better) pitchers are overpaid is because they are the most valuable asset to a team. There are 9 defensive players, 9 offensive players, and only one pitcher at any time in the game. At the deadline, most contending teams are looking for more pitching (starter, loogy, closer, etc.). I hope you're right about spending some money to buy some pitching for the ML team. Hendricks and Wada have looked good so far, but it has a very small sample. Doubront and Straily are possibilities, but certainly not sure things. As for the rotation being fixed this winter, I posted in the trade deadline thread that the Reds were willing to listen to offers for Latos. Put a package together for Latos, sign a top starter, and suddenly you have a quality rotation to go along with the offense that we're hoping our prospects can provide.

[dew1679666265]

No doubt they've struggled in 2014. They are good options for the back of the rotation, but should not be counted on for any more than that. But they are great depth guys who have each had some extended success in the majors in the past.

 

I can agree with this.

 

Stick two of:

 

McCarthy

Iwakuma (Cot's doesn't show an option in his contract)

Maeda

Hammel

Beckett

 

Lester

Scherzer

Shields

 

into the rotation and it is suddenly looking pretty good. Add in the possibility of acquiring a MLB pitcher through trade for even more options.

 

That would then leave us with a AAA rotation featuring the losers of the rotation battle plus Black, PJ & CJ.

 

Maybe easy isn't the right word, but fixing the rotation this winter is very much within reach.

 

I don't question the options exist, I question the ease with which we can acquire those options. Probably nitpicking.

[George Hayduke]

What's the rush, Hoyer was quoted in today's Tribune that he knows they need to add pitching throughout the system and that's their goal in the next 18-24 months. So everyone just calm down and wait until 2017 (or until the next quote on when we might actually contend).

Well unless we add some serious pitching to the ML rotation, we certainly won't be contending soon. Since the "Plan" seems to be to wait until our players get enough time in the minors to fully develop and we're not going to spend big money until we're "close". Even if most of our offensive prospects click, we still are woefully lacking in pitching and pitching prospects.

okay...

 

1) Hoyer saying that they need to add pitching to the system is referring to the current imbalance between position prospects and pitching prospects. It impacts the major league team eventually, but only downstream.

2) A lack of impact pitching in the current farm system does not in any form or fashion prevent the team from contending at the major league level.

3) The perception of a lack of pitching is more dire than the actual state of pitching in the system. The Cubs have already placed Hendricks and Wada into the rotation (Wada does technically count as a MLB prospect as he had never pitched there before). Corey Black, Pierce Johnson, CJ Edwards are all at AA.

4) The Cubs have received pitchers for next season in Doubront and Straily that have both had MLB success already in their careers.

5) The Cubs will have money to spend and no need to spend it on the position players or bullpen. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they will use money to buy some pitching help for the major league team.

6) In Arrieta, the Cubs may very well have already found the "ace" for the team.

 

In other words, what looks dire right now for the rotation is within easy reach of being fixed as early as this winter.

 

The bottom line is that pitching is what wins for the most part as evidenced by all of the biggest names dealt at the deadline (and before).

50% of the game is scoring runs and 50% of the game is preventing them.

 

Preventing runs breaks down into pitching and defense. I've seen a variety of estimates of the importance of those two factors, but let's be generous and say that pitching is 75% of preventing runs.

 

Your "bottom line" is worth about 37.5% of winning. At best.

 

Pitchers are also much more volatile and a significantly worse investment than hitters. Not only is there the injury risk, but performance fluctuates much more for pitchers than hitters for a variety of reasons.

 

As a result, it is a much, much better idea to build a great offensive and defensive team. Then you can plug in league average pitching and be a very good team.

 

I agree with some of what you're saying, but I disagree with pitching being only 37.5% of winning. If you look at how many top teams over the years were loaded with pitching and got by with mediocre (at best) offenses. The overloaded offensive teams usually got shut down by pitching in a playoff situation. The reason that decent (or better) pitchers are overpaid is because they are the most valuable asset to a team. There are 9 defensive players, 9 offensive players, and only one pitcher at any time in the game. At the deadline, most contending teams are looking for more pitching (starter, loogy, closer, etc.). I hope you're right about spending some money to buy some pitching for the ML team. Hendricks and Wada have looked good so far, but it has a very small sample. Doubront and Straily are possibilities, but certainly not sure things. As for the rotation being fixed this winter, I posted in the trade deadline thread that the Reds were willing to listen to offers for Latos. Put a package together for Latos, sign a top starter, and suddenly you have a quality rotation to go along with the offense that we're hoping our prospects can provide.

 

Didn't someone post something in a thread here not too long ago debunking the notion that offensive-heavy teams were shut down in the playoffs during the past decade or so? Basically showed that a bunch of WS winners of late had done so with average rotations. Or maybe I read it somewhere else?

[hawkeyecub]

Iwakuma has a $7M team option for next year.

[Guest]

2013: Boston: 14th in ERA

2012: Giants: 7th in ERA

2011: Cardinals: 12th in ERA

2010: Giants: 1st in ERA

2009: Yankees: 11th in ERA

2008: Phillies: 6th in ERA

2007: Boston: 2nd in ERA

2006: Cardinals: 15th in ERA

2005: White Sox: 4th in ERA

2004: Boston: 11th in ERA

 

So, half the time the world series winner is not even in the top 10 in pitching. Only once did the leader in pitching actually win.

 

2013: Boston: 1st in Runs

2012: Giants: 12th in Runs

2011: Cardinals: 5th in Runs

2010: Giants: 17th in Runs

2009: Yankees: 1st in Runs

2008: Phillies: 8th in Runs

2007: Boston: 4th in Runs

2006: Cardinals: 14th in Runs

2005: White Sox: 13th in Runs

2004: Boston: 1st in Runs

 

Three times, the team that led in runs won the world series.

 

But "Pitching Always Wins"

[Guest]

BOTTOM LINE

[Rob]

2013: Boston: 14th in ERA

2012: Giants: 7th in ERA

2011: Cardinals: 12th in ERA

2010: Giants: 1st in ERA

2009: Yankees: 11th in ERA

2008: Phillies: 6th in ERA

2007: Boston: 2nd in ERA

2006: Cardinals: 15th in ERA

2005: White Sox: 4th in ERA

2004: Boston: 11th in ERA

 

So, half the time the world series winner is not even in the top 10 in pitching. Only once did the leader in pitching actually win.

 

2013: Boston: 1st in Runs

2012: Giants: 12th in Runs

2011: Cardinals: 5th in Runs

2010: Giants: 17th in Runs

2009: Yankees: 1st in Runs

2008: Phillies: 8th in Runs

2007: Boston: 4th in Runs

2006: Cardinals: 14th in Runs

2005: White Sox: 13th in Runs

2004: Boston: 1st in Runs

 

Three times, the team that led in runs won the world series.

 

But "Pitching Always Wins"

 

Not bad, but it really doesn't do much to isolate park and league adjustments. I really don't like using ERA as an indicator either.

 

Team ranks for wRC+, FIP-, and UZR/150:

 

http://i.imgur.com/5nKNdoL.png

 

In what should be a surprise to absolutely nobody, hitting and pitching matter just about equally. You can build your ballclub around either.

 

Edit:

 

Oh, and for anybody wondering I went back to 2002 simply because that's as far back as we have UZR data for.

[Guest]

2013: Boston: 14th in ERA

2012: Giants: 7th in ERA

2011: Cardinals: 12th in ERA

2010: Giants: 1st in ERA

2009: Yankees: 11th in ERA

2008: Phillies: 6th in ERA

2007: Boston: 2nd in ERA

2006: Cardinals: 15th in ERA

2005: White Sox: 4th in ERA

2004: Boston: 11th in ERA

 

So, half the time the world series winner is not even in the top 10 in pitching. Only once did the leader in pitching actually win.

 

2013: Boston: 1st in Runs

2012: Giants: 12th in Runs

2011: Cardinals: 5th in Runs

2010: Giants: 17th in Runs

2009: Yankees: 1st in Runs

2008: Phillies: 8th in Runs

2007: Boston: 4th in Runs

2006: Cardinals: 14th in Runs

2005: White Sox: 13th in Runs

2004: Boston: 1st in Runs

 

Three times, the team that led in runs won the world series.

 

But "Pitching Always Wins"

 

Not bad, but it really doesn't do much to isolate park and league adjustments. I really don't like using ERA as an indicator either.

 

Team ranks for wRC+, FIP-, and UZR/150:

 

http://i.imgur.com/5nKNdoL.png

I was speaking to B2B, so I used metrics he would best relate to.

 

I agree that the bottom line is that you can win by being exceptional at either scoring or preventing runs. Of course, it also shows that being just good at both can lead to victory, as well.

 

In what should be a surprise to absolutely nobody, hitting and pitching matter just about equally. You can build your ballclub around either.

I have a couple problems with your summary, though.

 

First, I would say that scoring and preventing runs are of equal importance (as I did earlier) as opposed to hitting and pitching. Defense does factor into the equation.

 

Second, the two approaches are not equal. While you can build your team around pitching, there is a lot more risk associated with that approach due to injuries and performance variance.

[Guest]

http://i.imgur.com/5nKNdoL.png

Different note based on that chart...

 

Some teams that have won haven't really been very good at hitting or pitching. Most notably in 2008 and 2010.

[Rob]

I was speaking to B2B, so I used metrics he would best relate to.

 

You should have changed your font to comic sans then.

 

I agree that the bottom line is that you can win by being exceptional at either scoring or preventing runs. Of course, it also shows that being just good at both can lead to victory, as well.

 

I have a couple problems with your summary, though.

 

First, I would say that scoring and preventing runs are of equal importance (as I did earlier) as opposed to hitting and pitching. Defense does factor into the equation.

 

Second, the two approaches are not equal. While you can build your team around pitching, there is a lot more risk associated with that approach due to injuries and performance variance.

 

As to point 1, I wont fight you. I was just speaking with regards to rankings of WS winners, which is an admittedly ridiculous criteria. (But one B2B will have trouble fighting against)

 

With regards to point 2, I never meant to imply they're equal. Building around pitching is viable, but a whole hell of a lot tougher to pull off.

[Rob]

Just because using rankings instead of actual values was killing me inside...

 

I went ahead and compared wRC+ along with both FIP+ and xFIP+ (I went with the + versions of each to make them easier to compare). Everything is park and league adjusted, with a baseline of 100 for the uninitiated. A 105 would be 5% above league average, etc...

 

http://i.imgur.com/151eLkH.png

 

It's not surprising to see that their FIP+ figures fare better than their xFIP+. It just seems to indicate that playoff teams probably had good luck with their HR/FB rates.

 

At any rate, the WS winners had better hitting than pitching, on the average.